1aeneax
Hoping someone who purchased the prior DLE can help with a couple of questions. EP's site speaks of 120 full-page illustrations, but are there other illustrations in the volume? I believe there are over 400 Dore illustrations total.
Not that EP often highlights this, but are we sure of the translation? If they are just taking the original Dore and re-printing then I think that's Ormsby.
Thanks!
Not that EP often highlights this, but are we sure of the translation? If they are just taking the original Dore and re-printing then I think that's Ormsby.
Thanks!
2jroger1
“The English text of ‘Don Quixote’ adopted in this edition is that of Jarvis, with occasional corrections from Motteaux’ translation. A few objectionable words and sentences, in no way necessary to the beauty and completeness of the work, have been omitted.” Aside from a brief biographical sketch of Cervantes, there are no footnotes or end notes.
There are lots and lots of smaller sketches, too many to count, ranging from very small to half a page, so it probably contains all of Dore’s illustrations.
There are lots and lots of smaller sketches, too many to count, ranging from very small to half a page, so it probably contains all of Dore’s illustrations.
3jroger1
>1 aeneax:
After criticizing Motteaux’s translation unmercifully, Ormsby wrote of Jarvis (or Jervas):
Motteaux had the effect, however, of bringing out a translation undertaken and executed in a very different spirit, that of Charles Jervas, the portrait painter, and friend of Pope, Swift, Arbuthnot, and Gay. Jervas has been allowed little credit for his work, indeed it may be said none, for it is known to the world in general as Jarvis’s. It was not published until after his death, and the printers gave the name according to the current pronunciation of the day. It has been the most freely used and the most freely abused of all the translations. It has seen far more editions than any other, it is admitted on all hands to be by far the most faithful, and yet nobody seems to have a good word to say for it or for its author. Jervas no doubt prejudiced readers against himself in his preface, where among many true words about Shelton, Stevens, and Motteux, he rashly and unjustly charges Shelton with having translated not from the Spanish, but from the Italian version of Franciosini, which did not appear until ten years after Shelton’s first volume. A suspicion of incompetence, too, seems to have attached to him because he was by profession a painter and a mediocre one (though he has given us the best portrait we have of Swift), and this may have been strengthened by Pope’s remark that he “translated ‘Don Quixote’ without understanding Spanish.” He has been also charged with borrowing from Shelton, whom he disparaged. It is true that in a few difficult or obscure passages he has followed Shelton, and gone astray with him; but for one case of this sort, there are fifty where he is right and Shelton wrong. As for Pope’s dictum, anyone who examines Jervas’s version carefully, side by side with the original, will see that he was a sound Spanish scholar, incomparably a better one than Shelton, except perhaps in mere colloquial Spanish. He was, in fact, an honest, faithful, and painstaking translator, and he has left a version which, whatever its shortcomings may be, is singularly free from errors and mistranslations.
The charge against it is that it is stiff, dry—“wooden” in a word,—and no one can deny that there is a foundation for it. But it may be pleaded for Jervas that a good deal of this rigidity is due to his abhorrence of the light, flippant, jocose style of his predecessors. He was one of the few, very few, translators that have shown any apprehension of the unsmiling gravity which is the essence of Quixotic humour; it seemed to him a crime to bring Cervantes forward smirking and grinning at his own good things, and to this may be attributed in a great measure the ascetic abstinence from everything savouring of liveliness which is the characteristic of his translation. In most modern editions, it should be observed, his style has been smoothed and smartened, but without any reference to the original Spanish, so that if he has been made to read more agreeably he has also been robbed of his chief merit of fidelity.
