shirin razmjo
Abstract
IntroductionWhen it comes to translating poetry, especially Hafez's poetry, the translator's way of thinking is evident in their translation, and they cannot prevent the effects of ...
Read More
IntroductionWhen it comes to translating poetry, especially Hafez's poetry, the translator's way of thinking is evident in their translation, and they cannot prevent the effects of their opinion on the text. One of the main features of Hafez's poetry is its polysemy; this feature usually happens at the word and phrase level, which makes it hard to convey in translations. The translator must only pick one of the intended meanings and translate it into the target language; therefore, all translators will not pick the same meanings and put their unique spin on Hafez's poetry. That is why translations of Hafez's poetry are mostly descriptions or even interpretations. But multiple important facts in translation of Hafez's poetry must be analyzed: 1) the importance of correctly understanding his poetry, and 2) the importance of fully understanding the words, phrases, and structures of the target language. The language of poetry from each time and culture requires its skill as an independent component however the translator is familiar with the source and target language. Other factors in translations, such as differences in the context of time, space, culture, and ideologue between the target and source texts, can create severe obstacles in the translation. Material & Methods:In this study a wide array of translations is selected, translations in prose and poetry, literary and fortune-telling from Persian and English translators. This variety is to show the different possible approaches in translating a singular text. This wide diversity offers different (correct and incorrect) interpretations and different translation approaches from the source to the target language. Five translations were selected out of those possibilities: Henry Wilberforce Clarke (1905), Paul Smith (1945), Bly and Lewisohn, Shahriar Shariari (1964), Abbas Aryanpur (1985).The theory of Antoine Berman was one of the significant prevalent theories for translating literary texts. Antoine Berman (1942-1991) presented his hypotheses about translation by criticizing works of classic and contemporary translators. He believes you should maintain the foreign nature of every foreign text in the target language and make no changes in favor of that language because meaning is transfer through the form. This study tries to analyze the selected studies based on the components of Antoine Berman's text deforming system; Berman categorized text deforming based on the following elements: Rationalization, clarification, expansion, ennoblement, qualitative and quantitative impoverishment, destruction of rhythms, destruction of underlying networks of signification, destruction of linguistic patternings, destruction of vernacular network or their eroticization, destruction of expressions and idioms. Discussion: Ghazal No. 407 of Hafez with the first couplet of "Mazra'-ē sabz-e falak Didam o Das-e Mah-e Nou" was selected as the sample for analyzing the selected translations. Here, we present each of the five translations alongside the complete analysis of each Ghazal line. When it comes to the translations, it is safe to say that Wilberforce Clarke completely stayed loyal to the original text; Smith also followed the same path as Clarke. It even seems he got help from Clarke's translation on many occasions. Smith's translation does not follow one method. He is sometimes loyal to the text and occasionally much freer. Bly and Lewisohn try to be as faithful as possible, but their occasional circumlocution deformed the text. Bly and Lewisohn intentionally translate every couplet into three lines even if an independent sentence is broken from the middle of each couplet and moved to the following line. This has led to significant pleonasm and circumlocution that turned the rich tone of Hafez into a colloquial one. Also, they have used some tools to close the gap between Hafez and the English-speaking culture, such as using Christian phrases. The Shariari and Aryanpur translations are different. Aryanpur considered the Divan of Hafez as a kind of Falnama[1] and translated the fortunes beneath each Ghazal. It seems he had the mass English audience in mind. Although his English knowledge is evident because of his works and research background, this English translation of Hafez shows he does not have the necessary literary knowledge level regarding Divan of Hafez. There are many apparent mistakes caused by misreading and misunderstanding the source text in his translation. Shahriari's translation of Divan of Hafez is a free translation distant from the source text. His obligation to maintain the rhyme and row has created many deformations. It seems he would read each verse before translation, close the book, and start composing poetry in English. Sometimes, the first verse of a couplet is the translation from the source text but the second text only has words appropriate for maintaining the rhyme even if they contradict the meaning of the first line. Of course, he has presented an acceptable translation in some verses by completely conveying their