Dagmar Pilařová- 5th year
Individual Reading of
Children‘s Literature
Mgr.Ing.J.Rambousek
24th August 2000
[The language of the analysis could use some more elaboration; the use of short and elementary verbs is not always suitable for the register. The analysis, though it does correctly point out some isolated translation errors, could have been longer and more exact in the stylistic analysis.]
Translatory analysis of „The Happy Prince“ by Oscar Wilde
I will try to analyse one of the Czech translations of Oscar Wilde’s “The Happy Prince”. It was done by Radoslav Nenadál. I chose this translation because it is the last of those published before 1989, and I consider it to be quite good. the book consists of all the tales from the collection of “The Happy Prince and Other Tales” as well as two of the stories from the book “The House of Pomegranates” (‘The Young king’, and ‘The Star Child’). As the source of the original text I used “The Complete Shorter Fiction of Oscar Wilde” edited and with an introduction by Isobel Murray, who claims that “this edition is to reproduce the last printed edition Wilde was able to supervise,”(18)
I will try to find the genera attitude of the translator towards the text and analyse the translation of the title story in detail.
Wilde’s tales have become classics of the modern fairy tales. These are from the everyday life of the 19th century children and the main parts are taken in them by children, animals, or manmade things (e.g. rackets etc). They resemble the tales of _ Grimm brothers, which do not always have happy endings, but still there is a kind of a morale, or satisfaction taken, at least for a good Christian soul.
“The Happy Prince” is somewhere between the genres of a fairy tale and a moral tale. It is a typical children’s story by Wilde. It is situated to an English Victorian town and the fairy tale aspects are given [attributed? donated?] to the main ‘heroes’ – the statue of the Happy Prince, and the Swallow – both of whom can talk, cry, and love as human beings. The evil things can be found in the powerful people and the (Victorian) social order, whereas sacrifice and love are stressed as the good that will be rewarded (would it be in heaven).
Radoslav Nenadál kept to the fairy–tale narrative style, which though written, uses the expressions of the oral presentation. [This could be probably supported by more than two examples, and should be related to the style of the original; it is not clear whether Nenadál was right or not.] For example: „There is no fire in the grate…“ – „…v kamnech na roštu ani jiskřička…“, which would otherwise be translated with the use of a verb, or „Ah! But we have, in our dreams,…“ translated as „Jakpak by ne, viděly, ve snách.“ Sometimes he exaggerates and poses the expressions from different lexical layers next to each other (e.g. šíleně lenivé, or báječná socha). On one hand Nenadál uses words like jílec meče, vonné masti, toaleta, or ghetto, on the other you can find expressions like vyndala, or fůru příbuzných, which are rather colloquial. By doing this he [from time to time] shifts the meaning, or uses expressions that are not ‘boring’ but at the same time his use is not right. For example: „velikou žlutou můrkou“, here I would suggest to use the word „můra“ instead of „můrka“ if we are talking about „a big yellow moth“.
The sentence „You have been trifling with me.“ translated as „Jenom sis se mnou zahrával.“ is not correct as the verb „zahrávat si sněkým/něčím“ suggests that it is dangerous to play with something or someone, which is not this case. I would use“pohrával, flirtoval, or dělal si ze mě legraci“, which I find to be more suitable Czech equivalent for this expression.
There is a similar case of this „Where shall I put up?“ translated as „Kde se usídlím?“, which suggests a long–term stay not only a stay overnight.
There are cases when these shifts do not do any harm, on the contrary. E.g. „She has no money“- „Ten šikula nemá ani groš…“, or „the pink and white doves“ translated as „růžové a bílé holubice“ instead of „růžovobílé“. One might consider these examples details, and, in fact, they are, but they are, in my opinion, important for the story as a whole. The translation of the sentence „Shall I love you?“ does not seem to be quite neat. Nenadál chose the question „Můžeme se milovat?“, which sounds to me too much as a single action. I would translate it as „Smím Tě milovat?“.
