[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 32 KB, 700x360, Carlyle.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14896084 No.14896084 [Reply] [Original]

Getting conflicting reports.

>> No.14896089

>>14896084
Why don't you read it yourself and find out?

>> No.14896090

>>14896089
I don't speak German so I can't compare.

>> No.14896117

>>14896090
Just took a quick look. It reads more like a victorian novel than Goethe. Takes the distinct feeling of reading Goethe out of the book.

>> No.14896123

>>14896117
So who's translation of Wilhelm Meister do you advise? Considering one cannot read German of such level just yet.

Also, did you really take a look?

>> No.14896126

Very debatable. You're probably better off with a modern translation if, as >>14896117 stated, you find his prose to be too dated in its Victorianism.

>> No.14896127

>>14896084
How does one even grow a beard that nice?

No basedboy beard that's for sure.

>> No.14896130

>>14896127
pure curmudgeon energy.

>> No.14896132

>>14896126
Any translation that is as accurate as Carlyle but doesn't lose his uniqueness?

>> No.14896137

>>14896130
He wasn't that bad-tempered, they do say he was a fantastic orator.

>> No.14896140

>>14896123
>Also, did you really take a look?
Yes.
>So who's translation of Wilhelm Meister do you advise?
Obviously no translation can ever be perfect, but I feel Princeton's translation does a good job.

>> No.14896156

>>14896126
>>14896117
REIGN OF QUEEN VICTORIA: 1837-1901
THOMAS CARLYLE'S TRANSLATION OF WILHELM MEISTER'S APPRENTICESHIP: 1824

>> No.14896162

>>14896132
Eric Blackall is your next best.

>> No.14896163

>>14896156
I wasn't making a historical statement, mind you. I meant to express how the prose felt like.

>> No.14896171

>>14896140
>>14896162
Thank you, will "check it out".

But in general, ignoring the English-time style, is his translation particularly bad or good? Would you say.

>> No.14896177

>>14896163
Which features struck you as Victorian rather than Romantic?

>> No.14896190

>>14896171
Not sure what you mean by "good". I didn't spot any linguistic inaccuracies in the few sentences that I compared, but I'd assume that's a given concerning a scholar of this caliber. At any rate, if you are so fond of Goethe to be so concerned of the translations, I highly suggest learning German. He is a joy to read in his own tongue.

>> No.14896201

>>14896190
I'm learning it now, but it will take at least a year longer until I can start to read someone like Goethe.

>> No.14896203

>>14896171
yes it's good. Bonus points is that it's free and readily available

>> No.14896226
File: 54 KB, 360x450, Carlyle sketch.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14896226

>>14896203
>Such persons I can fearlessly invite to study "Meister." Across the disfigurement of a translation, they will not fail to discern indubitable traces of the greatest genius in our times. And the longer they study, they are likely to discern them the more distinctly. New charms will successively arise to view; and of the many apparent blemishes, while a few superficial ones may be confirmed, the greater and more important part will vanish, or even change from dark to bright. For, if I mistake not, it is with "Meister" as with every work of real and abiding excellence,—the first glance is the least favorable. A picture of Raphael, a Greek statue, a play of Sophocles or Shakspeare, appears insignificant to the unpractised eye; and not till after long and patient and intense examination, do we begin to descry the earnest features of that beauty, which has its foundation in the deepest nature of man, and will continue to be pleasing through all ages.

Why is Carlyle so damn comfy?

>> No.14896571

>>14896203
Should I buy a hard coppee?

>> No.14896685

>>14896171
Dude, anon here who gave this advice weeks ago-
The anon giving this advice is not me, so that's a second opinion
All one has to do is to have read a little Carlyle (whose style is very distinct, no one for instance influenced Dickens more stylistically than Carlyle) to compare his translation with for instance the Princeton (Bollingen). If one is enamored of the way Carlyle writes than by all means read the Carlyle, it's not 'inaccurate' though it feels somehow a lot more Carlylian than Goethian. The Princeton take with its simpler feel and aloofness feels more stylistically correct: Carlyle is a *very* intimate writer; Goethe is not.
Simple as
Take 15 minutes and make the comparison yourself