[INDOLOGY] Brackets in modern sanskrit translations

Tue Jun 5 22:33:14 UTC 2018

Birgit's point is one I have mulled over for several years now. To
"translate" is to bring something from one language (place, context) into
another. And, yes, that may require quite a lot of interpreting,
"paraphrasing," etc. It is a unique art.

But, underlying this is that, at least in my case (and I suspect this is
true for many of us on this list), I was never trained in the art of
translation. Language and linguistics, even history...yes, but not
translation per se. When I "translate," I try to capture the original in my
"translation," but is that "translating,"? Or, just an attempt to represent
my historical-linguistic inquiries?

An interesting (and fun) read that looks at some of these issues is
O'Flaherty's (Doniger's) essay, "On Translating Sanskrit Myths" in Radice
and Reynolds, The Translator's art: essays in honour of Betty Radice.
Harmondsworth: Penguin. 1987.

Herman Tull

On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 4:48 PM Birgit Kellner via INDOLOGY <
indology at list.indology.info> wrote:

> I find the positive reasons adduced by Alex also convincing. I am
> wondering sometimes whether instead of the "translation without brackets"
> approach it might not be better to begin devising a new genre, one that
> does not announce itself as "translation", but more of a paraphrase or
> interpretive rendering which somehow makes transparent (1) that someone
> renders a Sanskrit text in another language (English or German or ...) and
> thus follows the logic / narrative and terminology of the text and (2) that
> interpretative work has gone into this rendering that makes it expressing
> one among several perhaps equally possible interpretations. Perhaps the
> problem is not one of how to translate, but that translation is overcharged
> with too many different and divergent functions, and expectations.
>
> I don't find Dominik's argument to the effect that using brackets in a
> translation is premised on the assumption that the Sanskrit text is
> incoherent particularly convincing. Authors of texts make assumptions about
> what their audience knows, and expect them to fill in gaps. We are at a
> historical distance from these authors, and which gaps to fill, and how, is
> interpretative work we have to do, and (now going back to Alex' points
> about intellectual honesty) it may be advisable to signal where more of
> this work has been required, for instance, by brackets. This isn't a
> question of incoherence, it is perhaps a question of recognizing a
> legitimate multiplicity of different renderings.
>
> Best regards, Birgit Kellner
>
>
>
> Am 2018-06-05 um 21:19 schrieb Johannes Bronkhorst via INDOLOGY:
>
> I tend to agree with Alex. Much depends on what readers the translation is
> for. Since even professional Sanskritists may use translations to inform
> themselves about texts that are not the focus of their research, these
> texts better not misinform their readers.
>
> A concrete example may clarify this. Cowell and Gough’s translation of the
> *Sarvadarśanasaṃgraha* ends with the words:
>
> “The system of Śaṅkara, which comes next in succession, and which is the
> crest-gem of all systems, has been explained by us elsewhere; it is
> therefore left untouched here.”
>
> Editions of the *Sarvadarśanasaṃgraha* that were made after this
> translation added a chapter on the “system of Śaṅkara” found in some
> manuscripts. Subsequently, and perhaps partly because of this translation,
> most scholars accepted that this final chapter had been composed by the
> same author.
>
> However, the Sanskrit translated by Cowell and Gough has nothing
> corresponding to *by us*. It reads: *itaḥ paraṃ
> sarvadarśanaśiromaṇibhūtaṃ śāṃkaradarśanam anyatra nirūpitam *(or:
> *likhitam*) *ity atropekṣitaṃ*. And the question as to the authorship of
> this chapter remains open. Cowell and Gough might have done their readers,
> and scholarship, a favour by putting [by us] in brackets.
>
>
> Johannes Bronkhorst
>
>
>
> On 5 Jun 2018, at 20:16, Alex Watson via INDOLOGY <
> indology at list.indology.info> wrote:
>
> I found Dominik's list of reasons for using brackets incomplete /
> one-sided.
> I would include at least the two following positive reasons.
>
> 1. While brackets may disrupt the flow for readers who are not also
> looking at the Sanskrit, they are helpful for those who are comparing your
> translation with the Sanskrit.  (Since translations of most Sanskrit
> philosophical texts, especially the more technical ones, are extremely
> difficult to understand without simultaneously looking at the Sanskrit, I
> find the use of brackets in the translation of philosophical texts more
> desirable than undesirable.)
>
> 2. Intellectual honesty.  Use of brackets signals what follows
> straightforwardly from the Sanskrit, and what is the result of addition or
> interpretation on your part – which English etc. words correspond to
> Sanskrit words, and what you have chosen to add in to complete the sense,
> to disambiguate, or to make explicit to the reader what would have remained
> obscure if you had just stuck to rendering the Sanskrit words.
>
> Best
> Alex
>
> --
> Alex Watson
> Professor of Indian Philosophy
> Head of Philosophy Department
> Ashoka University
> *https://ashokauniversity.academia.edu/AlexWatson
> <https://ashokauniversity.academia.edu/AlexWatson>*
> <http://www.aas-in-asia2018.com/>
>
>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Dominik Wujastyk <wujastyk at gmail.com>
>> To: Harry Spier <hspier.muktabodha at gmail.com>
>> Cc: Indology <indology at list.indology.info>
>> Bcc:
>> Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2018 20:23:19 -0600
>> Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] Brackets in modern sanskrit translations
>> Your question presses a big red button for me :-)  My thoughts are here
>> <https://cikitsa.blogspot.com/2016/04/on-use-of-parentheses-in-translation.html>
>> .
>>
>> --
>> Professor Dominik Wujastyk <http://ualberta.academia.edu/DominikWujastyk>
>> ,
>>
>> Singhmar Chair in Classical Indian Society and Polity
>> ,
>>
>> Department of History and Classics
>> <http://historyandclassics.ualberta.ca/>
>> ,
>> University of Alberta, Canada
>> .
>>
>> South Asia at the U of A:
>>
>> sas.ualberta.ca
>> 
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> INDOLOGY mailing list
> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
> indology-owner at list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing
> committee)
> http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or
> unsubscribe)
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> INDOLOGY mailing listINDOLOGY at list.indology.infoindology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)
>
>
> --
> ----
> Prof. Dr. Birgit Kellner
> Director
> Institute for the Cultural and Intellectual History of Asia
> Austrian Academy of Sciences
> Hollandstrasse 11-13/2
> A-1020 Vienna
> Austria
> Phone: +43-(0)1-51581-6420
> Fax: +43-(0)1-51581-6410http://ikga.oeaw.ac.at
>
> _______________________________________________
> INDOLOGY mailing list
> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
> indology-owner at list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing
> committee)
> http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or
> unsubscribe)
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20180605/ef967962/attachment.htm>