World Poetry and Heteropoetics of Poetry Translation

Abstract

A widely circulating commonplace opinion is that translating poetry from one natural language to another natural language is an impossible enterprise. Our pre-World War II influential Estonian literary critic (and writer) Friedebert Tuglas (1886–1971) had fundamental merits publishing the first major selections of Juhan Liiv’s (1864–1913) poetry (1919, 1926) and two monographs on Liiv’s work (1914, 1927) relying on the manuscripts left by Liiv, who died without publishing any poetry book of his own choice. Tuglas was convinced that Liiv’s poetry was untranslatable. That opinion, however, has been put into doubt by the fact that in the 21st century three selections in English have been published of Liiv’s poetry (one in Tartu, Estonia, 2007, and two abroad: Toronto, 2013 and Chisinau-London, 2024), as well as two selections in Italian and one each in Spanish, German, Finnish, Mari and Udmurt. As a poet and translator myself, I have been active in the field of translation, both from foreign languages (Spanish, English and many others) into my native Estonian, as well as collaborating with foreign language native (poet-)translators in an effort to make the wider world aware of Juhan Liiv’s poetic genius and exceptionality. My book in two volumes Valitud tõlkeluulet I–II (Selected Poetic Translations I–II) (2021) gathers translated samples of world poetry by nearly 150 authors from all parts of the world, published over half a century (1970–2020). I suppose any person who has with some persistence dedicated a substantial part of his/her life to translating poetry has gradually moulded some kind of creative philosophy (poetics). Such a philosophy does not need to be exhausted by discussion (discourse) on translating poetry and its ideals – that is, by explicitness. Much more can be discovered and learned by closer research on translations themselves and the practical process (which often contradicts ideals…). Looking back at my creative path in this field, I would define my translation philosophy and practice as ‘heteropoetic’, for one thing because I have not remained faithful to my early principles or considerations, which were strongly conditioned and influenced by my predecessors. All the same, today I still very much respect their ideals, even though they may differ from mine. I sincerely admire many translations achieved by the older generation. In my university lectures over several decades I have introduced my students to these translations and have tried to explain the factors of their rare success. The other aspect of heteropoetics is my conviction, crystallised during the past half a century, that one cannot apply the same translation principles to whatever poetic texts. Every successful poetic work is an individual and exceptional creative-poetic deed. Accordingly, I have tried to find in my native language such means that would allow me to resuscitate the original work here in Estonia, in another and different culture. It is a complex topic. To briefly summarise its kernel, the liberties of a poetry translator, above all in what concerns the (external) form of the original work, should be the greatest possible. On the other hand, I consider as absolute the responsibility of a translator before the original creator. This means creating in another language a work that aspires to be as close as possible to the spiritual and mental content of the original image.