The Least Satisfying Form of Writing: Seferis on Translation

Connolly, David, professor.

Journal of Modern Greek Studies, Volume 20, Number 1, May 2002, pp. 29-46 (Article)
Published by The Johns Hopkins University Press DOI: 10.1353/mgs.2002.0002

For additional information about this article

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/mgs/summary/v020/20.1connolly.html

Access Provided by Aristotle University of Thessaloniki at 03/21/12 8:51PM GMT

The Least Satisfying Form of Writing: Seferis on Translation

29

The Least Satisfying Form of Writing: Seferis on Translation

David Connolly

Abstract
This article considers Seferis as a theorizing translator and focuses on his views on interlingual translation. These views are examined in terms of contemporary thought in the field of translation studies and are shown to have influenced the standard English translations of his poetry through his collaboration with his own translators. It is argued that Seferis was less interested in the theoretical and practical problems of translation than in translation as a means of testing the capacities of the Greek language of his times.

There are several issues to be examined in any discussion concerning Seferis and translation. It might be useful to clarify these from the beginning. A distinction has to be made rst of all between Seferis as a practicing (and experienced) translator, on the one hand, and Seferis as a theorizing translator (but not a theorist), on the other. Seferiss theorizing on translation can subsequently be divided into his theorizing about intralingual and interlingual translation. And further still, a discussion of his theorizing about interlingual translation would have to cover not only his theorizing with regard to his own translations from other languages into Greek, but also his views concerning the translations of his own work into other languages. These are three separate, if interrelated, issues. As to the rst issue, I do not consider myself qualied to make a critical study of Seferiss work as a practicing translator, which, in any case, has been discussed by others.1 I simply note in passing that a serious critical analysis and evaluation of Seferiss translations is yet to appear. As to the second issue, Seferiss views on intralingual translation, a delicate topic in Greece, is not one I wish to touch upon in the present study. (The topic has been adequately discussed by Yatromanolakis [1980] in his appendix to Seferiss Metagraphs [Metagrafw, Transcriptions].) In this article, I wish to focus on Seferiss views on interlingual Journal of Modern Greek Studies, Volume 20, 2002.
29

30

David Connolly

translation, as these emerge from his relatively few pronouncements. In the rst part of my article, I try to identify these views and discuss them in the context of contemporary thought concerning the discipline of translation.2 In the second part, I look at Seferiss collaboration with his own translators and at how his views on translation inuenced the standard English translations of his poetic work. * * *

In his short yet stimulating prologue to his collection of interlingual translations, Antigraphs (Antigrafw, Copies), Seferis raises numerous issues with regard to translation, and to the translation of poetry in particular (1996[1965]). These views can be presented schematically as follows: 1) The translation of poetry is the form of writing that provides the least satisfaction. Seferis bases this view on his experience that no matter how well the translator works, no matter how successful he is, there will always be the original text to show us that the translation is far from the ideal that we would wish. 2) The translator should not try to improve the poem being translated. His role is to copy. Seferis likens interlingual translation to the copies (antigrafw) made of paintings in museums. 3) There are two main motives for undertaking the task of translation: either because the work is commissioned or because the copier wishes to practice his art. 4) Seferiss own collection of translations was prompted by an attempt to test the capacities of the Greek language of his times. He emphasizes that his translations had no other aim than this. 5) The translation of a poem is the transferring to another country (culture) of only a small part of the entire linguistic tradition (poetic order) to which the poem belongs. Again using a metaphor, Seferis explains that the readers task therefore is like that of the naturalist who, nding a single vertebra, is obliged to reconstruct an entire prediluvian beast. 6) For this reason, a translated poem in its new form cannot have the same functions that it had in the language in which it was originally written. At best, it can have other, notable functions that are nevertheless akin to original creation in the language of the translator.

The Least Satisfying Form of Writing: Seferis on Translation

31

7) The translation of ancient texts (intralingual translation) is another matter altogether. I propose to examine these points in more detail. First of all, many would disagree with Seferiss view that the translation of poetry is the form of writing that provides the least satisfaction. While held to be the most difcult and demanding form of translation, it is often considered the most rewarding. Translators of poetry are often found to be motivated almost to the point of addiction by what has been aptly called the art of the impossible. Seferis, of course, is not alone in his view as to its unsatisfying nature. Elytis, in his volume of interlingual translations, twice refers to the task as a thankless one (Elytis 1976:810). For Seferis, the dissatisfaction stems from the fact that no matter how good or successful the translation is, it will always be less than the ideal, but then this is generally true of original writing, too. I should add here that my interpretation of Seferiss words (and my consequent translation) is that the translator has some ideal translation in mind that he is always trying to achieve but cannot produce, because, of course (as Seferis implies here and elsewhere) the translation can never be the original.3 This is in contrast to others views that in using the word svst which I translate as ideal, Seferis is referring to the original poem not to some notional ideal translation.4 Whatever the case, the important point raised by Seferis is that the translator has to accept that there are limits to what can be achieved; these have to do with the capacities of the target language (TL) and the constraints of the TL tradition and norms, but also with the translators skill. Translation in general may be a science and a craft, but the translation of poetry is also an art and requires talent, creativity, and inspiration. It is a combination of these factors that perhaps explains why the translation of a poem is never nished and why the translator has eventually to stop somewhere. Seferis, like most practitioners of the art,5 was aware that translations of poetry eventually reach an impasse beyond which the translator cannot proceed without forcing the language as he puts it (Seferis 1936:13). This impasse, which stems from the difculty of accounting for all the various aspects and functions of the original poem in a different language and culture, has led many translators and poets alike to declare that translating poetry is therefore impossible. I simply note in passing that despite Seferiss recognition of this impasse, Seferis nowhere raises the question of the (im)possibility of poetry translation. This is indicative, in my view, of his lack of concern with translation as such and his great interest in translation as a linguistic and poetic workshop. This becomes even clearer from the metaphor Seferis uses to describe intralingual translation.

