Printable View
I wonder what are considered the best translations for the following:
Dante - divine comedy
Goethe - faust
Cervantes - don quixote
Dostoevsky - works
Victor Hugo - Les Miserables
Kafka
Ibsen
I've actually read these but not everything in English, just wondering which translations are the most praised - it's subjective, of course, but the ones you'd use for class or that were approved by the author
Thanks
For The Divine Comedy, there are three translations that are good: H.F. Cary, Mandelbaum, and Henry W. Longfellow. See the following website to compare translations and see what you prefer: Dante's Divine Comedy. Under the "Editions" part on the left-hand margin you will be able to select which translation you want to view. You can also view parallel editions. In other words, two translations side-by-side.
For Don Quixote, see below (quoted from Wikipedia).
Quote:
In 1742, the Charles Jervas translation appeared, posthumously. Through a printer's error, it came to be known, and is still known, as "the Jarvis translation". The most scholarly and accurate English translation of the novel up to that time, it has been criticized by some as being too stiff. Nevertheless, it became the most frequently reprinted translation of the novel until about 1885. Another 18th century translation into English was that of Tobias Smollett, himself a novelist. Like the Jarvis translation, it continues to be reprinted today.
Most modern translators take as their model the 1885 translation by John Ormsby. It is said that his translation was the most honest of all translations, without expansions upon the text nor changing of the proverbs. The most widely read English-language translations of the mid-20th century are by Samuel Putnam (1949), J. M. Cohen (1950; Penguin Classics), and Walter Starkie (1957). The last English translation of the novel in the 20th century was by Burton Raffel, published in 1996. The 21st century has already seen two new translations of the novel - by John Rutherford, and by Edith Grossman.
Wikipedia: Don Quixote.
For Dostoevsky, you can never go wrong with Constance Garnett. I personally like her as a translator and she has translated most, if not all, of Dostoevsky's work. You might also try the most recent translations by Richard Pevear & Larissa Volokhonsky. I've heard nothing but praise of their translations.
For Les Miserables, I read the translation done by C. E. Wilbur and I loved it. It was the first English translation. For more information on English translations, see Wikipedia: Les Miserables.
With Dante you're in luck (or not... however you may see it). There is no single "definitive" translation, but several quite excellent ones. I grew up with and greatly admire John Ciardi's... but I would not be without Mandelbaum's either. Longfellow's is worth looking into as well... and Robert Pinsky's Inferno and W.S. Merwin's Purgatorio are certainly worth examining.
With Cervantes the new translation of Don Quixote by Edith Grossman (who has made several other marvelous translations from Spanish) is greatly acclaimed... even recommended by Harold Bloom. Other translations worth looking into would include that of Burton Raffell, Samuel Putnam, and definitely that of Tobias Smollett... a near contemporary and marvelous novelist in his own right.
Les Miserables? I know only of the Charles E. Wilbour translation myself.
Dostoevsky? As suggested Constant Garnett has long been the English standard, yet recent translations by Richard Pevear & Larissa Volokhonsky have been receiving all sorts of praise. I haven't read them for myself... although what I read by them of their translations of Gogol was quite good.
With Kafka Willa and Edwin Muir were long the only game in town. Schocken Books, a publication form specializing in Hebrew and Jewish writers probably offers the best versions, including a new translation of The Trial and The Castle .
Ibsen?
On the Dante translations, I wouldn't go with any of those mentioned, although I grew up on the Ciardi translation as well and it holds some semtimental attraction. The best scholarly translations, and I believe they all have interfacing Italian with the translation and ample commentary and notes, are by (1) Mark Musa, (2) Robert Durling and Robert Turner, and (3) Robert and Jean Hollander. You can't go wrong with any of those translations.
Constance Garnett is very criticized and I've personally read quite a few translations by her and I didn't like her translations at all. I've often seen Richard Pevear/Larissa Volkhonsky's translations of Dostoevsky be praised and be considered as standard although I don't think I've read any translation by them myself.
That she is. However, it is the cheaper choice. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Etienne
It's about personal preference, really. Some like Garnett, some don't.
I know Wilbur's translation is heavily criticized. It was published very shortly after the original.
I am interested to know what are Harold Bloom's favorites. He probably read every translation 10 times :p
Oh I'm just about finishing the Grossman translation of Don Quixote right now and while it is my only reading of the novel it seems quite competent.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
As I understand it, a large proportion of Russian/English speakers don't. Nabokov was especially critical of her. I haven't read any of her, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dori
As has been said, P&V are basically becoming the new "standard" translation of everything they touch. I've read their Brothers K and Crime and Punishment; however, as I've not read any other translations, and do not know the original, I can't really offer a personal opinion other than my immense enjoyment of them. I just got their new translation of War and Peace, also, but haven't started it yet...
The Mark Musa, Robert Durling and Robert Turner translations of Dante have often been cited as the most accurate... unfortunately they reduce what is Dante's magnificent poetry to a form of flattened prose. I found the same to be true of Musa's "translations" of Petrarch. I can't speak on the Hollander's translation, not having read any of it. From what I have seen, I am intrigued enough to have put the book on a wish list. I suppose that if one is seeking out a highly scholarly edition to offset one's own reading of the original in Italian... then a prose translation ala Musa is ideal. Personally, I can't imagine wanting to read a prose crib of Dante any more than I would of Baudelaire, Mallarme, Homer, etc... My own ideal of translation is something akin to transcription in music in the sense that the music still lives... in spite of being translated into the language of another instrument... and this preservation of the music usually requires some loss of fidelity to the idea of an exact note for note (word for word) transcription.
I have the Durlington translation and while it's not great poetry I think it's passable. In translations I prefer accuracy rather than translator's creativity. No matter how creative, it will always lose something. I think the most poetic is the Ciardi translation. I did think the Pinsky translation was very poetic too. Not surprising, Ciardi and Pinsky are poets in their own right. But I want to know what Dante was saying, not Ciardi or Pinsky.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
For Mann, how's Porter compared to John E. Woods? I know the latter is newer and considered better and more accurate, but is Porter a disaster like Garnett?
For Dante, I tried at least half a dozen translations and settled on the The Dorothy L. Sayers translation. It didn't read as smooth as say the Longfellow or the Ciardi translations but I felt that in those there was more of the translators than there was of Dante. When I tried the Ciardi translation for a reread I just didn't get the same kick, and I noticed that his word choice tended toward short laconic understated diction like a Hemingway or a Steinbeck story, instead of picking the word with the right feel to it. Sayers translation frequently throws in some very archaic word choices, but they feel authentic and the sense of what Dante meant is retained. The Musa translation was about as good as the Mandelbaum, although Musa's version of Petrarch's Canzoniere wasn't terribly impressive. And while Esolen's translation of Tasso's Jerusalem Delivered was quite good, his Dante is not. Probably the best reason to go with Sayers' translation over the others is because her notes at the end of each canto are so much better, and understanding the story contributes a great deal to it's enjoyment.
I couldn't find a good Goethe translation, so I just went with the Penguin version, whatever it was.
Cervantes I read in the Cohen translation, because I loved what he did for Montaigne's Essays. However, I hated Don Quixote, so you might not want to go the same road as I did.
While I haven't read more than a little of Constance Garnett's Brothers K I have to say that I like it roughly the same as the Magarshack version. I used her for War and Peace, because Hemingway read that translation, recommended it, and I wanted to experience the same book he read. I have no complaints.
I probably read the same Les Mis. translation as every else. It was good.
I've tried the signet edition of Ibsen's plays and the modern library ones, but I haven't found one I like yet.