A Study of the Relationship Between Ted Hughes's Translations of János
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Ted Hughes and the Literal: A study of the relationship between Ted Hughes’s translations of János Pilinszky and his poetic intentions for Crow. Tara Bergin Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy School of English Literature Newcastle University January 2013 Abstract Even those well acquainted with Ted Hughes’s poetry may be unaware of the impact that his work in translation had on his creative practice. Particularly relevant is Hughes’s enthusiasm for what he referred to as ‘the literal,’ a rough text used as a mid-way stage in the co-translation process by poets who have no knowledge of the original language. At one point, Hughes’s co-translator János Csokits advised him: “I think one thing you should explain is your concept of literals which is rather personal and has to be grasped by the ordinary reader – even some of the literary gentlemen may misunderstand what happened to the poems.”1 In Chapter One of this thesis I examine this concept, concentrating on Hughes’s attraction to the broken, slightly foreign sound of translated texts. In Chapter Two, I show how literalness had become a standard by which Hughes was judging the work of a wide range of writers, and suggest that this can be seen as part of a wider literary tradition of seeking an authentic sounding voice. In Chapter Three, I look at the working process of Hughes’s translations of Pilinszky, outlining the similarities between his metaphorical interpretation of literalness, and the poetic stance originally taken by the Hungarian poet – what Pilinszky called his “linguistic poverty.” Finally, in Chapter Four, I argue that Crow serves as a prime example of Hughes’s interest in the literal as a poetic ideal, and discuss the ways in which it can be seen to engage with the stylistic effects of poetry in translation. Using Crow and his translations of János Pilinszky as key sources of data, this thesis illustrates how Hughes’s approach to translation corresponds to his desire, as a poet, to write the “songs of a crow” – in other words, “songs with no music whatsoever.”2 1 János Csokits to Ted Hughes, 29 November 1974. The Ted Hughes Archive, British Library. 2 Ted Hughes, expressing his intention for Crow in his interview with Ekbert Faas, London Magazine 10:10 (1971), 5-20 (p. 20). ii Acknowledgements I would like to thank the Arts and Humanities Research Council, and Newcastle University, for the funding that enabled me to undertake this thesis. Special thanks goes to my supervisors, W. N. Herbert and Francis Jones. I would also like to thank the Emeritus Professor of Poetry at Newcastle, Desmond Graham, for his continuing support. I am grateful to Elaine Feinstein, Francis Jones, Desmond Graham, Keith Sagar, George Szirtes and Daniel Weissbort, for granting interviews. Thanks to Judit Mudriczki and David Palatinas for their help with Pilinszky’s Hungarian; Rachel Foss and Helen Broderick for their help with the archives at The British Library; Frances Pattman for advice on the MPT archives at King’s College London; and thanks especially to Kathy Shoemaker at the Woodruff Library, for her assistance during and following my research visit to Emory University. iii Table of Contents Abstract ii Acknowledgements iii Table of Figures vi List of Abbreviations vii Introduction 1 My Thesis 1 The Structure of the Thesis 5 Literal Translation 10 Anti-scholarship 13 Use of Archives 15 Interviews 16 Chapter One: Beginnings 20 The Early Stages 20 Spoleto 1965 28 Modern Poetry in Translation 32 Collaboration 38 Hughes and Csokits 42 Introducing Pilinszky 50 Chapter Two: Ted Hughes’s Sensibility of Translation 58 Acts of Translation 58 Standards 60 Keith Douglas 64 Vasko Popa 68 Reading the Passion 72 Translation and Violence 82 Shifts of Value 88 Chapter Three: Notions of Literalness 93 The New Original 93 Pilinszky and the Literal 97 Crisis and Creativity 104 On the One Hand Free 108 Bleek and the Literal 110 Hughes the ‘Revelator’ 115 Hughes’s Pilinszky: Verbal Adjustments 119 Hughes’s ‘Apocrypha’ 121 iv Chapter Four: Nearly Illiterate Crow 132 Origins of Crow 134 Crow and The Desert of Love 149 Crow and the Effect of Translation 155 Crow and the Literal 157 Conclusion 170 Appendix: Six interviews 180 Daniel Weissbort 181 George Szirtes 186 Desmond Graham 193 Francis Jones 205 Elaine Feinstein 217 Keith Sagar 225 Bibliography 238 v Table of Figures Figure 1. The first issue of Modern Poetry in Translation 11 Figure 2. Extract from a typescript of Csokits’s literal of Pilinszky’s ‘Apokrif’ 122 vi List of Abbreviations Names JC János Csokits TH Ted Hughes JP János Pilinszky DW Daniel Weissbort Books Letters Ted Hughes, Selected Letters (London: Faber, 2007). ST Ted Hughes, Selected Translations (London: Faber, 2006). WP Ted Hughes, Winter Pollen, US: Picador USA (1994, 1995). DoL János Pilinszky, Desert of Love, trans. János Csokits and Ted Hughes (London: Anvil, 1989). Archive Material Emory ‘The Ted Hughes Papers,’ held at the Manuscript, Archives and Rare Book Library, Emory University, Atlanta. Emory [Restricted] Letters from János Csokits to Ted Hughes, held at the Manuscript, Archives and Rare Book Library, Emory University, Atlanta. These letters required written permission from the copyright holder prior to consultation. vii Introduction My Thesis The 2006 Oxford University Press publication, Translation Theory and Practice: A Historical Reader, states that Ted Hughes must be regarded “as among the major poetry translators in the English tradition.”1 It is a statement which might surprise those who know Hughes only as a poet. Even more perplexing might be the fact that such a claim can be made about a poet who was not fluent in any language other than his own. Certainly, many of us would be confused about the idea that someone who has no knowledge of the source language can translate anything: it seems deeply antithetical not only to the principles of the study of language, but to the whole notion of translation itself, a demanding and highly professionalized business for which it is surely essential to know the language very well indeed. One must ask, therefore, whether it is appropriate to refer to Hughes as a translator at all. Even if we are more specific, and stress that Hughes’s role was that of co-translator (Hughes’s translations of Pilinszky are in fact the result of a close collaboration with another Hungarian writer and poet, János Csokits), we don’t necessarily remove it from suspicion. There is still the possibility that some kind of fraudulent activity has taken place – or at least, some kind of masked creative intervention; a tampering with the process of direct language-to-language conversion. And while the distinctiveness of Hughes’s own poetic voice could be used as evidence in his favour (he was clearly proficient in the host-language), it could also be used against him. The questions remain, therefore: what exactly was Hughes doing, and why? Did he add anything of himself to his translated versions? Did he take anything away to use in his own poems? These are questions which I aim to answer in this thesis, where I examine the nature of Hughes’s approach to translation and its relationship to his own poetic development, by using his Pilinszky translations and Crow as key sources of data. Hughes worked on both texts at the same time. By studying the former, it is possible 1 Astradur Eysteinsson and Daniel Weissbort (eds.), Translation Theory and Practice: a Historical Reader (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), p. 521. 1 to ascertain the idiosyncratic set of principles he developed regarding translation. By studying the latter, it is possible determine the connection between these principles and Hughes’s personal, creative desire to develop a particular and distinct mode of expression in his own writing.2 Regarding the composition of Crow, it is clear that there is a spectrum of influences and cross currents at work in the poet’s imagination. Likely source material ranges from Bushmen Folklore, Celtic myth, archaic literary legends, nursery rhymes, contemporary images, and Hughes’s own studies in anthropology. In its form and style it may have been shaped by his relationship with Sylvia Plath and the effects of her suicide. It was also determined by Hughes’s desire to put aside the poetic conventions and niceties that he perceived in poet-war British poetry. Crow can be regarded as many things, therefore: an idiosyncratic response to confessional poetry; a collection of war poetry; a response to the absurd, and to the black humour of Beckett (though Hughes denies this outright);3 a commentary on man’s destruction of his natural environment. This thesis represents a concentrated attempt to isolate and examine just one of the possible contributing factors: Hughes’s interest in the sound of poetry in translation, and his search, both in his translations and his own writing, for a vocabulary which would be as immediate, and as authentic sounding, as possible. * Most of Hughes’s translations – starting with a version he made of Homer in 1961 and ending with one of Pushkin in 1998 – are ‘co-translations,’ and nearly all required a collaborative process similar to the one he embarked on with János Csokits. Thus, while over a period of almost forty years Hughes converted texts from the Portuguese, Hungarian, French, Hebrew, Latin, Romanian, Italian, German, Greek, Spanish, Bosnian and Russian, for all but the French and possibly the Latin texts, he relied on English versions made by a native speaker. These he would then re-work into his decided poetic shape in English. 2 Hughes first heard of JP around 1964; he began receiving literals of JP’s poetry in the late 1960s.