Home

Texts

Faust retranslated

by
Anthony M. Ludovici

The New English Weekly 31, 1947, pp. 177–178


- p. 177 -
A new translation of Part I of Goethe's Faust would, in any case, provoke considerations concerning translation in general and the attempt to frame some golden rule governing a translator's business. But the reader of the present work * is the more inclined to ponder these matters seeing that the translator himself, in a brief note, outlines the system he adopted in producing his version,

"I determined to attempt to avoid the following major temptations: padding to eke out a line's length; inversion of the normal word order, the use of 'poetic' diction, dead words, clichés, tautologies, and the like; circumlocutions and paraphrase."

        In this note, he refers to various views about translation held by Shelley, Arnold, Dryden and even Goethe himself. One important authority, however, he omitted, and this was one who would have supported him whole-heartedly in his self-imposed limitations.
        Boileau is the authority in question, to whom I have long felt grateful for the courage his words once gave me. Boileau condemned servile translation. He said that a good writer will rather imitate than translate and rather emulate than imitate. "He will translate the sense and spirit of the original into his own work." But what Boileau claimed above all was that a good translator will "jouster contre l'original." I take it that by this he a meant that an attitude of timidity or subservience in a translator would be as disastrous as one of arrogant or supercilious patronage. The important point resides precisely in what jouster suggests — namely, that the translator should advance fearlessly to his task while respecting his vis-à-vis with all his might.
        So much for the mood. As to the technique, I see a difficulty which Mr. MacIntyre does not seem to notice. There is a fundamental difference between the two broad classes of literary work presented to the linguist for translation. We have work which is wholly thought and sense, like that of Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Hegel and Nietzsche's prose writings, in which emotion and art are subservient to ratiocination. And we have work in which the language itself is deliberately chosen and arranged for its emotional effect; in which thought, language, sentiment and emotion are all welded together to establish an état d'âme rather than an idea, a conviction, or an opinion,
        Kant's Beobachtungen über das Gefühl des Schönen und Erhabenen is a good example of the former kind, especially as it deals in a rigidly unemotional manner with a subject related to the emotions. Goethe's magnificent Hermann und Dorothea, on the other hand, is a striking example of the latter kind and, incidentally, I may say that I have yet to see an English translation of it which is even half as good as Schlegel's translation of Shakespeare.
        Now, if rules are to be devised for good translation, they must obviously differ according to the class of work — the first or second — with which we are concerned. With the second class it is more important to seize and re-evoke in another tongue the état d'âme, no matter how freely we may interpret the original, than to give an accurate version of its intellectual features, if any. The second class of translation, then, calls for a writer of more or less the same stature as that of the original work. The first class, on the other hand, calls only for such intellectual powers as will enable the translator adequately to grasp the author's meaning and to render it in language

        * Goethe's Faust, Part I: A New American Translation by CARLYLE F. MACINTYRE, with illustrations by Rockwell Kent. New Directions. Demy 8vo. pp. 436, Price 21/-.

- p. 178 -
at least as lucid and cogent as that of the original. Freedom in the first class, therefore, would be a more serious sin than in the second.
        Unless a translator is at hand who is of the stature of the original author, are translations of works of the second class worth undertaking at all? Except for outstanding and brilliant exceptions like our own Authorized and Luther's translation of the Bible, and Schlegel's translation of Shakespeare, I can think of no translation in this class that has been satisfactory, For instance, despite many attempts, no really adequate translation of Nietzsche's superb short poem, Aus Hohen Bergen, has so far appeared. I saw the most poetically gifted in Dr. Oscar Levy's team try their hand at it and fail.
        Now the trouble about an author of Goethe's genius, versatility and depth, is that everywhere in Faust (unlike Hermann und Dorothea) the two classes of work are inextricably mingled. Hardly a line occurs but what it has emotional as well as intellectual appeal. So that when Mr. MacIntyre speaks of his task as "impossible," it is difficult not to agree with him. In fact — and I say this with full appreciation of his brave effort, his immense problems, and his repeated happy Einfälle — a second question suggests itself, which is whether anyone undertaking to translate Faust, or even a short poem like Aus Hohen Bergen, does not tacitly assume that he feels himself of the same stature as the original author and therefore invites us to expect a work from an English Goethe or Nietzsche?
        To return to Boileau's penetrating phrase, in order to jouster contre l'original, he must in the eyes of the throng round the lists at least seem as if he could measure his steel against his vis-à-vis. Otherwise the undertaking is plain suicide and loses all interest. And how many translators have not committed suicide in this way, after trying in vain to kill the original author?
        A third question thus presents itself. Because of the tragic dearth of translators of Goethe's stature, are we to withhold from people who know no German the joy of reading Faust Part I? The only reply I can make to such a question is as follows:—
        I regard the whole of the arduous pains with which I once learnt German as abundantly rewarded by having been able to read Hermann und Dorothea — that alone — in the original German. If I add this to my enjoyment of Schopenhauer, Heine and Nietzsche, my reward seems actually excessive. What joy readers may derive from translations of these men's works I cannot tell. But, from what I know of the existing English versions of Aus Hohen Bergen and of some of Heine's best lyrics, it can have been only a fraction of mine. Should the general English public be deprived of this much diluted joy? — Perhaps not. But, in that case, it would be more fair, both to them and the original authors, if translations below the standard of Schlegel's Shakespeare were always understood to be no more than independent works "inspired by" the original author. We should then know exactly where we stood.
        In conclusion, therefore, let me say that, after allowing for every possible difficulty overcome as well as all the happy thoughts and sometimes bright flashes in Mr. MacIntyre's version of Faust Part I, I still feel that he was not equipped to jouster contre l'original; consequently that his version of Goethe's great masterpiece would have been more fairly presented had it been called simply Mr. MacIntyre's Faust inspired by Goethe.
        I should require four or five articles the length of this one wholly to substantiate this contention. But I have little doubt that if I were required to substantiate it, I should be able to do so even to the satisfaction of Mr. MacIntyre himself.
        As to the illustrations, Mr. Rockwell Kent has performed his task with great originality and power, although he might, in my opinion, have been less geometrical with advantage.

Home

Texts