Lord Byron ‘Manfred: A Dramatic Poem’: Comparison and Critical Analysis of Two Different Translations into Greek, of the Poem ‘Manfred: A Dramatic Poem’ by Lord Byron.

(1)

MA in Linguistics of European Languages

Master Thesis:

Lord Byron ‘

Manfred: A Dramatic Poem’

: Comparison and

Critical Analysis of Two Different Translations into Greek,

of the Poem ‘

Manfred: A Dramatic Poem’

by Lord Byron.

Maria Garefalaki

University of Amsterdam

(2)

2

According to the ―Dictionary of Linguistics‖ of Larousse, ―translation is the expression in a different language (or target-language) of what has already been expressed in a different language (source), by maintaining the semantic and stylistic equivalences‖ (Kentrotis, 2000: 53-54). Furthermore, two Anglo-Saxon linguists, R.R.K. Hartman and F.C. Stork, defined translation as the ―replacement of a text in a language with the representation of an equivalent text in a second language‖ (Hartman & Stork, 1972: 713).

Therefore, the reader will have to resort to the translator, who will act as a communication channel between the source language and the target language and will try to convey the message in the most accurate way possible (Kentrotis, 2000). Translation is governed by certain linguistic, stylistic and morphosyntactic conventions, and therefore the translator should be able to recognize the communicative purpose of the original text, in order to render the meaning in the target text, in the best possible way.

However, conventions and general norms are not stable, but are constantly changing through time. Hence, despite the existence of certain conventions, if we compare the translation of the same text by two different people, in two different time periods, we will notice that, more often than not, the linguistic and stylistic choices of the translators differ from each other, especially in regard to literary texts. What are the reasons that might lead the translators to make substantially different choices regarding the translation of the same text? This is what I will try to examine in this paper.

In my Thesis Paper, I intend to compare and contrast two different translations of the poem Manfred: A Dramatic Poem into Greek, during different time periods. The original work was written by Lord Byron in 1817. The first translation into Greek was created by Lila Karanikola and was published by the Athens Printing Company in 1973. The second translation was created by Dimitris Zachos and was published by Dodoni Publications in 2011.

(4)

4

The original poem, as already mentioned, is written in the early 19th century, a period during which the kingdoms of Europe were plagued by revolutions, just four years before the outbreak of the Greek War of Independence, following the French revolution, the most dynamic expression of the new socio-political climate that had begun to prevail in the Old Continent, from the mid-18th century. The configurator of this new climate was the ideology that had begun to spread through scholars and philosophers. To understand this new ideology and its focus on the natural human rights, it is necessary to present a brief historical overview that highlights the causes and the factors for this propagation and consolidation.

In the mid-18th century, Western Europe faced a series of problems. The feudal system had begun to decline, while the bourgeoisie started to develop, amassing the wealth earned in trade and from the discovery of gold-bearing deposits worldwide. At the same time, laborers, artisans and farmers, were unable to cope in their everyday life, while their salary was shrinking and the cost of living was increasing (Berstein & Milza, 1997).

The confrontation between the two social strata, the bourgeois and the aristocracy, was one of the main causes that challenged the social structures of France in the late 18th century. As in previous revolutions, this dispute strengthened the dissatisfaction of the popular masses. The difference of the French revolution though, from the previous revolutions, is that it was not tamed, but on the contrary, it prevailed and formed an ideology that was propagated directly and rapidly because of its ecumenical orientation. Through a series of historical events that are not of interest in this analysis, the old regime was abolished and France was called to form new institutions (Berstein & Milza, 1997).

With the demand for freedom being dominant, as it was established by the French Revolution, amidst these intense political, ideological and social upheavals and fermentations, the intellectual movement of Romanticism made its appearance and replaced Neoclassicism that was subject to strong criticism since the previous century. But Romanticism was not a simple reaction of the intellectual world to the previous movement. Instead, it is described as the intellectual awakening of Europe amidst the strong historical and political developments of that era (Dimopoulos & Drakou, 1992).

The movement of Romanticism was characterized by different chronological developments in the European countries, as well as diversity of characteristics by

(5)

5

region. However, the feeling, the imagination, the reverie and mystery, are characteristics that appear in all cases (Varsos, 2008).

