Reading “Poems from the Sanskrit”

Recently I read the book “Poems from the Sanskrit” by John Brough.

Here are some excerpts from the book, originally posted to Twitter (which is a poor long-term medium, so linking here). Some day I may convert this to a proper blog post (and replace the images with better ones), but this will have to do for now… (Sorry I wasn’t able to quickly figure out how to avoid loading the Twitter javascript on the page, or customize the appearance to remove the useless parts of these embedded tweets…)

Am reading “Poems from the Sanskrit” by John Brough. He was IMO one of the better translators of Sanskrit poetry… seems to be somewhat under-rated or under-noticed (going by mentions in other works / availability in libraries and bookstores, etc).

(Sorry, long thread follows.) pic.twitter.com/GyhzKSJZdv
— Shreevatsa R (@svat) May 7, 2018

Had actually never realised:
- A line of iambic pentameter has 10 syllables (or 11). (If tetrameter, 8 or 9.)
- The 4 lines of Śārdulavikrīḍita or Sragdharā have 76 or 84 syllables

So each such verse has about 7–10.5 lines' worth of English.

Add to that Sanskrit's compression! pic.twitter.com/lmcDti91xQ
— Shreevatsa R (@svat) May 7, 2018

Had heard that *Śārṅgadhara Paddhati* had many beautiful verses, but didn't know it was so large and also had these :-) pic.twitter.com/xrtZ19SCy1
— Shreevatsa R (@svat) May 7, 2018

Really the best one can hope for.

(BTW, all these included quotes/images come from Brough's great 50-page introduction, which is a third of the book by number of pages, and so easily more than half by number of words.) pic.twitter.com/CYlSBoFpjy
— Shreevatsa R (@svat) May 7, 2018

“it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the translators have been sworn enemies of Sanskrit literature.” pic.twitter.com/zRtv9OvUZQ
— Shreevatsa R (@svat) May 7, 2018

Brough defends his teacher A. B. Keith, who acquits himself reasonably well in this passage at least. (But a single passage proves nothing; flip through random pages of his book for a more accurate impression: https://t.co/CJc6FWTM1Z) pic.twitter.com/Q6QirMGBl2
— Shreevatsa R (@svat) May 7, 2018

True, but unfortunately can (and is likely to) happen even with the best translations!

And not just into English, where one may expect it, but IMO often even with translations into other Indian languages. pic.twitter.com/ryPzvXba8R
— Shreevatsa R (@svat) May 7, 2018

Something one should understand before criticizing a translation. It can never be a close match to the original; at best the translator chooses what's going to be lost.
For technical works, exact meaning should probably be the last to lose, but for poetry, likely among the first. pic.twitter.com/l91fDsCDMI
— Shreevatsa R (@svat) May 7, 2018

Reminds me of: https://t.co/D3Q33nh22u pic.twitter.com/yMtGUwMqFc
— Shreevatsa R (@svat) May 7, 2018

The central problem of translation, in a nutshell. pic.twitter.com/QsUwESPrrE
— Shreevatsa R (@svat) May 7, 2018

An example from German. In my experience, it's verses like this that translate the best from Sanskrit into English, and that too only by a few people (probably Ryder the best at these). pic.twitter.com/HcO0UmveJq
— Shreevatsa R (@svat) May 7, 2018

Brough complains that Sanskrit translations often add a lot of padding, but also gives an example where Ben Jonson successfully padded a Greek original. pic.twitter.com/Xh1vbyqmHP
— Shreevatsa R (@svat) May 7, 2018

I had the idea a while ago of making a list of “translation strategies” with examples.

Question abt here: how do we say whether “the order is an important aspect of the original verse”. Sometimes it's important to someone…

(Also, book has nice example with French to English.) pic.twitter.com/0JMXQV32Hn
— Shreevatsa R (@svat) May 7, 2018

One of the things that cannot be translated and moreover must not even be attempted to translate. pic.twitter.com/KomCcMJn3f
— Shreevatsa R (@svat) May 7, 2018

The problem of synonyms. Great point at the end. pic.twitter.com/DPgKfEcNKJ
— Shreevatsa R (@svat) May 7, 2018

“well-intended though they undoubtedly are” — not in English they cannot be 😂 pic.twitter.com/zsCVTDEaHu
— Shreevatsa R (@svat) May 7, 2018

Another problem is puns, which in Sanskrit can be used seriously and to great effect. (I haven't quoted the main part, which has mostly the expected things and examples, but the last part of this approach was an interesting solution: ignore it!) pic.twitter.com/eTQrBdzgyC
— Shreevatsa R (@svat) May 7, 2018

“if we are translating into English, we are also attempting to produce an English poem, and must therefore pay some heed to what is and what is not acceptable in English” pic.twitter.com/c889J72dmq
— Shreevatsa R (@svat) May 7, 2018

Wow, I had never thought about this. In Indian poetry and culture of course, as Brough points out, the use of jewellery or cosmetics was seen as perfectly natural and even endearing part of behaviour for the women (or urbane men for that matter) pic.twitter.com/fC3lg0bdKJ
— Shreevatsa R (@svat) May 7, 2018

Anandavardhana and the poet's purpose pic.twitter.com/vpwZID9h0H
— Shreevatsa R (@svat) May 7, 2018

I wonder whether this is a problem even for modern Indian readers. pic.twitter.com/7FdXtrFrpX
— Shreevatsa R (@svat) May 7, 2018