32

David Connolly

Seferis refers to interlingual translations as copies, for, he says, translating from a foreign language reminds him of those people we see in museums copying the works of various painters either as a form of exercise or because someone has commissioned them to do so. It should be noted that Seferis was not the rst to use this metaphor in the history of Greek translation theory. In the introduction to his translation of the Third Elegy of Albius Tibullus, Polylas refers to a contemporary view that poetry translation, no matter how good it may be, has no more value than a traced or engraved copy (antigraf) of one of Raphaels Madonnas.6 Of course, translation as a copy is only one of a host of metaphors used throughout the ages to describe the process and product of literary translation; metaphors ranging from Persian rugs seen from the back, echoes and mirror images, to resurrection, and even cannibalism. Seferiss metaphor of translation as a copy is, I believe, indicative of his view of poetry translation as a form of linguistic or poetic exercise. It also reveals, however, a more general approach to translation on Seferis part. It recalls the prevailing eighteenth-century concept of the translator as a painter.7 The metaphor of translation as a painting or copy (to use Seferiss term) was particularly useful in a century in which the translation debate went beyond the faithful/free dilemma and centered on presenting the spirit of the text in terms of contemporary standards of language and taste (see Bassnett 1980:61). Towards the end of the eighteenth century, Alexander Fraser Tytler published a volume entitled The Principles of Translation (1791), the rst systematic study in English of the translation processes. He too uses the standard eighteenth-century comparison of the translator/painter, but with a difference, arguing that the translator cannot use the same colors as the original, but is nevertheless required to give his picture the same force and effect. These views come very close to Seferiss view that a translated poem (albeit a copy) in its new form cannot have the same functions as the original poem, but can have other notable functions, akin to original creation in the TL. The list of metaphors for describing literary translation is endless and makes a fascinating study in itself for the way different ages and cultures perceive translation. How you see translation also depends, however, on how you see poetry. As Karandonis notes (1976:281), for Palamas, poetry was music, so translation was re-toned music (janatonismnh mousik). In contrast, for Seferis, poetry was writing (graf), so translation was a copy (antigraf). The metaphor of a copy describes the process of translation and the translators role in it, but Seferis also uses a second metaphor to describe the product of translation and the readers response to that product. He likens the readers task to

The Least Satisfying Form of Writing: Seferis on Translation

33

that of a naturalist who from a single vertebra reconstructs the whole prediluvian beast. As Seferis himself says, this is something of an exaggeration, but nevertheless a useful image. Again one could come up with a plethora of metaphors used throughout the centuries to describe the translation product, ranging from the now politically incorrect metaphor of faithful and unfaithful mistresses to the equally sexual (but not sexist) metaphor used by the Hebrew writer, Amos Oz, who has likened reading a [literary] translation to making love through a blanket. A much more important issue, however, concerns the motives for translating poetry. If poetry translation is, as Seferis, asserts, the least satisfying form of writing, then why did Seferis engage in it systematically throughout his life? Seferis, like Elytis, was concerned with translation throughout his poetic career. It is indicative that both these major poets made their rst appearance in Greek Letters with translations of other poets work: Seferis with his translation of Valrys La Soire avec Monsieur Teste (Nea Estia 1928) and Elytis with his translations of luard (Nea Grammata 1936). Both poets translated (interlingually and intralingually) in parallel to their original poetic work throughout their lives. We know that Seferiss rst translation endeavors begin as early as 1918 (Yatromanolakis 1980:240). Yet the question remains: why do translators of poetry exhibit such a passion for translating (rendering, recreating, re-writing) the work of others for a different linguistic and cultural readership? We may translate because we feel some kind of afnity with the poets work and are inspired to want to appropriate the poem in our own language and culture (for personal reasons as, for example, in the case of Palamas).8 We may use the poem as a starting point for our own creative ambitions, through emulation, imitation, adaptation, and all other extreme forms of free translation (as did Pound and Lowell, for example). Or our aim may be to make a particular poet known in the TL culture because we are dealing with a major and original poetic voice that is worth the dissatisfaction involved in translating poetry. It is this latter concern that is usually the overridingalbeit tacitaim of the translator.9 Seferis cites only two motives for undertaking interlingual translation: either because the work is commissioned or because the translator wishes to practice his art. The idea of translation as a kind of literary workshop for poets to exercise their own language and technique is one that is widely attested by major poet-translators other than Seferis.10 It is interesting to note that some well-known poet-translators, like Robert Lowell, used translation as a kind of workshop for practicing their craft when their own work had reached an impasse (Lowell 1984:xii).11 Pound, too, claimed that translation is a means for a writer to continually

