[Roger Slater]

1. Catullus
2. Bellay
3. Desbordes-Valmore

It was evident to me, as well, who our DG was the moment she addressed Adam as "Mr. Elgar." Thanks in particular for working through such trying personal circumstances.

[Brian Allgar]

Of course, this is a translation event. But I approached them as poems in their own right, and asked myself (perhaps unfairly): which ones would I have enjoyed without knowing that they were translations?

1. Bellay
2. Heine
3. Catullus

[Alex Pepple]

Thank you everyone for the a highly successful translation events -- everyone who submitted, the finalists, the commenters, and especially to our Top Secret extraordinary operative, DG 007, who stuck with the mission despite a sudden incidence of great personal tragedy, and still completed the mission with great aplomb and skill!

About how long the voting thread will stay open, in order to avoid too much overlap with our forthcoming Flash Fiction Workshop, let's make that until, at least, 11:59 PM PST, Monday, October 14. After that, the thread might be locked.

Cheers,
...Alex

[Adam Elgar]

Many thanks to 007, and to the translators, for a highly enjoyable and informative event. Like Maryann, I'm not ready to vote just yet, but am pondering hard.

[Catherine Chandler]

Of course I now know who 007 is, though I had my suspicions before...

I hesitate to vote, since the only languages I have native fluency in are are English, French and Spanish (though I have taken university courses in Russian and German).

To rate -- and indeed write -- a successful literary translation, I believe one must have an intimate knowledge both of the source and target languages as well as the poetic devices, cultural nuances, and historical context, unless one wishes to appreciate and judge the English version simply on its merits as a poem in English, with hints from the crib or what can be garnered by Googling or other research.

That said, my choices are:

(1) Joachim Du Bellay
(2) Marceline Desbordes-Valmore

Like Tim, I have no third choice.

Thank you, Alex and DG007 for an interesting choice of translations and for hosting the bake-off.

[Brian Allgar]

Catherine, I agree with you about the requirements for judging to what extent a translation has succeeded in capturing the essence of the original. Yet - shortcuiting those criteria, as I did - in the end, the (or at least one) question must be: however skilful it may be as a translation, does it work as an English poem?

[Roger Slater]

Only three languages with native proficiency? Tsk tsk. The rest of us are perfectly fluent in six or seven (give or take five or six).

[Catherine Chandler]

Only three languages with native proficiency? Tsk tsk. The rest of us are perfectly fluent in six or seven (give or take five or six).

Alas, Roger, personal circumstances over the past sixty-odd years have led to that pesky insufficiency, which I tried to use as a justification for my votes.

Had I a better knowledge of Latin (other than a long-ago exposure to the Latin Mass) I might have been able to assess the Catullus translation, which I thought was quite effective as a poem in English.

[Martin Rocek]

I have been reading and enjoying the poems but haven't had time for thoughtful
comments. I just want to thank Alex and DG007 for their work and let them know
it is greatly appreciated.

Martin

p.s. I really loved the Catullus--I hope that even though I have been only lurking,
I can give it a vote.

[Don Jones]

It's fair to judge a translation without knowing the source language. It's also true that to know both languages makes for a deeper enjoyment, like knowing how to read music to understand more intimately a symphony.

But if we take the second rule too far, then so few would be able to comment at all and traffic at the Translation forum is thin anyway. I think it's important to keep in mind that the two types of critique of translation (by one who knows, and by the other who doesn't, the source language) are critical because

a) a translator needs to understand the source language, and

b) someone who doesn't know the source language must also pass judgment.

Point b is important. The purpose of translation is broadly, though not solely, to make available to audiences a version in their own language, the very audiences that do not know the source language. On the other hand, you need someone who knows the language to ensure that those who don't can take on trust that the version they read is a reasonable approximation. Both watchdogs are necessary.

In any case, how well did Baudelaire or Proust know English? Were they fluent? I don't think so though I could be wrong. I know Proust wasn't. Yet one translated Poe, and the other, Ruskin.