Doing some research for my dissertation, I came across a Leah Goldberg translation of Emily Dickinson. Hadasah Shapira published a collection of her Dickinson translations in 1981 (Jerusalem, Devir) and I've come across single poem translations here and there. But I find Dickinson immensely difficult to read in English so I'm always curious how translators resolve her idiosyncratic rhymes, syntax and diction. At first glance, Goldberg's translation struck me as far more readable than any Dickinson original. I decided to retranslate it into English, trying forget for a moment what Dickinson sounds like to me. It helped that I didn't recognize this poem. Here's the Goldberg's Hebrew translation:
My literal retranslation into English:
My river will go to you:
Blue sea, will you bless my arrival?My river awaits a reply:
Sea, wish me good tidings!I will bring you brooks
from the refuge of my shadowy abode,Sea, answer me,
take me!
My translation doesn't keep Goldberg's rhyme or meter but I can tell you that the rhyme and meter in Goldberg's translation lend it a nice formal compactness which may be a nod to Dickinson's own measured use of language and tight poetic lines. But the rhyme flows easily, too easily I think. Maybe Goldberg is thinking water-streams-flow, but in Dickinson these standard images are often intensified and challenged by verbal and syntactic contortions that are anything but fluid and safe. Aside from the fact that literal English translations of Hebrew are always more verbose than their original, the Hebrew feels wordy. Goldberg is able to call upon Hebrew's smichut (construct) and pack a lot of imagery in one line, as in the penultimate verse "me-mistor tsilelei navi" (lit. "from the refuge of the shadows of my abode") but Dickinson does the same in even fewer words. So how does any of this compare to the original? Check it out:
My river runs to thee:
Blue sea, wilt welcome me?My river waits reply.
Oh sea, look graciously!I'll fetch thee brooks
From spotted nooks,--Say, sea,
Take me!
Another meaning for "levarekh" is "greet" so Goldberg is not far from Dickinson. Goldberg's use of "levarekh" also has a formal quality that complements Dickinson's "wilt (thou)." I can't quibble with much of it until "spotted nooks." First of all, I've looked around and I haven't found a single definition of "spotted" that suggests "mystery" or "hiding." Perhaps Goldberg visualized this line as a secluded space "spotted" with shadows. Still, Goldberg's translation is consistent with her general view of translation, which declared meter and rhyme important properties that a translator nevertheless should feel free to "sacrifice" or modify in order to keep the content and meaning of a poem intact.
Recent Comments