 |
 |
I always remember when Christopher Logue read to us in the Nineties: he had a fantastic reading voice, he was an actor too I believe, he was appallingly arrogant and demanding, we had to give a taxi for a five minute walk from the train station, but in his rendition of the Iliad he made the mistake of quoting Milton: Logue is a very fine reader of poetry and unfortunately his beautiful delivery of Milton (and you have to be a fine reader to do Milton satisfactorily, I couldn't) made War Music sound like papier-mache. Best Dave 2008/11/23 Robin Hamilton <[log in to unmask]>: >> It is death to 'translate' it, even the term is a misnomer: how do you >> translate from a language into itself? >> >> Best >> >> dave > > I see where you're coming from, I think, dave, but I'm not sure whether it > applies to _Beowulf_. > > After 1500, at the latest, we're talking about (literary) texts which show > *less linguistic deviation from present-day Standard (English<es>) than some > currently printed. I'd bet someone not from Edinburgh, let alone Scotland, > would find Irvine Welsh's _Trainspotters_ more difficult to read and > comprehend than Thomas Wyatt -- I certainly do. > > The language of _Beowulf_, for better or worse, has to be "learned" by any > current native English(es) speaker as a foreign language. > > The odd moment is about 1375. If you apply the transliteration test there > on the Big Three, Langland comes over as not that strange at all, Chaucer as > intelligible, but with the rhythms wrecked, and GGK as *still virtually > unintelligible (to a *contemporary English ear). > > Dunno what this means ... > > I think if there is ever going to be a _Beowulf_ for our times, whoever > translates it will have to do what Christopher Logue did with Homer. > > And whether you call *that "translation" or not ... > > Robin > > (Aside to Tina -- I'll be interested to hear what you think of the Alexander > glossed text, when you get it. I like it, but I've a little background in > OE -- not as much as Candice, though, since I was taught from the Quirk and > Wrenn text, not Klaeber, though my ex-wife [who was taught OE at London > rather than Glasgow] did use that -- but just how it will work for a totally > innocent reader, for whom it's intended, I dunno. Unfortunately, I've > misplaced my copy at the moment, so I can't go and look at it again just > now. R.) > > As a a further aside ... The problems of translating _Beowulf_ begin with > the very first word -- "Hwaet". > > Hark... Listen up ... Oy, mush! Lo ... Lend me your ears ... > > "What [the hell, here we go ...]" > > So near and yet so far, and each of the (valid) possible choices of > translating "Hwaet" sets up linguistic and semantic expectations for what > will follow. > > A real bummer .... > > R2. > > (Mind you, this isn't just a translation [in the normally accepted sense] > problem. Even a simple modernised *transcription of Wyatt crashes against a > series of orthographic items in the original MSS which can be either > modern-Englished as "truth" or "troth". Which, however spelled, *were > conceptually different in the 1520s. Except the mapping of the 15thC > spellings and meanings [insofar as the spelling variants allow you to use > spelling rather than context as a determinent as to which term to use in a > modern English transcription] don't transparently map onto the contemporary > English distinctions between "truth" and "troth". So you have ambiguities > at *both ends. Elephants all the way up ... :-( > > Angels weep territory, this. > > RxR) > -- David Bircumshaw Website and A Chide's Alphabet http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.bircumshaw/ The Animal Subsides http://www.arrowheadpress.co.uk/books/animal.html Leicester Poetry Society: http://www.poetryleicester.co.uk