Magin_Edward-thesis

36
creating the image by means of some equivalent in modern day society (Holmes
1988:37).
Later in the chapter, Holmes compares four translators’ renditions of the
d’Orléans poem on all three levels: linguistic, literary (which is split in two, as noted
below) and socio-cultural. For each level, he identifies whether the translator generally
chose to historicize or modernize. The literary level is divided between verse in general
and rondel form, as a poet may still choose to write in a verse form but not use the rondel
form. Alternatively, a poet may use the rondel-like rhyming scheme but not adhere to its
strict seven syllables per line. My discussion below of Holmes’ findings is quite
summarized; I invite the reader to view his text for more specifics (Holmes 1988:41).
The first translator listed (Adam Khan) was found to have historicized on every
level. He predominantly used archaic, Middle English language and retained use of the
rondel form. He also retained the socio-cultural themes in the original poem. The next
translator (Gavin Ewart) modernized on the linguistic, verse and rondel levels, writing in
a modern style and in free verse. This poet, however, retained socio-cultural features of
the poem, historicizing on that level. The third translator (Peter Rowlett) modernized on
the literary and verse levels, retaining the rondel form (but not the syllable count, which
Holmes would view as historicizing on the verse level) and historicizing on the sociocultural
level. Finally, the fourth translator (G.R. Nicholson) modernized on every level
but the rondel form (Holmes 1988:41).
The four translations may be summarized on four levels: linguistic, verse
(general), rondel, and socio-cultural. Each poet either historicized (H) or modernized
(M) on each of these levels. For example, Khan historicized on every level and may be
summarized as (H-H-H-H). The other poets are summarized as follows: Ewart (M-M-M-
H), Rowlett (M-M-H-H), and Nicholson (M-M-H-M). Holmes (1988:41) observes that
none of the translators modernized on every level. Hence, one may surmise that
translators of older poetry sense the need to retain something of the historicity of the
original in their translations. He also points out that three out of the four translators chose
a retentive strategy on the socio-cultural level, which for him raises the question: