Reviewed by:

• Shatter the Bell in My Ear: Selected Poems by Christine Lavant
• Vincent Kling

Clichés grow entrenched when they capture some truth; accordingly, the perennial indictment of translators as traitors rightly acknowledges that no translation, however skilled, can replicate all the qualities of the original.Failure or at best shortfall is inherent, a foregone conclusion, so bilingual editions of poems, like this selection from each of Lavant's volumes, are thus "no more than an honest admission of defeat from the outset," to quote Tim Parks. Lavant and Chorlton side by side provide readers with many moments of gratitude and admiration for apt renderings, but that juxtaposition raises demurrers as well.

More than in most other pursuits, no assessment of any translation can be free of confirmation bias. As David Bellos pertinently asks, "How can you have theories and principles about a process that comes up with no determinate results?" Translators who believe, for example, that rhyme need not be replicated will usually judge the rhymes in Dorothy L. Sayers's version of Dante as awkward, clumsy, and forced; those who insist that capturing rhyme is essential will find them graceful, adept, and natural. This reviewer, himself a translator, has never read any rationale for omitt ing rhyme that didn't ring hollow, as here; Chorlton writes (xiv), "I have chosen more of the free verse poems [ … ] and where there is rhyme I find it preferable to hold on to the tone and meaning than attempting to replicate the echoing sounds." How does one aim preclude the other? Look at Anthea Bell's version of "Gingko Biloba" from Goethe's West- Östlicher Divan for an outstanding achievement in all respects. Look at Gunhild Kübler's triumphant edition of Emily Dickinson in German, at Max Knight's Christian Morgenstern, at Norman R. Shapiro's Théophile Gautier. Arguments that rhyme cannot or should not be transmitt ed are invalidated by Sayers, as noted, or, for just one more example, by Babett e Deutsch's rendering of Eugene Onegin, matched in this generation by Antony Wood's forthcoming edition of Pushkin's poetry. (Nabokov's perverse, mean-spirited rejection of rhyme in his rendering of Pushkin is one of the great betrayals in the whole history of translation.) These examplesrender inadmissible to this reviewer/translator that thereis any valid reason for Chorlton to avoid Lavant's rhymes, as if not observing them made the poems more authentic somehow. [End Page 161]

Where Chorlton has distinct success is in so often finding apt renderings of Lavant's diction. Philippe Jaccott et (translated by Tess Lewis) uses a striking image to characterize Lavant's work: "beautiful as the old crucifixes in country churches, like old cloth, coarse and rough." Lavant's technical mastery, subtle and unobtrusive, is complete, notably as to lineation, but the reclusive countrywoman who wrote these poems never shows offor attempts conspicuous virtuosity. Chorlton keeps his translations as close to the earth and objects in nature, as does Lavant in not "improving" a diction almost always purposely reticent, expressing the depths of emotion through an animal, a plant, a household object, a rock, a tree, aspiring to the humility religious grounding offers while remaining in fierce debate with faith and without expecting spiritual assurance or comfort. It gratifies Bellos to say that no two translators would ever produce the same result, but this translator respects "Among withering apple trees / the souls of beggars speak / about bread that never runs out" (21) as an alert response to "Unter verdorrenden Apfelbäumen / reden die Seelen der Bett ler / von Brot, das nie ausgeht," or later in the same poem (Die Bett lerschale), "deaf and dumb children learn / the language of roots and of stones" ("und taubstumme Kinder erlernen / die Sprache von Wurzeln und Steinen"). The English features even more prominently the balance of two elements in each line, whereas the German "taubstumme" combines in one word what stands out better as two.

Chorlton is also alert to Lavant's nuances of rhythm, even if he does not replicate them without modification...