34

David Connolly

sharpen his awareness of his own language, and he advised young poets to translate whenever they could. In a conversation with Edmund Keeley, Seferis states his agreement with this view, provided, he says, you dont overdo it (Keeley 1986:40). It is indicative of how Seferis saw translation, however, that he always relates translation to the question of the translators own language, particularly when that language is Greek. Translating, he says, is interesting always because it is a means of controlling your own language. Now of course the English language is a more stable language than ours; we have to create ours, so to speak, all the time we are writing (see Keeley 1986:38). Seferis is quite specic about his own motives for his interlingual translations. His own work, he explains (in his prologue to Antigraphs) was prompted by an attempt to test the capacities of the Greek language of his times. He emphasizes that his volume of translations had no other aim than this.12 This too is a legitimate motive for translating poetry (albeit an uncommon one today) as we may choose to translate because we wish to test the capacities of the TL to express a certain kind of poetry, perhaps enriching and renewing the TL at the same time. The inference is that, for Seferis, interlingual translation is foremost a writing exercise rather than an attempt to (re-)create a literary text. Even when personal motives are involved, his concern with the Modern Greek language is uppermost. So, for example, in his essay Letter to a Foreign Friend (1948), he explains his motives behind his attempt to translate The Waste Land and several other poems by Eliot: I did this, he says, for two reasons: rst because I had no other way of expressing the emotion they aroused in me, but also to test the endurance of my own language (Seferis 1974:19).13 His concern with translation as a way of testing the capacities of the Greek language of his day is more clearly seen from his work on intralingual translation (metagraphs). It is clear, for example, from his introduction to his translation of Johns Revelations that his interest was focused mainly on the abilities of the Modern Greek language to render the ancient text and on what the modern language would gain from such a test: Our language is continually wasting opportunities to become a language that is robust, exible and effective. It would benet greatly if it were to test itself against these [religious] texts (Seferis 1966:17). Seferis is not, of course, the rst to view translation as a benecial exercise. An examination of translation thought and practice in Greece from Soanos14 in the sixteenth century to Triandafyllidis and Kakridis in the twentieth reveals that translation in Greece was invariably seen in terms of its benets to the Modern Greek language and to education (see Koutsivitis 1994:143). Apart from his overriding concern with the Greek language, however, Seferis does make reference to

The Least Satisfying Form of Writing: Seferis on Translation

35

certain other motives for translating, at least in connection with his intralingual translation activity; motives that are both personal15 and public-spirited.16 What becomes clear is that Seferiss concern with translation does not lead him to formulate a theory or even a method of translation,17 but rather to formulate his own linguistic ideology (Yatromanolakis 1980:241). The nearest he comes to formulating any translation approach (and this in connection with his intralingual translations) is his statement in the prologue to Johns Revelations that he tried to remain as close as possible to the [original] text, following, where our language was forgiving, both the structure and the words of the original (Seferis 1975:12). This close translation approach is also evident, however, in his interlingual translations. In the prologue to his translation of Eliots The Waste Land (1936:16), he notes in relation to most translations that [ . . . ] what we have in translations of poetry is not an approach to the work as it was written, but the offspring of the marriage of two physiognomies which sometimes bears a wretched resemblance to the family of the translator.18 In contrast then to the free renditions of Palamas19 and Elytis20 or the appropriations (according to Lorenzatos) of Karyotakis, Seferiss translation approach reveals a deep reverence for the original, even to the point of forcing the limits of his own language. He admits this when he states in the prologue to his translation of Eliots The Waste Land (1936:13) that [ . . . ] my attempt [to translate one of Eliots Quartets] brought me up against problems of exactitude and conciseness that obliged me to exercise excessive force on our language, at least as I know it and feel it. His work and statements show him to be a sourcier rather than a cibliste, to borrow the terms coined by Ladmiral (997:166). Put simply, he feels his duty more to the author of the source text than to the reader of the target text. Seferis wishes to take the reader to the author, rather than bring the author to the reader. It is what we would call today a foreignizing rather than a domesticating strategy. In other words, rather than making the translation conform to values currently dominating the TL culture, taking, that is, an assimilationist approach to the foreign text and appropriating it in accordance with domestic norms, the foreignizing strategy is motivated by an impulse to preserve linguistic and cultural differences by deviating from prevailing domestic values and norms. The inherent risk with any foreignizing strategy is, of course, that of incomprehension or rejection by the TL reader. The benet is the introduction of new forms of expression, new genres, and new techniques into the TL tradition, and this would seem to coincide with Seferiss stated aims, not only with regard to renewing and enriching the Greek language but also with

36

David Connolly

regard to introducing new modes of expression and techniques. This seems to have been a conscious aim on his part, judging from his second prologue to his translation of Eliots The Waste Land (see Seferis 1974:2529). And it should be remembered that apart from being instrumental in introducing modernist ideas and techniques into the Greek literary tradition, Seferis also introduced entirely new verse forms (e.g., haiku, pantoum, and limericks). Finally, on the question of intralingual translation, Seferis simply states in his prologue to Antigraphs that this is a different matter altogether. The fact that he considers intralingual and interlingual translation to be two completely different tasks is also made quite clear from what he says in the prologues to his translations of Johns Revelations and Song of Songs,21 where he also states that he needed two different words (antigraph for interlingual translation and metagraph for intralingual translation) to express these two different tasks. Seferis justies his use of the term metagraph by referring to a tradition of using the word in this sense as evidenced in Thucydides and Lucian.22 He adds that the choice of the word metagraph is for him a secondary matter. As such, any discussion of these terms is purely philological. Of greater interest would be an examination of whether the two translation tasks are, in fact, different.23 Such an examination is, however, outside the scope of my article, which is limited to Seferiss views on interlingual translation. * * *

