Eratosphere Forums - Metrical Poetry, Free Verse, Fiction, Art, Critique, Discussions Able Muse - a review of poetry, prose and art

Forum Left Top

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 05-25-2018, 12:52 AM
Andrew Frisardi Andrew Frisardi is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Lazio, Italy
Posts: 4,425
Default

Hi Alex,

Dante uses “fortuna” in this sense in two other passages in his work: in one of his early lyrics and in Purgatorio XXXII, where it’s “come nave in fortuna.” “Fortunale” (still in use in Italian) is derived from “fortuna” because it refers to external conditions brought about by the workings of fortune or fate. And I agree that for D that sfumatura is in the back of his mind. Shelley in fact translates this as “no change, nor any evil chance.” The idea is that the boat is in a timeless place beyond mutability. But I can’t see a way to bring that over into English without forcing something that didn’t have to be forced in D’s poem. In any case, the metaphor of outside fate is already implicit in the storm and bad weather, so I think it’s fine like this, but am certainly open to suggestions.

Speaking of which, which do people prefer for line 5:

so that a gale or tempest couldn't do

or

so that no gale or storm could ever do

??

Hi Bill,

Great to see you on the Sphere again. Glad you enjoyed this.

Andrew
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-25-2018, 01:53 AM
John Isbell John Isbell is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: TX
Posts: 2,863
Default

Hi Andrew,

Yup, I still like this. A little loose, but it works very well in English and brings out a sense of fun which folks deserve to encounter. On your chocie between "so that a gale or tempest couldn't do"

or

"so that no gale or storm could ever do,"

I'd go with the latter, whose syntax I find more limpid. Like Dante.

Cheers,
John
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-25-2018, 02:42 AM
Andrew Frisardi Andrew Frisardi is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Lazio, Italy
Posts: 4,425
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Isbell View Post
On your chocie between "so that a gale or tempest couldn't do"

or

"so that no gale or storm could ever do,"

I'd go with the latter, whose syntax I find more limpid. Like Dante.
I agree, John. I've used that line, with the slight variation of added "nasty" to translate "reo" in the original, so letting me drop the padding-word "ever."

Thanks,

Andrew
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-25-2018, 04:18 AM
John Isbell John Isbell is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: TX
Posts: 2,863
Default

Just to say, I just read the Shelley and am glad folks don't have to rely on that version to get the feel of the thing. Though "evil chance" is ben trovato. :-)

Cheers,
John
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-25-2018, 08:07 AM
Nigel Mace Nigel Mace is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: The Borders and Italy
Posts: 1,460
Default

The Shelley feels so contorted by comparison, Andrew, that your slightly flip 'take' certainly makes its point and makes it well. The cheeky "starts with L" is a star turn.

My two slight nits are the word "nasty" which sounds petty and trivial - a bit like a maiden aunt's description of a seaside outing spoiled - and the assumed two stresses for "naturally", over which I can't stop myself from stumbling.

(I also, perhaps pedantically, can't see the need to abandon the Dante rhyme scheme in the sestet. I'm more than sure you could handle that.)
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-25-2018, 10:34 AM
AZ Foreman's Avatar
AZ Foreman AZ Foreman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 559
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Frisardi View Post
But I can’t see a way to bring that over into English without forcing something that didn’t have to be forced in D’s poem. In any case, the metaphor of outside fate is already implicit in the storm and bad weather, so I think it’s fine like this, but am certainly open to suggestions.
I think it's fine and works as it is in English. I shouldn't have used the word "sufficiently." I just wondered if it could do more, as Dante's line does. But I can't think of many options. One would be to use the word "heavens" in a way that plays off the meteorological and cosmological senses of the word. But that probably doesn't fit the aesthetic you're going for. The others would be very out of keeping and require words like "fey" which don't suit the mood.

Quote:
Speaking of which, which do people prefer for line 5:

so that a gale or tempest couldn't do

or

so that no gale or storm could ever do
I vote for option no. 2
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-25-2018, 06:52 PM
Bill Carpenter Bill Carpenter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 2,182
Default

Your Shakespearean "tempest" was probably the best equivalent semantically. How would "no gale or nasty squall" do? "Evil" even. I take it "rio" is cognate with rea in mens rea, the evil mind that must be proven to establish a crime.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-25-2018, 07:46 PM
Martin Rocek's Avatar
Martin Rocek Martin Rocek is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NY, USA
Posts: 4,113
Default

angry gale? vengeful gale? vicious storm?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-27-2018, 06:16 AM
Andrew Frisardi Andrew Frisardi is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Lazio, Italy
Posts: 4,425
Default

I’ve been thinking about everyone’s suggestions for line 5, finally settling on “so that no storm or evil fate could do . . . ” Alex’s point about the layers of meaning in that line got me thinking I could just split the goods: half-refer to the storm and half-refer to fortune/fate. Dante says “fortuna o altro tempo reo,” which is a bit redundant anyway if taken to refer just to atmospheric conditions. So the new line gets a bit of both shades of meaning.

Nigel, I can’t see how “naturally” would get less just 1 stress in that last line, without contorting the reading and forcing a very unnatural stress on “we’ll.” So I’m leaving it as is, also liking “naturally”more than the literal translation in that spot. For the rhyme scheme, I’m not a stickler for sticking to the original, esp. for the sestet. Keeping the octave “Petrarchan” is always good, if possible, but as long as the sestet doesn’t end with a couplet, which I think would be out of character, I think this carries the original’s feel adequately.

So thanks, John, Nigel, Alex, Bill, and Martin for coming back to this.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-27-2018, 08:49 AM
Julie Steiner's Avatar
Julie Steiner Julie Steiner is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 5,357
Default

Andrew, for me the trouble with the final line is that "we'll be with them" suggests togetherness. I didn't realize that this was supposed to mean "we'll be [delighted] with them" until I saw the original.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Forum Right Top
Forum Left Bottom Forum Right Bottom
 
Right Left
Member Login
Forgot password?
Forum LeftForum Right


Forum Statistics:
Forum Members: 7,895
Total Threads: 19,067
Total Posts: 245,392
There are 87 users
currently browsing forums.
Forum LeftForum Right


Forum Sponsor:
Donate & Support Able Muse / Eratosphere
Forum LeftForum Right
Right Right
Right Bottom Left Right Bottom Right

Hosted by ApplauZ Online