My first example is Sir Thomas Malory's "Le Morte D'Arthur" and its abridged translation "Pyöreän pöydän ritarit", from now on referred to as MA and PR. The translation is aimed for young readers (mainly teenagers) and it is the only one stating Malory's book as the original. There is at least one other translated book, "Arthur-kuninkaan tarinoita", but it is a translation of Rosemary Sutcliff's books based on the stories of King Arthur.
I use the word "translation" when talking about Pyöreän pöydän ritarit. The more exact term would be "Finnish version", because according to House (1977:59) the classical works translated for children are different versions of the source text, not translations. So I use the word "translation" in a very broad sense.
Due to the length of the original text, I have concentrated on the first third of the book, pages 1-187 (pages 1-104 in the translation). This should be an adequate amount of material for making some conclusions about the translation.
Sir Thomas Malory translated into English French romances about the adventures of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. This book is known as Le Morte D'Arthur. Malory finished his work in 1469, but it was published first time in 1485 by Caxton. In the preface to the first edition Caxton wrote about his motives for publishing the book:
And I, according to my copy, have done set in imprint, to the intent that noble men may see and learn the noble acts of chivalry, the gentle and virtuous deeds that some knight used in those days, by which they came to honour; and how they that were vicious were punished and oft put to shame and rebuke; humbly beseeching all noble lords and ladies, with all other estates, of what estate or degree they be of, that shall see and read in this said book and work, that they take the good and honest acts in their rememberance, and to follow the same. (MA:XXIX)
In the introduction of the 1909 version (MA:X-XI) professor Rhys mentions that Malory reduced the original stories, sometimes altered the sequence of the incidents, inserted facts not contained in the originals, and omitted certain incidents that did not fit his purposes, but he rarely inserted entire chapters of his own.
Burgess has said about the Caxton original that it shows how Caxton took many liberties with the manuscripts of his authors (1987:38). So the Caxton original is an abridged and revised translation of the original French stories.
The translation of Malory's book, Pyöreän pöydän ritarit, was first printed in 1979. The fourth printing of the book was printed in 1989. The translator is Marja Helanen-Ahtola. She has translated many books for children and teenagers, and also some books about psychology and related subjects. Before 1979, she had translated less than 10 books, so she was probably not very experienced translator of fiction at the time. One interesting aspect is that between years 1984-1993, she translated 19 abridged books for the Kirjavaliot series.
In his book Ingo (1990:82) mentions revised translations. According to him revisions of style can be done for example when translating classics. Often it is a question of modernizing the language. The archaic form of language is not part of the style in these cases, so the translator has no responsibility of saving it. Rather the translator should try to reach the same form of language the original represented at its own time. Ingo also mentions that the translations do not always have to adopt the same level of style the source text represents. Such translations are for example the colloquial translations of the Bible or "easy reader" publications.
Malory's text was normal prose in its own time, in fact, according to Burgess (1987:38) "these stories are set out in a prose-style that, though simple, is dignified and clear". So, in accordance with Ingo's statement, the language of the translation should be normal modern prose. The language could even be simplified, because the age of the readers could justify a kind of "easy reader treatment".
The language of the translation is mostly normal prose. Normal means in this case that the text has no special characteristics which would make it seem for example older than it is.
I noticed four ways of shortening the text the translator has used. From now on I will call them "methods" though they are not very clearly defined and they overlap. I only use them to help present the different cases - in practice all these methods have often been used in translating one story as the story of Balin in chapter 4.4.6 shows.
Two definitions have to be given before I move on. The definition of a story first: I use the word "story" when referring to a chain of incidents which has a clear beginning and end, or sometimes referring to events happening to a certain person, if that person only appears in the book for a short time. The other definition is about "accurate" translations, with which I mean translations which have not been shortened at all or which have been shortened using the first method (4.4.2), i.e. translations in which the content is almost the same as in the original.
The first method is shortening the text evenly by omitting details, taking only the main points of the sentences and combining them into new sentences. Part of the sentences have not been shortened at all.
