- Page 2

@HexHammer,

Victor Eremita wrote:

Hong does suffer from some mistranslation as he bases his readings of SK in pre-80s milieu. It's better in some places than Lowrie's though. What I'm looking forward for is Alastair Hannay's CUP translation.

So are you saying that Alastair Hannay is a good authority on Kierkegaard's work?

@Victor Eremita,

I'm not sure really. I haven't read his biography of Kierkegaard nor his yet to be released Cambridge edition of Concluding Unscientific Postscript to the Philosophical Crumbs (translated by Hannay). But I did read the Cambridge History of Philosophy edition of Fear and Trembling, and was pleased with the accuracy and depth of Evans and Walsh's essay and translation.

@Victor Eremita,

Victor Eremita wrote:

I'm not sure really. I haven't read his biography of Kierkegaard nor his yet to be released Cambridge edition of Concluding Unscientific Postscript to the Philosophical Crumbs (translated by Hannay). But I did read the Cambridge History of Philosophy edition of Fear and Trembling, and was pleased with the accuracy and depth of Evans and Walsh's essay and translation.

Thanks Victor, I am learning a lot about translators of Kierkegaard.

I recently picked up Alastair Hannay's translation on SK's "Papers and Journals".
I found in his "Translator's Preface" That he, Hannay, seems to be indebted to the translations of Haward Hong from the Sk center at St Olaf College.

Quote by Alastair Hannay:
"There are other translations which over the years have proved immensely valuable to English-speaking Kierkegaard scholars, including myself. Not least of these is the extensive and impressively annotated translation by Howard and Edna Hong."
From:
"Soren Kierkegaard Papers and journals: A Selection"
By Alastair Hannay in his "Translator's Preface"

" or " or "Hong does suffer from some mistranslation as he bases his readings of SK in pre-80s milieu."

It is also interesting to note that Alastair Hannay is working on the new translations of Sk journals for the new SK research center in Copenhagen, that you mentioned.

You said: "Plus, if Hannay's CUP translation is anything like C. Stephen Evans and Sylvia Walsh's Fear and Trembling, Kierkegaard might actually have a fighting chance until SKRC has the complete English translations."

A side note: Are you comparing apples and oranges here? Hannay is a translator and Evans and Walsh, I thought, are just editors?" (Again I'm still learning).

If Alastair Hannay does regard Howard Hongs translations as "and he, Hannay, is translating SK journals for the new SK center in Copenhagen, do you think Sk will still have a "fighting chance"? Also, could you please explain exactly what you mean by "fighting chance"? This sounds rather dramatic.

It almost seems like what you are saying is that the last 50-year bulk of translations of SK writings do not fit your opinion or interpretation of Sk so there for the translations must be wrong. I find this interesting, In my 30 years of reading Sk (and I still have a lot to learn) I have never heard anyone even suggest that the past 50 years of translations are that far off to not give SK a "fighting chance" to the English speaking readers. Though you do hear difference in interpretation and opinions on the meaning of SK's writings. You are making a very bold clam here. Are the English translators of the last 50 years just stupid or is it one of those mass conspiracies?

I just do not think this is the case.

@Jay phil,

Jay wrote:

Thanks Victor, I am learning a lot about translators of Kierkegaard.

I recently picked up Alastair Hannay's translation on SK's "Papers and Journals".
I found in his "Translator's Preface" That he, Hannay, seems to be indebted to the translations of Haward Hong from the Sk center at St Olaf College.

Quote by Alastair Hannay:
"There are other translations which over the years have proved immensely valuable to English-speaking Kierkegaard scholars, including myself. Not least of these is the extensive and impressively annotated translation by Howard and Edna Hong."
From:
"Soren Kierkegaard Papers and journals: A Selection"
By Alastair Hannay in his "Translator's Preface"

" or " or "Hong does suffer from some mistranslation as he bases his readings of SK in pre-80s milieu."

It is also interesting to note that Alastair Hannay is working on the new translations of Sk journals for the new SK research center in Copenhagen, that you mentioned.

I'm not saying Lowrie's or Hong's interpretations are garbage, by no means; they are important stepping stones, but their translations are quite dated and show influence of the scholarship of the times. As for Hannay, his SK books were translated in the 1980s; a lot can happen in 20 years. We'll see.

Quote:

You said: "Plus, if Hannay's CUP translation is anything like C. Stephen Evans and Sylvia Walsh's Fear and Trembling, Kierkegaard might actually have a fighting chance until SKRC has the complete English translations."

A side note: Are you comparing apples and oranges here? Hannay is a translator and Evans and Walsh, I thought, are just editors?" (Again I'm still learning).

They're both editors and Walsh is the primary translator.

