Darlene McCoy
Susan Gillman
LIT 102
2 February 2012
Translations of "El Desdichado": I’m so Meta, Even This Acronym
Gérard Nerval wrote "El Desdichado" in 1854. Since then, the poem has been translated by T.S. Eliot, Robert Duncan, and A. S. Kline. In their translation, each translator changes codes used to convey meaning, and therefore, the meaning of each translation differs. A theme of loss of meaning runs through the work, and the poem shows the eventuality of death in poetic meaning and the human life cycle.
In the first stanza of the poem, the addresser begins by describing its state of being. It is, in all translations, "the widower" and "the unconsoled/unconsoled/un-consoled." It has lost something dear - and cannot be comforted. In the second stanza, the addresser describes the state of the addressee. It paints the addressee as something that can console and as a flower that pleases its heart. In the third stanza, the addresser begins to have an internal conflict. Its asks of itself if it is more like one being or the counterpart to that being. In the final stanza, the "I" and "you" pronouns that designate the addresser and addressee disappear after the word "crossed/crosst/crossed."
"It" is not a specific term to describe who or what the addresser is in this poem, but it is difficult to determine the addresser-addressee relationship in this poem. The addresser may be either a character in the world of the poem, or a poetic voice. The addressee may be either another character, or the idea of poetry as an art form that has the ability to console. At first the poem leads the reader to believe that a beloved has perished, but if the second stanza describes this beloved, and this beloved is human, there is no possible way that this person could console the addresser on his/her funeral night. Who or what could have consoled the addresser on that night, then? The second line in stanza two alludes to Posilipo/Mount Posilip/Posilipo. Vergil, a renowned classical poet, is buried at Mount Posilip. This allusion conveys the importance and history of poetry, which allows the reader to believe that poetry, possibly, consoled the addresser, because dead beloveds do not simply console their left-behind loved ones. On the other hand, in the third stanza, when the addresser questions his state of being, he makes comparisons between allusions. He asks: "Am I like Lusignan or Biron?" Brion was a French war hero during the wars of religion. Lusignan was a man who lost his wife because he looked upon her bathing and found that she was a mermaid. Brion's character symbolizes loyalty - a trait seen here in a positive light, while the story of Lusignan is an example of a man giving into temptation - not an action to be held in high regard. The addresser's debate is now about whether it should be loyal to its beloved or not. Poetry cannot tempt a man, for it does not have the ability to love, nor can a man have romantic interest in the concept of poetry. He can love what poetry has the ability to express, but he cannot love poetry. How could this addresser be the poetic voice if it contemplates romantic loyalty to another? In the context of the poem, there is only one poetic voice; there is not an additional waiting for the first to entice it. In this poem, it is difficult to discern who or what the speaker is, which only builds upon the theme of the poem itself: through translation, some meaning is lost. For simplicity's sake, the context of the poem will be described using a character and a beloved, and not the poetic voice and poetry.
In the context of the poem, a person loses a beloved, as designated by the word "widower," which is present in all three translations. The word "united/unites/entwines" designates that this beloved was the person's other half because the presence of the beloved allowed the person to be whole. Since this beloved is no longer living, the person contemplates staying loyal to him/her in the third stanza. In the fourth stanza, the person attempts to bring his/her beloved back from the grave, which is personified as the Underworld by the allusion made to Orpheus and his tale. The result is: that after crossing the Acheron, a river in the Underworld, twice, the person and the beloved both disappear. This tells the reader that death is necessary to being human; that it is an innate trait that is not to be tampered with. If the person had not attempted to bring back his/her beloved, they would not have disappeared in the last stanza.
Each translation of the poem treats the state of the speaker differently. T.S. Eliot uses the phrase "I am the man of shadows" as his first line. This code choice implies a number of things: first, the speaker is a man, and second, he is of shadows. The word shadows can convey an immense number of signs and allusions. It can mean literally that the speaker is a man of comparative darkness or figuratively that he is a man of gloom and unhappiness, or it could be an allusion to Hades and the Underworld. Robert Duncan uses "I am the dark one" to begin his translation. This choice of code does not allow the reader to discern what exactly the speaker is - only that whatever it is, it is dark. The word dark, like shadows, has many different meanings and connotations linked to it. A.S. Kline uses "I am the darkness" to start her translation. This could mean the quality or state of being dark or signify the absence of the ‘light’ of life. The reader must make a decision in their interpretation process. They must decide what connotations, allusions, figurative, or literal meanings of words they will include in their interpretation of a work. Because it is impossible to incorporate each additional sign that one sign signifies, some meaning will be lost in interpretation. If the reader were to choose T.S. Eliot's translation of the poem, and to choose to discern "I am the man of shadows" as "I am a man of gloom and unhappiness," their interpretation will differ from another reader who decided to discern "I am the man of shadows" as an allusion to Hades and the Underworld. The first reader will not incorporate the allusion of Hades in their interpretation, and the second will not incorporate the gloom and unhappiness into theirs. The overall meaning of the poem that each reader decides on will be different.
It is a curious thing that each translator treats the addressee in the same fashion. All three translators use the word "consoled" to describe what the addressee did for the addresser. All three use the word "flower" and "trellis" to describe the addressee. Because a theme of indiscernible meaning runs through this poem, it is significant that across three translations, all written at different times, by different people, these three words associated with the addressee have remained intact. This discernible definition of the addressee shows that the addressee is always the same in some way. If the addressee is always the same in the sense that no matter how many times it is defined and communicated, its full meaning will never be translated, then there is no need for discerning who or what that addressee may be because communicating meaning is a process of translation, and that in that process, some meaning will be lost.
Each translator treats the code of the work in a different way. In the third line of the third stanza, each translator translates the original French phrase "où nage la sirène" into different phrases. T.S. Eliot's translation uses "where the mermaids sing." The words "mermaids" and "sing" together convey an image of beautiful mer-women lounging upon a rock while singing a pleasant tune. Robert Duncan's translation uses "where the mermaid swims." This choice of words describes a different scene: a singular mermaid swims in a body of water. She is free and exotic. Unlike T.S. Eliot's version, there is no sense of song conveyed by his choice of words. A.S. Kline translated the original French to "where Sirens swim." The imagery portrayed by these words differs from the other two translators' work. Sirens are female mer-creatures of Greek mythology. They are known to sing songs that are irresistible to sailors, and once a sailor gives into his temptation, a Siren consumes him. This slight change in code changes some meaning of the poem. Some meaning will be included, and some will be lost.
It is important to note that the addresser and the addressee exist more than on just the level of the world of the poem. The author is too, an addressee. He addresses whoever decides to interpret his work; in this case, a translator. That translator then becomes the addresser to a new addressee: whoever decides to interpret the translator's translation of the author's original poem! Since in the context of this poem, the addressee always remains the same, the ability to communicate with that addressee always remains the same. No matter who an addresser addresses, he/she/it will never be able to convey their full meaning due to changes in code, and meaning will always be lost. The loss of meaning will always create change in a work.
No comments:
Post a Comment