Sri Aurobindo

Letters of Sri Aurobindo

Volume 2. 1934 — 1935

Letter ID: 501

Sri Aurobindo — Roy, Dilip Kumar

October 10, 1934

Nishikanta’s translation.

(1) I agree that kallolita sounds more poetic than chhalita [two words meaning “billow”], but Nolini’s objection is probably that it says too much – more than the “subtle rhythms” of the English want to say. (2) I would rather something of the “great” idea were kept, if it can be. Is asurer surā [the asura’s wine] bound to give the impression of something anti-divine? It is the idea of vastness, massiveness, immense intensity that I wanted to give. (3) I cannot judge about anu [atom]. It is not absolutely necessary to translate cells, if atoms will do as well. It seems to me that projjwal [luminous] is rather needed and the line is weaker without it. (4) I am doubtful too about māngsha pinda [a lump of flesh]. It is brutal but vivid – sthūla shankā [coarse doubt] avoids the brutality, but loses the vividness. In English “flesh” is vivid and concrete without being brutal.

The translations are very good indeed – only the last two lines of the octet are not up to the mark because, I suppose they can’t be. “Opal and hyaline” (hyaline unlike “glossy” or “vitreous”) give a sense of a subtle supraphysical glow and light which the Bengali words, I imagine, can’t do. Also the Unknown and the Supreme are mostly indefinite while acenā se sarbeśwar [unknown is that Lord of everything] in spite of his being unknown is much too definite and familiar a gentleman for any such effect. However!

Nishikanta’s poetry has undergone a great change. I did not appreciate it very highly because it was too vital and turbid, but on his sonnets he has acquired a power of substance, clarity and order which raises his work to a much higher level. He has certainly justified himself as a poet.

The proper rule about literalness, I suppose, is that one should keep as close as possible to the original provided the result does not read like a translation but like an original poem in Bengali, and, as far as possible, as if it were the original poem originally written in Bengali. Whether that ideal is always realisable is another matter. When it can’t be done one has to dodge or deviate.

I admit that I have not practised what I preach – whenever I translated, I was careless of the feelings of the original text and transmogrified it without mercy into whatever my fancy chose. But that is a high and mighty criminality which one ought not to imitate. Latterly I have tried to be more moral in my ways, I don’t know with what success. But anyhow it is a case of “Do what I preach and avoid what I practise.”