Aktív témák

• #4 gregorik senior tag

  2005-01-14 10:57:17 #4

  Összes hozzászólása itt Válaszok az összes hozzászólására itt Válaszok erre a hozzászólásra

  Privát üzenet küldése

  

  gregorik

  senior tag

  Comparison of three versions of a passage from Richard II
  Gregorik András AN311.40
  
  
  The following selection is from Act 5 Scene III of Richard II, the first part of the Bard's historical tetralogy composed probably in 1595. The paper is concerned with comparing a classic and a modern Hungarian translation with the original. The early translation was done by Szász Károly and originally published possibly in the 13th volume of Kisfaludy Társaság's Shakespeare anthology in 1872, Pest. The later translation is a mid-20th Century affair by Vas István, published, among numerous other volumes, in the 1992 Complete Works of Shakespeare by Helikon Kiadó. The original passage follows1:
  
  SCENE III. A royal palace.
  
  Enter HENRY BOLINGBROKE, HENRY PERCY, and other Lords
  HENRY BOLINGBROKE
  Can no man tell me of my unthrifty son?
  'Tis full three months since I did see him last;
  If any plague hang over us, 'tis he.
  I would to God, my lords, he might be found:
  Inquire at London, 'mongst the taverns there,
  For there, they say, he daily doth frequent,
  With unrestrained loose companions,
  Even such, they say, as stand in narrow lanes,
  And beat our watch, and rob our passengers;
  Which he, young wanton and effeminate boy,
  Takes on the point of honour to support
  So dissolute a crew.
  
  HENRY PERCY
  My lord, some two days since I saw the prince,
  And told him of those triumphs held at Oxford.
  
  HENRY BOLINGBROKE
  And what said the gallant?
  
  HENRY PERCY
  His answer was, he would unto the stews,
  And from the common'st creature pluck a glove,
  And wear it as a favour; and with that
  He would unhorse the lustiest challenger.
  
  HENRY BOLINGBROKE
  As dissolute as desperate; yet through both
  I see some sparks of better hope, which elder years
  May happily bring forth. But who comes here?
  
  
  Enter DUKE OF AUMERLE
  DUKE OF AUMERLE
  Where is the king?
  
  HENRY BOLINGBROKE
  What means our cousin, that he stares and looks
  So wildly?
  
  DUKE OF AUMERLE
  God save your grace! I do beseech your majesty,
  To have some conference with your grace alone.
  
  HENRY BOLINGBROKE
  Withdraw yourselves, and leave us here alone.
  
  
  Exeunt HENRY PERCY and Lords
  What is the matter with our cousin now?
  
  DUKE OF AUMERLE
  For ever may my knees grow to the earth,
  My tongue cleave to my roof within my mouth
  Unless a pardon ere I rise or speak.
  
  HENRY BOLINGBROKE
  Intended or committed was this fault?
  If on the first, how heinous e'er it be,
  To win thy after-love I pardon thee.
  
  DUKE OF AUMERLE
  Then give me leave that I may turn the key,
  That no man enter till my tale be done.
  
  HENRY BOLINGBROKE
  Have thy desire.
  
  DUKE OF YORK
  [Within] My liege, beware; look to thyself;
  Thou hast a traitor in thy presence there.
  
  HENRY BOLINGBROKE
  Villain, I'll make thee safe.
  
  
  Drawing
  DUKE OF AUMERLE
  Stay thy revengeful hand; thou hast no cause to fear.
  
  DUKE OF YORK
  [Within] Open the door, secure, foolhardy king:
  Shall I for love speak treason to thy face?
  Open the door, or I will break it open.
  
  
  Enter DUKE OF YORK
  HENRY BOLINGBROKE
  What is the matter, uncle? speak;
  Recover breath; tell us how near is danger,
  That we may arm us to encounter it.
  
  DUKE OF YORK
  Peruse this writing here, and thou shalt know
  The treason that my haste forbids me show.
  
  DUKE OF AUMERLE
  Remember, as thou read'st, thy promise pass'd:
  I do repent me; read not my name there
  My heart is not confederate with my hand.
  
  DUKE OF YORK
  It was, villain, ere thy hand did set it down.
  I tore it from the traitor's bosom, king;
  Fear, and not love, begets his penitence:
  Forget to pity him, lest thy pity prove
  A serpent that will sting thee to the heart.
  