The line between this method and unabridged translation is sometimes vague as can be seen from chapters XIX and XX of book IV (MA:89-91, PR:55-59). The next example is taken from the end of chapter XX. The original text is wordy and even a modern English version would probably be shorter.
1)
And so when he loved her there was cried in this country a great jousts three days, and all the knights of this country were there and gentlewomen, and who that proved him the best knight should have a passing good sword and a circlet of gold, and the circlet the knight should give it to the fairest lady that was at the jousts. And this knight Sir Pelleas was the best knight that was there, and there were five hundred knights, but there was never man that ever Sir Pelleas met withal but he struck him down, or else from his horse; and every day of three days he struck down twenty knights, therefore they gave him the prize, and forthwithal he went there as the lady Ettard was, and gave her the circlet, and said openly she was the fairest lady that there was, and that would he prove upon any knight that would say nay. (MA:91)
Seudulla pidettiin kolmen päivän turnajaiset, joitten voittaja sai palkkiokseen oivallisen miekan ja kultarivan, joka hänen piti antaa turnajaisten kauneimmalle naiselle. Sir Pelleas voitti kilvan, vaikka paikalla oli viisisataa ritaria. Hän antoi otsarivan Ettardille ja sanoi kuuluvasti, että tämä oli kaikista naisista kaunein. (PR:58)
This is the second way of dealing with the problem. The translator has sometimes taken whole sentences, sometimes only parts of the sentences, and sometimes she has chosen longer passages, consisting of several sentences, to be translated or omitted.
The stories which have been treated this way often have something to do with the fights or adventures of the knights. Especially the names of the knights and their conversations before and after the fights have often been cut out or mentioned only briefly. In the original text it seems to be very important that the names of all the knights taking part in fights and tournaments are mentioned. Like the story of the tournament into which King Arthur went with his knights (MA:176-180, PR:102-103). There is a long list of names in the original text stating who fought against who.
In this method there can be some problems, the first one of them being the problem of choosing the parts that are not essential and can be left out. The second problem is maintaining the logic of the text. As Klingberg points out (1986:74), "the translator may be forced to bear a deletion in mind later on, even if it is not an essential one in itself." When you omit parts of the text, you may have to insert some explanations later or delete the parts of the text which refer to the omitted parts. This can lead to a chain of omissions. The same is true for the methods in chapters 4.4.4 and 4.4.5. However, in this method there may be more problems than in the other two, because cutting out shorter passages means you have to do it more often. The amount of omissions grow, and it can be more difficult to remember them or go back and check them, which is essential, if you want to keep the text logical.
Here is one example illustrating the logical aspect. Sir Ulfius presented the idea that King Uther should marry Igraine (MA:2), however, in the translation Ulfius has not been mentioned (see example 7). Also the wars between Arthur and those who did not accept him as their king (MA:15-22) have been left out. This has affected the translation later (MA:26, PR:18-19), so that Sir Ulfius appears suddenly without any explanation, although he was one of King Uther's nearest men, and his accusations against queen Igraine have been left out. Ulfius accused queen Igraine of not telling the true identity of Arthur and thus causing the war mentioned earlier. Because there is nothing about the great war in the translation, the accusations Ulfius made would have required some explanations.
These cases need to be mentioned separately, though they could often be classified as ones belonging to the next category, because the shortening leaves so much out. The difference is that in these cases the events are at least mentioned, though very briefly. A good example of this kind of treatment is the end of the story of Balin (see example 2). The original text is about three pages, but the translation is just over five lines.
In some cases whole stories or large parts of them have been omitted, and in other cases stories have been translated without any shortening. This combination is logical, because if you omit one story, you get enough space to translate some other story without any shortening. This method also makes it easier for the translator to remember the omissions. Choosing the stories is the problem. I have chosen two examples, which show that in two similar cases, the translator has chosen two different solutions.
Chapter I of the fourth book (MA:69-70) tells about a young girl Merlin fell in love with. He taught the girl all he could and the girl tricked him to go under a stone and then she cast a spell, so that he could not get away, and left him there. This has been cut out of the translation entirely. In this case it would probably have been better to shorten the story instead of leaving it out entirely, because without even looking for references to this story I have come across two examples.