meaning. Conclusion:The main problem in translating the Divan of Hafez is the fact that many Persian-speaking audience members of Hafez's work think that they have completely and correctly understood Hafez's work because of their repeated readings; However, there are still many fine details in this work that are still up for debate even after writing countless description books. Therefore, everybody can’t easily understand Hafez, let alone translate it. This fact is true for some Persian translators. It is evident in many cases that the translator only tried to translate Hafez based on their knowledge of the Persian language without any literary knowledge. The translations of some verses show some translators had problems correctly reading those verses, and they have only translated them based on their Persian knowledge without using the help of any descriptions.Unfortunately, free translations are the escape route for translators who have not correctly understood the source text. For example, the translator understood this verse is about destiny, but they did not understand what image the poet created with this concept, the allegory he used, whether he praised or condemned this concept, etc. Therefore, they made their image with destiny and translated that image. References:Ahmadi, Mohammad Rahim (2013). "Antoine Berman and the Theory of Morphological Tendencies; Introducing and examining its applicability in translation criticism. Journal of Foreign Language and Literature Criticism, Volume 6, Number 10, pp. 1-19.Anwari, Hassan (2002). Farnag_e Bozorg_e Soxan (8 volumes). Tehran: Soxan.Arianpur, Abbas (1974). Farhang_e Arianpur. Tehran: Amirkabir.Arianpur, Abbas (1984). Odes of Hafiz: poetical horoscope. Lexington, KY, U.S.A.: Mazdâ Publishers.Bly, Robert; Lewison, Leonard (2012). Doosh Didam ke Mala’ek Dar_e Meixane Zadand (30 Ghazal_e Hafez). Translated by Kazem Firoozmand, Tehran: Markaz.Clarck, Wilberforce (1891). THE DIVAN-I-HAFIZ. Calcatta: Government of India Centre Printing Office.Davis, Dick (2012). "In the untranslatability of Hafez's poem". Translated by Mostafa Hosseini and Behnam Mirzababazadeh Foumashi, Comparative Literature (Special Issue of Farhangestan), Third Year, No. 5, pp. 62-75.Dehkhoda, Ali Akbar (1994). Logat Name (15 volumes). Tehran: University of Tehran.Este’lami, Muhammad (2004). Dars_e Hafez (2 volumes). Tehran: Sokhan Publications.Hafez, Shamsuddin (2006). Divan_e Hafez_e Shirazi. By the efforts of Khalil Khatib Rahbar, Tehran: Safia Ali Shah.Haqshenas, Ali Mohammad and others. (2005). Farhang_e Hezare. Tehran: Farhang_e Moaser.Hosseini Masoom, Seyed Mehdi and Elahe Alizadeh (2015). "Syntactic differences as a challenge in literary translation; Translation of the third person singular pronoun in the English translation of Hafez's Ghazals. Language Studies and Translation, Forty-eighth year, No. 2, pp. 93-112.Kanani, N (2016). Hafez and his Divan as viewed by the west. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.Karimi Hakkak, Ahmad (1996). "Zir_e Bar_e Amanate Hafez". Irannameh, Fourteenth Year, No. 55, pp. 505-521.Khatib Rahbar, Khalil → Hafez, Shamsuddin (2006)Khorramshahi, Bah al_din (h (2006). Hafez Name (2 volumes). Tehran: Elmi Farhangi publication.Keyvani, Majdaldin (2011). "English translations of Hafez's poem". The following is Hafez's entry in the Great Islamic Encyclopedia, Volume 19, under the supervision of Kazem Mousavi Bojnori, Tehran: The Great Islamic Encyclopedia Center.Lolo’i, Parvin (2016). " Translations of Hafez in English". Translated by Mostafa Hosseini, Translator Quarterly, Twenty-fifth year, No. 60, pp. 75-81.Mahdipour, Fatemeh (2010). "A Theory of the Emergence of Translation Theories and a Study of the Text Distortion System by Antoine Berman. Ketab-e Mah_e Adabiat, No. 41, 155 consecutive, pp. 57-63.Mahmoudi Bakhtiari, Behrooz and Mona Poornasr Khakbaz (2011). "Translation of verses with ambiguity (multiple meanings) of words in Hafez's poetry: a comparative study of five translations of his Divan". Journal of Language and Translation Studies (Faculty of Literature and Humanities), No. 4, pp. 97-122.Mahmoudi Bakhtiari, Behrooz (2013). "Radif Translation in Persian Poetry: A Case Study of a Translation from Hafez's Divan". Critique of Foreign Language and Literature, Volume 6, Number 10, pp. 207-243.Mandy, Jeremy (2015). Introduction to translation studies, theories and applications. Translated by Ali Bahrami and Zeinab Tajik, Tehran: Rahnama.Monafi Anari, Salar (2011). "Increase, decrease and adaptation in English translations of Hafez's poems". Translation Studies, Volume 9, Number 35, pp. 87-100.Niknam, Mehrdad (2002). Bibliography of Hafez. Tehran: Elmi and Farhangi.Safavid, Korosh (1992). Seven Talks About Translation. Tehran: Makaz.Shafi'i Kadkani, Mohammad Reza (2017). In Kimiaye Hasti (3 volumes). About Hafez, Tehran: Soxan.Smith, P (1986). Divan of Hafiz. Australia, Melbourn: New Humanity Books.Zendeboodi, Mehran (2011). "From the Self and the Other and Distorted Tendencies in Antoine Berman's Cognitive Translation Discourse to Untranslatability." Journal of Translation Studies, Ninth Year, No. 34, pp. 23-37.http://www.hafizonlove.com. Shahriar Shahriari, 1999 - 2005, Los Angeles, last edited on December 3, 2012. [1] Fortune-telling book
