Apparently the distinction pre-Christianity, and again in modern usage, is
not very strict--another way of saying boyfriend/girlfriend, in exactly the
same sense as eromenos, in modern greek derives from agape.
One can argue the point, but it seems to me that either choice has some costs.
Mark
At 08:28 PM 1/16/2005, you wrote:
>Thanks for this, Mark, and for relaying Economou's reply and reading from the
>dictionary. However I'm sort of unclear about this; all of the subsequent
>discussion of the terms "eros" "agape" "philia" "caritas" have it, seems to me
>anyway, established at least these distinctions between love are Greek;
>that the
>Greeks developed these different terms for different loves. And so I'm not
>sure
>how taking the Greek "Eros" which in this case you note is capitalized in
>its first
>usage and translating it as "love" isn't to move a term that in the original
>language has specificities that are somewhat subsumed in the English
>"love." In
>other words, in English "love" may contain the Greek "eros," "agape,"
>"philia" and
>"caritas" so it seems to me that the distinction of "Eros" first existed
>in Greek, its
>originating language?
>
>Best,
>
>Rebecca
>---- Original message ----
> >Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 17:22:51 -0500
> >From: Mark Weiss <[log in to unmask]>
> >Subject: Re: Mark, two translations/same Cavafy poem
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >
> >Pretty much the way I set to work, as well, tho with the awareness that a
> >great deal I am in fact aware of may not transfer to the new language.
> >
> >I spoke to Economou. Very enlightening. In the original the first reference
> >to Eros/Love (erotos) is capitalized, the god, the second is lower
> >case--common noun. The greek script in your message didn't come thru, but
> >George assures me that in modern Greek (he read to me from the dictionary)
> >erotos= 1. Cupid; 2. love, sex, romance, etc. One who loves is erotismenos,
> >eroterome =to fall in love (with), eromenos is one's lover, or, in the
> >feminine, eromeni, one's mistress or sweetheart.
> >
> >George's translation of the Greek Anthology is to appear next year. In it,
> >he tells me, the god Eros is consistently translated as Love. In another
> >recent edition, by many hands, he sometimes appears as Love, sometimes as
>Eros.
> >
> >Clearly there's a distinction in English. It's less clear how much of a
> >distinction there is in Greek. I try in my own work to limit as far as
> >possible the inevitable intrusion of cultural meanings foreign to the
> >original language and the culture that uses it. I think that in Eros we may
> >have a case of such an intrusion.
> >
> >But we're all dancing in the dark here.
> >
> >Mark
> >
> >
> >
> >At 04:20 PM 1/16/2005, you wrote:
> >>Well, no offense was meant, Alison, and, yes, you did mention "Eros" might
> >>be a
> >>better choice.
> >>
> >>I suppose as a translator this is a particular issue for me. While I'm
> >>quite happy
> >>for comparative readings and so posted the translations for comparison, I'm
> >>also aware of how the search for the 'definitive' translation tends to
> >>result in
> >>exalting the merits of one translation at the expense of the rest, to
> >>devolve into
> >>issues of fidelity (the sort of conclusive judgement) as it has here
> into the
> >>resulting discussion on 'eros', the hinge of one word, and how generally
> >>readers
> >>who can not read the original tend to approach the English with their usual
> >>tastes and predilections. Nothing wrong with that, I do it myself, but as a
> >>translator am aware of always trying to circumvent it, that if I have a
> >>taste for
> >>iambs (and I don't but that's just an example) as a translator I would
> >>have to be
> >>aware that my taste for that particular linguistic beauty might result in
> >>a kind of
> >>metric exhuberance that is not, at all, in the original. I prefer, as I
> >>said before, to
> >>have more translations of any particular work because most translations
>bring
> >>something to the reading of the original. Often the 'flaw' of the
> >>translation is a
> >>particular sensitivity to some element that exists in the original, and so
> >>in the
> >>comparative readings of various translations, the original in its
> >>untranslateable
> >>elements may be evoked somewhat as a shimmering phantom. I don't really
>like
> >>that old joke, since I think it's a false choice and hope as a translator
> >>to always
> >>have both, fidelity to the original in all of its elements that I can be
> >>aware of,
> >>and beauty in the translation. And in practice, choosing beauty in English
> >>over
> >>fidelity to the original is often to lose or not bring over various
> >>elements of
> >>beauty in the original, etc,
> >>
> >>best,
> >>
> >>Rebecca
> >>---- Original message ----
> >> >Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 18:42:32 +1100
> >> >From: Alison Croggon <[log in to unmask]>
> >> >Subject: Re: Mark, two translations/same Cavafy poem
> >> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >> >
> >> >On 16/1/05 4:08 PM, "Rebecca Seiferle" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I
> >> >> thought I should chime in and draw attention to some of the merits of
>the
> >> >> Haviaras (whom I don't know) translation before there's some kind of
> >> poetic
> >> >> electoral landslide that obliterates a worthwhile work from view.
> >> >
> >> >I hope none us are here to "obliterate" a fellow poet. It was
> interesting
> >> >looking at the two versions, as we were invited to, and trying to
> work out
> >> >why I liked one so much more than the other.
> >> >
> >> >I mentioned that I thought "Eros" was probably the better choice.
>Otherwise
> >> >your comments remind me of that old translators' joke, that translations
> >> >can't be both beautiful and faithful.
> >> >
> >> >Best
> >> >
> >> >A
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Alison Croggon
> >> >
> >> >Blog: http://theatrenotes.blogspot.com
> >> >Editor, Masthead: http://masthead.net.au
> >> >Home page: http://alisoncroggon.com
|