What I like very much about this translation is Nenadál’s use of genders. In Wilde’s original text, there is the Swallow referred to as ‚he‘ and the Reed is ‚she‘ (slender-waisted and domestic). Nenadál did it the other way round with the view of the Czech genders of the words „Vlaštovka“ and „Rákosníček“ (here the translation of the word „Reed“ is not entirely right as there is a series of stories for children about the creature of the same name living near a pond, which might cause misunderstanding. I would suggest to translate it as „Rákos“, which, I think, would be sufficient). This translation corresponds also with the fact that the Swallow (she) falls in love with the statue of the Happy Prince (he). The division according to genders created translatory problems. Most of them Nenadál solved well but some did not. For example „She is a coquette, for she is always flirting with the wind.“ He translated it loosely but with the use of a nice Czech idiom „… a bohužel bude asi spíš do větru, protože světrem pořád koketuje.“ This translation is contradictory to the following sentence:“I admit that she is domestic.“ In Czech as „Je sice pro rodinu, to musím uznat.“ Is the Reed “pro rodinu“, or is she „do větru“? [a good point] A lucky coincidence enabled Nenadál to use the change of the genders once again at the end of the story in the case of the sentence „Death is the brother of Sleep.“, which he translated as „Smrt je sestrou spánku.“
The change of the genders, probably, confused Nenadál, when he used it in one clause too many times: „…, že jí ho přišlo Vlaštovce líto.“, where the correct versions would be either „…, že jí ho přišlo líto.“, or „…, že ho přišlo Vlaštovce líto.“ [probably just a typo]
There is one Englicism in the translation of the sentence „I do not think I like boys.“, which we can find in the clumsy Czech translation as „Myslím, že já chlapce moc ráda nemám.“ I would suggest simply „Já chlapce moc ráda nemám.“, because the reason why is explained as the story proceeds [the word „myslím“ should certainly be left out but the underlined clause does not seem to explain why].
There is another mistranslation in the question „Mám mu odnést druhý rubín?“ It is not the second ruby as there are nowhere before mentioned two or more rubies. the Swallow thinks that the Prince has several/many of them, so in Czech it should be translated as „další“ [true; “another” should be clear in itself…]. Then there are again slight shifts of the meanings of expressions like „I am beginning to be appreciated.“- „…začínají mě oceňovat.“ (It would be better to say „začínají si mě cenit/vážit“), or „He swooped past the match–girl, and slipped the jewel into the palm of her hand.“, translated as „proletěla kolem děvčátka a vtiskla mu drahokam do dlaně.“ I cannot imagine that because the word „slip“ contains the notion of something unexpected and scarcely noticeable, whereas the word „vtisknout“ is on these conditions impracticable [yes].
There are certain differences between the English text and Nenadál’s translation. There are three cases of omission. When the Mayor gives enumeration of the things missing at the statue of the Happy Prince, he mentions his eyes. Nenadál states only that the ruby of the sword is missing and that the statue faded. He omitted Prince’s eyes. The second case, which, in fact, appears before this scene, is the Mayor approaching the statue in the company of “the Town Councillors”. Nenadál says that there were two of them. Hard to say why, probably it sounded to him better. The last case is the omission ((on the side of the translation)) and it is whole the last paragraph, which reads as follows: “ ‘You have rightly chosen,’ said God,’ for in my garden of Paradise this little bird shall sing for evermore, and in my city of gold the Happy prince shall praise me.’ “ Why this omission?
Oscar Wilde zůstal estétem sduší dítěte i ve svých pohádkách, jež končí často naivním náboženským laděním, které zde je pouze obratně užitým uměleckým prostředkem, bez záměrné a přesvědčující tendenčnosti, ta se ostatně nikde vjeho díle nevyskytuje, protože byl vždy jen duchaplným ironikem, vyznavačem krásy umění, jež tvořil, i krásy života, který žil.(106)
With the view of Afterword by Arnošt Vaněček and the fact that presentation of religious beliefs in the translations of the other tales was not omitted, I came to the conclusion that the translator, probably, worked with a different version of Wilde’s tales, or that the last paragraph was simply too much of religion for him or the censors. On the whole, the story reads well and if we do not look at the ‘details’, it is rather comprehensible.
WORKS CONSULTED:
Hais, Karel et Hodek, Břetislav. Velký anglicko–český slovník. Praha: Leda, 1997.
Murray, Isobel ed. The Complete Shorter Fiction of Oscar Wilde. Great Britain“ OUP, 1979.
Poldauf, Ivan. Česko–anglický slovník. Čelákovice: WD Publications, 1996.
Wilde, Oscar. Šťastný princ a jiné pohádky. Trans. Nenadál, Radoslav. Praha: Albatros, 1985.