ghalib v s shakepeare

With due acknowledgement frm dr d.sharma

Comparison of translations of Abhigyaana-Shaakuntalam.
Intro
Herde wrote after reading Shakuntala: "A masterpiece that appears once every two thousand years". The story for the play ‘Abhigyaana-Shaakuntalam’ appears in the Adi Parva of The Mahabharata . Kalidas adapted the story for this play though he takes significant liberties in his version. Kalidasa is recognizably the greatest poet and dramatist in Ancient India when Sanskrit flourished. Abhijnanasakuntalam and Kalidasa's other plays were written for a refined court audience. The dialogue of the upper-class characters was delivered in Sanskrit, the classical language, and that of women and commoners in Prakrit, the common speech. Despite these lofty origins, Kalidasa's plays have remained popular. He achieves a unique harmony in weaving a fabric of human life with threads of human frailties and tragedies.
In 1789, the first translation of Shakuntala was made by Sir William Jones into English and since then a number of translators have attempted to translate this play. This translation not only played an important role in bringing about a renaissance in Indian literature, but also greatly influenced European literary traditions. Among them, the best known translations are Monier Williams’s translation of Shakuntala into prose and verse (1855), M.R.Kalle, Arthur Ryder, K.V.Sundaram, Barbara Miller and that of Chandra Rajan.
In this paper I attempt to do a comparative study of the translations of Shakuntala focusing on the translations of Willaim Jones’s ‘Sacontala or The Fatal Ring’ (1789) and Chandra Rajan’s Shakuntala (1989). However, my study is not limited to these translations only but I have also attempted to examine briefly the translations of M. Williams, Ryder and Miller as well, particularly the emotive basis of various Shoklas bearing love and eroticism and how far they have pierced into the very spirit, the character, atmosphere and the central sensibility.

Kalidas is known for his treatment of nature and of its expatiation in similes and imagery.
Another important aspect which my paper closely attempts to enumerate is to see how far these translators could imbibe the atmosphere of hermitage, the pastoral imagery and the sacraments of ancient India, to bring out a living picture of Kalidas’s age. The problems faced by the translators are formidable, particularly while working with English and Sanskrit. With all the tremendous powers that the English language has, it is still not fully capable of coping with the subtlety and hidden dimensions that are found in Sanskrit, it is a difficult language to translate so it is necessary to evaluate how far they are successfully transferred into English.


To the orientalist of the nineteenth century it was not only a delightful experience but a duty of a westerner to know all about the literary pursuits, the opinions, prejudices, fables, the religious beliefs, metaphysical thinking and amusements reflected in their dramas and poetry. It is the contribution of Hones that the Europe could be acquainted to acknowledge and appreciate India as a civilized country as its literature ascends back for more than two thousands years and is not alien in aesthetics of love, beauty and nature for the European mind. Schegal in his lecture on dramatic literature says:
“ Shakuntala not withstanding with colouring of a foreign clime, bears in its general structure a striking resemblance to our romantic drama.” (M.Williams xxi)
Hamboldt observes: “ Kalidas the celebrated author of Shakuntala is a masterly describer of the nature. Tenderness in the expression of feeling and richness of creative fancy, have assigned to him his lofty place among poets of all nations.” (M.Williams xii)
The impact of ‘Sacontala’ was soon felt in Europe when Edwards London editions appeared in 1790 and 1792. By 1791, Sacontala was translated into German by Forster and by 1792 into Russian by Karamsin. Translations in Danish (1793), French (1803) and Italian (1815) appeared soon after. In particular, Goethe was deeply influenced by the play to the extent that the prologue of Faust was inspired by that of ‘Sacontala’. So inspired was he by the play that he wrote in 1791:

"Wouldst thou the earth and heaven
itself in one soul name combine?
I name thee, O Sakuntala, and all at once is said.”
( Roychaudhuri:75-76)
Jones in a letter addressed to Sir Joseph Banks in 1791 wrote:
" I can assure you that the translation is as literal
as possible; but I am not sure, that my own
errors or inattention may not have occasional mistakes". (Jones, Letters 2:894; quoted Pachori 89)



