398.普鲁斯特/Proust Which Translation Will We Read? by Dennis Abrams

Reader86

Which Translation Will We Read?

October 23, 2009 by Dennis AbramsBy Dennis Abrams

I have to admit that I’m both extraordinarily picky and extraordinarily insecure when it comes to picking the “right” translation of a foreign language writer into English.

The pitfalls of translation selection became obvious to me a number of years ago, when I was hanging out at my friend’s bookstore in New Orleans.  A mutual acquaintance came in, looking for a copy of Turgenev’s Fathers and Sons.  John had four different translations available, so we read the first paragraph of each, trying to determine which version to recommend.

Not only was the language in each translation slightly different from the other, but the meanings themselves were subtly different.  This discovery raised a basic question:  If you don’t read the original language, how is the common reader to know just which translation comes the closest to capturing the essence of what the author was originally trying to convey?

Fortunately, when it comes to Marcel Proust and In Search of Lost Time, there are really only two major translations for the English language reader to choose from.  The first is the celebrated translation by Scotsman C.K. Scott Moncrieff, done between 1922 and 1930.  The first translation of Proust’s work into another language, it was published under the rather unfortunate title “Remembrance of Things Past,” a phrase taken from Shakespeare’s Sonnet 30, rather than the more accurate In Search of Lost Time.

This translation has itself been revised twice – the first time in 1981 by Terence Kilmartin, using the new French edition of 1954 – and then re-revised by D.J. Enright and published by Modern Library in 1992.  Today, this version is considered by many to be a landmark in the art of translation.  In the words of Richard Howard, “A triumph of tone, of a single (and singular) vision, this ultimate revision of the primary version accords the surest sled over the ice fields as well as the most sinuous surfboard over the breakers of Proustian prose, an invaluable and inescapable text.”

Three years after the Modern Library edition was published, Penguin Books, under the editorial guidance of Christopher Prendergast, undertook an entirely new translation based on the authoritative French text of 1987-89.  This time, though, instead of using just one translator, Penguin decided to use a team of seven translators – one for each volume. So with those to choose from…which one to read?  When I first read In Search of Lost Time ten years ago, I read what was then the translation – the classic Moncrieff/Kilmartin/Enright.  But now that the new Penguin translations are available, and even though I had my doubts (Proust wrote in one voice – shouldn’t just one translator’s voice be heard?), I asked Eric Karpeles, author of Paintings in Proust, and the man who has read Proust more often than anyone I know, which version he recommends.

His response?  Read the Lydia Davis translation of Swann’s Way, published by Penguin, then read the rest of the series in the Modern Library Moncrieff/Kilmartin/Enright translation.  What is it about the Davis translation that he likes?  “Even though I’ve read the Moncrieff several times and know it quite well, what I like about the Davis is that it has less of an Edwardian English overlay to it.  Davis removes some of the fustiness of the language of the period, which Proust did not have in French.  She manages to retain an authenticity of tone, making it fresh and seemingly less pompous, infusing it with more of a Proust-like delicacy.

There you have it.  I’m going to be following Eric’s advice and read the volume of the Penguin Books translation of Swann’s Way, before switching over to the Modern Library Moncrieff/Kilmartin/Enright translation for the remaining books in the series.  If you’ve already purchased the Modern Library version though, don’t worry.  Anytime I post a quotation from the Davis, I’ll post the corresponding quote from the Moncrieff as well, which should, in an of itself, be an interesting look into how differences in translation can translate into differences in meanings.FYI, the Modern Library edition is also available for the Kindle.  I have a Kindle.  I use a Kindle. I like my Kindle a lot.  But reading Proust on a Kindle just seems wrong somehow.  If anyone feels differently about this, please let me know.

他的反应？ 阅读由企鹅出版社出版的莉迪亚·戴维斯 (Lydia Davis) 翻译的《去斯万家之路》(Swann’s Way)，然后阅读现代图书馆蒙克里夫 (Moncrieff)/基尔马丁 (Kilmartin)/恩赖特 (Enright) 翻译中的该系列的其余部分。 他喜欢戴维斯翻译的什么？ “尽管我已经读过“蒙克里夫”的译本好几遍并且非常了解它，但我喜欢《戴维斯》的地方在于它少了爱德华七世时期的英语覆盖。 戴维斯消除了当时语言中的一些陈旧之处，而普鲁斯特在法语中则没有这种陈旧之处。 她设法保留了真实的语气，使其清新且看起来不那么浮夸，注入了更多普鲁斯特式的精致。

你有它。 我将听从埃里克的建议，阅读企鹅图书公司翻译的《斯旺之路》，然后再转向现代图书馆蒙克里夫/基尔马丁/恩莱特翻译的系列其余书籍。  如果您已经购买了 Modern Library 版本，请不要担心。 每当我发布戴维斯的引文时，我也会发布蒙克里夫的相应引文，这本身应该是对翻译差异如何转化为含义差异的有趣观察。仅供参考，现代 Kindle 还提供图书馆版。 我有一台 Kindle。 我用的是Kindle。 我非常喜欢我的 Kindle。 但在 Kindle 上阅读普鲁斯特似乎是错误的。 如果有人对此有不同看法，请告诉我。


https://thecorklinedroom.wordpre ... ation-will-we-read/