On the “iconic” nature of translation I would like to present some of my own thoughts for critique. First, there are many forms of iconography even within the Byzantine tradition, not to mention the Coptic, Ethiopian, Ge’ez, Latin, and other traditions as well. Within the Byzantine tradition there are Greek, Romanian, Russian, Ukrainian, Carpatho-Russyn, and Arabic/Melkite styles of iconography to name but a few. I don’t mean here to use this as an argument in favor of a multiplicity of translations, but I suppose one could make such an argument if one were so inclined.
The observation I’d like to focus on is an emerging “contemporary” iconography that is 100% faithful to the tradition if iconography as it has come down to us. Perhaps it would be better to replace “contemporary” with “American” because my own experience has been limited to the U.S. But if one enters the OCA Cathedral of St. Nicholas here in Washington D.C., one will see a stunning example of this iconography. It is truly breathtaking.
With this in mind I would ask: is it possible to produce equally breathtaking translations of our Liturgical Services into contemporary English? It is quite obvious that it is possible to do so into what our brother, David James, has coined “early modern English” (a phrase I like much better than Elizabethan English). Translations like those produced by Holy Transfiguration Monastery, Jordanville, et al have rightfully gained a great deal of acceptance and respect among both Orthodox and Eastern Catholics alike. But with few exceptions this doesn’t seem to be the case for translations into modern English.
The reasons I’ve encountered for this (and there may be more) are that the translations are often made by non-native English speakers who are not familiar enough with the English language to convey any amount of real nuance into their translations. Likewise translations are also made either too literal or too paraphrased. The poetry of the original text is also often glossed over or completely ignored.
That brings me to another point. Our Liturgies are, essentially, poetic in nature. The beauty of the poetry is, more often than not, lost not by the very nature of translation itself, but simply because of poor translation work. The loss of poetry, in many translations, is also often the result of a committee of translators, where translation itself was voted on. Committees hardly ever produce works of art - and the Liturgy is nothing if not a work of art.
So the problem as I see it is that any translation, whether it be into early modern or modern/contemporary English, must be both faithful to the original as well as beautiful and poetic. In order for that to happen the translator(s) must be familiar with not only the grammar, vocabulary, etc. of the original language, but also with the ideals of poetry and nuance in the original language. Not only that, but the translator(s) would also have to be equally familiar with the ideals of poetry and nuance of English (or whatever language they are translating into). Necessarily they must also be men or women of deep and intense prayer, not just hired hands. Just as no one would dream of hiring an iconographer who wasn’t a person of deep prayer and personal piety, so too we ought not to hire translators who aren’t also deeply prayerful and pious. I think this is one of the reasons that such translations as those produced by Archbishop Raya or Holy Transfiguration Monastery seem to persist as “gold standards.” When one reads through the texts one can see, even through the flaws in translation, that these texts are the work of a great deal of prayer.
Okay. Enough from me.