Jones calls Shakuntala the celebrated drama of Shakespeare of India, hundred years back Jones had already claimed him as “our illustrious poet this Shakespeare of India.” Jones first came to hear about Indian ‘Natakas’, during his sojourn in Europe, in 1787. These ‘Natakas’ were then considered to be Brahmanical histories with a mixture of fables and myths. His interest aroused, Jones began to investigate them on his return to Calcutta and was soon convinced that these were popular works far removed from being 'histories'. Jones was given a Bengali recension of ‘Sacontala’. Ramlochan, a Sanskrit teacher at the University of Nadia, helped Jones read the play and in 1789, Joseph Cooper published the English translation of ‘Sacontala’.
About a century had elapsed, writes Monnier Williams in 1885 in the introduction of ‘Shakuntala the Lost Ring’: “Since then great English orientalist , Sir Williams Jones astonished the learned world by the discovery of a universally esteemed drama ‘Sacontala’, now two centuries have elapsed with a rally of English translations of Shakuntal . In 1989 Chandra Rajan's translation of Kalidasa's Sakuntala ‘The Recognition of Shakuntala’ appears in the Penguin (India) edition of The Loom of Time, which also includes two of Kalidasa's poems. By this token of recognition it is but evident that throughout the centuries the grandeur of Kalidasa’s poetic art and dramatic craft have attracted many a western and eastern transformations of his art in the languages of the world. Widely translated there were no fewer than forty-six translations in twelve different languages in the century after Sir William Jones' groundbreaking first translation.
“It had an immediate and enthusiastic reception in germany, France and Italy and announced the birth of orientalism.”( 9) Figueira

Significantly when the translation of Jones compared is with Rajan’s translation the problem of complicating imagery , the vocubalary , the compact and order of the subtlety of Kalidas’s poetry, the direct and indirect analogy is faced with other translators by the both under review translators. Whether this is the discourse on the character and conduct of the play and the character and function of his translation Jones with a modest attitude measures his power of translation and the beauty of the text in his preface to ‘Sacontala.’
“I am convinced that the tastes of men differ as much as their sentiments and passions, and that, in feeling the beauties of art, as in smelling flowers, tasting fruits, viewing prospects, and hearing melody, every individual must be guided by his own sensations and the incommunicable associations of his own ideas.” (371) 
Sometimes Kalidas interestingly play on words the subtlety of mythological expression, words obliquely suggesting the simile remain beyond there understanding of the image. The problem of Indian and non Indian expression hovers over them. Jones without emphasizing upon the achievement and limitation of his translation modestly says:
“I then turned it word for word into English, and afterwards, without adding or suppressing any material sentence, disengaged from the stiffness of a foreign idiom, and prepared the faithful translation of the Indian drama.” (367)
Commenting on one of the translated passages of Jones ‘Sacontala’ Figueira writes:
“ As is often the case in translation , the compact nature of the Sanskrit original is lost in Jones’s version … and repetitive through additions that do not particularly elucidate the meaning.” (51-52)
The nature of the reception of Shakuntala in nineteenth century and 20th century might be different because of trends and patterns of literary expression and tastes have changed but the two translations on the poles of two centuries give to both orientalist and general scholars a comparative view revealing the encounter of European thought and their cultural ethos of east and west. On one pole is the first translator of Shakuntala in English who is a British unprejudiced orientalist and on the other is an Indian translator who tries to amulgamate the Indian idea with the western way of thinking. He has taken pains to learn Sanskrit a task so foreign to his professional studies simply to understand the national vanity and vigour of ancient India and have access to the authentic cultural tradition and Hindu manners and his curiosity and eager desire to know the real position of India before the western conquest . To Rajan again it was a window to peep into west with the eyes of eastern cross cultural translation. It is but natural to encounter with the problem of cross cultural translation with the hybrid understanding of colonial and post colonial romantic ideas. As Jones has accepted that the scholars of diverse philosophical religious trends and inhabitants the various nations of Europe and India can read and misread the text according to their own sensibility it will remain a fine study of confluence cultural and literary studies which without coming to a conclusive established interpretation will always remain in flux as Kalidas says the old is not completely gold nor the new is made of a baser metal. Their amulgamation would dispel the alien sense of diversity from the Indian mind as Rajan says Kalidas uses such phrases as always have a specific significance both in ancient and modern context ‘Indra’ is called the breaker of dark clouds. It suggests in the context:
“The breaker of Dark Clouds (drak forces) to let light shine through,suggests in the context that the dark delusion clouding the King’s memory is destroyed through Indra’s power or compassion.” (19)
It has an implication that the concept of translator is not limited to the imposition of a literary linguistic or cultural currents to impose and project cultural needs upon another trends and patterns with any cultural distortion. In this perspective it is more curious to take the directions of both the translators to understand the sources of inspiration and their translated method which can be apprehended to some extent with their own view on the linguistic cultural mythology cultural and sociological levels in their transformed pattern without any distortion by English and Indian readers. How far it is intelligible to both the readers and how the differences between eastern and western can be mitigated by removing the linguistic and cultural complexities. Thus Jones implicitly suggested in his preface that western and Indian readers can only be delighted by their reciprosity of understanding and enjoying each other literary manners.
Chandra Rajan hasn’t mentioned in acknowledgement, preface and bibliography (except some stray opinion of Jones in the context of Kalidas’s dates) that she has perceived the translation of Jones and was benefited by it at any stage. Rajan doesn’t give any hint of the achievements and limitations of Jones translation but discusses on the matter of translation and the traits of Kalidasa’s text specifically and accepts the endevour to provide the best approximation to the “We endevour to provide the best approximation to the original not only within the limitations set by our own abilities but more so within those set by the receiving language.” Rajan p(17)
Dr Rajan has an edge over Jones in learning Sanskrit language and literature. She explored the fasinating world of Kalidas through her grandfather P. S. Iyer and the teacher Sir Ram Setu at an early age of nine. They pointed out to her varied beauties and subtetilites of the Kalidas’s language and poetic craft. She could easily prepare the ground for translation by selecting the text of Bengali recansion. Kanjilal had facilitated her task of determing the righjt recansion arguing for its authenticity in his critical editiuon. “Reconstruction of Abhigyan Shakuntalam’. It is critically constructed on the basis of the old manuscripts which were not so easily available to Jones. She also consulted the Devnagri recansion with the commentary of Raghav Bhatt. It is the most authentic interpretation of as which was not available it appears to Jones. She feels that Bengali text is more satisfying. William Jones also sought Bengali recansion being in Calcutta at that time. Jones after the publication of the translation opines to denote less space for courtship in Act 3:
“It must be for it must be confessed that the whole of Dushmanta's conversation with his buffoon, and great part of his courtship in the hermitage, might be omitted without any injury to the drama.” (372)
Dr Rajan says that it presents the courtship as well as the conflict of Shakuntala’s mind in some detail. The stanza at the end of act three reveals something of the complexity of the king’s character.
We now encounter with the matter and methology of translation. Both the languages have different symantic and syntactical structures. According to Figueira:
“Sanskrit verses have very strict and definite metrical forms, complex patterns of assonance and alliteration and qualities of rhythm and musicality, it is difficult to render them directly into another language.” ( )
So Jones to bring appropriateness into the text resorts to prose translations and avoids adding any verified expression. M Williams laments on his occasionally weakened substituting his bold and vivacious phrases.
“His delicate expression of refined love and idea grand in their simplicity his diluted by repetition and amplification.” Pg (23).
Dr Jones to render the Sanskrit text in a modern language in a inter linery version first translates it into Latin because of its close resemblance to Sanskrit language. In his article published in 1786 as entiled ‘The Sanscrit Lanuage’ he writes:

