Current Issue  Volume 3  No 1&2  Mar & Oct 2006

Mail

Riti refers to stylistics. Sharma differentiates it from rhetorics which also includes tropes or figures of thought (Sharma 2004: 149). Riti indicates the choice of language, the tone, the swiftness or slowness of pace, the static or the dynamic aspect of the language, the choice of verse. If rasa is the spirit that runs through the work, riti is the body, its fluidity or rigidity, its movements, its rhythms.

How does one emulate riti in a translation? Sharma gives the example of Hemingway. Since Hemingway uses a predominantly Anglo-Saxon diction and simple sentences, in an Indian translation, the use of colloquial rather than Sanskritised expressions could be indicated. Riti requires an acute ear, and the ability to choose an apt cultural ‘transference’.

An elaboration of this point may be in order here. Often cultures cannot be translated. A different ethos has a different demand. A tone, a style, a narrative strategy may not exist in the translated language. Here one cannot translate; one must look for a cultural parallel. And in doing so, one goes not so much by riti as by rasa.

           Alamkaras constitute figures of sound and thought. Metaphors, tropes, different kinds of figures come under it. While being considered as the supreme attributes of literature till the 10^th century A.D., after Ânandavardhana and Abhinavagupta, these came, often, to be considered as mere embellishments. Alamkara or jewelry is that which adorns the bare body and thus makes it beautiful.

         In translation, one tries to translate figures of thought, but what about figures of sound? What about the vibrations. As with mantras which lose their meaning in translation (since the vibration of the original sounds are missing), with sabda (sound) alamkara, translation usually fails.

         Sharma finally talks of dhvani, which is a force-field of meanings, often culture-specific (Sharma: 2004, 150). Dhvani was brought into the realm of poetics by Ânandavardhana and is generally translated as ‘suggestion’. For instance, Ganga (which could be someone’s name) brings in the association of the holy river, the myth of Ganga and Shiva, the image of sacrifices, the sacredness of the water. This may pose problems for translation. Dhvani is to a very great extent culture-specific and poses the most difficulty to a translator. However, many texts rely on evocation and suggestion. Hence, dhvani is an important issue that translators must keep in mind. A strategy that some translators use is implicit commentary within the text in order to explain possible evocations. Others use notes and leave the rest to the reader’s imagination. But there is no easy way to tackle the problem.

           One other set of elements of Indian poetics that Sharma does not mention or consider important for translation is dosas (defects) and gunas (positive qualities) that one identifies in a text. Indian poetics lays down a series of defects (usually ten in number by each ancient critic) and good qualities of literary writing. While in the contemporary context we may no longer use the same guidelines, they are significant indicators of writing strategies.

           For instance, here are a few dosas and gunas that Bharata lists. Among gunas he indicates slesa (apt use), prasada (clarity), samata (evenness), madhurya (sweetness) etc. Among dosas he lists qudartha (circumlocution or difficult words), arthantara (digression into irrelevance), arthahina (incoherence, multiple meanings), ekartha (tautology) etc.

            Dosas and gunas, we must admit, are both context- and culture-dependent and hence relative. Say, ‘sweetness’ may not be apt in all writings. In some, it may even be considered a defect. Nor is it the translator’s main job to identify ‘defects’ in the text and remedy them. But dosas and gunas are insightful indicators of the subtle nuances of the style of writing. They get linked to riti or stylistics. They can make the translator choose the right strategy for emulating the style (or collage of styles) to be found in the text to be translated, be they dosas or gunas.

             Finally, it must be said that the five elements of Indian poetics indicated above do not necessarily work in unity when one comes to translation. There might be inherently contradictory demands that each makes on the translator. If one goes by later poeticians in the Indian tradition, one would resolve the issue by focusing on rasa, the emotional evocation of the translation and its approximation to the text that is translated. Other elements must work in accord, and where they do not, must be subordinated to or abandoned in favour of rasa.

            I also subscribe to such a view. In spite of the various things that we have to say in literary theory about texts, a very significant component of any act of literature is the response of the reader/audience to it, and this can never be purely intellectual or cerebral. Aesthetic relish always brings in certain emotions or their evocations. All translations must finally be read/experienced, and they must evoke certain aesthetic emotions in the reader/audience. In that every literary work can be analyzed through rasa and it can be a guiding principle for any translation.

Notes

1. Srimad Bhagavata Mahapurana, Gorakhpur Gita Press, Gorakhpur, (3^rd Edition) 1995.

2. aho me mohobitatim  pasyatabijitatmanaH| ya kantadastaH kamam kamaye yena baliSa (30)

santam samipe ramaNamratipradam bittapradam nityamimam bihaya |

akamadam dukhhabhayadiSokamohapradam tucHamahambhagegnya  (31)

aho mayatma paritapito brutha sanketyabrutyati bigaryabartaya |

strairnanrad yarthatrsonosocyat kritena bittam ratimatmanecHti |(32)

yadasthi vinirmita bamsbangsyasthuNam tvaca romanakheHa pinardum |

khyaranna badvara magarametad birnmutrapurnam madupetikanya | (33)

idehanam pure hyasminhamekeba muDhaDiHi

 

3. dekha mohara mohazala | agyane bancili mu kala

sarba nasili dhana lobhe | nari svabhabe kamabhabe

asadhu puruSanka mele | kantara bhave kamabhole

ramili  dhane dei mana | dhika e moharajibana

nikate achi mora bharta | sarba sampada sukha-data

anatha natha janahita | mukati gatira bidhata

ze nitya puruSa ratana | tahanka dure thoi mana

ramili kupuru Sa sange | dhane surati sukha range

buddhi mohara dusta ati | bipaka phale hinagati

banchili tuchajana mele | purba pataka karmaphala

brutha tapita heli muhiN | stiri lampate bhava muhin

artha trusnare hoi marta | e deha kali mu biartha

asthi panjara caripase | chau Ni nakha roma kese

sira sikuli gan Thi jokhe | carma rudhira mamsa lepe

e kaya ghare basa moro | nirate bahe nabadvara

eha madhyare malamutra | sampurNa kapha bata pitta

durgandha krumi lala naDi | aseSa roga cHanti baDhi

emanta ghare mote thoi | je guru gale sikhya dei

se guru bakya na pramaNi | a ghere muhi docaruNi

bideha nagarare thai | mo pari mu D ha kehi nahi

 

References

Patnaik, P. 2004 “Translation, Transmutation, Transformation: A Short Reflection on the Indian Kala Tradition.” in Translation Today, Volume 2, No 2 Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages. 

Roy, Anjali.2004 “Mantra” in Translation Today, Volume 1 No1 Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages.

Sharma, T. R. S.2004 “Translating Literary Texts through Indian Poetics: A Phenomenological Study,” Translation Today, Volume 1 No 1 Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages.

C. L. Goswami (tr) 1995 Srimad Bhagavata Mahapurana Gorakhpur: Gorakhpur Gita Press.

Stella Kramrisch (tr) 1928 The Vishnudharmottara Calcutta: Calcutta University Press.

TOP | PREV

Copyright © CIIL and The Author 2006