Translating Early Medieval Poetry

by Tom Birkett

  possibilities not so readily available in the case of interlingual translation. Willis Barnstone’s description of a poem in translation as an orphan in an alien city ‘with no past to its readers … in rags, hand-me-downs, or dramatic black capes of glory’ can

  hardly apply in the case of translation from medieval to Modern Irish.21 Our poem is

  no orphan but a not-so-distant ancestor and, while her clothing may appear strange

  and out of date, on closer examination we can see that our contemporary fashion

  owes much to her curious apparel. She is certainly not dressed in rags. As wil , I hope, be obvious in the Appendix, Modern Irish vocabulary and syntax as well as certain

  stylistic features often correspond fairly closely to (though, of course, they cannot be said to equate ful y with) what is found in Middle Irish. Antoine Berman discusses

  how Chateaubriand, in his translation of Paradise Lost, broke with the established tradition of ethnocentric, free translation in France, stretched French syntax so as to produce the effect of Milton’s English and accentuated the Latinate nature of French

  so as to render the Latinate style of the original.22 Berman points to Chateaubriand’s 19 Michael Cronin, ‘An Ghaeilge san Aois Nua’, in An Ghaeilge san Aois Nua / Irish in the New Century (Dublin, 2005), pp. 17–22. For the argument that texts from the Anglo-Saxon tradition should be translated into modern Irish, see Rory McTurk’s contribution to this volume in Chapter 5, esp. p. 91.

  20 Kim McCone and P. Ó Fiannachta, Scéalaíocht ár Sinsear (Maynooth, 1992), p. v.

  21 Willis Barnstone, The Poetics of Translation: History, Theory, Practice (London, 1993), p. 265.

  22 Antoine Berman, ‘La traduction et la lettre ou l’auberge du lointain’, in Les Tours de Babel: Essais sur la Traduction, ed. A. Berman et al. (Mauvezin, 1985), pp. 35–150, at p. 123.

  See also F. R. de Chateaubriand, trans., Le Paradis Perdu de Milton (Paris, 1861), p. i: ‘C’est une traduction littérale dans toute la force du terme que j’ai entreprise, une traduction qu’un enfant et un poète pourront suivre sur le texte, ligne à ligne, mot à mot, comme un dictionnaire ouvert sous leurs yeux’ (‘What I have undertaken is a literal translation in the full meaning of the term, a translation that a child or a poet will be able to follow in the text, line by line and word for word, as a dictionary open before them’). Chateaubriand also says: ‘J’ai employé … de vieux mots; j’en ai fait de nouveaux, pour rendre plus fidèlement le texte’ (‘I have used old words … (and) invented new ones in order to translate the text more faithful y’) (ibid., pp. ix–x). It is noteworthy that Chateaubriand did not see his aim of fidelity as requiring verse translation.

  126

  Tadhg Ó Síocháin

  translation, published in 1836, as an early example of the approach that he (like

  Lawrence Venuti) is advocating, i.e. one that aims to preserve in translation the

  distinctive flavour of the original.23 By choosing to translate into Modern Irish, I

  have sought to remain as close as possible to the language and flavour of the original.

  The second important consideration concerns the capacity of translation and of

  that of older material in particular to enrich the receiving culture. Cary reminds

  us that this phenomenon is as old as literature itself. Referring to the translation

  of poetry, he says: ‘De tout temps, la traduction a fécondé la poésie des diverses

  langues – mais dans la mesure … où elle a été menée sur son terrain vrai qui est celui de la poésie.’ (‘Throughout the ages, translation has enriched the poetry of diverse

  languages – but only in so far as it is transacted in the realm to which it properly

  belongs, that is to say the realm of poetry’).24 Barnstone speaks of the normal goal

  of literary translation as being ‘to add an important document to the literature of

  the target language’.25 He favours a foreignising approach to translation that results in some strangeness of vocabulary or idiom in the target language and asks: ‘Why

  not some flagrant unnaturalness?’ adding that ‘lexical shock renews weary language

  bones’.26 Berman emphasises the value of new translations in the twentieth century

  of Greek and Roman literature as well as of the Bible, Dante and the Elizabethans