审核人：

• 敲碎我的耳朵：克里斯汀·拉万特的诗选
• 文森特·克林（Vincent Kling）

当陈词滥调抓住一些真理时，他们就会变得根深蒂固。因此，翻译家作为叛徒的常年性起诉正确地承认，无论翻译多么熟练，翻译都无法复制原著的全部特质。失败或至多是内在的缺陷，这已成定局。蒂姆·帕克斯（Tim Parks）引用拉万特（Lavant）的作品数量，“仅是从一开始就诚实地承认失败”。拉万特（Lavant）和乔尔顿（Chorlton）并肩为读者提供了许多对适当渲染的感激和钦佩之刻，但并列也引起了反驳。

与大多数其他追求相比，对任何翻译的评估都不能没有确认偏差。正如大卫·贝罗斯（David Bellos）恰当地问到的那样：“对于没有确定结果的过程，您如何拥有理论和原则？” 例如，认为不需要复制押韵的翻译者通常会把多萝西·塞耶斯（Dorothy L. Sayers）的但丁版本的押韵判断为笨拙，笨拙和强迫。那些坚持押韵必不可少的人会发现它们优美，娴熟且自然。这位评论员本人是一名翻译，他从未读过任何没有漏空的押韵的原理，如这里：乔尔顿写道（十四），“我选择了更多的自由诗歌[…]，在有韵律的地方，我发现保持音调和含义比尝试复制回声更为可取。” 一个目标如何排除另一个目标？看看歌德（Goethe）的安西娅·贝尔（Anthea Bell）的《银杏叶》（Gingko Biloba）版本West-ÖstlicherDivan在各个方面都取得了杰出成就。在诺曼·R·夏皮罗（Norman R. Shapiro）的ThéophileGautier的马克斯·奈特（Max Knight）的克里斯蒂安·摩根斯特恩（Christian Morgenstern）中，看一下冈希尔德·库伯勒（GunhildKübler）的德语版艾米莉·狄金森（Emily Dickinson）的凯歌版。如前所述，Sayers使无法或不应传输押韵的论点无效，或者仅举另一个例子，Babett e Deutsch的Eugene Onegin渲染使之无效。，与安东尼·伍德（Antony Wood）即将出版的普希金诗歌版本相匹配。（纳博科夫在他的《普希金》译本中不合情理，刻薄地拒绝押韵是整个翻译史上最伟大的背叛之一。）这些例子使这篇评论家/翻译家不接受，有充分的理由使乔尔顿避免拉凡特的押韵，因为如果不观察它们的话，这首诗会以某种方式变得更加真实。[结束页161]

乔尔顿（Chorlton）取得显著成功的地方是经常找到拉万特（Lavant）辞典的恰当渲染图。菲利普·雅科特（Philippe Jaccott）等人（由苔丝·刘易斯（Tess Lewis）翻译）使用了惊人的图像来刻画拉万特的作品：“美丽，就像乡村教堂中的旧耶稣受难像，像旧布一样，粗糙而粗糙。” 拉万特的技巧精湛，微妙且不引人注目，是完整的，尤其是在叙事方面，但是写这些诗的这位隐居的乡下妇女从来没有表现出明显的技艺。乔尔顿（Chorlton）的翻译尽可能贴近地球和自然界，拉万特（Lavant）也不总是“故意地”提高词典的清晰度，它通过动物，植物，家用物品，岩石，树木来表达情感的深度，渴望谦卑的宗教信仰，但仍要怀着信心继续进行激烈的辩论，而不期望得到精神上的保证或安慰。贝洛斯很高兴地说，没有两个翻译者会产生相同的结果，但是这个翻译者尊重“枯萎的苹果树/乞be的灵魂在讲/关于永不耗尽的面包”（21），作为对“维多伦山下的警告”的警惕回应。 Apfelbäumen/还原Seelen der Bett ler / von Brot，das nie ausgeht，”或稍后在同一首诗中（Die Bett lerschale），“聋哑儿童学习/根和石头的语言”（“和taubstumme Kinder erlernen /死于Sprache von Wurzeln和Steinen”）。英文更显着地突出了每行中两个元素之间的平衡，而德语的“ taubstumme”在一个词中结合了两个词之间的区别。

乔尔顿也警惕拉万特的节奏细微差别，即使他没有在未经修改的情况下也无法复制它们。