After criticizing Motteaux’s translation unmercifully, Ormsby wrote of Jarvis (or Jervas):
Motteaux had the effect, however, of bringing out a translation undertaken and executed in a very different spirit, that of Charles Jervas, the portrait painter, and friend of Pope, Swift, Arbuthnot, and Gay. Jervas has been allowed little credit for his work, indeed it may be said none, for it is known to the world in general as Jarvis’s. It was not published until after his death, and the printers gave the name according to the current pronunciation of the day. It has been the most freely used and the most freely abused of all the translations. It has seen far more editions than any other, it is admitted on all hands to be by far the most faithful, and yet nobody seems to have a good word to say for it or for its author. Jervas no doubt prejudiced readers against himself in his preface, where among many true words about Shelton, Stevens, and Motteux, he rashly and unjustly charges Shelton with having translated not from the Spanish, but from the Italian version of Franciosini, which did not appear until ten years after Shelton’s first volume. A suspicion of incompetence, too, seems to have attached to him because he was by profession a painter and a mediocre one (though he has given us the best portrait we have of Swift), and this may have been strengthened by Pope’s remark that he “translated ‘Don Quixote’ without understanding Spanish.” He has been also charged with borrowing from Shelton, whom he disparaged. It is true that in a few difficult or obscure passages he has followed Shelton, and gone astray with him; but for one case of this sort, there are fifty where he is right and Shelton wrong. As for Pope’s dictum, anyone who examines Jervas’s version carefully, side by side with the original, will see that he was a sound Spanish scholar, incomparably a better one than Shelton, except perhaps in mere colloquial Spanish. He was, in fact, an honest, faithful, and painstaking translator, and he has left a version which, whatever its shortcomings may be, is singularly free from errors and mistranslations.
The charge against it is that it is stiff, dry—“wooden” in a word,—and no one can deny that there is a foundation for it. But it may be pleaded for Jervas that a good deal of this rigidity is due to his abhorrence of the light, flippant, jocose style of his predecessors. He was one of the few, very few, translators that have shown any apprehension of the unsmiling gravity which is the essence of Quixotic humour; it seemed to him a crime to bring Cervantes forward smirking and grinning at his own good things, and to this may be attributed in a great measure the ascetic abstinence from everything savouring of liveliness which is the characteristic of his translation. In most modern editions, it should be observed, his style has been smoothed and smartened, but without any reference to the original Spanish, so that if he has been made to read more agreeably he has also been robbed of his chief merit of fidelity.
4whytewolf1
Yes, it seems that the reason to buy this DLE would be primarily for the artwork.
The Yale professor who teaches a whole course on Cervantes focusing on Don Quixote that's available through Yale's open courses uses the modern translation by John Rutherford for his course: https://www.amazon.com/Quixote-Penguin-Classics-Cervantes-Saavedra/dp/0142437239
The Yale professor who teaches a whole course on Cervantes focusing on Don Quixote that's available through Yale's open courses uses the modern translation by John Rutherford for his course: https://www.amazon.com/Quixote-Penguin-Classics-Cervantes-Saavedra/dp/0142437239
5jroger1
>4 whytewolf1:
Another modern translation that has received good reviews is by Edith Grossman. Harold Bloom in his introduction to the hardcover edition makes the interesting observation that no other work other than perhaps Hamlet displays a greater disconnect between words and deeds.
Another modern translation that has received good reviews is by Edith Grossman. Harold Bloom in his introduction to the hardcover edition makes the interesting observation that no other work other than perhaps Hamlet displays a greater disconnect between words and deeds.
6whytewolf1
>5 jroger1: Thanks very much for the suggestion. I'll be sure to check that one out, as well!
7EPsonNY
> Don Quixote DLE has returned:
https://www.eastonpress.com/all-categories/deluxe-limited-editions/gustave-dores...
https://www.eastonpress.com/all-categories/deluxe-limited-editions/gustave-dores...
8aeneax
>2 jroger1: >4 whytewolf1: Thank you both very much for the insight. I see I failed to mention this was back on the site, hence my inquiry.
Dore's illustrations are incomparable and these are some of his best. But I also enjoy Cervantes and would want to read it, not merely flip through it. (I do agree on Edith Grossman's translation, by the way, but she's too modern a translator for EP.)
I wish EP would pay more attention to the translators used even though that would obviously mean, in many cases, less is available in the public domain. Two of my favorite FS editions are a standard edition of Seamus Heaney's translation of Beowulf and a LE that combines Screech's translation of Gargantua and Pantagruel with Dore's illustrations of the same (over 700 of them -- and while Screech must be public domain by now, he was not the original translator paired with Dore on Rabelais so FS paid some attention here). I would gladly pay EP more for better translations.
As is, I'll likely wish to purchase this at some point but it might not be a priority. Oh, to have more bookcases!
Dore's illustrations are incomparable and these are some of his best. But I also enjoy Cervantes and would want to read it, not merely flip through it. (I do agree on Edith Grossman's translation, by the way, but she's too modern a translator for EP.)
