LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT
34.LITERATURE IN TRANSLATION.
Translation of good literature from one language into another has been a scholarly pursuit from ancient times. But no translation of any work has ever been considered fully satisfactory.
Europe claims its intellectual and philosophic traditions from ancient Greece and Rome. But even Roman writers like Cicero, Seneca and others had taken Greek ideas and rendered them in Latin. The Christian Bible (Old Testament) is translation from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to other European languages. The New Testament was translated from the Aramaic, a dialect of Hebrew to Greek, from where it was translated into Latin. For a long time, the Latin version alone was used in the Catholic Churches for ceremonial services. The first English translation was made in 1535, a second one in 1568. After England became free of Papal control under King James, he got it translated into English- hence the name 'King James Version'. (KJV) But it was a selective version, to conform to the wishes of the prominent section of a faction of the Church of England followers-viz the Puritans, but over the years it gained wide currency after Oxford university started publishing it. Its language is in a class of its own, automatically inducing a sense of the high and the holy. But modern sensibilities desired a free-flowing version in plain language, and so we now have the New English Bible. It too has been revised. But those who have read the KJV enjoy it for its language and can never get to like the new versions. Though I am not a Christian, I have found it enjoyable reading.The newer versions read rather like modern stories.
Apart from the language, even the correctness of translations has been questioned. It has been so throughout, with all translations. Ronald Knox, a Catholic theologian and scholar produced his own translation from the Latin, but referring to the Greek and Aramaic versions where necessary. It is considered not only accurate in scholarship by insiders, but it makes delightful reading too, in idiomatic English. Personally, I consider it the best version, having read the several versions available.
I give this example to show how difficult it is to get a competent translation even of the Bible. Most official translations are works of committees and the result is not satisfactory. It is a translation done by a committed and dedicated individual scholar that can be satisfactory. One can imagine how it would be if a committee of scientists set out to invent the ideal horse or donkey. (It is a different matter that the Bible itself is not accepted by most educated people today as 'the word of God'.That has nothing to do with its merit as grand literature.)
Though the rediscovery of the Greek classics was the main prop for the Renaissance, and though Europe was busy with translations of Greek classics, England lagged behind and it often translated from other translations as from Latin or French! The first major translation of Homer's epics was by George Chapman in 1611-15. It was followed by Dryden (1700) and Alexander Pope 1715-25.With English language undergoing constant evolution, almost every decade sees a new major translation. The first complete translation of the dialogues of Plato was made by Thomas Taylor in 1804 and it had tremendous influence on the Romantic poets and other intellectuals. In 1871, Benjamin Jowett's translation appeared and became the standard. However, modern scholars are increasingly questioning the accuracy of this translation and newer translations are coming out. Though translation is an old art, it has never been mastered to perfection.
Every language has its own way of thinking. Even ordinary words in a language do not convey the same shade of meaning or significance in other languages.Every language lives and thrives in a specific cultural context, and evokes different emotional response. The significance the word 'cow' has for a Hindu, no one else will understand. 'Go mata' is a peculiarly Indian idea and cannot be conveyed in English by making it "Cow mother" which sounds quite ridiculous, though it is literal translation. Krishna calls Arjuna "Bharatarshaba" ,but if it is rendered as "bull among Bharatas", will it make any sense to a non-Hindu? Most of our words- dharma, karma, jnana, Brahman, Atman, deva,varna,vasana, samskara, guru,etc are untranslatable into English. Perceptive writers understand this and retain the original words, but may explain them in a separate glossary.