Following, then, this necessarily brief discussion of Seferiss views on intralingual translation, I intend now to look at how and to what extent Seferiss views on translation inuenced the standard English translations of his work. An examination of the documentation concerning his collaboration with his English translators will also, I believe, shed further light on his views on translation as outlined above. First of all, it must be said that Seferis has been particularly well served in (English) translation.24 Durrell and Miller came to know his work even before the Second World War through manuscript translations in English by Katsimbalis (see Keeley 1986:76), and the rst volume of his poems in English was published as early as 1948 in translations by Bernard Spencer, Nanos Valaoritis, and Lawrence Durrell. T. S. Eliot knew Seferiss poetry through this volume (Seferis and Keeley 1997:75), which was considered unsatisfactory by Keeley, then a doctoral student in Oxford, who therefore decided to make his own translations.25 The earliest documentation we have of Seferiss working with his English translators comes from an entry in his journals, dated 6 August

The Least Satisfying Form of Writing: Seferis on Translation

37

1946 (Seferis 1974:35), where he writes: Tourmer wants me to help him translate some of my poems. Unbearable. I did something like that, casually correcting, with the help of friends, translations of the young Valaoritis and Bernard Spencer; few things could thrust me into more boredom. Presumably, his attitude changed somewhat as he later collaborated with both Rex Warner (see Keeley in Honig 1985:147; Seferis and Keeley 1997:23) and Keeley and Sherrard on subsequent English translations of his poems. It is, in fact, common today for translators to work with or consult the poet they are translating. Kline (in Weissbort 1989:106) remarks on his collaboration with Joseph Brodsky that: Working closely with a Russian poet who has a deep and subtle, even if fallible, command of ones own languagethe language into which one is struggling, with that poets help, to transpose his workis a unique experience, always stimulating, sometimes illuminating and occasionally humbling and frustrating. Most translators who have worked with their poets, I am sure, have experienced similar feelings. The poets role in the translation process has undoubtedly grown.26 So much so that Friar (1973:661), for example, remarks that a number of poets would even supply him with their own literal rst translations and that his translations must be considered as much their work as his. With not a little irony, he adds how he envies and admires translators who translate modern poetry without consulting the poet. Even when the poet does not know the TL well (as Seferis claimed in the case of English), he can be of invaluable help to the translator. For, apart from being (if no longer an authority, then at least) a reliable source on questions of meaning and interpretation of his work, the poet is also an invaluable source when it comes to rhythm, emphasis, and tone.27 On the question of working with the poet as an authority on matters of interpretation, it seems that Seferis was somewhat guarded when it came to providing his translators with explanations. Though, as Keeley himself quite rightly points out, no poet worth his or her salt, however generous to the young or the old, is going to restrict the richness of his or her voice by giving an unassailably precise reading of this or that line especially in front of someone aspiring to put that reading into the relative permanence of print . . . (Seferis and Keeley 1997:15). Consulting the poet can of course have its disadvantages, particularly when the poet does know the TL. Keeley (in Honig 1985:147149) refers to his personal collaboration with Seferis as creating a strong inhibition as regards the translations.28 He refers to Seferiss hovering presence and, elsewhere, to Seferiss heavy shadow (Keeley 1989:57), which recalls somewhat Seferiss dream when translating Yeatss Sailing to Byzantium and his discussion with a stern-faced gure (presumably

38

David Connolly

Yeats). Although Seferis claimed that he did not know enough English to judge translations, Keeley (in Honig 1985:147149) remarks that he was very possessive about his work and what happened to it in translation. He adds that [ . . . ] like most poets, I think he held the principle that the translator of his work should be as literal as possible (as Seferis was in his translations of other poets work).29 According to Keeley, It was the question of getting the literal part right that concerned him. On the question of whether it was poetry in English or not, he said he had no capacity to judge. But, as Keeley informs us, Seferis also protected himself in another way: by insisting that the Greek text be published en face.30 Then he would say, Thats my poetry; now what youre doing may be wonderful and beautiful and so on, but thats not my poetrythats your translation, and he always kept the distinction between the two clear in his own mind.31 Perhaps this insistence of Seferis on literalism explains why in all the correspondence between Keeley and Seferis on the problems of translating his work, the only problems discussed are, in fact, those on a semantic level. Examples of clarication of meaning on a purely lexical level are documented throughout the correspondence (Seferis and Keeley 1997:78, 79, 83, 169). Similarly, even where Keeley had no specic questions, all his translations were sent to Seferis for approval. Keeley (1985:148) specically states that his translations were always cleared with Seferis,32 though Seferis rarely commented on them. The only reference made to problems of form concerns Keeleys translation of Erotiks Lgos (Seferis and Keeley 1997:42, 147). Keeley had rendered the rhyming fteen-syllable verse of the original into unrhyming verse. Seferis argues against any attempt by a translator to render rhymed verse into unrhymed and brings Dante to his defense, quoting Dantes statement (Convivio treatise 1, chapter 7) to the effect that nothing which hath the harmony of musical connection can be transferred from its own tongue into another without shattering all its sweetness and harmony. Seferis concludes that the rendition into unrhymed verse does not only sacrice the rhyming but at least half of the poem.33 He adds, however, that if one is obliged to undertake the translation at all costs, it is better to translate into good prose and explain to the reader.34 Three important points in connection with his views on translation emerge from what Seferis says here. First, this implies that Seferis believed that there are limits to translation imposed by form as well as language; a belief that can also be adduced from his own unrhymed translations in Antigraphs of W. B. Yeatss strictly rhymed poem Sailing to Byzantium and of W. H. Audens intricately rhymed Muse des Beaux Arts. Second, Seferis does not maintain that rhymed verse must be