“The Sanscrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and the forms of grammar, that no philologer could examine them all three, without believing them to have spring from some common source.” (301)

From Latin he rendered into English word for word :

“I then turned it word for word into English, and afterwards, without adding or suppressing any material sentence, disengaged from the stiffness of a foreign idiom, and prepared the faithful translation of the Indian drama.”(367)

Dr Rajan also believes to provide the best of approximation to the original within the limitations set by the receiving language. She enumerates the various points of dissimilaries in the patterns of Sanskrit language which create hurdle in an authentic translation. Its distinctive features are its being higly inflected language:




“The extensive use of compound words and an array of synonyms with slight nuances of meanings that colour the expression of what is being said. The inflexional structure and the use of compound words give the language a tightly knit compactness which is of importance in poetry ; this compactness suffers from some dillusion in translation.” (17)

It is a creditable task for William Jones that with the help of minimum source material of the times he traces the history of Sanskrit drama and darmaturgey though he does not mention the early Sanskrit Drama the ‘Mrichhkatikam’ The Clay Cart which was later on mentioned by M. Williams in his Preface.


Figueira in her book “ Translating the Orient” addresses the specific problems encountered in cross-cultural translation ,what particularly interests her is the "free play" approach the early translators took:
“The discovery of Sanskrit literature, exemplified by the reception of the Sakuntala, provided translators with a screen upon which to both project and conceal specific cultural, psychological, and religious concerns. With so few pedagogical tools available, it was difficult to assimilate in any more than a rudimentary fashion this new and different literature. Later linguistic refinement overcame the distortions made by the first generation of Sanskritists and led to a loss of the "free play" which had characterized”
The translator is not less eminent in the theatrical world of Kalidas that conveys in great measure the poetic beauty, the system of mythology the reincarnation of allegorical personages in a familiar prose style through later translators inspite of calling it excellent , adapted to meet the requirements of modern times was made in a prose in which the bold phraseology of Kalidas has been occasionally weakened. His delicate expression of refined love and ideas grant in their simplicity diluted by repetition in amplification.
