With the introduction of Macaulay's education,and English, and its linking with jobs, study of Indian languages, especially Sanskrit has declined. But even during the British period it did not disappear. Up to 1950 or so, Sanskrit was being studied in schools and colleges. Universities like Calcutta were great centres of Sanskrit learning. The govt appointed a committee to go into the question of teaching Sanskrit under the chairmanship of Suniti Kumar Chatterjee which submitted its report in 1957. It pointed out that it was not a mere language, but the very fountain and vehicle of Indian philosophic and scientific thought and culture and every Indian language, including Tamil, had liberally and heavily borrowed from it and grown. They recommended that Sanskrit education should be strengthened and encouraged. But the govt quietly forgot the report.Sanskrit is neglected in the educational system, and Hindi, which has absolutely no classical or historical value,is given a boost for political reasons. There is no Classical work in what they now call 'Hindi': Mirabai's songs, Ram Charit Manas of Tulsidas are all in old regional dialects. Hindi is an artificial amalgam of later origin.
The position in Tamil Nad has been particulary bad , especially since Dravidian parties came to power in 1967. Sanskrit teaching has been totally scrapped from the state syllabus. It is again a politial decision, based on ignorance and prejudice. At one stage, it went to such an extent that the excellent Sanskirt section in the Annamalai university was attacked and the Sanskrit books set on fire in the 70s- something which only Muslim invaders had done in Nalanda centuries ago!
Our knowledge of Sanskrit has become so low, that most of us Hindus cannot read anything in the original at all! Most need a vernacular translation, while many need English translation. And here lies the danger.
Most of the translations are of religious or philosophical books- eg. Ramayana, Bhagavatam, Gita,etc. The peculiarity of these books is that they are used for 'Parayana' ie ceremonial reading or recital or chanting. They are never read as mere literature- even though they are couched in the finest poetry. In translating them, the traditional scholars-who were also practising Hindus- kept two things in view:
1. The language should be appropriately elegant and induce the religious or spiritual mood. Reading them is not like reading a novel.They are not read for the mere story value,or casually. It is a spiritual,more than aesthetic,experience.
2. The translation should be such as to enable a serious reader to go to the original without difficulty.
Read old translations by Sengalipuram Anantarama Dikshitar, Kadalangudi Natesa Sastigal and they maintain this high tradition. In the next generation, we see some dilution- eg .C.R.Srinivasachariar, Anna Subramanya Iyer, though they too are still orthodox in their comments and explanations. But come to the recent translations ( such as the Gita Press editions of Valmiki Ramayana or Bhagavatam.)While the original Sanskrit slokas are transliterated beautifully in Tamil with accurate pronunciation marks, the translation itself follows the market Tamil of Tamil novels and stories- totally inappropriate for the high purpose. Even well known Sanskrit words in normal usage, familiar to cultured families, are needlessly translated into 'current' Tamil. eg. Krishna is rendered as 'Kannan'. It denotes the same person, but does this word Kannan convey the meaning of the word 'Krishna' -which is in fact a technical term? Rishi is rendered as 'munivar'. Do they mean the same thing? "Buddhimaan' is rendered as 'arivaalan'; 'Rajya paripalanam' is rendered as " arasaatchi enra podu nalap pani"! Hanuman is written as 'anuman'. The pity is, people reading this will never get to know the exact meaning or nuance, of the original word. The translator says this is all done to facilitate easy understanding. But any serious learning involves some effort, and by making everything easy, we make it vulgar, and make the readers dull.These books are read by astikas, but the translator has adopted the nastika expressions of the Dravidian parties. And these books are priced so low, such inelegant translations will gain widespread usage. Modern prose renderings, often in cheap editions, are no better.
In the English translations we find other types of difficulties, more sinister and serious.. Most of the translators are mere academics, without practical knowledge of what they translate, or professional writers who write for money. Many of them have no love of or sympathy for the subject or respect for the traditions. Many of them,especially foreigners, have their own hidden agendas: in translating, they give their own interpretation. So, they distort the meaning. These books are produced rather well by international publishers and are distributed world-wide. Many educated Indians read only such translations or books. There are still fine Indian scholars writing in our regional languages. Why can't we refer to them? Actually, we are promoting the foreign interpreter. On the contrary, see Chaturvedi Badrinath's writings on Mahabharata- with verses in original from Sanskrit! But that is the fruit of dedication over many years.
