Skip to main content

136 Reviews thanjustcurving. InTheEyes, ‘aversionof AntonioMachado’, Paterson felt free to mistranslate deliberately, conflating different poems, inserting ‘whole new lines’ and ‘on a few occasions’ writing‘entirelynewpoems’ (sohesays), inorderto ‘make a musical andargumentative unityof the material at hand’. Orpheus alsodoesmuchtodetachanddistinguishitself from the original, beginningwiththe title andthe relegationof Rilke’s authorship and continuing with the ‘barbarous’ (Paterson’sword)removalofthededicationtothedancer Wera Ouckama Knoop (though he gives it back to us in the Afterword), alongsidethereplacingoftheoriginalnumbersby titles, andthe omissionof Rilke’s fewnotes. If The Eyes was a medley of bits and pieces of Machado arranged wilfully (alphabetically by title) andselectively, inOrpheus, Paterson takes onawholecollection, acommitment for anytranslator. Thereareboundtobepoems heunderstands less well or has less sympathywith, but the overall architecture of the cycle requires that he finda way. (Inhis eccentricbut fascinating Afterword–moreforwhatittellsusofPatersonthanofRilke –Patersonrisks the thought that there might be fifty-five sonnets for ‘numerological reasons’ to do with the golden sectionand thesonnetform,andhemayberight.)Onceweget beyond the more or less cosmetic alterations listed above (thoughthe‘smallmnemonichandle’ eachpoemacquireswith its title is a more profound change), we find ourselves recognizablyinRilke’s poeticdomain: ‘Orpheus sings: Otall oakintheear!’ Thecollectionisstillintwoparts, forinstance, andmostof thesonnetskeepasclosetothelexical meaningof theoriginalsaswecanexpectfromarhymedversion. Nevertheless, in his appendix, ‘Fourteen Notes on the Version’, Paterson insists on making a sharp distinction betweenatranslationandaversion. Inanargumentbegunin The Eyes , he says we must be ‘prepared to make a choice between honouring the word or the spirit’, claiming a translationdoesthe formerwhilea versiondoes the latter. This

Reviews 137 distinctionseemstogoagainstthe reflectionsofthe Afterword –all we canhave of the spirit of a poemis inits words, as Paterson well knows and puts much better in one of his aphorismsfromTheBookofShadows: ‘thepoem’sincarnationin itstongueisallthereisofit, asapaintingisinitspaint’. There isnoalternativetoattendingtotheword, whethertranslating or‘versioning’, andeventhemostbasickindof crib(whichis what Patersonreduces ‘translation’ to) will, inrespectingthe lexical, literal meaningof thewords, inevitablyopentowards somethingmoremysterious, totherelationsbetweenthem, to theoddnessof theirdiction, themovementof theirsyntax. In fact, asPatersonclaims, thereisoftena lotofpoetryina literal version. In the happiest cases, there can be a kind of coincidence, or at least an illusion of it, so that such ‘mechanical’ poetry corresponds closely to what makes the poemapoemintheoriginal. Itistruethatthisismorelikely tohappenwithoddlines thanwithwhole poems, but that doesn’tmeanweneedtojettisonthewholeideaof translation infavourof theversion. Thereisnosharpdistinctionbetween them, andgoodtranslationhas always employedsomeof the strategies Patersonascribes toversions, just as goodversions have always concerned themselves with preoccupations he regardsaspropertotranslation. If atranslationdoesnotwork inits owntongue, as theoriginal worked(but differently) in its, thenithasfailed; ithasonlyconveyedaghostoracorpse, alifelessratherthan a transmutedform, and the same istrueof aversion.Paterson’s insistenceontheversion amountstoaplea thatwedonotreadhispoemsagainsttheoriginals, andtoan insurancepolicyif wedisregardthat plea. Nevertheless, what hesays hereis of interest, especiallywhenit comes toRilke. Forexample, Patersonnotesthattheoriginal Sonette anOrpheus have ‘occasionalimperfections’ duetothebreakneckrapidityof theirarrival(Iwishhe’dtolduswhattheywere),andthatthese cannotbe‘honestlyversioned’ becausesuch versions need‘their own patternof errorandlyricfelicity’. If atranslationistobe morethanacrib, itneedstobeapoeminitsownright, ashas

Page Text

136

Reviews

thanjustcurving. InTheEyes, ‘aversionof AntonioMachado’, Paterson felt free to mistranslate deliberately, conflating different poems, inserting ‘whole new lines’ and ‘on a few occasions’ writing‘entirelynewpoems’ (sohesays), inorderto ‘make a musical andargumentative unityof the material at hand’. Orpheus alsodoesmuchtodetachanddistinguishitself from the original, beginningwiththe title andthe relegationof Rilke’s authorship and continuing with the ‘barbarous’ (Paterson’sword)removalofthededicationtothedancer Wera Ouckama Knoop (though he gives it back to us in the Afterword), alongsidethereplacingoftheoriginalnumbersby titles, andthe omissionof Rilke’s fewnotes. If The Eyes was a medley of bits and pieces of Machado arranged wilfully (alphabetically by title) andselectively, inOrpheus, Paterson takes onawholecollection, acommitment for anytranslator. Thereareboundtobepoems heunderstands less well or has less sympathywith, but the overall architecture of the cycle requires that he finda way. (Inhis eccentricbut fascinating Afterword–moreforwhatittellsusofPatersonthanofRilke –Patersonrisks the thought that there might be fifty-five sonnets for ‘numerological reasons’ to do with the golden sectionand thesonnetform,andhemayberight.)Onceweget beyond the more or less cosmetic alterations listed above (thoughthe‘smallmnemonichandle’ eachpoemacquireswith its title is a more profound change), we find ourselves recognizablyinRilke’s poeticdomain: ‘Orpheus sings: Otall oakintheear!’ Thecollectionisstillintwoparts, forinstance, andmostof thesonnetskeepasclosetothelexical meaningof theoriginalsaswecanexpectfromarhymedversion. Nevertheless, in his appendix, ‘Fourteen Notes on the Version’, Paterson insists on making a sharp distinction betweenatranslationandaversion. Inanargumentbegunin The Eyes , he says we must be ‘prepared to make a choice between honouring the word or the spirit’, claiming a translationdoesthe formerwhilea versiondoes the latter. This

My Bookmarks

Skip to main content