The Least Satisfying Form of Writing: Seferis on Translation

39

translated into rhymed verse, but that where it cannot, a good prose translation with explanations for the reader is preferable. This view comes very close to that of Nabokov, who was a rm believer in the impossibility of poetry translation and who advocated unrhymed translations accompanied by copious footnotes.35 Third, the use of the expression at all costs seems to imply his belief (and one I share) that not all poems lend themselves to translation and this raises the question of the prudence of translators who produce Complete Poems editions. When Keeley (Seferis and Keeley 1997:119120) proposes translating all the poems published by Seferis in his 1961 volume of Poems for the English volume of collected poems to be published by Princeton University Press, Seferiss reply is somewhat more cautious. He says he agrees in principle to including all the poems, but that everything will depend on the possibilities of translation (Seferis and Keeley 1997:122). Seferis himself stopped when he came up against insurmountable translation problems. For example, he gave up his attempt to translate one of Eliots Quartets when he found himself obliged to exercise excessive force over the Greek language (Seferis 1936:13). Elytis, too, recommended that the translator should stop in the face of insurmountable problems.36 These wise words by Seferis and Elytis have generally gone unheeded by their numerous translators. Seferiss views on the translation of his own work were not limited to questions of meaning and form. If we are to judge from his correspondence with Keeley, he also had strong views on which of his poems where most suited for an English-speaking readership. Keeley explains how Seferis proposed that Keeley should translate Helen from Logbook III, as he thought it would be the most accessible to the American reader, and how he obliged Keeley to remove the translation of the Three Mules from his selection because he thought it meaningless for the foreign reader (Seferis and Keeley 1997:78).37 Similarly, Seferis had the nal say in which of his Essays were translated into English by Rex Warner, again on the criterion of which would be the most suitable for an English-speaking readership (Seferis and Keeley 1997:113114). He even had views on the cover designs for the volumes of translations (Seferis and Keeley 1997:25, 50) and on what kind of introduction was most suitable (Seferis and Keeley 1997:4344, 155 156). Basically, he was against any kind of critical introduction of the poets work and thought the translators should limit themselves to explaining the difculties encountered in the translation and the problems created by the Greek language. In the end, however, he accepted the introduction proposed by Keeley and Sherrard. It becomes clear that Seferis was extremely careful about how his work was presented to a foreign readership, even though unable or

40

David Connolly

unwilling to comment to any great degree on its translation. Another example of this is his reluctance to allow Keeley and Sherrard to include a translation of the Three Secret Poems in their collected edition of Seferiss poems published in the U.S. in 1967. Keeley relates how Seferis had deliberately not sent copies of the Three Secret Poems to Sherrard or himself in time for them to translate and include this collection in their Collected Poems (1981). Seferis had explained this by saying that he wanted to let the poems breathe a little on their own in Greek before being included in the English volume.38 Keeley also suggests another reason: namely that the poet was responding to an abiding sense of propriety that any writer would nd understandable: no single translator or collaboration of translators should have the exclusive right to render a given writers work (see Keeley 1981:88; Seferis and Keeley 1997: 4849). Despite Seferiss possessiveness with regard to the presentation of his work abroad, we have Keeleys testimony to the effect that however concerned Seferis might have been about the proper presentation of his work abroad (even if he usually declined to comment in detail about our translations), he was in essence a patient and tolerant man (Seferis and Keeley 1997:46) and was generous in his praise of his English translators (Keeley 1986:38). We, in the English-speaking world at least, should be grateful for this collaboration between poet and translators for the resulting accurate presentation of Seferis in Keeley and Sherrards translation. It is sobering to reect on the view of another notable translator, Christopher Middleton, who remarks: God forbid that Seferis should ever have been translated by Ezra Pound, because then no one would have known Seferis (in Honig 1985:193). * * *

Some commentators on Seferiss translation work attribute great importance to Seferiss legacy and inuence on translation thought and practice in Greece (see, for example, Kayalis 1998:62). Personally, I nd it extremely difcult to adduce general translation principles from a translation practice that spanned ve decades, and during which (in parallel to his poetic and prose work) Seferis changes and matures. His writings on translation are relatively few, and there is nothing in his prologue to the Antigraphs or in the prologues to his other translations that might allow us to talk of a translation theory or even of a particular translation method. At best, we might simply talk of an approach to translating, though this too is secondary to his stated aim, which was to test the exibility of the Greek language and enrich, if possible, its expressive capacities and it would probably not be an