Also what Ingalls is getting at when he describes Sanskrit poetry as “impersonal”. Of course it's not 100% true, but an important point nevertheless. And a couple of translations from later in the book that are related. :-) pic.twitter.com/wF9i9OedUx
— Shreevatsa R (@svat) May 7, 2018

At least one Western translator understands the absurdity of translating Śṛṅgāra-kāvya as “erotic”. In English, the word does not in practice mean “of or having to do with Eros”, which in any case is not close. pic.twitter.com/MIoz1Et7L1
— Shreevatsa R (@svat) May 7, 2018

Shithila-dvitva in Latin and Greek, just as in Indian languages and later Sanskrit! I didn't know... pic.twitter.com/IiOEMk7Ftw
— Shreevatsa R (@svat) May 7, 2018

I've always been uncomfortable about the names Anuṣṭubh/Śloka. They say that technically Anuṣṭubh stands for any 8x4-syllabled metre, but in practice shloka is used with a different meaning, and does anyone in practice really use “Anuṣṭubh” for say Vidyunmālā/Pramāṇikā? pic.twitter.com/R7UvMcGM2X
— Shreevatsa R (@svat) May 7, 2018

Whatever it's called (Anuṣṭubh/Śloka), everyone has their own definition of it! Have you seen this rule about the 11th syllable before?

(A few months ago I collected some empirical data which should answer questions like this; should write it up as a blog post or something…) pic.twitter.com/o2Hw3lVLjU
— Shreevatsa R (@svat) May 7, 2018

Something approaching Śārdūlavikrīḍita, in English! Respect.

And sort of Druta-vilambitam too, with rhyme. pic.twitter.com/GbOBuP8TzL
— Shreevatsa R (@svat) May 7, 2018

He notices some nice things. Remarkable how even the simplest poems in Sanskrit can have so much in them… pic.twitter.com/1ffxGNbDmT
— Shreevatsa R (@svat) May 7, 2018

Kalidasa and “that effortless mastery which is a characteristic of genius”. pic.twitter.com/fsh2llKm11
— Shreevatsa R (@svat) May 7, 2018

अलमतिविस्तरेण। End of the introduction.

About the poems themselves, a few below. These are not the best translations, nor the translations of the best poems, but a nearly random sample here.
(And of course, his own translations aren't immune to many of the risks he's discussed.) pic.twitter.com/vVqD8qd9LA
— Shreevatsa R (@svat) May 7, 2018

One thing I notice is that Brough does have AABB and ABAB rhymes, but a lot of ABBA rhymes.

Here, some well-known classics.

(Not most verses in the book rhyme, but I like best the ones that do. Taste is subjective and others would pick a different set…) pic.twitter.com/hDTl5LQC0l
— Shreevatsa R (@svat) May 7, 2018

(Brough has wisely separated poems like this in the book; I'm forced to put them together here.) pic.twitter.com/d3k3Rlrmug
— Shreevatsa R (@svat) May 7, 2018

pic.twitter.com/gzaY1O9oNJ
— Shreevatsa R (@svat) May 7, 2018

A good attempt, but not a patch on the original! pic.twitter.com/MQbNoUI1NF
— Shreevatsa R (@svat) May 7, 2018

Ones like this are the best :-) pic.twitter.com/EAJJ404Taa
— Shreevatsa R (@svat) May 7, 2018

pic.twitter.com/fZ8NjlnpHt
— Shreevatsa R (@svat) May 7, 2018

Poets. pic.twitter.com/c3ndVa3Tu5
— Shreevatsa R (@svat) May 7, 2018

pic.twitter.com/9ZYSeZjgLx
— Shreevatsa R (@svat) May 7, 2018

Always relevant. pic.twitter.com/OYsHVETfup
— Shreevatsa R (@svat) May 7, 2018

Critics. pic.twitter.com/utuZwcqEnd
— Shreevatsa R (@svat) May 7, 2018

pic.twitter.com/6QBeICUG0P
— Shreevatsa R (@svat) May 7, 2018

Has some quite moving verses. And simple can be touching in its own way. pic.twitter.com/qQHLKiNGF0
— Shreevatsa R (@svat) May 7, 2018

No more words than necessary pic.twitter.com/pqcaahos1x
— Shreevatsa R (@svat) May 7, 2018

pic.twitter.com/7tftrmJc3C
— Shreevatsa R (@svat) May 7, 2018

Schelling has also done reasonably decent translations of Amaru. pic.twitter.com/3f4fp1h7Fp
— Shreevatsa R (@svat) May 7, 2018

Bhartṛhari's punch in any language. pic.twitter.com/qdYd7yNHZC
— Shreevatsa R (@svat) May 7, 2018

pic.twitter.com/4XiS3ofQmB
— Shreevatsa R (@svat) May 7, 2018

Kalidasa on academia.

(Compare with the original here: https://t.co/qhJNKzhbDs ) pic.twitter.com/ANAd0xYkXK
— Shreevatsa R (@svat) May 7, 2018

And finally, the verses attributed to Dharmakirti are all interesting. pic.twitter.com/tqqhijaHB0
— Shreevatsa R (@svat) May 7, 2018

The end of the book has references to the originals of each poem (something translators have not always included).

A different set of excerpts from the book here: https://t.co/nfOMFmgBNT

(Sorry if that was too many tweets (50) in anyone's stream… was experimenting. Done!)
— Shreevatsa R (@svat) May 7, 2018

Added later: the full book is available here: https://t.co/nzD6ZeecOQ https://t.co/dcMrTfRDmi
— Shreevatsa R (@svat) May 9, 2018