Quote:

If Alastair Hannay does regard Howard Hongs translations as "and he, Hannay, is translating SK journals for the new SK center in Copenhagen, do you think Sk will still have a "fighting chance"? Also, could you please explain exactly what you mean by "fighting chance"? This sounds rather dramatic.

As again, Hannay wrote that in the 80s. Much can (and did) change in 20 years.

When I say "fighting chance", I mean to ensure that Kierkegaard's writings receive a just and fair interpretation and translation, instead of the rehash of old strawmen (like Kierkegaard is irrational; Kierkegaard hated Hegel; Kierkegaard had no regard for the history of philosophy).

Quote:

It almost seems like what you are saying is that the last 50-year bulk of translations of SK writings do not fit your opinion or interpretation of Sk so there for the translations must be wrong. I find this interesting, In my 30 years of reading Sk (and I still have a lot to learn) I have never heard anyone even suggest that the past 50 years of translations are that far off to not give SK a "fighting chance" to the English speaking readers. Though you do hear difference in interpretation and opinions on the meaning of SK's writings. You are making a very bold clam here. Are the English translators of the last 50 years just stupid or is it one of those mass conspiracies?

I just do not think this is the case.

Their intentions are good, but ultimately insufficient, due to the lack of quality scholarship and personal biases of the individual translator.

As an aside; the English translators today are referring to the Philosophiske Smuler as "Philosophical Crumbs", which is the more proper translation. Back in the day of Lowrie, Swenson, et al., Philosophical Crumbs would not have been a good title to introduce Kierkegaard to English speaking readers, so they made it "Philosophical Fragments".

This whitewashing of even the title of a work of SK, is very apparent in many works. Lowrie himself refused to translate the Prefaces and Writing Sampler because it was not to his liking (his official reason is that it lacked philosophical merit, in his opinion). And as we talked about earlier, Lowrie had to tone Kierkegaard down because of the former's association with the church.

@Victor Eremita,

"Their intentions are good, but ultimately insufficient, due to the lack of quality scholarship and personal biases of the individual translator."

"This whitewashing of even the title of a work of SK, is very apparent in many works."

We are back to your very generalized opinions again. "Translation gaffes" "whitewashing" "lack of quality". Sounds again like the grand conspiracy theory.

The problem I am having with your claim is that you leave it at the level of generalized opinion, you make very little attempt to really explain them by use of Kierkegaard's own structure or to add some support from other translators to your opinions. Pointing out a couple of translation variants does not establish a "whitewash" theory.

Could you please point me to one book or essay that goes into detail about this "whitewash" translation theory of yours? There must be some other "quality" translator that has laid the foundation to this profound 50 year translation problem, or again, is it just your opinion? Please give me a little bit of supporting evidence; it's too big of a claim to leave with just one person's opinion.

I would like to point out that this is Walsh's "Note on the translation" I would think this would be a good place for Walsh to warn the reader on the "whitewashing", "lack of quality" and "personal biases" of the past English translators, i.e. Walter Lowrie. Instead, Walsh gives them credit. I am trying to make every effort to verify what you have been proposing but am just coming up empty!

Thanks.

@Victor Eremita,

Thanks for the input, Jay!

Quote:

The problem I am having with your claim is that you leave it at the level of generalized opinion, you make very little attempt to really explain them by use of Kierkegaard's own structure or to add some support from other translators to your opinions. Pointing out a couple of translation variants does not establish a "whitewash" theory.
Could you please point me to one book or essay that goes into detail about this "whitewash" translation theory of yours? There must be some other "quality" translator that has laid the foundation to this profound 50 year translation problem, or again, is it just your opinion? Please give me a little bit of supporting evidence; it's too big of a claim to leave with just one person's opinion.

Quote:

I would like to point out that this is Walsh's "Note on the translation" I would think this would be a good place for Walsh to warn the reader on the "whitewashing", "lack of quality" and "personal biases" of the past English translators, i.e. Walter Lowrie. Instead, Walsh gives them credit. I am trying to make every effort to verify what you have been proposing but am just coming up empty!

As for giving credit to Lowrie and Hong, you don't bite the hand that feeds you. The modern translations are dependent on the old translations, and yes we thank Lowrie and Hong for that and for introducing and translating Kierkegaard in the early days. But their translations are still missing Kierkegaard's intentions, and that's why the need for modern translators to retranslate Kierkegaard.

Look at page xxxiv of Evans and Walsh's Fear and Trembling: "Walter Lowrie's translation ... contains some inaccuracies and archaisms, but this is the version that introduced Kierkegaard to many English language readers".

Thank you, Mr. Lowrie, for introducing Kierkegaard to many English language readers; but it's time for a more accurate Kierkegaard today.

Philosophy Forum

Quick Links

My Account

able2know