Smrutisanhita: Ek Karun Prashasti (ibid. 1940) commemorates the death of Narsinhrao Divetiya’s son Nalinkant, and carries teeka written by Anandshankar Dhruv, which refers to Tennyson’s “In Memoriam,” and also to Wordsworth, Browning and others. It contains the celebrated elegy of Gujarati literature “Mangal mandir kholo.”

Narsinhrao Divetiya’a lifelong association with translation also defined his talent. Mansukhlal Jhaveri, a noted Gujarati critic, comments:

Even the best of Narsinhrao’s poetry could not have attained Nhanalal’s sobriety, Kant’s elegance or Balvantrai’s freshness. Narasinhrao’s individual talent is limited to that extent. His vision is narrow to that extent. It seems that imitation (anukriti), and not original creation, suits his talent more. I have found only one poem, which would overwhelm and which we would like to murmur day in and day out: “Premal jyoti taro dakhavi, muj jivanpanth ujalya.” And it is not an independent poem. Though it is true that that poem is not independent, it is certainly almost independent. “Lead kindly light” was translated by Narsinhrao also, and also by Kant. Kant’s translation might have been more “loyal” to the original text, but Kant’s translation does not have tenderness, elegance and heartfelt yearning which Narsinhrao’s translation has. Only Narsinhrao could manage the sustained rhythm of that poem, penetrating through heart. And that itself is his specific achievement. “Ghuvad” is another such example. It is inspired by Edgar Allan Poe’s “Raven.” But it is only inspired. All artistic composition, other than the inspiration, is Narsinhrao’s only. And Narsinhrao could shine out in that also. Many more examples like “Mne prerata tarakavrunda! A hun avyo re” or “Chanda” can be cited. It can be discerned from all these examples that originality does not suit Narsinhrao’s talent.

(Jhaveri 1959:296-297)

 

            It is notable that Narasinhrao Divetiya’s creatve writing misses Kant’s elegance (“madhurya”), but his translation of “Lead kindly light” has elegance (“madhurata”) which Kant’s translation of the same lacks. Further, Mansukhlal Jhaveri, referring to Kusummala , notes that inspiration from life may be better than derivative inspiration in the context of translation in aesthetic terms, but in historical terms such translated versions have their own significance-modern Gujarati poetry was born with Narmad, but it “grew up and blossomed “only with Narsinhrao (ibid: 297). The romantic strain in Gujarati poetry, carried forward later by Balashankar Kanthariya, Nhanalal, Kalapi or Ravaji Patel was fostered in the context of assimilating the other and self-definition, in the context of translation

Narsinhrao Divetiya’a lifelong association with the act of translation made available a Gujarati version of the British romantic lyric, its cognate sensibility and taste. It is also reflected on the process of translation and realized its mercurial status. Sujit Mukherjee rightly observes:

 

Quite significantly, we don’t have a word in any Indian language that would be the equivalent of the term ‘translation.’  We borrowed anuvad from Sanskrit (where it means ‘speaking after’) and tarjuma from Arabic (where it is nearer to ‘explicate’ or ‘paraphrase’). More recent borrowings are rupantar (in Bangla) or vivartanam (in Malayalam) or bhashantar (in Hindi). That we don’t have a widely accepted Indian word for ‘translation’ suggests that the concept itself was not familiar to us. Instead, when we admired a literary text in one language, we used it as a take-off point and composed a similar text in another language. P. Lal’s use of the term ‘transcreation’ may well be most appropriate for such a situation—more so, now that the Advanced Learners Dictionary has sanctified it.

(Mukherjee 2004:45, his italics)

            In this context, Narsinhrao Divetiaya’s translation is largely a transcreation of the British romantic texts while it translates its sensibility and taste into Gujarati poetry. As Divetiya informs in his teeka on “Ghuvad,” his translation of Edgar Allan Poe’s “Raven” is independent of the original except for the despairing refrain “Never more,” which is in the context of the dead Lenore in the original poem, and which refers to puzzles of human life in general in the translated version “Ghuvad.” Further, his translation of Cardinal Newman’s “Lead kindly light” at the request of Mahatma Gandhi could be a celebrated example of transcreation. But the very process of transcreation, in terms of the degree of creation, transcending the original, may complicate the issue further. Moreover, Narsinhrao Divetiya’s extensive teekas to the poems are often a retranslation of a translation of a British romantic lyric. Further, these teekas refer to the act of translation as either a bhashantar, or a prerit or inspired version or rememoration of sanskara, chhaya, nakal or anukaran, suggesting, at least, the plural mode of translation. They also suggest the problematic status of a source language text which ranges from being a sanskara to a literal text. The teekas create a conceptual space wherein the issue of translation may be discussed in the context of empirical practice, keeping up its richness and complexity.

Notes

 

1.      All the quotations from Gujarati texts, cited in this paper, are my translations.

References

 

Divetiya, Narsinhrao Bholanath 1953 “Preface to the first edition” Kusummala Ahmedabad: Gurjar Grantharatna Karyalaya.

__________ 1934 “Preface to the 1^st edition.” Hradayaveena Mumbai: C. Jamanadas Co.

__________ 1914 Noopurjhankar Ahmedabad: Union Printing Press.

__________ 1940 Smaransanhita: ek karun prashasti Ahmedabad: C. Jamanadas Co.

Hulme, T. E. 1972 “Romanticism and classicism” in David Lodge (ed) 20th Century Literary Criticism: A ReaderLondon: Longman.

Jhveri, Manasukhalal 1959 “Narasinhrao” Thoda Vivechanlekho Ahmadabad: Gurjar granthratna karyalaya.

Mukherjee, Sujit 2004 “Transcreating Translation” in Meenakshi Mukherjee (ed)   Translation as Recovery Delhi: Pencraft International.

Sundaram 1946 Arvachin Kavita: 1845 pachhni kavitani rooprekha Ahmedabad: Gujarat Vernacular Society.

Trivedi, Vishnuprasad 1961 “Arvachin sahitya ane vivechanman kautukrag” in Kunjavihari Maheta et al. (ed) Upayan: Shri Vishnuprasad R. Trivedi shashtipoorti abhinandan granth Surat: Shri Vishnuprasad Trivedi shashtipoorti sanman samiti.

__________ 1964 “Narmad” Vivechana Ahmedabad: Gurjar Granthratna Karyalaya.

 

PREV | TOP

Copyright © CIIL and The Author 2006