The Least Satisfying Form of Writing: Seferis on Translation

41

exaggeration to say that Seferis was less interested in the problems of translation (whether theoretical or practical) than in the problems of the Greek language of his times. This is also evidenced, in my view, by his greater concern (quantitatively, at least) with intralingual rather than interlingual translation. What I think is of greater interest is that Seferiss translation work reveals once again the close connection between writing poetry and translating it. It is the rule rather than the exception that major poets are themselves translators and invariably become involved with the theoretical issues raised. It is the Romantic conception of literary creation that led translation to be seen as a derived or secondary activity and to the creation of a boundary between original literature and translated literature, and consequently between the original author and the translator, whereby the translator is seen as a mediator, mechanical transcriber, or failed writer, whereas, in fact, the two functions are often combined in the same person. We have only to think of the translation activity of Solomos, Kalvos, Palamas, Karyotakis, Kazantzakis, Seferis, and Elytis from the recent literary tradition in Greece, and Baudelaire, Valry, Pound, Lowell, and a host of other poets and the impact of their translations on the literary traditions of their particular countries. We should not think of Seferiss concern with translation as a means of testing the Greek language as something peculiar to him or the Greek tradition. One of the most obvious functions of literary translation is to enrich both the TL and the literature written in it. The language benets from loan words, neologisms, new metaphors, and new syntactic patterns. The literature benets from the absorption of new stylistic devices, even genres, and new interpretations of certain themes. We hear a great deal about translation as a means for promoting national literatures (and cultures) abroad. The case of Seferis is, I believe, indicative of translations other valuable aspect, that is, of its benecial impact on the domestic language and tradition. St. Cross College Oxford

42

David Connolly
NOTES

Acknowledgments. I am greatly indebted to Professor Edmund Keeley who read this article in draft form and whose comments and suggestions have much improved it. 1 See, for example, Vayenas (1989:107116) and Karandonis (1976:271288). 2 It would also be interesting to place Seferiss views in the wider context of the Greek tradition of poet-translators (Rigas, Solomos, Kalvos, Polylas, Vilaras, Palamas, Karyotakis, Kazantzakis, Elytis), as it would be to compare his views with those of his international contemporaries (Valry, Pound, Nabokov, Paz, Bonnefoy). 3 Seferis relates how, while translating Yeatss Sailing to Byzantium, he faced certain difculties in nding an appropriate Greek expression. Tired from his endeavors, he fell asleep and dreamt that he was sitting in a dark room and talking with someone who had a stern countenance. He complained of the inability of the Greek language to express all the nuances of the English words. Then his interlocutor responded: If the Greek language were always in a position to render every nuance of the English language, then it would no longer be the Greek language but the English. And Seferis concludes: This wise remark was still clearly in my mind when I awoke next morning. [ . . . ] I often reected on that piece of advice and it often helped me (Seferis 1974:329). 4 See, for example, Kayalis (1998:5859). 5 Elytis too was aware of this. In speaking of his own translations of foreign poems, he says: The truth is that I worked on them [the poems] to the point that I could no further. For eight years I kept turning to them every so often to look at them with a new eye. And I always found something that needed changing, that needed to enter more deeply into the Greek form of expression. [ . . . ] Those translations were accurate, but they didnt arrive at becoming Greek poems. When I re-read them, I felt dissatisfaction at every line (Valettas 1978:132). 6 Quoted in Koutsivitis (1994:131). 7 John Dryden (16311700) in the preface to his translation of Ovids Epistles (1680) had used the metaphor of the translator/portrait painter that was to reappear so frequently in the eighteenth century, maintaining that the painter has the duty of making his portrait resemble the original. 8 In the prologue to his collection of translations, Palamas says: This book [ . . . ] recalls [ . . . ] some of my favorite [verses] with which, at certain hours of my private life, I had spent moments of eeting devotion. The reading of a few verses gave me the desire to make them mine. And so, without any deliberation, without even realizing how, these few unconnected translations came into being (Palamas 1930:78). 9 For a fuller discussion of the importance of the translators aims in poetry translation, see Connolly (1997:138160). 10 See also Kayalis (1998:62). 11 See also Ben Bellit (in Honig 1985:57), who refers to poetry translation as . . . a kind of jungle gym for the exercise of all the faculties and muscles required for the practice of poetry. A similar view of translation as practiced by established poets is that expressed by Jon Silkin (in Weissbort 1989:178) who says: . . . perhaps one reason why I am attracted to translation is the possible enrichment of ones own work at that point at which ones own growth intersects with the character or aspect of anothers work. 12 It is perhaps interesting to compare Seferiss use of translation as a means of testing the Greek language with Kakridiss view of the practice of translation as an educational value that benets the translator rather than the reader (see Prologue to Kakridis 1936). 13 Similarly, in the prologue to the rst edition of his translation of Eliots The Waste Land (1936:15), Seferis explains that he was motivated to undertake the translation from