  HENRY BOLINGBROKE
  O heinous, strong and bold conspiracy!
  O loyal father of a treacherous son!
  Thou sheer, immaculate and silver fountain,
  From when this stream through muddy passages
  Hath held his current and defiled himself!
  Thy overflow of good converts to bad,
  And thy abundant goodness shall excuse
  This deadly blot in thy digressing son.
  
  DUKE OF YORK
  So shall my virtue be his vice's bawd;
  And he shall spend mine honour with his shame,
  As thriftless sons their scraping fathers' gold.
  Mine honour lives when his dishonour dies,
  Or my shamed life in his dishonour lies:
  Thou kill'st me in his life; giving him breath,
  The traitor lives, the true man's put to death.
  
  DUCHESS OF YORK
  [Within] What ho, my liege! for God's sake,
  let me in.
  
  HENRY BOLINGBROKE
  What shrill-voiced suppliant makes this eager cry?
  
  DUCHESS OF YORK
  A woman, and thy aunt, great king; 'tis I.
  Speak with me, pity me, open the door.
  A beggar begs that never begg'd before.
  
  HENRY BOLINGBROKE
  Our scene is alter'd from a serious thing,
  And now changed to 'The Beggar and the King.'
  My dangerous cousin, let your mother in:
  I know she is come to pray for your foul sin.
  
  DUKE OF YORK
  If thou do pardon, whosoever pray,
  More sins for this forgiveness prosper may.
  This fester'd joint cut off, the rest rest sound;
  This let alone will all the rest confound.
  
  
  Enter DUCHESS OF YORK
  DUCHESS OF YORK
  O king, believe not this hard-hearted man!
  Love loving not itself none other can.
  
  DUKE OF YORK
  Thou frantic woman, what dost thou make here?
  Shall thy old dugs once more a traitor rear?
  
  DUCHESS OF YORK
  Sweet York, be patient. Hear me, gentle liege.
  
  
  Kneels
  HENRY BOLINGBROKE
  Rise up, good aunt.
  
  DUCHESS OF YORK
  Not yet, I thee beseech:
  For ever will I walk upon my knees,
  And never see day that the happy sees,
  Till thou give joy; until thou bid me joy,
  By pardoning Rutland, my transgressing boy.
  
  DUKE OF AUMERLE
  Unto my mother's prayers I bend my knee.
  