  ‘avec l’exigence … de soumettre nos langues tardives à la brûlure de ces langues

  jeunes et étrangères … au poids de leur altérité (‘for the express purpose of …

  subjecting our later languages to the fire of those young and foreign languages …

  to the effect of their otherness’).27 Berman argues that a renewal of links with our

  literary origins is essential if our literatures and cultures are to become open to more distant cultural influences (his emphasis):

  Cela n’est pas seulement essentiel pour notre rapport à notre origine culturelle et littéraire; c’est fondamental pour celui avec les oeuvres étrangères ‘lointaines’, contem-poraines ou non. De la réinstitution d’un rapport à notre origine dépend en partie l’institution d’un rapport non-ethnocentrique avec les littératures orientales, extrême-orientales, africaines, sud-américaines etc.

  (That is necessary not only in relation to our cultural and literary origin; it is of fundamental importance in terms of how we relate to “distant” foreign works whether

  contemporary or not. The re-establishment of a non-ethnocentric relationship with

  literatures from the East, the Far East, Africa, South America and so on depends on links with our origin).28

  Seamus Heaney makes a similar point in relation to his decision to translate Beowulf 23 Lawrence Venuti, ‘Introduction’, in Rethinking Translation: Discourse, Subjectivity, Ideology, ed. Lawrence Venuti (London, 1992), pp. 1–17, at pp. 4–5.

  24 Cary, Comment faut-il traduire? , p. 47.

  25 Barnstone, The Poetics of Translation, p. 108.

  26 Ibid., p. 266.

  27 Berman, ‘La Traduction et la Lettre’, pp. 129–30.

  28 Ibid., p. 133.

  Find and the Phantoms

  127

  when he says that he saw the process as being ‘a way of ensuring that (his) linguistic anchor would stay lodged on the Anglo-Saxon sea-floor’.29

  Vladimír Macura emphasises the power of translation to validate the receiving

  culture and shows how, in the nineteenth century, translation from German contrib-

  uted to the prestige of the Czech language.30 There is an interesting parallel with the current Irish situation here, as the Czech readers, Macura tel s us, were capable of

  reading the originals in German (just as Irish readers are capable of reading English

  translations of their older literature) and so did not, strictly speaking, need translation for the transfer of information. But the existence of foreign material in the

  Czech language was an empowering factor and it elevated the status of the receiving

  culture.31 While accessing our older literature solely or mainly through English

  translations may well bring the benefits that Barnstone and Berman speak of to

  English-language culture in Ireland, I doubt that we can rely on it to provide similar enrichment in the case of Irish-language culture and literature.

  Socio-Linguistic and Socio-Cultural Background

  Modern Irish today is in a weak position vis-à-vis the widely spoken and universal y studied English language with which it shares every inch of Ireland, including Gaeltacht homes, schools, churches and the media. In these circumstances, it is surely in

  need of the shot in the arm associated by Berman and Barnstone with translation.

  This context is a key influencing factor in the case of the choice of texts for translation and the approach adopted by the translator,32 and must be considered before

  undertaking any such project. Discus
sing the early twentieth-century translations

  of Peadar Ua Laoghaire, Cronin has shown the impact on the author’s thinking of

  the cultural and linguistic environment of his day and, in particular, of the ideology of the Irish revival movement and the perception that the Irish language was being

  overwhelmed by the rapid spread of English among Irish-speaking communi-

  ties. The sense of insecurity engendered by this process seems to have given rise

  to outright hostility on Ua Laoghaire’s part, as the following comment by Cronin

  suggests:

  Inductive generalisations and moral/political values are merged … in Ua Laoghaire’s

  observations, and there is a distinctive value judgement in the disparaging reference to English ‘ froth’.33 Translation is clearly separatist in orientation. The ‘innate antagonism’

  29 Seamus Heaney, Beowulf (London, 1999), reissued as Beowulf: A New Verse Translation, ed. Daniel Donoghue (London, 2002), p. xxii.

  30 Vladimír Macura, ‘Culture as Translation’, in Translation, History and Culture, ed. S.

  Bassnett and A. Lefevere (London, 1990), pp. 64–70.