The Least Satisfying Form of Writing: Seferis on Translation

43

the desire to test certain rhythms that he happened to like and certain difculties in his own language. 14 Kakridis (1936) states in his prologue that the history of translation practice in Greece begins with Soanos. 15 See Seferis (1965:7): I think it was my fascination for the Septuagint [translation] that motivated me to try to render the Song of Songs into our modern language. Similarly, Yatromanolakis (1980:244) asserts that Seferis engaged in intralingual translation for two reasons: either to quote or incorporate ancient texts into his own work or out of the needs of his literary research. 16 See Seferis (1966:15): [ . . . ] Im obliged to add that I took the decision [to translate] because I believe that my work offers something to the society in which God set me. [ . . . ] The right to communicate with the scriptures, together with the right to correctly learn his language belongs, in my opinion, to the whole of the Greek people. 17 On the relationship between theory and practice in literary translation, see Connolly (1998:1323). 18 See also Kakridis (1936), who notes in his prologue that What characterizes our translation discourse even today is the unconcern and lack of respect vis--vis the foreign work we translate and the Greek reader who will read our translation. 19 In the prologue to his collection of translations, Palamas argues in favor of free translation, concluding that: These unfaithful translations are, from another point of view, the most faithful (Palamas 1930:78). 20 In the prologue to his collection of translations, Elytis explains: in time and through experience, I gradually came to believe in free rendition rather than in faithful translation . . . (Elytis 1976:10). Elytiss belief in free translation is also reected in the terms he uses for interlingual and intralingual translation: Dfteri Graph (Second Writing) for interlingual translation and Morph sta Na Ellinik (version in Modern Greek) and Anasy;nthesi kai apdosi (composition and rendition) for intralingual translation. 21 See Seferis (1965:65, 1966:14). 22 Yatromanolakis (see Seferis 1980:238) provides the information that Seferis had in mind the passage in Thucydides (4.50.8) where the Athenians capture a Persian bearing a letter. The Athenians had his letter translated (metagrapsamnoi ) from the Assyrian characters and read them. 23 On Seferiss views on the difference between intralingual and interlingual translation, see Kayalis (1998:6061). 24 For a comprehensive list of Seferiss works in English translation, see Philippides (1990:185193). 25 Elsewhere, Keeley notes that the incentive for him and Sherrard to bring out Seferiss Collected Poems in 1967 emerged after the Rex Warner selection of Seferis came out. He adds that it was a pretty good version, but it left out many key poems. We thought we could improve upon both the selection and the translation (Honig 1985:137). 26 It is interesting to note that much of the early discourse on translation related to translations of poets who were long dead. 27 Friar (1973:661) remarks in connection with his collaboration with Greek poets that he would record them reading their poems and that these tapes were extremely useful to him in the translation process in that they helped him to see where the poet intended pauses, stress, and rhythm, and to detect shifts of emphasis and tone. 28 He adds that, as a translator, he would have felt overwhelmed by Seferis if he had tried to do the work alone and had not had the help of Sherrard. Keeley explains that Sherrard was older than him and Seferis, who respected Sherrards authority, was not as ready to challenge the translation (Honig 1985:147).

44

David Connolly

29 In translations of his own work, Elytis was concerned that translations of his work ring right for the foreign readership, and he urged his translators to take great liberties so as to be able to nd equivalences in their own language (Elytis 1993:19). 30 It is interesting to note that when discussing with Keeley the publication of his Collected Poems in English, Seferis remarks: I object to having the Greek text in the second part of the book (this text is, after all, the original) (Seferis and Keeley 1997:3637). 31 See also Keeley (1989:64) where the same view is expressed. 32 See, for example, Keeleys letter to Seferis in which he writes: If you nd any other inaccuracies, would you please let me know? (Seferis and Keeley 1997:78). See also Seferis and Keeley (1997:85, 188). 33 See also Seferiss letter to Keeley where he states: As you know, poems from Stroph and The Cistern have not yet been translated because the matter was too difcult and there was always a problem if these poems, stripped of their original form, could convey any meaning to the foreign reader (Seferis and Keeley 1997:118). 34 The problem was eventually solved by the translators decision to include all Seferis rhymed poems in a separate section at the back of the volume of the collected edition (Seferis and Keeley 1997:43). 35 See Nabokov (1992:143). 36 See Elytis (1976:9), who says: Its one thing to translate poems you love and of these, only those that you consider lend themselves to translation, and another thing to conne yourself of necessity to certain works, either for historical reasonsbecause they typify an age, a particular trend, a particular aspect of the poets developmentor for aesthetic reasonsbecause for example, they refer to a unity which it would be wrong to split up. [ . . . ] In the rst case, without doubt, our criteria should be strict. Here the translator is free, if he nds himself facing insurmountable problems, to abandon it and give up. In the second case, however, the translator is obliged, whatever happens, to arrive at some result: the best one, always relatively speaking. 37 The same applied to his poem Pedlar from Sidon (Seferis and Keeley 1997:105). 38 They were translated by Keeley and Sherrard after a breathing space of some fourteen years and included in the revised and expanded volume (1981). In the meantime, this collection had been translated into English by Walter Kaiser (1969), Paul Merchant (1968), and Peter Thompson (1969).

REFERENCES CITED Bassnett-McGuire, Susan 1980 Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge. Connolly, David 1998a Meta-Pohsh. 6(+1) Meltew gia th metfrash thw pohshw (Meta-Poetry. 6(+1) Studies on Translating Poetry.) Athens: Ypsilon/Books. 1998b Logotexnik Metfrash: Se ti xrhsimeei h yevra; (Literary Translation: What Use is Theory?) In H Glssa thw Logotexnaw kai h Glssa thw Metfrashw (The Language of Literature and the Language of Translation), 1323. Thessaloniki: The Centre for Greek Language.

