Q&A: Translating one of the great
works of literature, 'Don Quixote'Widely regarded as the world's first modern
novel, "Don Quixote," is a 16th-century Spanish classic,
a pillar of the Western literary canon. Its author,
Miguel de Cervantes, is routinely compared to
Shakespeare. A new translation by Edith Grossman brings
to life for English readers the "Man from La Mancha" and
his lovable, fallible, ever-so-human squire, Sancho
Panza. Ms. Grossman discusses her role as "translator,"
and why "Don Quixote" is a book for all time, to be read
by young and old alike, with csmonitor.com's Jim
Bencivenga
Translating great
works of literature is an art and a science. The
translator must have a keen sense for the "spirit" of
the language of the original work and the language into
which it is being translated (the art); the translator
must be rooted in the historical setting, the actual
manners, customs and mores of the work's time and place
(the science). How did you strike a balance between the
two? Or does your superb translation reflect a natural
"gift" that translators just have (or must develop)?
I have no doubt about the
art of translating, but I'm not sure about the science.
I think I prefer the word craft. Someone - it may have
been Gregory Rabassa - said that you can teach craft but
not art. The art of translation includes intuition,
natural gifts, a talent for writing, an ear for language
(the same kind of ear that good musicians have). Craft
has to do with the mechanics of how one goes about
creating a translation - ways of reading and hearing a
text, revising techniques, editing.
W.H. Auden said one can't appreciate
opera until at least the age of 40. The canvas is too
large, the language too exaggerated. Do you think this
is true of "Don Quixote" by Cervantes? Is this a book
that young people will read and delight in? In truth, lo
many years ago I was required to read "Don Quixote" in
high school and college and it did little for me. From
the first page of your translation my chair was
transformed into a literary Rocinante (Don Quixote's
fabled horse), and I haven't stopped riding yet.
When one has reached what is delicately
called a certain age, it begins to seem that maturity
brings with it a ripened sensibility. But the experience
of great art should not be denied anyone, no matter how
young or how likely they are to miss certain crucial
aspects of a work. I think people of all ages can enjoy
"Don Quixote," though their responses to the book may
differ. Soon after "Don Quixote" was published, someone
said that if you see a young man walking down the
street, reading a book, and periodically slapping his
forehead and bursting into laughter, you can be sure
he's reading "Don Quixote." Then too, the younger you
are when you first read the book, the more opportunities
you have to reread it in your lifetime; each reading
will bring with it a new set of insights, pleasures, and
perceptions.
Was Cervantes a feminist, albeit a 16th
century feminist? I know it is dangerous to equate a
contemporary zeitgeist with someone writing almost four
centuries ago, but his sensitivity to women wanting to
make decisions for themselves - Marcela (the countess
who leaves her privileged state to live as a
shepherdess) and Dulcinea (the simple peasant women
idealized by Don Quixote) - certainly suggests a
sensitivity to women seeking their own identity.
Cervantes a feminist! It never occurred to
me. I tend to doubt it - at least in any modern sense of
the word. I think the issue is less a matter of "women
seeking their own identity" and more a question of women
disguising themselves as men to escape untenable
situations, taking certain risks to claim the husbands
who are rightfully and legally theirs, or, in one case,
to convert to Christianity. Yet Cervantes seems to
admire his strong, virtuous female characters, and by
the same token, I don't think it is a coincidence that
the cruel and sadistic duchess has ulcers on her
legs.
Did you find any linguistically
incompatible concepts in translating Spanish into
English? And if you did, how did you reconcile the final
version you published?
I'm not sure what you mean by
"linguistically incompatible concepts." I think most
concepts are translatable, even if some specific words
may not be. One of the reasons I used footnotes was to
explain certain puns and word plays, as well as to
clarify allusions and references that might have been
obscure for contemporary readers.
Don Quixote is often called the first
modern novel. Without getting too academic, would you
share a few reasons why you agree or disagree with that
statement.
I agree that "Don Quixote" is the first
modern novel. The primary reason, I think, is that the
central characters grow, develop, and change. At the end
of the book Don Quixote and Sancho Panza are not who
they were at the beginning. They are influenced by each
other, by the people they meet, by what happens to them;
they affect the world, and the world has an impact on
them. This may be at the heart of narrative realism, and
you could make a case for realism (what Cervantes called
"verisimilitude," the lack of which was the reason for
his attack on books of chivalry) as the great constant
in the western novelistic tradition.
The human condition presents us with
examples, and/or experiences, of brutality that seem to
overwhelm us. There are many cruel scenes in "Don
Quixote." Isn't part of Cervantes' genius (and a
precursor of the tremendous versatility of the novel as
a genre) in the way he considers life's hardships
through the sensibility of both Sancho and Don Quixote?
Is it that somehow tragedy seems more understandable
when shared?
The novel has always been a kind of mixed
genre, with humor, joy, comedy, brutality, sadness, and
tragedy appearing in the same work. I don't mean brief
comic interludes in a tragedy (the gravediggers in
"Hamlet," for instance); rather, I think an almost
inseparable combination of these elements is intrinsic
to the structure of the novel.
If you were pressed, however
arbitrarily, what do you think are the two greatest
similarities between the times of Don Quixote and Sancho
in the 16th century and today? The two greatest
differences?
The similarities between the 16th century
and today: the nature of human beings has not changed.
Their reactions are recognizable. In both cases the
times were (or are) turbulent, dangerous, and in
transition. The differences: modern technology,
especially in communications, has changed the world
drastically; in the industrialized world at least, the
majority of people are literate. As a consequence, the
oral tradition at Sancho's disposal is becoming - or
already may be - extinct.
In Harold Bloom's introduction to your
translation of "Don Quixote," the renowned critic
compares Cervantes to Shakespeare. In your opinion, how
legitimate is this comparison?
I think the comparison of Cervantes to
Shakespeare is valid. Each created archetypal figures
that still resonate today; each wrote lines and invented
characters known to people who have never read their
works; each created literary worlds that teem with life
and relevance. I find it fascinating that musical
theater has dipped into their works for inspiration
("Kiss Me Kate," "West Side Story," "Man of La Mancha"
come immediately to mind).
|