  31 Ibid., pp. 68–70.

  32 See, for example, Basil Hatim and Ian Mason, Discourse and the Translator (London, 1990), p. 12: ‘The translator’s motivations are inextricably bound up with the socio-cultural context in which the act of translating takes place’ (authors’ emphasis).

  33 This is a reference to P. O’Leary, Papers on Irish Idiom, ed. T. F. O’Rahil y (Dublin, 1929), p. 92, where the author recommends a domesticating approach to translation from English with preference given to forms of spoken Irish as used by native speakers.

  128

  Tadhg Ó Síocháin

  between the two languages is a reflection and expression of political hostility between two peoples.34

  Cronin adds that ‘the concern of Ua Laoghaire was to eradicate the traces of

  English in Irish’.35 The result was a preference for ‘communicative translations’, a

  strategy that sprang from his desire to produce readable narratives in the vernacu-

  lar.36 Some sixty years after Ua Laoghaire’s death, Seán Ó Tuama and Thomas

  Kinsel a, too, were mindful of contemporary socio-linguistic realities when they

  published their editions and English translations of a selection of Irish poems span-

  ning three centuries. There is here a clear acknowledgement of the need to cater for

  those who might not be ful y fluent readers of Irish:

  The primary aim … is to demonstrate the nature and quality of a part of the Irish

  poetic tradition to readers with some knowledge of modern Irish. The translations

  are designed accordingly. But we hope that they will also interest readers with no Irish at al .37

  The implications for the translators are spelled out: they would strive for ‘the greatest possible fidelity of content’, and the need for ‘general readability’ and ‘natural idioms’

  was central to their approach.

  One finds in creative Irish writing a sense of insecurity linked to a situation of

  unequal diglossia – a feeling of uprootedness associated with language shift and

  the erosion of traditional culture. John Montague deals in a striking way with these

  issues in A Grafted Tongue,38 and Seán Ó Ríordáin expresses an unsettling feeling of being in a kind of no-mans-land between the two languages.39 Berman’s concern

  for the maintenance of links with our cultural origins seems to me to resonate with

  these preoccupations. Uncertainty and insecurity surface too in numerous studies

  conducted in recent decades on the position of the Irish language that confirm

  worrying trends both in relation to its level of use among the population and to

  34 Michael Cronin, Translating Ireland: Translation, Languages, Cultures (Cork, 1996), pp. 147–8.

  35 Ibid., p. 149.

  36 Ibid., p. 151. The following works by Ua Laoghaire might be described more accurately as adaptations than as translations: Eisirt (Baile Átha Cliath, 1911); Guaire (Baile Átha Cliath, 1915); Lughaidh Mac Con (Baile Átha Cliath, 1917); An Cleasaidhe (Baile Átha Cliath, 1920). For a discussion of Ua Laoghaire’s adaptations of medieval Irish tales, see Máirín Ní Dhonnchadha, ‘Athbheochan agus Athnuachan: Nualeaganacha de Scéalta Meánaoiseacha

  Gaeilge’, in Saothar an Athar Peadar, Léachtaí Cholm Cille 45, ed. Eoghan. Ó Raghal aigh (Maigh Nuad, 2015), pp. 129–47. Ua Laoghaire’s interlingual translations are discussed in Seán Ua Súilleabháin, ‘ Lúcián, Don Cíochóté agus a Leithéidí: Athinsintí nó Aistriúcháin?’, in Saothar an Athar Peadar, pp. 80–96.

  37 Seán Ó Tuama and Thomas Kinsel a, An Duanaire 1600–1900: Poems of the Dispossessed (Dublin, 2002), p. xxxv.

  38 John Montague, Col ected Poems (Oldcastle, 1995), p. 37.

  39 See ‘A Ghaeilge im Pheannsa’ and ‘A Theanga Seo Leath-Liom’, Seán Ó Ríordáin: Na Dánta, ed. Seán Ó Coileáin (Indreabhán, 2011), pp. 123–4 and 139. One will not have to search for long before finding feelings of anxiety and insecurity related to the erosion of native culture in the writings of Séathrún Céitinn, Dáibhí Ó Bruadair and Aogán Ó Rathaille.

