Duino elegies, which translations are good?

[Erik Oestlyngen]

The fact that there are so many indicates that few of them are
satisfactory. However, I don't read german well enough, so I need a
translation (english) or a bilingual edition.

Any suggestions (or warnings)? I would buy a bilingual edition only if
it is also the best translation (I could always get a german edition
as well).

Erik P. Østlyngen

[Ron Hardin]

Stephen Mitchell _The Selected Poetry of Rainer Maria Rilke_
also it is the only edition with an original version of the 10th
and another in the appendix. Vintage 1984

It's not only the best translation but it's bilingual.
--
Ron Hardin
rhha...@mindspring.com

On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.

[Francis Muir]

Definitely not Constance Garnett's. Like all hers it is quite execrable.

[Douglas Clark]

I have always preferred the Leishman/Spender.
--
Douglas Clark, Bath, England mailto: d.g.d...@bath.ac.uk
Lynx: Poetry from Bath .......... http://www.bath.ac.uk/~exxdgdc/lynx.html

[smw]

get several, much of the original will emerge out of the discrepancies

s

[Paul Rubin]

There was one that I saw that was so good, it was scary. I *think*
it was Stephen Mitchell's but I'm not sure.

[Douglas Clark]

I have gone off Stephen Mitchell re Rilke. It is the quality of
his language which dont now appeal to me although it may please
Americans. He isnt "poetic". I agree with Silke that you should
read all the translations you can get hold of.

[Douglas Clark]

And WCW is "poetic". I am talking about quality of language.

[Michael Dorfman]

On 13 Mar 2001 16:17:09 +0100, Erik Oestlyngen
<er...@vile.telelogic.com> wrote:

My favorite is that of A.J. Poulin (which is a bilingual edition).

Michael Dorfman

[Feuillade]

michael...@my-deja.com (Michael Dorfman) writes:

> My favorite is that of A.J. Poulin
> (which is a bilingual edition).

Poulin would be my choice as well.

Tom Moran

http://members.aol.com/Feuillade/TomMoran.index.html

[Randi]

I had one by Gary Miranda, who is an okay poet in his own right, which was
quite good. The Mitchell is very good, as well, and I don't agree with
those who say its language is not "poetic" enough. The elaborate run-on
ideas and arguments and conceits of the Duino Elegies are rather difficult
to sort out for many translators, and Mitchell does a good job with that
most difficult task. His language is as "poetic," in my opinion, as the
German original, which doesn't mean it's "as good" but does mean that it
doesn't generally fail the original in level of diction. Other fine
translations of Rilke, not just of Duino, are those of W.D. Snodgrass (great
sonnet translator) and Franz Wright.

"Erik Oestlyngen" <er...@vile.telelogic.com> wrote in message
news:ghdzoep...@vile.telelogic.com...

[Erik Oestlyngen]

"Randi" <misty...@yahoo.com> writes:

> I had one by Gary Miranda, who is an okay poet in his own right, which was
> quite good. The Mitchell is very good, as well, and I don't agree with
> those who say its language is not "poetic" enough. The elaborate run-on
> ideas and arguments and conceits of the Duino Elegies are rather difficult
> to sort out for many translators, and Mitchell does a good job with that
> most difficult task. His language is as "poetic," in my opinion, as the
> German original, which doesn't mean it's "as good" but does mean that it
> doesn't generally fail the original in level of diction. Other fine
> translations of Rilke, not just of Duino, are those of W.D. Snodgrass (great
> sonnet translator) and Franz Wright.

Thanks to all of you for the help. I've ordered the Mitchell book
(even though I'm not american). From the excerpts I've read, it looks
like it has a clear and easy language, which is important for my first
read. If other translations preserves the poetic form better
(enjambment, rhyme etc.), I can study them later when I get more
familar with the work.

Erik P. Østlyngen

[smw]

One way to check for 'adequacy' in Rilke translations, at least by my standards of
what a translation should preserve: if it's too smooth, there's a problem. Hence,
I dislike Mitchell. Rilke has awkward moments (in rhythm and diction) that then
resolve themselves again in passages of perfection, like a dissonance in music --
many translations erase these dissonances. I like translations that keep the
German shining through and preserve the slight oddities -- e.g., in the Eighth
Elegy, Rilke speaks of "the early child," and most translators cannot resist to
translate as "young child," "small child," etc.

s

[RChamp7927]

sm...@umich.edu

>Rilke has awkward moments (in rhythm and diction) that then
>resolve themselves again in passages of perfection, like a dissonance in
>music --
>many translations erase these dissonances.

I'll have to say that this explains some of the problems I had with a Rilke
translation by smw that appeared in a recent issue of _The American Poetry
Review_. I liked the work as a whole but there were moments when I felt lost.

Bob Champ

[smw]

RChamp7927 wrote:

Good! Duino is full of disorientations, even though VIII is probably
still the smoothest of them all, and the places where you were lost
(nice way of putting it! thanks) may of course still manifest nothing
but my incompetence.

silke

>
>
> Bob Champ
>

[Fiona Webster]

Oh gee, I missed this thread. If it's not too much
trouble, I'd like to hear what folks thought of the
Stephen Mitchell translations. I recently discovered
them, and am most impressed. But I'm often bad at
telling good translations from those that are merely
more obvious, or somehow more interesting, poetry written
by the translator--that doesn't well represent the
original.

smw?

--Fiona

[smw]

Fiona Webster wrote:

I don't like Mitchell -- far too smooth, far too unphilosophical, far
too unaware of both the oddities and the simplicities of Rilke's
language. He strikes me, and please flame away whoever feels likeit, as
very much to the American taste.
s

[Fiona Webster]

I wrote:
> Oh gee, I missed this thread. If it's not too much
> trouble, I'd like to hear what folks thought of the
> Stephen Mitchell translations. I recently discovered
> them, and am most impressed. But I'm often bad at
> telling good translations from those that are merely
> more obvious, or somehow more interesting, poetry written
> by the translator--that doesn't well represent the
> original.

smw replies:

> I don't like Mitchell -- far too smooth, far too unphilosophical, far
> too unaware of both the oddities and the simplicities of Rilke's

> language. He strikes me, and please flame away whoever feels like it, as

> very much to the American taste.

"OUCH! You're just a mean Eurosnob. I don't want to play with
you any more." <whimper>

Just kidding. Really.

Please do drop the other shoe: whom do you prefer? Do you prefer
different translators for different poems or groups of poems?

--nothing if not a dopey American,

Fiona

[Douglas Clark]

I dont think anybody has replaced Leishman yet, but this is a Eurocentric
argument, Americans prefer their own primitive dialect a la Mitchell.

[Douglas Clark]

Silke is right. Leishman is too pretty and contrived. But putting
aside Mitchell what is the alternative.

[Douglas Clark]

I should say that I also have Hamburger, Bly, POulin (the FRench poems)
and Cohn. I think Bly's Russian poems are the most striking of
these translations.