Thanks, Farasha, for both the Klages essay and this, both of which I’ve now read. Although I’ll have to read it again to understand it fully, I was particularly interested in Otto, as I know Schumacher read it. In the context of S’s development, Otto’s remarks about the ‘other-ness’ of the Eastern religions were very interesting. I was also wondering whether the translations of the Hölderlin poems were yours or whether you drew on existing translations. All told, the essay is very powerful and will no doubt send me towards Hölderlin. I might also mention that, thanks to you, I’ve been reading P. Russell’s ‘Something about Poetry’, and learning more about him, with great interest and pleasure. I'm back in Milan, and pining for the hills of Abruzzo..
Yes, the translations from Hölderlin are largely mine, though I did get stuck in a few places and check earlier translations. I consider my translations here wholly provisional and very inadequate, and am working out how to translate Hölderlin for my translation of Otto's "Theophania." Currently there are three English translations of Hölderlin that are worth reading: Hamburger (who gets the rhythm right, at least in the odes and elegies), Constantine (who gets closer to the spirit), and Sieburth / Hoff (who stradle the distance, but often come out flat). Probably Hamburger is the best, but he had no sympathy for Hölderlin's world-view and he really gets the all-important late hymns wrong because he wasn't conversant enough in the Greek meter of Pindar. I am playing around with things, but Hölderlin did what was barely possible in German, and I am really not sure it is possible in English. I suggest you also check out his prose writings and his drama "Death of Empedocles." Heidegger's writings on Hölderlin are helpful even though he often uses him to further his own views.
He means that Constantine isn't trying so hard to mimetically reproduce the meter of the verses.
Generally speaking, I am not fond of mimetic translations of poetry, but Hamburger's are rather special, being the product of six decades work and reflection. I do like Constantine as well, and his volume is worth getting for comparison and for his translation of Hölderlin's Sophocles. Constantine is one of the very few living poets I read and respect: his original work is uneven, but shines in places, and his translation of Faust II probably brings as much into English as is possible.
BTW, the Penguin volume of Hamburger's Hölderlin translations has most of the poetry, but skips The Death of Empedocles. Hamburger's version is far superior to Krell's, so if you can find a copy of the out of print Carcanet/Anvil 4th edition it is highly recommended.
Oh, and by the way, I would take Michael Hofmann's reviews with a grain of salt, since I am not fond of any of his translations.
one of the most important things ive ever read, thank you
Thank you.
Thanks, Farasha, for both the Klages essay and this, both of which I’ve now read. Although I’ll have to read it again to understand it fully, I was particularly interested in Otto, as I know Schumacher read it. In the context of S’s development, Otto’s remarks about the ‘other-ness’ of the Eastern religions were very interesting. I was also wondering whether the translations of the Hölderlin poems were yours or whether you drew on existing translations. All told, the essay is very powerful and will no doubt send me towards Hölderlin. I might also mention that, thanks to you, I’ve been reading P. Russell’s ‘Something about Poetry’, and learning more about him, with great interest and pleasure. I'm back in Milan, and pining for the hills of Abruzzo..
Yes, the translations from Hölderlin are largely mine, though I did get stuck in a few places and check earlier translations. I consider my translations here wholly provisional and very inadequate, and am working out how to translate Hölderlin for my translation of Otto's "Theophania." Currently there are three English translations of Hölderlin that are worth reading: Hamburger (who gets the rhythm right, at least in the odes and elegies), Constantine (who gets closer to the spirit), and Sieburth / Hoff (who stradle the distance, but often come out flat). Probably Hamburger is the best, but he had no sympathy for Hölderlin's world-view and he really gets the all-important late hymns wrong because he wasn't conversant enough in the Greek meter of Pindar. I am playing around with things, but Hölderlin did what was barely possible in German, and I am really not sure it is possible in English. I suggest you also check out his prose writings and his drama "Death of Empedocles." Heidegger's writings on Hölderlin are helpful even though he often uses him to further his own views.
I have just come across this enjoyable, if not very sympathetic, review of Hamburger's translation of Hölderlin.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2004/nov/20/featuresreviews.guardianreview12
Do you know what Hoffman means when he says that "Constantine doesn't try so hard to scan"? What does "scan" mean among translators?
He means that Constantine isn't trying so hard to mimetically reproduce the meter of the verses.
Generally speaking, I am not fond of mimetic translations of poetry, but Hamburger's are rather special, being the product of six decades work and reflection. I do like Constantine as well, and his volume is worth getting for comparison and for his translation of Hölderlin's Sophocles. Constantine is one of the very few living poets I read and respect: his original work is uneven, but shines in places, and his translation of Faust II probably brings as much into English as is possible.
BTW, the Penguin volume of Hamburger's Hölderlin translations has most of the poetry, but skips The Death of Empedocles. Hamburger's version is far superior to Krell's, so if you can find a copy of the out of print Carcanet/Anvil 4th edition it is highly recommended.
Oh, and by the way, I would take Michael Hofmann's reviews with a grain of salt, since I am not fond of any of his translations.
Thank you. Very interesting.