The Translator Conceit

[littlemanpoet]

I just opened RotK to a random page and found myself staring at the already debated text,

Then one of the knights took the king's banner afrom the hand of Guthláf the banner-bearer who lay dead, and he lifted it up. Slowly Théoden opened his eyes. Seeing the banner he made a sign that it should be given to Éomer.

'Hail, King of the Mark!' he said. 'Ride not to victory! Bid Éowyn farewell!' And so he died, and knew not that Éowyn lay near him. And those who stood by wept, crying: 'Théoden King! Théoden King!'

But Éomer said to them:

Mourn not overmuch! Mighty was the fallen,
meet was his ending. When his mound is raised,
women then shall weep. War now calls us!

Yet he himself wept as he spoke. 'Let his knights remain here,' he said, 'and bear his body in honour from the field, lest the battle ride over it! Yea, and all these other of the king's men that lie here.' And he looked at the slain, recalling their names. Then suddenly he beheld his sister Éowyn as she lay, and he knew her. He stood a moment as a man who is pierced in the midst of a cry by an arrow through the heart; and then his face went deathly white, and a cold fury rose in him, so that all speech failed him for a while. A fey mood took him.

Éowyn, Éowyn!' he cried at last. 'Éowyn, how come you here? What madness or devilry is this? Death, death, death! Death take us all!'

Does the Translator Conceit function in this text and/or context? How? What does it achieve if it does function here? What does it not achieve?

[davem]

Originally Posted by LMP

Does the Translator Conceit function in this text and/or context? How? What does it achieve if it does function here? What does it not achieve?

It may prevent the spell being broken if that sudden burst of poesy seems out of place. Yet this is exactly the kind of thing we find in epic romance. Obviously if we read LotR as a novel it might not seem logical that Eomer should be capable of doing this at that moment. At the same time its possible to argue (as I have) that it is a traditional verse of the kind he's probably been hearing for a good few days & would therefore have been in his mind.

Also, knowing what we do of 'Tolkien the translator', we would have to say that its the kind of high flown style he tends towards given half a chance! There's also the possibility that one or more of the previous translators/redactors had the same tendency.

Another way we can account for the way this episode is presented is to consider who was actually participating in the event described. They were all Rohirrim (apart from Merry, who may or may not have been fully compos mentis at the time - & even if he was, by the time he came to give his account to Frodo he was a knight of the Mark). What we have is an account of a profoundly significant episode in Rohirric history told as they would have told it themselves. In other words, LotR is not reportage, it is a collection of personal histories, from different perspectives - which may account for the way the 'villains' are portrayed.

Of course, the Translator(s, compilers, redactors) conceit does provide Tolkien with a 'Get out of Jail free' card, but the value of that shouldn't be underestimated from our point of view as readers - it increases the chance that the spell will not be broken for us, & that we will have the chance (so rare in these days) of experiencing enchantment. But it does more than that - it provides us with a link to the 'actual' events. Because LotR, & the Legendarium as a whole, is presented in this way the illusion is created that the text we have is, at many removes, an account of 'what really happened'- even if not in exactly the way we read it - the details of speech & exactly who did what to whom may be open to question but something very like it did occur, once upon a time. Maybe its been romanticised, but perhaps that's the reason it survived to be passed down to us. As the Faerie Queen says to Smith: 'Better a little doll, maybe, than no memory of Faery at all'...

The Legendarium is a remnant of what was - the only remnant we have, & the fact that it may not be exactly what it claims to be(I'd refer you back to Findegil's statement), actually adds to the poignancy & enhances the sense of loss & yearning, because in the end LotR is less about 'facts' & more about meaning - specifically what the 'facts' meant to those who experienced them & to those who passed them on to us.

[drigel]

nice posts here

The conceit can both be acknowlaged and forgiven. Here in one instance (or one author's lifetime), is an accumulation of an entire Legendarium of ME derived from versions of translations that include annotations, corrections, and different culture's perspectives. this all adds to the enchanment, mystery and poignancy of the work. This does provide the author with a Get Out of Jail Free card, but again, his pen is the vehicle where we go in one instance from here and now, to once upon a time.... but is it once upon a time according to Findegil via Bilbo? Aelfwine? What would other translations look like?

