Scan barcode
A review by drealuc
The Poems of St. John of the Cross by John of the Cross
2.0
My low star rating is not for the poetry of St. John, which is truly the most beautiful and inspiring poetry I have ever read.
The translation was absolutely terrible. St. John was a master wordsmith, creating beauty not only in the content of his words, but in the form as well - crafting them to sound like music as they are being read. In his notes, the translator discusses his attempt to focus on the poetic form rather than on merely the content of the poems so that his English version would also have a musical quality. I would argue that in an attempt to translate poetically rather than directly, he went too far and practically erased the content. The translation falls flat. It removes all the mysticism and beauty and leaves behind bland generic English rhymes that are far removed from the original meaning.
For instance:
Que bien se yo la fonte, que mana, y corre:
aunque es de noche.
The poem, composed while St. John was wrongfully and horrifically imprisoned for 9 months, is about his joy in being able to know and trust in God and to see His goodness DESPITE being in such a terrible place. His words throughout the poem “aunque es de noche” - even though / despite it being night. In contrast, the translation is blandly written as “in the dark of night,” which removes any implication of struggle or conflict, which is inherent in understanding where St. John is writing from.
Another example:
y que el en sus mismas manos
al mismo Dios tomaria
This poem describes the promise to Simeon that he would not see death until “he in his very own hands would take God Himself.” What a beautiful and awe-ful promise of being able to hold God himself in one’s arms. Contrast that with the pathetic translation “the good old man would dandle the marvelous boy.” How could it even compare?
Don’t pick up this version, trust me. If you were to simply read the English translation you would think St. John the most uninspired poet of all time.
The translation was absolutely terrible. St. John was a master wordsmith, creating beauty not only in the content of his words, but in the form as well - crafting them to sound like music as they are being read. In his notes, the translator discusses his attempt to focus on the poetic form rather than on merely the content of the poems so that his English version would also have a musical quality. I would argue that in an attempt to translate poetically rather than directly, he went too far and practically erased the content. The translation falls flat. It removes all the mysticism and beauty and leaves behind bland generic English rhymes that are far removed from the original meaning.
For instance:
Que bien se yo la fonte, que mana, y corre:
aunque es de noche.
The poem, composed while St. John was wrongfully and horrifically imprisoned for 9 months, is about his joy in being able to know and trust in God and to see His goodness DESPITE being in such a terrible place. His words throughout the poem “aunque es de noche” - even though / despite it being night. In contrast, the translation is blandly written as “in the dark of night,” which removes any implication of struggle or conflict, which is inherent in understanding where St. John is writing from.
Another example:
y que el en sus mismas manos
al mismo Dios tomaria
This poem describes the promise to Simeon that he would not see death until “he in his very own hands would take God Himself.” What a beautiful and awe-ful promise of being able to hold God himself in one’s arms. Contrast that with the pathetic translation “the good old man would dandle the marvelous boy.” How could it even compare?
Don’t pick up this version, trust me. If you were to simply read the English translation you would think St. John the most uninspired poet of all time.