I wish EP would pay more attention to the translators used even though that would obviously mean, in many cases, less is available in the public domain. Two of my favorite FS editions are a standard edition of Seamus Heaney's translation of Beowulf and a LE that combines Screech's translation of Gargantua and Pantagruel with Dore's illustrations of the same (over 700 of them -- and while Screech must be public domain by now, he was not the original translator paired with Dore on Rabelais so FS paid some attention here). I would gladly pay EP more for better translations.
As is, I'll likely wish to purchase this at some point but it might not be a priority. Oh, to have more bookcases!
9kdweber
>8 aeneax: While the FS Seamus Heaney Beowulf is my favorite edition of this work, the EP did produce a very nice edition with commissioned artwork by Yona Lossel and a modern translation by Fredrick Rebsamen.
10aeneax
>9 kdweber: Thank you for reminding me of their use of Rebsamen. He did an excellent treatment of Beowulf as the poem it is. It is an essential translation. I passed on that edition primarily because the artwork did not appeal to me, but you're absolutely right to point out that EP paid for the rights to a (very good) translation in that instance rather than relying on public domain.
12Gilded_Tomes1
Did anyone notice two versions of Don Quixote on the EP website? One was orange with a slipcase, and the other crimson, with no slipcase. Did EP remove one and substitute the other?
13whytewolf1
>12 Gilded_Tomes1: I think they did, and it's quite possible that this is the edition they intended to resolicit all along, but someone got the images mixed up.
I actually got a mailer recently showing the images of the Quixote DLE with the Doré illustrations but which made no mention of a limitation, no mention that it was a DLE and which was asking $260 for the book, which is exactly what the red covered version is being offered for. Seems to me someone royally screwed up and mixed up the two different editions they've done with the same Doré illustrations.
I actually got a mailer recently showing the images of the Quixote DLE with the Doré illustrations but which made no mention of a limitation, no mention that it was a DLE and which was asking $260 for the book, which is exactly what the red covered version is being offered for. Seems to me someone royally screwed up and mixed up the two different editions they've done with the same Doré illustrations.
14jroger1
>12 Gilded_Tomes1: >13 whytewolf1:
Before the DLE was produced EP had an edition that was very similar - same size with a cover that was not quite as nice, and I think the number of pages was slightly different. I gave that edition away when the DLE was announced, so I can’t look at it now, but I remember the binding wasn’t as tight on the non-DLE.
Before the DLE was produced EP had an edition that was very similar - same size with a cover that was not quite as nice, and I think the number of pages was slightly different. I gave that edition away when the DLE was announced, so I can’t look at it now, but I remember the binding wasn’t as tight on the non-DLE.
15Eumnestes
>3 jroger1: Wow, what an interesting set of reflections by Ormsby. I particularly liked his aversion to the idea of bringing "Cervantes forward smirking and grinning at his own good things." Thank you for sharing this.
I have never read the Jarvis, or the Ormsby, translation. I read (with occasional references to the Spanish) the Cohen translation as a student, and years later the Grossman--I loved both of them.
It does seem odd to me that EP would choose to use an 18th-c translation. One can certainly read Pope's Homer with pleasure, but one will probably only do so out of interest in 18th-c versification or culture. I suspect that aeneax is right in saying that Grossman is too modern a translator for EP. But I wish this were not the case so often. EP is at its best when it uses translators such as Heaney (Beowulf) and Screech (Rabelais).
I have never read the Jarvis, or the Ormsby, translation. I read (with occasional references to the Spanish) the Cohen translation as a student, and years later the Grossman--I loved both of them.
It does seem odd to me that EP would choose to use an 18th-c translation. One can certainly read Pope's Homer with pleasure, but one will probably only do so out of interest in 18th-c versification or culture. I suspect that aeneax is right in saying that Grossman is too modern a translator for EP. But I wish this were not the case so often. EP is at its best when it uses translators such as Heaney (Beowulf) and Screech (Rabelais).
16jroger1
>15 Eumnestes:
I suspect EP chose to reproduce the Jarvis edition because it was the one illustrated by Dore. Ideally, perhaps, some enterprising publisher will produce a Grossman edition containing the Dore illustrations, but EP is seldom so creative.
I suspect EP chose to reproduce the Jarvis edition because it was the one illustrated by Dore. Ideally, perhaps, some enterprising publisher will produce a Grossman edition containing the Dore illustrations, but EP is seldom so creative.
17Eumnestes
>16 jroger1: When/if they do, I will be waiting.
Junte-se para postar Junte-se para postar