  Find and the Phantoms

  129

  mastery of the language among its users.40 The views expressed in these studies

  form a continuum from Hindley’s view that Irish may in fact be dying to that of

  Romaine who argues that, taken in a global context, Irish is in a relatively healthy

  position and not in danger of extinction. However, when these studies are taken

  together, it is difficult not to see the language as being in a weak position and having an uncertain future and, to use Barnstone’s imagery, as a language whose bones are

  decidedly weary and in need of some rejuvenating therapy which would strengthen

  its links with its older literature. In this context, it is necessary to create a corpus of Irish translations as a counterweight to the number of translations already available

  in English and other widely used languages. Attention has been drawn to some of

  the dangers associated with the translation into major world languages of the litera-

  ture of weaker cultures. Berman has argued that such a process can and often does

  involve a kind of ethnocentric and consumerist appropriation of the foreign work:

  Ethnocentrique signifiera ici: qui ramène tout à sa propre culture, à ses normes et

  valeurs, et considère ce qui est situé en dehors de celle-ci – l’Étranger – comme négatif ou tout juste bon à être annexé, adapté pour accroître la richesse de cette culture.

  (In this context ethnocentric will mean: bringing everything back to one’s own culture, norms and values, seeing everything outside of that culture – the Outsider – as negative and fit only to be annexed and adapted so as to increase the riches of that culture).41

  This danger is greatest, according to Venuti, when ‘fluent strategies of translation’

  are used, that is when the translation is ‘free’ and reads as if it had been composed

  in the language of translation, thus concealing the distinctive cultural and linguistic features that characterise the original.42 He asserts that ‘assymetries, inequities, relations of domination and dependence exist in every act of translating, of putting the

  translated in the service of the translating culture’. This Venuti describes as ‘perhaps the greatest scandal of translation’ and he criticises those translators who are, he

  says, ‘complicit in the institutional exploitation of foreign texts and cultures’.43

  40 See, for example, Reg Hindley, The Death of the Irish Language: A Qualified Obituary (London, 1990); J. McCloskey, Guthanna in Éag: An Mairfidh an Ghaeilge Beo? (Baile Átha Cliath, 2001); S. Mac Donncha et al., St
aid Reatha na Scoileanna Gaeltachta 2004: Tuarascáil don Chomhairle um Oideachas Gaeltachta agus Gaelscolaíochta (Baile Átha Cliath, 2004); John Harris et al., Irish in Primary Schools: Long-Term National Trends in Achievement (Dublin, 2006); Liam Mac Mathúna, ‘Linguistic Change and Standardisation’, in A New View of the Irish Language, ed . Caoilfhionn Nic Pháidín and Seán Ó Cearnaigh (Dublin, 2008), pp. 76–92; C. Ó Giol agáin, and S. Mac Donncha, ‘The Gaeltacht Today’, in A New View of the Irish Language, pp. 108–20; Suzanne Romaine, ‘Irish in the Global Context’, in A New View of the Irish Language, pp. 11–25.

  41 Berman, ‘La traduction et la lettre’, pp. 48–9.

  42 See note 23. This recal s Georges Mounin’s concept of a disorienting translation – one that gives the reader the impression that he/she is reading in the foreign language: ‘(On peut) produire en traduisant … l’impression dépaysante de lire le texte dans les formes originales (sémantiques, morphologiques, stylistiques) de la langue étrangère’ (‘one can in translating

  … create the disorienting impression of reading the texts in the original forms (semantic, morphological and stylistic) of the foreign language’) (quoted in Inês Oseki-Dépré, Théories et pratiques de la traduction littéraire (Paris, 1999), p. 76).

  43 Venuti, The Scandals of Translation, p. 4.

  130

  Tadhg Ó Síocháin

  Venuti maintains that this danger may be reduced significantly by a translation

  strategy that foregrounds the strangeness, the distinctive linguistic and cultural

  features of the original: in other words, ‘Good translation … manifests in its own

  language the foreignness of the foreign text’.44 The Modern Irish translator of Old

  and Middle Irish literature is working against a background where, pushed to the

  periphery in most areas of economic, social and literary life, Modern Irish is in a

  perilous position. It has been displaced, even as the language of mediation of its own older literature, by powerful languages that hold the high ground in international

  transactions, with the attendant dangers we have discussed.

  Parallel Translation

  As with all writing, it behoves the translator to reflect on his/her target readership.