There IMO is also (whether intended by the author or not) a taste of the oral history dimention throughout the work. Granted, the ultimate source was a transcription of the spoken word and living memory of an undying elf, one can easily see how a tale soon after the first transcription could be embellished, romantisized, even made fancifull (The Hobbit, anyone?). Since nothing in ME (pointedly after the rings destruction) exists in a vacume, I can also see some of the oral histoy tradition perhaps influencing the body of work, as this would be the standard documentation of history between the end of the FA and, say, 2-3 thousand years ago.

Imagine the Silm entirely in chant/verse. Or LOTR in sing-song. tra la la lally indeed...

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

"Mourn not overmuch" is pure Old English verse form, in both rhythm and allieration. These lines from Éomer do not belong to Tolkien's subcreation;

I can see what you mean here, but the Rohirrim weren't Anglo-Saxons, nor did they speak in Old English. Following the conceit, Tolkien the translator chose to use Anglo-Saxon language & culture to 'translate' the language & culture of the Rohirrim. This 'translation' goes perhaps farther than what we're used to, because it is not only words which are being translated from an unknown to a known language, but whole 'historical' cultures are also.

Now, this will tempt some readers to bring in their knowledge of the Anglo-Saxons - in fact some may find it difficult not to do just that. I remember one article that showed that the history of the Rohirrim in Middle earth could be related pretty closely to the history & migrations of the ancestors of the Anglo-Saxons. Maybe Tolkien (one or other or both of them) intended these connections to be made, or maybe he was simply using the closest recognisable culture he knew of to make the Rohirric culture accessible. Whichever, I can't help wondering if it was a mistake on his part, because while it may be intended to give a sense of depth to the story it ties in the primary world a little too closely with the secondary.

Yet, I'm reminded of the lines 'Still round the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate'. This is the dilemma any translator will face - if the 'translation' of another ancient, & very alien culture is too literal we may not be able to make the emotional connection necessary to be moved by it - if it is too familiar, we will not feel ourselves in another world, but rather feel as if we are reading an allegory of this one. I suspect one could argue till the cows come home over the pros & cons of linking the ancient culture of the Rohirrim too closely in to the Anglo-Saxon.

Of course, its not the only case, & the translator goes even farther in other 'translations' - do we really believe the Shire was culturally & technologically so similar to Edwardian England? Did they really have clocks & umbrellas, or something sort of like that? Maybe they had nothing like those things at all, but the translator, having decided to represent the Shire by Edwardian England, just went ahead & put those things in their holes.

Which makes me wonder how literal or how free the translation is...

Edit: I was just thinking about the 'Tolkien the writer' vs 'Tolkien the tranlator' question, & it seems that Tolkien the writer developed this idea. if we read the original introduction (from the first edition of LotR - as provided by Squatter in the Foreword thread:

This tale, which has grown almost to be a history of the great War of the Ring, is drawn for the most part from the memoirs of the renowned Hobbits, Bilbo and Frodo, as they are preserved in the Red Book of Westmarch. This chief monument to Hobbit-lore is so called because it was compiled, repeatedly copied, and enlarged and handed down in the family of the Fairbairns of Westmarch, descended from that Master Samwise of whom this tale has much to say.
I have supplemented the account of the Red Book, in places, with information derived from the surviving records of Gondor, notably the Book of the Kings; but in general, though I have omitted much, I have in this tale adhered more closely to the actual words and narrative of my original than in the previous selection from the Red Book, The Hobbit. That was drawn from the early chapters, composed originally by Bilbo himself. If 'composed' is a just word. Bilbo was not assidious, nor an orderly narrator, and his account is involved and discursive, and sometimes confused: faults that still appear in the Red Book, since the copiers were pious and careful, and altered very little.
The tale has been put into its present form in response to the many requests that I have received for further information about the history of the Third Age, and about Hobbits in particular. But since my children and others of their age, who first heard of the finding of the Ring, have grown older with the years, this book speaks more plainly of those darker things which lurked only on the borders of the earlier tale, but which have troubled Middle-earth in all its history. It is, in fact, not a book written for children at all; though many children will, of course, be interested in it, or parts of it, as they still are in the histories and legends of other times (especially in those not specially written for them).
I dedicate this book to all admirers of Bilbo, but especially to my sons and daughter, and to my friends the Inklings. To the Inklings, because they have already listened to it with a patience, and indeed with an interest, that almost leads me to suspect that they have hobbit-blood in their venerable ancestry. To my sons and my daughter for the same reason, and also because they have all helped me in the labours of composition. If 'composition' is a just word, and these pages do not deserve all that I have said about Bilbo's work.

