Just wanted to jot down a few quick thoughts that I have about Sappho’s fragment 94.
The first thing I wanted to note is more about general translation itself, and this idea of trying to capture the thematic message as opposed to more literal – line by line translation. Another thing to consider when looking specifically at Sappho’s work is the use of the gaps in her work. Are they taken out as is the case in Julia Dubonoff’s translation? Or are they left in, as is the case with Ann Carson’s translation?
To me, every time I compare the two translations, I find that I prefer Carson’s. To me, and this is the danger of attempting to craft your translation with a thematic focus, Dubnoff’s translation feels forced to an extent. There is an imposition of her interpretation on the reader, leading the interaction between the text and the reader to be more straightforward in nature. While this allows for simplification of a complicated text, it’s difficult to form more varied interpretations of the poem as the translation of the poem itself guides you down a specific path (focusing more on the idea of a loss of a loved one).
For instance, in stanza 4, Dubnoff translates the line to “our wonderful times”. Prior to this, in stanza 3, we see that there is a sense of ambiguity that is introduced when it is stated that “we”, indicating plurality, “cherished [the women leaving]”. As readers, we start to question whether or not the experiences described are then personal – shared between the persona and the women – or more communal in nature (a group). As a consequence of this doubt, there is now a conflict of sorts that is created between the individual, and the community (in the matter of love) – something to further explore.
However, the word “our” has a more intimate feeling associated with it – as such diminishing this doubt regarding personal versus community involvement (and thus discrediting in part that interpretation). In comparison, we see in Carson’s translation that the same line in translation is “beautiful times we had” – that ambiguity maintained.
A couple of other thoughts. One is this interesting sense of abstraction that occurs throughout the play. While we start with an intense focus on the persona (“I want to be dead”) and the women leaving (emphasis of ‘we’), there is a shift in focus throughout the poem to solely the women (emphasized by later stanzas where the pronoun “you” is repeated). While this may be a physical effect representative of the feelings of distance that exist between the persona and the women leaving, it may also be representative of a more general statement about the alienating impact of love (an interesting contradiction).
The other is simply the use of a form of Aeloic verse – which adds to this idea of the poetry meant to be performed as opposed to privately read. As such, the sense of community comes across more strongly than that of the individual (lending support to the pervasive power of the community over the individual?).
