Forgive me if I’m missing something obvious, but I’m a little confused about the translation. I am reading it from the Louise Varèse edition that Patti wrote the preface to and the translation is a bit different from what Patti reads herein. And there, the Latin comes in the fourth stanza (Byron has it in the fifth stanza):
Forgive me if I’m missing something obvious, but I’m a little confused about the translation. I am reading it from the Louise Varèse edition that Patti wrote the preface to and the translation is a bit different from what Patti reads herein. And there, the Latin comes in the fourth stanza (Byron has it in the fifth stanza):
Hope never more,
No orietur.
Science and patience,
Retribution is sure.
I love Byron’s point about the progressive darkness -- “No more tomorrow” -- yet the poem closes with the “recovery” that begins it: Eternity, the sea mixed with the sun. Whether it is heard or seen, it is recovered.
I’ve just been searching and I see many (frustratingly, numerous without indicating who translated them). Some are only two stanzas!
The plot thickens with this poem. Any information you have or thoughts about these versions would be greatly appreciated. Possible topic for a Smithposium? (I’m not kidding; it’s really fascinating)
Thanks for your response to my comment, and for your kind words here. I think the version in A Season in Hell that you’re talking about is different from the original version (which is what I think Patti was reading a translation of--she mentions the later version in her recording). There are numerous differences between the French texts of the original and the A Season in Hell version, but one of the most interesting is that Rimbaud switches stanza five to where stanza four was, and vice versa (that’s why the Latin appears in stanza four of the Varèse translation, like you say, whereas it’s in stanza five of the French original version, which is what I was looking at). In the original, the nadir of “Là pas d’espérance” (“There no hope”) is the final station before the recapitulation, whereas in the second version, the ardor of satin embers that is Duty has the last word. This is something I failed to comment on in my post—orietur in Latin is third person singular, so “Nul orietur”/“Pas d’orietur” could be translated as “he will not rise,” a possible muted reference to Christ’s resurrection. In the original, this is followed by the resurrection of the sun, a secular resurrection for a secular religion of poetry. But in the second version, the Duty to burn like the sun is paramount, so the religious undertone is less prominent.
It depends on what you mean by “helps”: if by “helps” you mean put the subject to rest, you have made matters worse. But if by helps you mean gets me more interested in these versions and the distinctions between parochial and secular inflections, even pedestrian versus mystical ones, then you’ve greatly helped! This is fascinating. Thank you for such an insightful explication and please say more if you’re so inclined.
Can you provide a link to the original? Can anyone?
I have much respect for someone who can do an analysis like this. I'm one of those 'transposed by the beauty of his language' kind of readers. I'll dive into these depths whenever they appear though. It makes the experience that much richer.
Forgive me if I’m missing something obvious, but I’m a little confused about the translation. I am reading it from the Louise Varèse edition that Patti wrote the preface to and the translation is a bit different from what Patti reads herein. And there, the Latin comes in the fourth stanza (Byron has it in the fifth stanza):
Hope never more,
No orietur.
Science and patience,
Retribution is sure.
I love Byron’s point about the progressive darkness -- “No more tomorrow” -- yet the poem closes with the “recovery” that begins it: Eternity, the sea mixed with the sun. Whether it is heard or seen, it is recovered.
Arthur had a few different versions of this poem.
I will look into it. Also I will check what translation I read...
I’ve just been searching and I see many (frustratingly, numerous without indicating who translated them). Some are only two stanzas!
The plot thickens with this poem. Any information you have or thoughts about these versions would be greatly appreciated. Possible topic for a Smithposium? (I’m not kidding; it’s really fascinating)
Hi Robin,
Thanks for your response to my comment, and for your kind words here. I think the version in A Season in Hell that you’re talking about is different from the original version (which is what I think Patti was reading a translation of--she mentions the later version in her recording). There are numerous differences between the French texts of the original and the A Season in Hell version, but one of the most interesting is that Rimbaud switches stanza five to where stanza four was, and vice versa (that’s why the Latin appears in stanza four of the Varèse translation, like you say, whereas it’s in stanza five of the French original version, which is what I was looking at). In the original, the nadir of “Là pas d’espérance” (“There no hope”) is the final station before the recapitulation, whereas in the second version, the ardor of satin embers that is Duty has the last word. This is something I failed to comment on in my post—orietur in Latin is third person singular, so “Nul orietur”/“Pas d’orietur” could be translated as “he will not rise,” a possible muted reference to Christ’s resurrection. In the original, this is followed by the resurrection of the sun, a secular resurrection for a secular religion of poetry. But in the second version, the Duty to burn like the sun is paramount, so the religious undertone is less prominent.
Hope this helps!
Byron
Hi Byron,
It depends on what you mean by “helps”: if by “helps” you mean put the subject to rest, you have made matters worse. But if by helps you mean gets me more interested in these versions and the distinctions between parochial and secular inflections, even pedestrian versus mystical ones, then you’ve greatly helped! This is fascinating. Thank you for such an insightful explication and please say more if you’re so inclined.
Can you provide a link to the original? Can anyone?
Again, Byron, thank you.
Warmly,
Robin
You all are better Posiums than me. I love all these comments, learned, heartfelt, academic...Thank you all
I have much respect for someone who can do an analysis like this. I'm one of those 'transposed by the beauty of his language' kind of readers. I'll dive into these depths whenever they appear though. It makes the experience that much richer.