The Least Satisfying Form of Writing: Seferis on Translation

45

Elytis, Odysseus 1976 Odussaw Eltiw, Deterh Graf (Second Writing). Athens: Ikaros. 1993 Treiw ankdotew epistolw tou Odussa Elth (Three Unpublished Letters from Odysseus Elytis). H Kayhmerin (26 September 1993): 1819. Friar, Kimon 1973 Modern Greek Poetry: From Cavas to Elytis. New York: Simon and Schuster. Honig, Edwin, editor 1985 The Poets Other Voice. Conversations on Literary Translation. Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press. Kakridis, I. Th. 1961[1936] I. Y. Kakrdiw, To Metafrastik Prblhma (The Translation Problem). Athens: I Vivliothiki tou Philologou. Karandonis, Andreas 1976 Andraw Karantnhw, O Poihtw Girgow Sefrhw (The Poet George Seferis). Athens: D. N. Papadimas. Kayalis, Takis 1998 Tkhw Kagalw, H Metfrash thw Pohshw ston Monternism: kntro kai perifreia (The Translation of Poetry in Modernism: Center and Periphery). In H Glssa thw Logotexnaw kai h Glssa thw Metfrashw (The Language of Literature and the Language of Translation), 4767. Thessaloniki: The Centre for Greek Language. Keeley, Edmund 1981 Metafrzontaw Kabfh, Sikelian, Sefrh, Rtso kai ElthMia Sunnteujh tou Edmund Keeley ston Warren Wallace (Translating Cavafy, Sikelianos, Seferis, Ritsos and ElytisAn Interview by Edmund Keeley with Warren Wallace). In To Prsma 3:87104. 1985 Conversation with Edwin Honig. In The Poets Other Voice. Conversations on Literary Translation, edited by Edwin Honig, 133149. Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press. 1989 Collaboration, Revision and Other Less Forgivable Sins. In The Craft of Translation, edited by J. Biguenet and R. Schulte, 5469. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. Koutsivitis, Vasilis 1994 Baslhw Koutsibtiw, Yevra thw Metfrashw (Theory of Translation). Athens: Ellinikes Panepistimiakes Ekdoseis. Ladmiral, J.-R. 1997 Phgoltrew Stoxoltrew (Sourciers o Ciblistes). Translated by K. Kollet V. Ivanovici, Metfrash 3:165176. Lowell, Robert 1962 Imitations. London: Faber & Faber. Nabokov, V. 1992 Problems of Translation: Onegin in English. In The Craft of Translation, edited by J. Biguenet and R. Schulte, 131143. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

46

David Connolly

Palamas, Kostis 1930 Kvstw Palamw, Janatonismnh Mousik (Re-toned Music). Athens: Estia. Philippides, Dia M.L. 1990 Census of Modern Greek Literature. Check-list of English-Language Sources Useful in the Study of Modern Greek Literature (18241987). New Haven CT: Modern Greek Studies Association. Seferis, George 1936 Girgow Sefrhw, Erhmh Xra (The Waste Land). Athens: Ikaros. 1948 The King of Asine and Other Poems. Translated by Bernard Spencer, Nanos Valaoritis, and Lawrence Durrell, with Introduction by Rex Warner. London: John Lehmann. 1960 Poems. Translated by Rex Warner. London: The Bodley Head. 1965 Complete Poems. Translated, edited, and introduced by Edmund Keeley and Philip Sherrard. London: Anvil Press Poetry. 1967 On The Greek Style. Selected Essays in Poetry and Hellenism. Translated by Rex Warner and Th. D. Frangopoulos, with Introduction by Rex Warner. London: The Bodley Head. 1968 Three Secret Poems. Translated by Paul Merchant. In Modern Greek Poetry in Translation. London. 1969a Three Private Poems. Translated by Peter Thomson. Agenda 7(1):3549. 1969b Three Secret Poems. Translated by William Kaiser. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1974a Dokimw B (Essays II). Athens: Ikaros. 1974b A Poets Journal. Days of 19451951. Translated by Athan Anagnostopoulos. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. 1975 [1966] H Apokluch tou Ivnnh (Johns Revelations). Athens: Ikaros. 1979 [1965] Asma Asmtvn (Song of Songs). Athens: Ikaros. 1980a Metagrafw (Transcriptions). Athens: Leschi. 1980b George Seferis: Collected Poems. Translated by Edmund Keeley and Philip Sherrard. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1986 Suzthsh me ton Girgo Seffh (A Conversation with George Seferis). Athens: Agra. 1996 [1965] Antigrafw (Copies). Athens: Ikaros. Seferis, George and Edmund Keeley 1997 Correspondence 19511971. Introduced and Annotated by Edmund Keeley, with Forward by Dimitri Gondicas. Princeton: Princeton University Library and The Program in Hellenic Studies. Valettas, G. 1978 G. Balttaw, To metafrastik rgo tou Elth (Elytis Translation Work). Aiolika Grammata 4344 (JanuaryApril 1978): 131135. Vayenas, Nasos 1989 Nsow Bagenw, Pohsh kai Metfrash (Poetry and Translation). Athens: Stigmi. Weissbort, Daniel, editor 1989 Translating Poetry: The Double Labyrinth. London: Macmillan. Yatromanolakis, Yoryis 1980 Girghw Giatromanvlkhw, (Seferiss Translation Theory and Practice). Appendix to Seferis, 227282.