The romantic writer is different and this applies to the case of Byron. With lyricism, the romantic poet shows his emotions to the reader, both the negative and the positive. Inspiration is the history of every people of Europe and the Middle Ages. Sensitivity is the main feature of the revolutionary hero who is experiencing a mental stress and imbalance and rebels across the world and in the society, in an effort to search for self-fulfillment.

In Romanticism, the author is experiencing total freedom solely motivated and guided by their imagination, their sensitivity and their individual inspiration. These elements make up the intense lyricism through which the romantic author expresses his personal world and feelings in relation to the real world, and in the case of Manfred, freedom is one of the challenges.

Everything that generally applies to the intellectual movement of Romanticism is also true for romantic poetry. And in this case, emotion plays a dominant role and the romantic poet expresses his feelings and preferences through his work. In romantic poetry, the inner world of the poet is in direct connection with the world and nature, as well as with his memories (personal, historical and national). There are also changes in the form since there are no predefined frameworks. The verse is more supple and melodic, while the vocabulary becomes more personal and bold (Varsos, 2008). This is also true in the case of Manfred. The aforementioned facts also indicate possible implications as far as the translation of the text is concerned, implications which will become evident later on in this paper, when the two translations will be further analyzed.

One of the elements which aroused my interest in this poem is that Karanikola‘s translation was produced in 1973, when Greece was still under the dictatorship regime (1967-1974). During that period, authors and translators were heavily censored regarding the texts they were producing and therefore their linguistic choices were limited. During the censorship, the State acted through the legislative field, to combat anything deemed harmful to its interests, through censorship in the media, the arts and in general everything that is in direct contact with all the citizens (Chrysogonos, 2002).

The state sets through the law system, and by extension the legislative field, the civil activities and legitimizes its sovereign rights over them, by limiting their

(6)

6

freedom. It is in fact understood that the nature of a dictatorial regime establishes more stringent imposition relationships to its citizens, since it was not elected through the electoral process, but imposed itself. In summary: ―The law system and the legal field are the permanent body for the imposition relationships, techniques with which the various subordinations become a reality‖ (Foucault, 2002: 43).

Of course it should be noted that, under a totalitarian regime, statism grows excessively, aiming to the absolute control of the social action. A consequence of the growth of statism is the growth of censorship. According to Saripoglou (2002: 288):

―Censorship is the - prior to the publication and circulation - authoritarian control of the content, thus prohibiting the publication and circulation or obligating the modification of the text. Other preventive measures, apart of course from the prior authorization requirement for the publication of a printed text, is the payment of a financial guarantee, the confiscation before the circulation, the heavy taxation of the newsprint paper, the exorbitant postage for curbing the proliferation of newspapers, the ban of putting up posters, and others‖ (Saripoglou, 2002: 288).

One of the first measures of the military regime was to gag the press and impose preventive censorship. Leftist newspapers, such as ―Avgi‖ and ―Democratic Change‖ were closed down by the junta, while others, such as ―Kathimerini‖, at the initiative of the publishers. The censorship was not limited only to matters of politics or general internal affairs, but it also included every aspect of intellectual life. For instance, an invitation by the then Chief of Army Staff, Ulysses Angeli, on June 24, 1967, prohibited ―throughout the territory‖ the ―circulation in any way‖ of hundreds of books listed in a multi-page inventory that classified them as ―communist, pro-communist and dangerous for the ethos of the youth‖ (Kakouriotis, 2014).

In theatres and cinemas, screening continued to exist even after the abolition of preventive censorship of the press. Thus, in the report one can find, for example, the decision of the Committee, dated 04.10.1974, which deems ―unanimously banned‖ the film Battleship Potemkin, and Juarez of William Dieterle, on the grounds that ―the ideas of democracy require a developed audience so as not to misunderstand these ideas under the present conditions‖ (Kakouriotis, 2014).

(7)

7

Preventive censorship and the banning of several books intensified in the early years of the junta, with the tacit abstention of the intellectuals, progressive writers and scholars from publishing their books under conditions of censorship and prohibition. But this silence broke in March 1969, with the sensational open statement-protest against the dictatorial rule of the Nobel laureate poet George Seferis, that was perceived with great sensation by the resistance fighters and literary circles and rattled the junta, because it received enormous publicity abroad. A collective protest of 18 new writers followed next month, who strongly reacted to the arbitrary decision of the dictatorial government to publish, without their consent, their stories in the newspapers by the Short Story Anthology of Hercules Apostolidis. There can be no intellectual freedom, they stressed, as long as there is censorship, as long as books are banned, as long as intellectuals are persecuted simply for their beliefs (Roufos, 1976).

Because of the censorship, the intellectual movement became synonymous to resistance and to the unprecedented publishing tide; only during the 1970s, about 30 publishing houses were founded and over two thousand books were published, covering all areas of knowledge, from politics and circulation of ideas, to history and literature, Greek as well as foreign. Of course most of the books that were published dealt with political issues.

In this education and self-consciousness venture, several volumes of the Ancient, Byzantine and Modern Greek literature were published, as well as forgotten texts for ideological incitement and Greek historical events, books for the EAM resistance and many foreign translations on the ―May of ‘68‖, on international revolutionary movements and the international youth movement. To this goal, several older writers of the Greek enlightenment were republished, as well as of the heretical literature and progressive demoticism, like Rigas Velestinlis, Adamantios Korais, Constantine Theotokis, Andreas Laskaratos, Dimitris Glinos, Alexandros Delmouzos etc. All these books, along with other cultural processes, educated and influenced the political life of the time and formed the substrate of the anti-dictatorship massive student movement that took place in 1973.

Essentially, the Polytechnic Youth, the teenagers who spent their last classes in the old Gymnasium (now Lyceum) in the junta darkness and the unrestrained propaganda dictatorship, educated and informed themselves historically and ideologically, through the publishing boom that started in 1969-70. Let us not consider, however, that things were rosy and that the publishing circulation was

(8)

8

liberated. The regime, for communication reasons, especially abroad, granted a sham freedom, but behind it the hard law on the press was still hanging, because of which many publishers were drawn in military courts and several book titles were withdrawn. As rightly noted, the publishers were walking on the fringes of legality on a dangerous loose rope that had been stretched by the law enforcement authorities (ESIEMTH, 2010).

Intellectuals, with the current importance, who freely criticised the regime, would actually not succeed at that time. Those who openly expressed their opposition during the dictatorship were persecuted, exiled or imprisoned. The ―peaceful‖ and ―hidden‖ dissidents were content in the covered and feared resistance in the restricted area of professional activity with innuendos and half-truths, or remained silent while waiting better times and circumstances to express themselves. Others chose to participate in collective cultural activities or in solitary self-education. The feeling, however, one gets from this period is that the free individual voices of intellectuals against the lack of freedom posed by the dictators, are completely absent, probably because of the fear for the price of defending democratic and personal values. Despite the fact that there was no official censorship, the fear of the regime forced the translators to censor themselves, though this might cause significant deterioration in the quality of their work.

This is the reason why I believe it would be interesting to compare and contrast Karanikola‘s translation with a much more recent one, produced in 2011 by another translator. In this context, my intention is to investigate if the translation of Zachos is more complete and more faithful to the original text.

By analyzing the two translations, I will try to shed light on the linguistic, political and cultural elements in the translation choices of the two different versions mentioned above, as my hypothesis is that the linguistic analysis of the two Greek translations will also reveal interesting findings regarding the translation methodology and choices in the two target texts.

In the following sections of this paper, I will introduce the main theoretical notions related to my study, such as translation and re-translation theory, as well as the notion of discourse analysis. Subsequently, in section 1.2, I intend to discuss the background of the author (Lord Byron) and analyze the selected poem, in order to highlight the specific linguistic and cultural elements which are present in the source text. After the analysis of the source text, I will analyze the two translations in Greek,

(9)

9

in sections 2.1 and 2.2. The translations will also be analyzed within the scope of the specific linguistic properties of the two languages (English – Greek), which might also affect the translators‘ choices. In the following sub-section (2.3), I will compare and contrast the two target texts. My aim is to highlight the linguistic, political and cultural elements in the two target texts and show the possible differences between them. I will then try to investigate the possible reasons which may account for these differences and will link my findings to the theoretical background discussed in the previous sections. Finally, I will present my conclusions on the topic, in section 3.

1.1. Description of the Different Notions Discussed in the Paper and Background Literature

1.1.1. Translation Theory

The term ―translation‖ is governed by multiple dimensions. Two important elements of translation are the ―term‖ and the ―meaning‖. The term is a conventional part consisting of a word or a phrase. The term is also the expression of the meaning which in turn, is the mental representation of one or a group of objects with similar properties (Valeontis, 1988; Kaltsogiannou & Efthymiou, 2004). The meaning also has the common characteristics of objects, such as colour (white, red, green) etc. (Kaltsogiannou & Efthymiou, 2004).

Munday, accepting Jakobson‘s distinction of translation in intralingual, interlingual and intersemiotic, focuses on the interlingual translation and recognizes that the term ―translation‖ may refer to the scientific field, to the product of the translation process and to the translational process itself (Munday, 2001: 24).

Today, in the society of information and the rapid transmission of knowledge and information, a key point of the effort is the attempt to achieve communication. To achieve this, the main point is to decode the message, which is achieved with the knowledge of the general and specific language in which it was recorded. If this linguistic content is not familiar or even accessible in terms of understanding and interlingual management, to the interested reader, the reader will have to resort to the translator who, in return, will decode the message (Kentrotis, 2000).

In fact, translation is the communication on the second level, i.e. a meta-communication (Ladmiral, 2007). This meta-communication has three poles: a) the transmitter of a primary message, b) the receiver of the primary message and the

(10)

10

transmitter of a secondary message, and c) the receiver of the secondary message (Kassapi, 2000: 26).

The translator is the one who makes the processing of the written or spoken signals, because he possesses both the communication skills and the capacity to manage the language. For Kentrotis, ―these signals contain encoded messages in a communication system, which does not necessarily and by definition coincide with his own and the translator is required to combine the good (if not excellent) knowledge of the foreign language with the systematic study of historical and ethnological elements of the linguistic community, the culture of which he carries in his language‖ (Kentrotis, 2000: 46-47).

Thus, the translator decodes the messages that are transmitted to him through a language and recodes them into another. Kentrotis also mentions that ―the recoding process highlights the bilingual translator and distinguishes him from the monolingual communicator although both are involved as message receivers in what is called decoding‖ (Kentrotis, 2000: 48).

When a text is given to the translator to render it into the language of the interested reader, for any use, the attribution-translation should properly fulfil the same functions as those fulfilled by the original text. Therefore, equivalent words and sentences must be used in order to produce in the mind of the reader of the translation, the same meanings as those produced in the mind of the reader of the original text. According to Nida (1964: 159), the translation should aim to produce an equivalent effect to the original text. He mentions two types of equivalence; formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence. The first one focuses on the source text respecting mostly the form, while the second one is particularly interested in the target audience. More specifically, the formal equivalence ―focuses on the message itself, both in form and content. [...] The message into the receiver‘s language must match as closely as possible the various data in the source language‖ (Nida, 1964: 159).

Misunderstandings, omissions and everything that leads to an incorrect result will probably create serious problems. Thus, in practice, the translator should have the necessary language knowledge of at least two languages and their culture. Translation is therefore not only the transfer of a text from one language to another. Translation is the transfer of a text from one culture into another (Kentrotis, 2000: 50).

The key element that characterizes the translator is the translation competence. The achievement of this requires from the translator access to seven distinct kinds of

(11)

11

knowledge: 1) knowledge of the target language, 2) knowledge of the type of text to translate, 3) knowledge of the source language, 4) knowledge of the scope of the text to translate, 5) knowledge of comparisons, 6) knowledge of decoding reading of the source text, and 7) knowledge of recoding writing of the source text (Kentrotis, 2000: 125).

In the theory of translation, a range of meanings has been developed attributable to the translation process, according to the focus of the theorist on the aspects of this and his perception of the nature of translation, whether it can be considered art or science or both. Thus, according to Batsalia (2010: 5) translation is ―the transition from the speech level of the source language to the speech level of the target language by comparing the translatable and translated language‖, while Koutsivitis (1994: 29-30) defines translation as ―a new version of an existing document. A compilation in language X of a text available in language Y based on the necessary thematic and linguistic knowledge and skills... and then the transfer of the real meaning from one language to another‖.

In a more detailed definition of translation, and using respectively with the above scholars the words ―source language‖ and ―target language‖, Kentrotis states that ―translation is generally the transfer of a message from the source language to the target language or, more specifically, the transfer of a constant specific and, therefore, permanently offered or ad libitum repetitive text, compiled in accordance with the source language rules, from the source language to the target language, especially in a text, which a) is prepared in accordance with the rules of the target language, b) preserves the meaning of the original and c) can be tested at any time for its constancy and can be corrected‖ (Kentrotis, 2000: 117). This last point can easily be connected to the retranslation of texts, which will be further analyzed in the following section.

The translation work is not easy and the translator is often faced with significant difficulties. These are directly linked to the objectives set by the translator. According to Batsalia, the translator first and foremost ―must recognize the communicative purpose of the original, to identify the communicative purpose of the translation and to harmonize the morphosyntactic and stylistic choices on those linguistic conventions that govern the target language texts to this communication functionality‖ (Batsalia, 2003: 511).

In this context, and in order to carry out a successful translation, the translator is required to face a number of difficulties including the identifications of the real

(12)

12

meaning of the word, with accuracy in the meaning and not the letter of the text, and the understanding of a sentence depending on the verbal context in which it occurs (Lederer, 1994).

Vinay & Darbelnet (1958) separated and analyzed the translation practice in seven techniques, of which one must choose the most appropriate each time, depending on the case. The authors do not accept that translation is an art. On the contrary, they believe that translation is an exact science that has its own techniques, such as: borrowing, calque, literal translation, transposition, modulation, equivalence and adaptation (Vinay & Darbelnet, 1958). These seven translation techniques are also summarized in the article by Kearns (2009: 284-5):

a) borrowing, which relates to the physical transfer of the term,

b) calque, which is a form of borrowing and in particular the borrowing of a structure of the source language and the literal translation of it in the target language,

c) literal translation, which is the word by word translation,

d) transposition, in which a part of speech is replaced by another without this entailing a change in the meaning of the message (e.g. conversion of a verb into a noun, of a noun into a verb etc.)

e) modulation, in which there is a change of the message‘s perspective so that it becomes more clear and meets the cultural context of the target language, in cases where the transposition and the literal translation give a message that is considered grammatically correct but does not make sense or is not generally accepted,

f) equivalence, which is applied when the original and the translation describe the same situation with different stylistic and structural means and finally,

g) adaptation, which is applied in cases where a situation for which a reference is made in the message, does not exist in the target language and therefore a situation should be translated that could be considered the equivalent of the source language.

After having analyzed the translation theory, I will now turn to the analysis of the retranslation theory, in sub-section 1.1.2.

1.1.2. Re-translation Theory

The investigation of the retranslation of literary texts began in the 1990s. Although it is common practice, little had been said about this phenomenon in the past. The retranslations were investigated and analyzed spasmodically, which helped

(13)

13

mostly in the clarification of other aspects of the investigation relating to the translation. For example, Chesterman (2007) uses the retranslations to show how the hypotheses describe different models in translation. Nevertheless, in recent years, there has been a surge of interest in retranslation, which as a result has brought renewed attention to this field of study and its different dimensions. An example of this interest is the organization of a conference series called ―Retranslation in Context‘‘, organized by the Boğaziçi University in Istanbul. In fact, the third conference of the series will be held in February 2017, in Ghent (Boğaziçi University, 2015).

The term ―retranslation‖ is used either in connection with literary texts or non- literary texts, such as technical, scientific, legal, etc., and is required to describe practices which relate to multiple translations of texts. Specifically, regarding the retranslation of literary texts, the term is charged each time with the content of the conditions in which the retranslation of the text takes place (Ning, 2008).

The types of retranslations vary, since there are:

 retranslations of texts which take place in the same historical period – but also very often in different historical periods – and which are distinguished by the different interpretation attributed to the individual literary text.  retranslations for which the original text is not used as the source text, but a

translated version of it, which is either of the same time or not. However, this type of retranslation is commonly known as ―Indirect Translation‘‘ (Ning, 2008).

The retranslations are usually associated with the ―old age‖ of the translations, especially literary, creating the perception that it is a product of the search for perfect translations, the lack of which leads to the retranslations (Berman, 1990). It is believed that they will either produce more appropriate and accurate texts or they will better respond to the needs and abilities of modern readers.

According to the theory of Berman (1990), improving the retranslations takes place as the successive translations succeed more and more in the transmission of the meaning of the source text to achieve a perfect translation. Berman (1990) argues that the retranslations pass through the following stages: the first attribution of the source text when it is a literal translation followed by translations that are free and are

(14)

14

directed towards the source text and then the translations that are closer to the target text.

Bensimon (1990) explains why translations that predate are more oriented towards the target text than those that follow and which are oriented towards the source text. He concludes that the text originally is adapted to the host culture to be accepted. Later, if the text has already been introduced, it no longer is a foreign text and its translations can be directed to the source text.

According to the theorists, the Retranslation Hypothesis refers to the view that the first translations were more oriented towards the target text, while the retranslations towards the source text. This view is considered by the theorists more as a point of view which must be tested rather than an arbitrary truth (Brownlie, 2006).

The second view that wants the objective of the retranslation to make the source text more accessible to the modern reader emphasizes the factor of ―time‖. Du-Nour (1995) states that the focus is on the translations of the same text, which were made in different periods.

The prevailing social conditions play an important role in the theory of the retranslation. Every text is associated with a particular time period and a particular place, a particular textual environment. The different periods are governed by a different kind of translational norms and people have different expectations (Hagfors, 2003). The reason for the differences between the original translations and the retranslations is believed to be the prevailing norms in the target culture, in the different time periods during which the translation takes place (Brownlie, 2006).

The term ―norms‖, according to Hermans (1996), refers to a formality as to the expected behaviour of the members of a community in certain situations, combined with the knowledge of their expectations. The degree to which the members of a community generally agree on whether an act is considered ―proper‖ or not, constitutes the content of the term ―norms‖. The norms are closely linked to the prevailing values of a society and the values in turn reflect the power relations in that society. Therefore, the translations cannot be independent of the values (Schaffner, 1999).

The norms that influence the translation are the linguistic, the literary and the translational (Brownlie, 2006). The language and the concepts of the translational behaviour which is acceptable, are not always constant, but evolve over time. Consequently, the texts are considered either old or not acceptable if they are not in

(15)

15

line with the modern thinking and lead to the need for retranslation. For Hermans (1996), the translation norms define the decision-making process and therefore determine the kind of equivalence between the original text and the translation. He considers the norms more as restrictions on the behaviour of the translator in order to respond to the constraints of the social environment.

Toury (1980) specifies the norms as key elements in the practice and the product of translation. He also concludes that the norms define the decision-making process when translating literary texts. He describes the following influential points:

• The norms define the introduction of a text in the receiving system.

• After deciding the introduction, they determine if the translator will focus on the source text or the target culture.

• The norms affect more the detailed decisions to be taken by the translator (Toury, 1980: 54).

1.1.3. Discourse Analysis

Discourse analysis will be applied in this paper, in order to indicate the different linguistic elements in the two translations analyzed here and to show more clearly the differences in the choices made between the two translators, regarding the style of their translation, as well as the techniques used by each one of them.

The qualitative content analysis process, which was an approach developed by Philip Mayring, was a natural product of the quantitative content analysis, given the criticism that the latter received, especially in the late 20th century. This criticism was initiated by the publication of ―The Challenge of Qualitative Content Analysis‖ in 1952 (Kracauer, 1952).

Mayring claimed that it is essential for the development of a comprehensive research process to reconstruct the contextual texts, to analyze and interpret them in an appropriate way so as to offer researchers more effective and complete conclusions. This process was considered impossible to be achieved by the author through the simplified and distorting quantitative analysis process.

Later, other authors (Bryman, 1992; Neuman, 1997; Kohlbacher, 2006) reported that the quantitative analysis tool is very superficial and simplistic. Its simplicity is that it simply counts the words or statements and is complemented by a simplistic evaluation system based on the measurement of reports by category, based on the

(16)

16

frequency of the occurrence of a word and on the quantitative evaluation of the words that eventually had the greatest number of occurrences.

The qualitative content analysis managed to maintain the positive data of the quantitative research, but also gave great weight to the investigation of the material, and developed a variety of techniques for the analysis of texts. In this way, it managed to exploit all the advantages of the quantitative research on the one hand, and on the other hand, to proceed to their deeper analysis and utilization (Mayring, 2000).

The trend towards the use of qualitative content analysis was caused by the absence of a systematic, composite and methodological tool for analyzing the qualitative material under interpretative procedures and methods. The new method focused on the analysis of images, meanings, symbols and language concepts. According to Mayring (2000), this method is based more on the rules and less on data quantification.

The critical discourse analysis is a research method which focuses on the identification of the ideology of a text (Fairclough, 1995). Its basic approach is that the language and the society are in a constant relationship. The principle is that there is no use of language without society and that there is no society and social phenomena without the use of language (Stubbs, 1983).

The critical discourse analysis is an approach that examines language as a social semiotic system. Specifically, it considers the language as a social practice (Fairclough, 1995), which is used as a representation and signification (Kress, 1990).

The aim of this research method is to record the relationships between language-texts and social relations and structures, and to develop and explain the various ideologies with the tendency for critical reflection. It focuses on the study of the differentiation of society through the dynamics and the value of speech. This method gives attention to the essence of speech, the substance of the content and finally the substance of ideologies. Essentially it combines the speech with the society and the wider ideology. This research method can be defined as ―hyperlinguistic‖ or ―metalinguistic‖ since it gives emphasis on the context, the grammar and the syntactic structure of a text (Kress, 1990: 87).

This analysis requires the organization and study of a text at the phonological, grammatical and lexical level. This method looks over the different sentences, focuses on their meanings and their connection, to draw final conclusions.

(17)

17

Discourse analysis became prominent in translation studies during the 1990s. As Munday (2001) mentions: ―The model of discourse analysis that has had the greatest influence is Halliday‘s systemic functional model‖ (Munday, 2001: 90). According to Halliday‘s model, the genre, i.e. the text type that is associated with a specific function, is conditioned by the sociocultural environment and thus, it determines other elements in this systemic framework, such as the register. The register comprises three elements:

1. field: which is the subject, or what is being written about; 2. tenor: which is about who is communicating with whom;

3. mode: which is the form of communication, e.g. written communication (Munday, 2001: 91).

These three elements will be further explained in section 2.3, where specific examples of the texts will be introduced and analyzed, under each category.

Having completed the brief analysis of the main notions discussed in this paper, in the following sections I will attempt to give a brief presentation on the author, Lord Byron, as well as the selected text, so that the reader forms an idea of the relevant context surrounding the poem, before proceeding to the analysis of the two translations in section 2.

1.2. Presentation of the Author and the Selected Text 1.2.1. The Background of Lord Byron

Lord Byron was born in London on January 22, 1788. He was a member of the British aristocracy, famous for his activity in Italy with the revolutionary movement of the Carbonari. He was the son of John Byron, a captain of the English Royal Navy, and his second wife, Catherine Gordon. They were part of the British aristocracy from his mother‘s side, whose family were descendants of King Edward III of England (Bloom & Grundmann, 2009).

In the early years of his life, Lord Byron lived poorly with his mother in Aberdeen, Scotland, where he learned his first letters. On May 19, 1798 the brother of his grandfather from his father‘s side, William Byron, known as the evil Lord, died and thus the ten-year old young man, who was first in line of succession, inherited the title of the Baron Byron (MacCarthy, 2002).

Then Byron lived and was educated in the Southwell Nottinghamshire in England. During his stay there, he developed several friendships and wrote his first

(18)

18

plays for the entertainment of the local community. His friends urged him to write poetry and thereby Byron wrote his first poems at the age of 17 years, which became known as the Fugitive Pieces. However, the eroticism of these writings soon became a bone of contention among some members of the community and thus the poems were destroyed before being widely disseminated (MacCarthy, 2002).

Byron‘s first major collection of poems was the Hours of Idleness, which contained many of his first poems and more recent compositions. This collection also received intense and anonymous criticism from the literary magazine Edinburgh Review, which was a significant publication in terms of literary events at that time (MacCarthy, 2002).

His colleagues advised him to publish his works anonymously and to remove some notorious points, as these writings continued to be controversial and cause great inconvenience to the morals of the time. However, after a while it became common knowledge that Byron was the author of these poems, and the great upheaval his poems created to some of his critics, since they considered that the poems contained indirect references to them, drove some of them to challenge him to a duel. Over time, being the target of Byron‘s writing became a peculiar literary tribute (MacCarthy, 2002).

Byron continued to write poems, with the Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage that was published in 1812 to become extremely popular, which made Byron highly sought after and a celebrity of the time. Byron seemed surprised by this development, and according to his words, he just happened to wake up one day and find that he was famous (Graham, 1999).

The first publication of 500 copies sold out within three days, followed by six more publications within a month. At the same time, Byron was concerned about politics, and he delivered his first speech in the House of Lords on a bill which instituted severe penalties for the perpetrators of the riots that had broken out in Nottingham after the introduction of hosiery machines, siding with the liberals. That speech caused great impression, and many rushed to congratulate him. His second speech, two months after, on the emancipation of the Papists was not so remarkable, nor his third, which he delivered on June 1st (Jump, 2016).