For if the labour has been long (more than fourteen years), it has been neither orderly nor continuous. But I have not had Bilbo's leisure. Indeed much of that time has contained for me no leisure at all, and more than once for a whole year the dust has gathered on my unfinished pages. I only say this to explain to those who have waited for the book why they have had to wait so long. I have no reason to complain. I am surprised and delighted to find from numerous letters that so many people, both in England and across the Water, share my interest in this almost forgotten history; but it is not yet universally recognized as an important branch of study. It has indeed no obvious practical use, and those who go in for it can hardly expect to be assisted.
Much information, necessary and unnecessary, will be found in the Prologue. To complete it some maps are given, including one of the Shire that has been approved as reasonably correct by those Hobbits that still concern themselves with ancient history. At the end of the third volume will be found some abridged family-trees, which show how the Hobbits mentioned were related to one another, and what their ages were at the time when the story opens. There is an index of names and strange words with some explanations. And for those who like such lore in an appendix some brief account is given of the languages, alphabets and calendars that were used in the West-lands in the Third Age of Middle-earth. Those who do not need such information, or who do not wish for it, may neglect these pages; and the strange names that they meet they may, of course, pronounce as they like. Care has been given to their transcription from the original alphabets and some notes are offered on the intentions of the spelling adopted* But not all are interested in such matters, and many who are not may still find the account of those great and valiant deeds worth the reading. It was in that hope that I began the work of translating and selecting the stories of the Red Book, part of which are now presented to Men of a later Age, one almost as darkling and ominous as was the Third Age that ended with the great years 1418 and 1419 of the Shire long ago.

Reading this it would seem the writer & the translator are one & the same person. Only with the Second Edition do we get a clear division with, as I said, the SE Foreword written by Tolkien the writer & the Prologue by Tolkien the translator.

I wonder if there is any significance in this, whether Tolkien the writer felt it was necessary to emphasise the difference, & if so, why?

[littlemanpoet]

This does provide the author with a Get Out of Jail Free card...

NO.

Please let's not do Tolkien the disservice of bypassing a real issue with an easy excuse. The main purpose of the Translator Conceit cannot be a license to trespass against good style. One of the reasons for evaluation is to determine (to the best of our ability) if the Conceit does more than merely excuse stylistics.

Originally Posted by davem

Of course, its not the only case, & the translator goes even farther in other 'translations' - do we really believe the Shire was culturally & technologically so similar to Edwardian England? Did they really have clocks & umbrellas, or something sort of like that? Maybe they had nothing like those things at all, but the translator, having decided to represent the Shire by Edwardian England, just went ahead & put those things in their holes.

I'm glad you mentioned this, because in my latest scan of chapter one, it struck me how much it is a story told by a 20th century author rather than having any feel of a translation based on very old documents ... unless we want to suppose that the translator was also an incredibly gifted story teller, so as to take the history and provide creative dialogue that could not reasonably have been part of the original text.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

NO.

Please let's not do Tolkien the disservice of bypassing a real issue with an easy excuse. The main purpose of the Translator Conceit cannot be a license to trespass against good style. One of the reasons for evaluation is to determine (to the best of our ability) if the Conceit does more than merely excuse stylistics.

Trespass against good style?

I must take affront at that statement, I fear. Tolkien's style here might not be adequately explained within the immediate text, and that may break the enchantment, and perhaps only be explicable by the "translator conceit" (and note that I use the term "might". Since this quibble isn't about the bigger issue, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt).

But "trepass against good style" suggests that Tolkien's style here is in bad taste, or possibly just vulgar. And here I disagree.

The style is not what the issue is here. The issue is that the style does not fit, in the opinions of those who feel that the "translator conceit" is just that, a conceit. As to whether the style is, as your statement would imply, a bad one, is an entirely different issue.

Personally, I find the " 'igh-falutin' speech" to be very enjoyable. Although not really proficient in it, I love reading it, and sprinkling words of it wherever I might in my writing. I believe that there are many others here that feel similarly or the same.

The issue, therefore, is not that the style is "bad", persay, but that it is not fitting, or satisfying in its use.

Now, I will readily admit that you probably didn't intend your statement to be taken the way I have. But I cannot be sure. You are, by own admission, a writer, and a writer ought to know his words. So while I assume that you don't mean what you seem to say, I cannot, as a devotee of such styles, not respond to such a comment. Let us not confuse the argument...

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

But "trespass against good style" suggests that Tolkien's style here is in bad taste, or possibly just vulgar.

Suggests, but does not unequivocally state. I'm not saying that Tolkien trespassed against good style. I'm not saying he didn't. I'm saying, "let's not use the TC as a gloss; that's not its primary purpose.

Personally, I find the " 'igh-falutin' speech" to be very enjoyable.

Me too.

The issue, therefore, is not that the style is "bad", persay, but that it is not fitting, or satisfying in its use.

Well said.

Now, I will readily admit that you probably didn't intend your statement to be taken the way I have. But I cannot be sure. You are, by own admission, a writer, and a writer ought to know his words. So while I assume that you don't mean what you seem to say, I cannot, as a devotee of such styles, not respond to such a comment. Let us not confuse the argument...

Thanks for the request for clarification. I hope this answer does the job.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Does the Translator Conceit function in this text and/or context? How? What does it achieve if it does function here? What does it not achieve?

Since I first raised the issue that this passage was one of the places that broke the enchantment for me, I'll take a stab at this. But first I want to consider more why this passage broke the enchantment.

The events are harrowing and thrilling. Aragorn has marched off to the Paths of the Dead. We have just seen Éowyn (and Merry) dispatch the WitchKing. Yet the King of the Mark has fallen; Théodan has gone to his forebearers. Yet ere he dies, he names his heir, Éomer. Now we have the new king speaking to his people, an invocation to the dead as well as a reminder that now is not the time to mourn. I have already suggested that I wish more time had been spent developing Éomer's character at this point, to prepare us for his elevation into the heroic mold of eld and enable us emotionally to see this change. Perhaps all it would have needed would have been, "Remember, Remember" and then clearly some statement that, out of this momentous occasion when he puts on the kingship, Éomer reminds his people of stirring words from old song. (Compare the difference between these lines of verse and Éomer's dialogue immediately following--there is the response 'in character'.) But something else is at work here.

"Mourn not overmuch" is pure Old English verse form, in both rhythm and allieration. These lines from Éomer do not belong to Tolkien's subcreation; they are not like the elvish languages he created for Middle earth and they are not like the other verses. They take me out of the secondary world and put me right back in the primary world, for this is Old English verse, not an approximation.

Thus, it isn't a sub-created form at all, but a specific language form of the primary world. I suppose readers who don't know this take the primary world Old English as Rohirric. But here are the word forms of The Battle of Maldon and of Beowulf, and here, the primary and secondary worlds are the same.

Perhaps this is a small place where the fantasy collides with the purported history? Earlier, in "The Muster of Rohan", Tolkien used an approximation of OE verse form in "From the dark Dunharrow in the dim morning" but there we are given the verse as a legend retold:

On down the grey road they went beside the Snowbourn rushing on its stones; through the hamlets of Underharrow and Upbourn, where many sad faces of women looked out from dark doors; and so without horn or harp or music of men's voices the great ride into the East began with which the songs of Rohan were busy for many long lives of men thereafter.

What follows is the Dunharrow verse. And immediately following the verse, we are given the narrator's 'historical revision' of those lines:

It was indeed in the deeping gloom that the king came to Edoras, although it was then by noon by the hour.

A narrator's comment about the accuracy of song and legend!

So, was Tolkien here (in the invocation on the death of Théoden) deliberately attempting to conflate the subcreated world with the primary world so we could see that this is the early history of his people? I wonder why he might do that here. It seems a tall order given the events we have just 'witnessed'. And, anyway, we have previously been told that such verse was song created after the fact.

So, I am left with two reasons why the passage broke the enchantment for me: it was an awkward movement for the character, a rough patch where the previously used elements of fictional characterisation come face to face with heroic voice from Old English. (Heroic lines in OE verse are usually created after wards, not in the heat of battle, although they are given in the heat of battle.) Here, in these lines, the Rohirrim = Anglo Saxon. The applicability is destroyed.

I can't for the life of me figure out which editor/translator/narrator would want to do that.

EDIT: whoops! cross posted with davem