In Peter Dickinson's Weathermonger (1984) the story of Merlin who sleeps under the stone is a crucial one explaining everything in the end. Klingberg (1986:21) also mentions this book as an example of a book which is difficult to understand without knowledge of Merlin's story. The other example is one of Hugo Pratt's (1987) Corto Maltese stories translated as "Talviaamun unelma". There are some explanations in the story, but knowing the original story of Merlin will help.
A good example of a story which has not been shortened is the story of how Arthur got the Excalibur (MA:30, PR:19-20), which begins when Arthur and Merlin come near the lake where the hand is holding the sword and ends when they depart from the lake. Only one sentence has been left out, otherwise the translation tells all that happens in the original. This story is probably referred to more often than the story of Merlin.
The translator has chosen to translate one story and omit the other. The solution is not very logical. In this case it would probably have been best to at least mention Merlin's story, because it would make it easier to understand the references. So it seems that when translating classics, those parts of the text which are referred to elsewhere in literature should not be cut out entirely.
The story of Balin is a very good example of using all the methods together. The beginning, which happens at the court of King Arthur, has been translated accurately (MA:33-37, PR:22-26). Balin's later adventures (MA: 37-50) have been cut out and the part about Balin's death (MA:50-52) has been reduced to a few lines:
2)
Sir Balin jätti Arthurin hovin ja joutui pian ankariin taisteluihin. Jotta miekkaan vyötetyn neidon ennustus olisi käynyt toteen, hän taisteli viimein veljensä, parhaan ystävänsä, kanssa tätä tuntematta. Kamppailu oli niin tuima, että veljekset löivät toisensa hengiltä, ja Merlin hautasi heidät yhteiseen hautaan. (PR:27)
The problem here is the fact that Balin's death could not have been left out, because at the beginning, which is translated accurately, there is a prophesy about Balin's death, and it could be odd if there was nothing about it later in the text. Maybe it would have been better to omit the whole story, or maybe it should have been translated more accurately, because the solution the translator has chosen shows that the last bit has been included only to finish the story of Balin as quickly as possible.
I have left out Klingberg's request of not damaging content or form in this example, because both are altered when translating classics for children. In fact, this kind of translation requires so much rewriting, that the term "Finnish version" mentioned in chapter 4.1 is the correct term.
The first method, shortening the text evenly is just the opposite of Klingberg's recommendations, because he recommends translating/leaving out whole sentences if one wishes to delete within paragraphs. The second method follows the recommendations better, because it mainly leaves out whole sentences and passages. The third and fourth methods follow Klingberg's recommendation of deleting whole chapters or passages.
In this case the first method, although opposite to Klingberg's recommendations, is probably the best, because, as I said in chapter 4.4.2, the text is quite wordy. Translating whole sentences would probably produce a text, which would not flow naturally. Also, condensing sentences makes it possible to include more of the main events. So, probably Ammondt was in the right track when he suggested rewriting in basis of the classics instead of translating them, although his reasons were different.
There seems to be a certain tendency to avoid violence in the translation. For example many parts of the original text where knights kill each other in very violent battles, have been translated so that it is not clear if the loser dies or not, or how he dies. Telling all the details would over-emphasize the violence and make the stories too long, so some shortening is needed, but these tidy versions cannot be quite correct either.