Rajan doesn't try to rhyme the verses but does try for a more poetic feel . Her translation is also one of the more expansive ones, as she tries to convey the entirety of the original Sanskrit expressions.However at some places her translation appears a bit strained. Even when she conveys meaning better than the other versions, the result often sounds a bit off. Ryder, for example, opts for the far too simple when the king wonders:
“Father Kanva lives a lifelong hermit. Yet you say that your friend is his daughter. how can that be ?” ( )
       Rajan is much clearer, but her word-choices make for almost comic effect:
“His Holiness Kanva has been known to observe perpetual celibacy; how then can your friend be a daughter begotten by him ?” ( )
       In a number of places Rajan's more expansive rendering is helpful for example, in explaining the nature of the curse on Sakuntala at the beginning of the fourth act. At this point her translation is clearly superior to the Miller and Ryder versions. Overall, however, Rajan's touch with language is not felicitous; the version simply doesn't read that well. Consider the moment when the king wonders what to do regarding the Sakuntala he no longer recognises. Ryder offers the simple and straightforward:
“Not knowing whether I be mad
       or falsehood be in her,
Shall I desert a faithful wife
       or turn adulterer ?” ( )
       Miller's rendering is even clearer (though without the use of the world "adultery" the tainting the king is worried about may not be as clear to a Western audience not aware of the gravity of this sin):
“Since it's unclear whether I'm deluded
       or she is speaking falsely --
       should I risk abandoning a wife
       or being tainted by another man's ?”( )
       Rajan gets the gist, but the excess words and punctuation (and the confusing Hamlet-allusion) don't help :
“Am I deluded, or, is she false ?
this is the question: should I incur
the blame of forsaking my own wife,
or the stain of adultery, alas,
with the wife of another ?” ( )

Barbara Stoler Miller's, published along with translations of Kalidasa's two other dramas as Theater of Memory.  It is not, however, ideal. Miller's translation is solid, with a few inspired touches, but it does not stand out among the competition.       
Sakuntala is a play in seven acts. It begins with a remarkable Prologue, in which the director of the play briefly discusses the planned night's entertainment with the lead actress. He's worried about impressing his learned audience, and tells her:
“I find no performance perfect
until the critics are pleased;
the better trained we are
the more we doubt ourselves.” ( )
       "Critics" with it's reviewer connotations is an unfortunate choice here; Kalidasa clearly only means he's worried about the opinion of this generally well-informed audience.
        Sakuntala is coming into her own, and one of the first things the king sees is Sakuntala asking one of her friends to loosen the no longer quite form-fitting bark dress she is wearing. As the friend says:
“Blame your youth for swelling your breasts”. ( )
Ryder translates this much more successfully:
"You had better blame your own budding charms for that." ( )

Much of the power of the play is as a character study of Sakuntala, as Kalidasa shows her in these different circumstances. Her love, her despair, her anger are all impressively displayed. Much of this and indeed, the success of much of the rest of the play depends on the poetry of the play, and while there are some very successful bits, Miller's translation does fall short. Sanskrit is a difficult language to translate in any case, the nominal compounds and the Sanskrit verses with their own complex rules are also very difficult to convey.
Miller knows her stuff, and the substance of the play is well-conveyed. But much goes missing especially that sense of poetry. Miller goes for the grounded, straightforward approach, not rhyming the verses, Ryder, on the other hand, imposes a rhyme on all the verses. Enough of the original comes through to get a decent sense of the play's qualities, but it rarely reaches the transcendent heights the original is reputed to have.



Arthur Ryder's early 20th century translation of Kalidasa's Sakuntala is one of the more enduring and frequently reprinted ones, despite a wealth of competition. Abhigyan Shakuntalam is a drama filled with poetry, and Ryder opted to convey the poetic feel, rather than aim for complete fidelity to the text.
       As Ryder writes from within the English tradition and hence the results is a tamed-down Anglicised version that sounds comfortably familiar but loses many of the Indian-Sanskrit aspects in the process. It does, however, make the play approachable. And it does convey some of the poetry of the play, a light touch and feel that is markedly absent from most of the other translations.
       Sometimes he seems to stray away from the text too much, but the effect remains. Compare, for example, the same passage translated by Miller and Ryder:
       Miller's appears to be close to literal and, in this case, she manages to express the verse fairly elegantly as well ,when the king moons over Sakuntala:
“The divine creator imagined perfection
       and shaped her ideal form in his mind --
       when I recall the beauty his power wrought,
       she shines like a gemstone among my jewels.” ( )
       Ryder embellishes and twists the words more than necessary, and doesn’t quite capture Kalidasa’s simpler praise but his version is also effective:
“She is God’s vision, of pure thought
       Composed in His creative mind;
His reveries of beauty wrought
       The peerless pearl of womankind.
So plays my fancy when I see
How great is God, how lovely she.” ( )
There is actually considerable agreement between the Miller and Ryder versions less so the Rajan version. Ryder version is simple, reads well, the rhymes and the familiar English expression rather than forced circumlocutions found so often in translations from the Sanskrit make it an easy and good reading.