Posted on

Translation Recommendations

image000002

I have just returned from a wonderful conference at Wheaton College on the thought of George MacDonald (photo at left, courtesy of Ben White). I’ve mentioned in earlier posts how close MacDonald’s thinking is in many respects to Kierkegaard’s. Despite this, however, his thought seems virtually unknown to Kierkegaard scholars, so I was pleasantly surprised to see that mine was not the only paper on MacDonald and Kierkegaard, Mark Lama presented a paper entitled “Hearing the Raven Croak: Lilith, Kierkegaard, & Selfhood.” I enjoyed the paper very much, though I’d have enjoyed it more, I’m sure, if I had read MacDonald’s novel, Lilith.

Lama’s paper led me to the discovery of yet another problem with the Hongs’ translation of The Sickness Unto Death. Lama quoted from Hannay’s translation of that work for Penguin. Hannay has: 

This then is the formula which describes the state of the self when despair is completely eradicated: in relating to itself and in wanting to be itself, the self is grounded transparently in the power that established it. (p. 48).

Where the Hongs have:

The formula that describes the state of the self when despair is completely rooted out is this: in relating to itself to itself and in willing to be itself, the self rests transparently in the power that established it. (p. 14).

The Danish, however, is:

Dette er nemlig Formelen, som beskriver Selvets Tilstand, naar Fortvivlelsen ganske er udryddet: i at forholde sig til sig selv, og i at ville være sig selv grunder Selvet gjennemsigtigt i den Magt, som satte det (SKS 11, 130).

I actually preferred the Hong’s “rests” from a stylistic point of view. Unfortunately, I have to confess that Hannay’s “grounded” is better, given that the Danish in question is “grunder” and not “hviler.” My guess is that Kierkegaard chose the former because it fit better the somewhat scholarly tone of the book.

I shouldn’t be surprised that Hannay’s translation is, in this instance, superior to the Hongs’ Hannay’s translations (with the exception of his translation of the Postscript) are generally superior to the Hongs’ 

I was discussing this recently with Andrew Davison, until recently Professor of Theology and Natural Sciences, at the University of Cambridge (and sometime priest at S. Clement’s here in Philadelphia) and now Canon and Regius Professor of Divinity at Christ Church, Oxford. Davison suggested that I should do a blog post where I identified which of the many English translations of Kierkegaard I thought were the best. I do sometimes get emails from people who want me to recommend translations for them, so it seems like a blog post that does that would be a good idea. Take these recommendations with a grain of salt, though, because I have not sat down and made studious comparisons of all the English translations of Kierkegaard. And remember, no translation can serve as a foundation for serious scholarship. 

In general, I would say that the best translations of Kierkegaard are the older ones done by David Swenson and Walter Lowrie. They are still widely available in used bookstores and on abebooks.com. Alastair Hannay’s translations for Penguin are also very good. Under no circumstances, however, should you the translation of the Postcript that Hannay did for Princeton. Something went horribly wrong with that translation as I detailed in earlier posts on this blog. There are assorted other translations, George Pattison has a couple, I believe, as does Bruce Kirmmse. But while Kirmmse has an excellent knowledge of Danish, neither Pattison nor Kirmmse is a writer of sufficient eloquence, I believe, to do Kierkegaard’s prose justice. 

I have a handful of translations by other people that I have not yet read. Among those are Stephen Crites’ translation Crisis in the Life of an Actress, and other essays on drama (Harper Torchbook, 1967), A.S. Aldworth and W.S. Ferrie’s translation Consider the Lilies (London: C.W. Daniel Company, Ltd, 1940), Alexander Dru’s The Journals of Kierkegaard (Harper Torchbook, 1958), and The Present Age and Of the Difference Between a Genius and an Apostle (Harper Torchbook, 1962), and an intriguing The Diary of Søren Kierkegaard, translated by Gerda M.Andersen, and edited by Peter P. Rohde.