3)
So King Pellinore gave him such a stroke upon the helm that he clave the head down to the chin, that he fell to the earth dead. (MA:65)
...hänen oli kukistettava toinen ritareista. (PR:38)
4)
...the giant was a wily fighter, but at last Sir Marhaus smote off his right arm above the elbow. Then the giant fled and the knight after him, and so he drove him into a water, but the giant was so high that he might not wade after him. And then Sir Marhaus made the Earl Fergus's man to fetch him stones, and with those stones the knight gave the giant many sore knocks, till at the last he made him fall down into the water, and so was he there dead. (MA:97)
...kiivaan kamppailun jälkeen hän viimein hukutti jättiläisen. (PR:64)
5)
...over his head he saw a rownsepyk, a big bough leafless, and therewith he brake it off by the body. And then he came lower and awaited how his own horse stood, and suddenly he leapt on the further side of the horse, froward the knight. And then Sir Phelot lashed at him eagerly, weening to have slain him. But Sir Lancelot put away the stroke with the rownsepyk, and therewith he smote him on the one side of the head, that he fell down in a swoon to the ground. So then Sir Lancelot took his sword out of his hand, and struck his neck from the body. (MA:139)
Sir Lancelot huomasi yläpuolellaan lahoavan oksan ja mursi sen irti. Hän laskeutui alemmaksi ja hyppäsi hevosensa yli, kauaksi ritarista. Sir Phelot lähestyi häntä, mutta sir Lancelot löi miestä oksalla ja kaatoi tämän maahan. (PR:80)
Many wars have also been omitted. Some of them are mentioned, but a sentence or two seems to be enough of them. One obvious example is the war between Arthur and those who did not accept him as their king. In the original text there is about seven pages (MA:15-22) of text about this war. In the translation there is a very brief mentioning of some wars (PR:14), but generally one gets the idea that it was easy for Arthur to take his place as the king. The wars could have easily been shortened by leaving out parts like this for example:
6)
When King Lot saw King Nentres on foot, he ran unto Melot de la Roche, and smote him down, horse and man, and gave King Nentres the horse, and horsed him again. Also the King of the hundred knights saw King Idres on foot, then he ran unto Gwimiart de Bloi, and smote him down, horse and man, and gave King Idres the horse, and horsed him again; and King Lot smote down Clariance de la Forest Savage, and gave his horse unto Duke Eustace. (MA:16)
When something like this goes on for over a page, shortening seems to be a very good idea, leaving all out is maybe a too radical solution.
The relationship between men and women has also suffered during the translation process. There are of course knights robbing women and others rescuing them, but the sexual aspect does not come out as clearly as in the original. Nor the fact that marriage is a deal between men, women just have to adapt to the situation and accept whoever is given to them. This is of course understandable, given the age of the readers, but I am not sure if it is the right way to treat the text. A couple of examples illustrate the point.
7)
Now will we do well, said Ulfius, our king is a lusty knight and wifeless, and my lady Igraine is a passing fair lady; it were great joy unto us all, an it might please the king to make her his queen. Unto that they all well accorded and moved it to the king. And anon, like a lusty knight, he assented thereto with good will, and so in all haste they were married in a morning with great mirth and joy. And King Lot of Lothian and of Orkney then wedded Margawse that was Gawaine's mother, and King Nentres of the land of Garlot wedded Elaine. All this was done at the request of the King Uther. (MA:3)
...kuningas Uther pyysi Igrainea puolisokseen ja heidät vihittiin. (PR:8)
8)
Sir, said the damosel, here by this way haunteth a knight that distressed all ladies and gentlewomen, and at the least he robbeth them or lieth by them. (MA:129)
Neito kertoi, että kaikkia naisia ahdisteleva ritari oleskeli tien lähistöllä. (PR:73)
One example in this category shows that just as omitting one part can cause later omissions, some important incidents which can not be left out can make some other incidents impossible to be cut out. So the incest scene involving King Arthur and his sister, the queen of Orkney, has to be found in the translation (MA:24, PR:15), because later in the book their son has an important part, which has a lot to do with his descent.
It seems to me that the translator has had difficulties in deciding what to omit from the text. It would be interesting to know how freely she was able to choose those parts. Obviously she has had some guidelines which she has had to follow, because it would be too simple to draw the conclusion that the translator by herself has decided to follow certain kind of pattern when making the omissions.
It is even possible that she has not noticed that she has done something questionable, because, as Oittinen (1987:132) says, making a neutral translation is impossible - translation will always reveal the translator's person and his/her view of the world. So the additions and omissions in the translations tell about the translator, and the attitudes of the time, which certainly shape the translator's view of the world. Probably all these reasons have had their effect during the translation process.
One problem in this kind of treatment is the distortion of the picture the text is supposed to give to the reader. If you take away most of the violence, wars and sex, the picture changes, it becomes more sterile. If the world of King Arthur is often cruel and violent (at least to modern people), why should the translation give a picture of a different kind of a world?