  
  The first striking difference between not only the two Hungarian versions but even the above original and the 19th century Szász translation is the fact that the latter actually marks Scene 3 as Scene 2, with the original Scene 3 ending (Enter Sir Exton Pierce and a Servant) substituted as a minuscule Scene 3 with an interesting footnote below: “Több kiadás itt nem kezd új színt. Fölösleges is a változas. A király stb. eltávozása után, az üresen maradt színre jöhet egyenesen Exton stb.” This is of course proof that Szász himself compared two or more English editions and still seems to have opted for an 'unorthodox' one, at least by today's standards. Thus as far as the Szász version is concerned, from now on we focus on what it labels as Act 5 Scene 2, while the other versions are both Scene 3.
  Another quirk of the Szász translation from the beginning of the passage is its relative verbosity depicting the surroundings. Both the original and the late translation are laconic in their ways, simply stating 'A royal palace' and 'Windsor vára'; Szász writes: 'Windsor. Szoba a kastélyban'. This tiny addition may be seen as sign of the times of 19th century Pest, more precisely the Ausgleich era: a touch of self-importance or pompousness; but this is probably being carried away.
  Progressing through the text to line 4, we arrive to an intriguing detail: the original cries out, 'I would to God, mylords, he might be found', with the 20th century translation closely following it: 'Hol találhatnók meg, az Istenért?'2. It is the 'Ausgleich'-version again that strikes us with its dissonance: there is no trace of 'God' in 'Urak, szeretném feltalálni őt.' This fact could be the breeding ground for a range of speculations – which we are bound to avoid here –, but the most probable cause is that circa 1870 Hungary in general was an incomparably more pious country, especially officially, than either Shakespeare himself – in particular the young one circa 1595, the one who abandoned his wife and child and was known for his love of London pubs – or the same Hungary around 1950, at the time the second translation was born. Circa 1870, crying out to God on the printed paper was deemed unacceptable, if only due to an unwritten consent; translators of even Shakespeare felt they ought to alter or, in this instance, eliminate similar outcries if their work was to pass editors' scrutiny. In Vas István's time, on the other hand, one could write on God and Christianism whatever he liked, though for all the wrong reasons. 1950 era Budapest and 1595 Shakespeare had probably more in common than meets the eye: materialism, cynicism, bitterness and a degree of depravity are traits the two seems to have shared.
  That said, the now appropriate next lines on London pubs and riff-raff are closely translated in both versions, with no serious deviations. That is, until the original's broad expression of 'stews', at which point the roles seem to reverse: the pious 1870 version boldly translates the line as 'Azt mondta, bordélyházba megy...', while the 1950 text puts it simply as 'Csak azt, hogy tüstént a városba megy...'. At first glance it is hard to see the point in this as the former version's context was established as a God-fearing and pure environment in contrast with the latter text's which is supposed to be sort of rotten. Then we return to our earlier remark that circa 1870 Pest-Buda was regarded pious especially officially and go on to consider the historic fact that brothel life greatly prospered under the surface; now we have reason to surmise that the Ausgleich-era text, as a sign of its time, possibly went into a state of denial: an officially pious state with an underground 'stew' life. Focusing on the late text, it had nothing to deny, since by 1950 Budapest brothels were aggressively rooted out, as far as this author's knowledge is concerned. In fact, they were uncommon until as late as 1989.
  Our next point of interest is a short question a few lines below; the original is a polite and restrained 'But who comes here?' and is closely imitated by 1870's 'Nos ki jő?'. The Vas version however reads more like a violent outburst: 'Ki jön már megint?'. 20th century literary translators in general grew bolder and more outspoken; this was mainly due to the forceful current of first Realism/Naturalism, later Modernism demanding more lifelike, even gritty, uncompromising dialogues free of anything bombastic or pompous – which would deem these dramatic dialogues downright laughable for 20th century audiences. 'Ki jön már megint?' is a long way from 'But who comes here?', but this was a path necessary to travel through in order for 16th century works to gain total acceptance 350 years in the future. Today's English-speaking Shakespeare audiences are in fact known to be envious of foreign theater-goers for the modern translations they are treated.
  The next significant dissonance comes further below in a line uttered by Bolingbroke; here the new text is more informative than either the original or the 1870 example; while Szász is faithful ('A szinpad változik'), Vas elaborates: 'Szinünk komolyról bohózatra vált'. The above mentioned new cultural currents that the c.1950 version was no doubt exposed to in its making also allowed for a certain degree of artistic freedom in the act of translation. 'Elaboration' may indeed be the most precise term in this case: what Shakespeare and the early translator only cursorily indicates, the late translator feels free to unfold employing more than one expression. This practice may have been intolerable in the artistically less flexible Pest-Buda of 1870.
  Bolingbroke's same sentence proceeds as: 's épen talál/Az a darab ránk: Koldusnő és király.' in the early text. In turn, it is this text that turns out to be the more informative in this instance, because a footnote reads: 'Shakspere (sic!) elött s korában kedvelt szinmü czime.' The late translation seems oblivious as to informing the reader on what exactly is 'The Beggar and the King'; it probably expects that the reader assumes it must be just what the early footnote reads. 20th century translations generally assume a higher degree of intelligence and cultural knowledge from their readers' part than early texts.
  It is interesting to note that the 'Beggar' in the title is translated 'Koldusnő' in the 1870 and 'Koldus' in the 1950 text. It seems that this minor alteration was taken by the former in the interest of rhythm.
  Finally, the poetic line by the Duchess, 'Love loving not itself none other can' is “de-poetised” to a certain degree by Szász ('Ki rosz övéihez: hozzád is ál!'), while Vas's version nearly matches the original's psychological and artistic depth: 'Ki magához nem jó, mást sem szerethet.'. 'Love' is personalized by the Bard, while 'Ki' is substituted for it by Vas; Szász also makes 'Ki' out of the essence, however he uses it in an almost unemotional sense as if discussing History or even Politics. This appears to be a good note to conclude on: Shakespeare's invariably soulful originals were always and still are potential subjects to twists and turns from the translators' part on a more superficial level – good-natured or bad.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  References:
  
  Shakespeare szinművei, 13.kötet (Pest, Ráth Mór bizománya, 1872)
  Shakespeare összes művei (Helikon, Budapest, 1992)
  The Complete Moby Shakespeare at ftp://gatekeeper.dec.com/pub/data/shakespeare/

Aktív témák