But the real long term danger of leaving the translation work to foreigners is more serious. Translation invariably involves interpretation. Sanskrit words are capable of conveying multi-layered meaning, and by choosing one over another, the translator can obscure the real meaning. Besides, what people generally regard as religious or philosophical notions are in fact deeply psychological concepts. The clever western academics take these concepts, give them their own colouring and introduce them as their findings! And our people then borrow them in the name of modern scholarship! And shamelessly they say all new original ideas come from the West!
An Indian scholar faces serious impediments in translating from English or other European languages. He has no mastery over English or the other languages. We have no libraries in India which have the latest publications in any subject.I have found that almost every Indian scholar who has written any good book in any subject has done so after studying the subject abroad, and accessing the libraries in the foreign Universities. How can the translations be satisfactory if they are not proficient in both the languages, leave alone the subjects? Besides, Sanskrit scriptures are to be heard, not read; how can a text-book scholar get the correct meaning of scripture if he lacks exposure to the uttered sound? Even Max Muller did not understand spoken Sanskrit- he could not even identify it!
The works of the ancient Greek philosophy, mythology, etc reveal many ideas which have a strong similarity to our own thinking. Many stories have common themes. For instance, Aristotle said that Homer's epic 'The Iliad' dealt with suffering, while his other epic "Odyssey" involved study of character-good versus bad. In both, gods had intervened. Now think about it in relation to our own Itihasas- Ramayana and Mahabharata! What is Ramayana, except the story of suffering- first of Dasaratha, then of Rama and Sita, and finally of Sita? Did Sita's suffering end with Ravana's death in the war or the Pattabhishekam? A new wave of suffering started then, and pursued her even in the second sojourn in the woods- this time in Valmiki's Ashrama and ended only with her leaving this world! We have no strength of heart to read this part of the story, and blissfully end with the coronation!
And what is Mahabharata, except the struggle between moral right and wrong? And there, who is totally white, and completely dark? All are in the shades of grey! Almost every one talks of Dharma, but none follows it fully! More than personal failure, does it not show that we are all puppets in the hands of a destiny which we cannot fathom?
And what is the story of Helen of Troy? Is it not one of kidnap of a princess, her confinement in a foreign land, and a battle to rescue her? Does it not remind you of Ramayana? Do not the wanderings of Odysseus, lasting more than ten years, remind us of the Vanavasa of the Pandavas? Yet which Indian, in all these years, has mastered Greek and Sanskrit, and made a comparison? We still depend on western translators- for both! Sri Aurobindo was a master of both languages, but his interests were different!
English literature is full of direct references and allusions to the Classical literature. Apart from direct expressions like Achilles' heel. Trojan horse, Pandora's box etc, we cannot read any great poet, old or modern, unless we know the Classics. Our own vernacular literature is full of references to the Classical Sanskrit literature and Puranic and Itihasic incidents, but their study is neglected. With the current focus on certain branches of engineering and commerce and business studies in our educational system, serious study of literature is neglected by our youngsters. Not that we will give up mythology,but Harry Potters, Spidermen and Supermen will usurp the place of the old heroes! With all the advances, the West has not forgotten its Classical foundations, nor neglected their study, but we have no idea of even the full extent of our classical heritage. This is the difference between genuine progress and pathetic imitation.
Substance and style are the two eyes of any great literature. It is next to impossible to convey either from one language to another. The next best is to create something new in another language: we have the great examples of Kamban's Ramayana, and Villiputturar's Mahabharatam! One K.R.Jamadagni translated Kalidasa's Raghuvamsam into Tamil verse! Bharatiyar's Panchali Sabatam is an admirable modern version of the episode from the Mahabharata, faithful to the original. The great treasures of Sanskrit literature,and works from other Indian languages, are waiting to be translated into literary Tamil or idimatic English. But alas, we lack not only good translators, but also enthusiastic readers!