I will check out these translations and let you know what I think of them in later posts.

Posted on

Good News and Bad News

KB SKS Portal

A reader, Cassandra Swick, wrote recently to ask me if I could help to clarify a particularly obscure passage in Kierkegaard’s Two Ages. “This passage,” she wrote, “is in the context of his discussion of the present age, where he is pointing out its various deficiencies.

“The Hong translation,” she continued “reads:

The coiled springs of life-relationships, which are what they are only because of qualitatively distinguishing passion, lose their resilience; the qualitative expression of difference between opposites is no longer the law for the relation of inwardness to each other in the relation. Inwardness is lacking, and to that extent the relation does not exist or the relation is an inert cohesion. (p. 78.)

The original reads:

Livs-Forholdenes Springfjædre, der kun i den qvalitativt adskillende Lidenskab ere hvad de ere, taber Elasticiteten; det Forskjelliges Fjernhed fra sit Forskjellige i Qvalitets-Udtrykket er ikke Loven for Inderlighedens Forhold til hinanden i Forholdet. Inderligheden mangler, og Forholdet er forsaavidt ikke til, eller Forholdet er en dvask Cohæsion

That is indeed a difficult passage to translate. The good news is that when you run into a passage such as this, where the new Hongs’ translation is particularly awkward and confusing, you can often get help by locating the same passage in an older English translation. I have an old Harper Torchbook edition of The Present Age and Of the Difference Between a Genius and an Apostle. Sure enough, the passage is there, and in much more lucid prose than the Hongs’. The translation, by Alexander Dru, is a model of the translator’s art. It reads:

The springs of life, which are only what they are because of the qualitative differentiating power of passion, lose their elasticity. The distance separating a thing from its opposite in quality no longer regulates the inward relation of things. All inwardness is lost, and to that extent the relation no longer exists, or else forms a colourless cohesion.

Of course Dru omits “Forholdenes,” or “relationships.” My sense, though, is that Dru’s intuitions were right there, that “relationships” can be omitted without any loss of meaning in that “life” effectively implies “relationships.” 

This passage highlights the value of collecting older translations of Kierkegaard, which are still readily available in both brick and mortar used book stores and on Abebooks.com. It also makes clear, a point I have repeatedly made on this blog, that no translation can provide a secure foundation for serious scholarship. I think Dru’s omission of “Forholdenes” doesn’t matter, but I may be wrong about that. 

As the title of this post suggests, however, the reason for it is not simply to make clear the value of collecting older translations of Kierkegaard. I also have some bad news for you. This news concerns the searchable online edition of the new Søren Kierkegaards Skrifter. My old Bryn Mawr professor, and M.A. thesis advisor George Kline, drilled into me that I must always check the wording of quotations against the original text, so rather than simply cut and past the text of the Danish edition of Two Ages from Cassandra Swick’s email, I went to the online version of SKS to cut and paste it from there. 

I was surprised to discover that the online version of SKS has been moved from the website of the Søren Kierkegaard Research Center to the website of the Royal Library, a.k.a. Kongelige Bibliotek. The interface is completely different and I had a great deal of difficulty, at first, figuring out how to search the text. The search function across the entire corpus is problematic in that it gets too many false positives. I typed “Livs-Forholdenes Springfjædre” into the search field and got an enormous number of hits that included only “Livs.” I figured that this might have been because I had selected “Mindst et ord,” or “minimally one word” in the search field, so I tried again after I selected “Alle ord” or “all words.” Those results were still problematic, though, in that while the results took me to En literair Anmeldelse, there were still lots of false positives. Only after I went specifically to En literair Anmeldelse and clicked on the link for a PDF of the text, did my search immediately take me to the right passage. 

To complicate matters even further, all the search instructions appear to be available only in Danish.  It is hard to imagine that they could have made it more difficult for foreigners to search across the whole corpus of the new Søren Kierkegaards Skrifter if that had actually been their objective.