But the real long term danger of leaving the translation work to foreigners is more serious. Translation invariably involves interpretation. Sanskrit words are capable of conveying multi-layered meaning, and by choosing one over another, the translator can obscure the real meaning. Besides, what people generally regard as religious or philosophical notions are in fact deeply psychological concepts. The clever western academics take these concepts, give them their own colouring and introduce them as their findings! And our people then borrow them in the name of modern scholarship! And shamelessly they say all new original ideas come from the West!
An Indian scholar faces serious impediments in translating from English or other European languages. He has no mastery over English or the other languages. We have no libraries in India which have the latest publications in any subject.I have found that almost every Indian scholar who has written any good book in any subject has done so after studying the subject abroad, and accessing the libraries in the foreign Universities. How can the translations be satisfactory if they are not proficient in both the languages, leave alone the subjects? Besides, Sanskrit scriptures are to be heard, not read; how can a text-book scholar get the correct meaning of scripture if he lacks exposure to the uttered sound? Even Max Muller did not understand spoken Sanskrit- he could not even identify it!
The works of the ancient Greek philosophy, mythology, etc reveal many ideas which have a strong similarity to our own thinking. Many stories have common themes. For instance, Aristotle said that Homer's epic 'The Iliad' dealt with suffering, while his other epic "Odyssey" involved study of character-good versus bad. In both, gods had intervened. Now think about it in relation to our own Itihasas- Ramayana and Mahabharata! What is Ramayana, except the story of suffering- first of Dasaratha, then of Rama and Sita, and finally of Sita? Did Sita's suffering end with Ravana's death in the war or the Pattabhishekam? A new wave of suffering started then, and pursued her even in the second sojourn in the woods- this time in Valmiki's Ashrama and ended only with her leaving this world! We have no strength of heart to read this part of the story, and blissfully end with the coronation!
And what is Mahabharata, except the struggle between moral right and wrong? And there, who is totally white, and completely dark? All are in the shades of grey! Almost every one talks of Dharma, but none follows it fully! More than personal failure, does it not show that we are all puppets in the hands of a destiny which we cannot fathom?
And what is the story of Helen of Troy? Is it not one of kidnap of a princess, her confinement in a foreign land, and a battle to rescue her? Does it not remind you of Ramayana? Do not the wanderings of Odysseus, lasting more than ten years, remind us of the Vanavasa of the Pandavas? Yet which Indian, in all these years, has mastered Greek and Sanskrit, and made a comparison? We still depend on western translators- for both! Sri Aurobindo was a master of both languages, but his interests were different!
English literature is full of direct references and allusions to the Classical literature. Apart from direct expressions like Achilles' heel. Trojan horse, Pandora's box etc, we cannot read any great poet, old or modern, unless we know the Classics. Our own vernacular literature is full of references to the Classical Sanskrit literature and Puranic and Itihasic incidents, but their study is neglected. With the current focus on certain branches of engineering and commerce and business studies in our educational system, serious study of literature is neglected by our youngsters. Not that we will give up mythology,but Harry Potters, Spidermen and Supermen will usurp the place of the old heroes! With all the advances, the West has not forgotten its Classical foundations, nor neglected their study, but we have no idea of even the full extent of our classical heritage. This is the difference between genuine progress and pathetic imitation.
Substance and style are the two eyes of any great literature. It is next to impossible to convey either from one language to another. The next best is to create something new in another language: we have the great examples of Kamban's Ramayana, and Villiputturar's Mahabharatam! One K.R.Jamadagni translated Kalidasa's Raghuvamsam into Tamil verse! Bharatiyar's Panchali Sabatam is an admirable modern version of the episode from the Mahabharata, faithful to the original. The great treasures of Sanskrit literature,and works from other Indian languages, are waiting to be translated into literary Tamil or idimatic English. But alas, we lack not only good translators, but also enthusiastic readers!
No comments:
Post a Comment