His next poems focused on issues from the East in the collection entitled Oriental Tales, which contained poems like The Giaour, The Bride of Abydos, The Corsair, Lara, and The Siege of Corinth (Jump, 2016).

(19)

19

Overall, Byron‘s lifestyle was very prodigal and extravagant, so over time his debts accumulated and his creditors were constantly looking for him for the repayment. Because of his debts, and of his persecution from former mistresses, Byron took the opportunity to start a major European tour travelling to various European countries, as was customary to the standards of the time for the young English nobles to do after their adulthood. Because of the Napoleonic wars, he had to avoid several countries of northern and central Europe, and thus he ended up in the Mediterranean countries (Strathcarron, 2012). He returned to Portsmouth with the English frigate Volage, on July 3, 1811 (Shears, 2014).

Over the next two years, Lord Byron had become a successful poet, nobleman, relatively rich, and contemptuous of the prevailing social ethics. Having great success among women, but nevertheless devoting much time to composing new poems (i.e. The Giaour (1813), The Bride of Abydos (1813), The Corsair (1814), Lara, A Tale (1814), Parisina (1816), The Siege of Corinth (1816) etc.), all of which dated to the same period, although some of them were published later. His poems were selling as fast as he was writing them. In particular, the poem The Corsair was printed in 14,000 copies and sold out in just one day. Overall the sales of his poems brought immense profits by enabling him to live a richer life, but created new high debts, for the repayment of which he considered that the only way was through marriage (Bloom & Grundmann, 2009).

He eventually married the noble Anne Isabella Milbanke (Annabella) on January 2, 1815, with whom he had a daughter named Ada. However, Byron‘s economics did not improve, and in conjunction with this anxiety, his boundless wine drinking with his friends and the constraints of family life, his behavior towards his wife was devastating (Fleck, 1975). The couple was officially divorced on April 21, 1816, and Byron‘s popularity began to decline. After the divorce, the accumulated debts and many mistresses to pursue him, Byron was forced to leave England in April 1816, and he would never return (Bloom & Grundmann, 2009).

He stayed for a few months in Brussels and Geneva, and then he went to Italy, where he actively supported the liberal movement of the Italian Carbonari in their war for independence against the Austrians. He finally came to Genoa, where in 1822 he was visited by a delegation of the Greek rebels seeking his support, as he was now known as a supporter of the self-determination of peoples, following the example of

(20)

20

the Italian self-determination against Austria. He accepted the delegation‘s request, and began preparations for his trip to Greece, departing in 1823 (Prell, 2009).

He settled in Messolongi where he came into contact with Alexander Mavrokordatos, whom he supported economically (Minta, 2006). He also corresponded with British businessmen like Samuel Barf for the financial support of the rebels (Bloom & Grundmann, 2009).

On April 9, Byron visited his favorite place for riding, at the Messolongi lagoon. But a sudden storm forced him to hurry back, riding for an hour in the rain. On his return to Messolongi, Byron collapsed displaying headache and high fever. He died on April 19, 1824 in Messolongi. The mourning over his death was universal and Dionysios Solomos composed a long ode to his memory, the Ode to the death of Lord Byron. His heart was buried in Messolongi. In sign of mourning for his death, 37 cannon shots were fired in Messolongi at sunrise, one every minute, as he was then only 37 years old (Beaton, 1988).

Byron‘s contribution in Greece was crucial. Although Byron did not get to take military action for various political reasons, his unexpected death in April caused grievance to the Greeks. The news of the death of the great philhellene was published by the Greek Chronicles, a newspaper in Messolongi. Byron had already managed to convince the British government to grant a military loan to Greece for the needs of the revolution, while the establishment of his brigade had already excited the mood of young Europeans. Indicative of the pan-European reach of his prestige is the fact that the members of the First International Brigade in history came from countries such as England, Ireland, France, Denmark, Italy, Sweden, Germany, Austria, Poland, Prussia, Russia and Switzerland. His death, and the later drama of the siege of Messolongi, mobilized the European forces. Finally, it should be noted that Lord Byron, as revealed from the personal letters to his operator in England, spent all his property for the needs of the Greek War of Independence (McCarthy, 2002).

1.2.2. Analysis of the Poem: Manfred: A Dramatic Poem

Manfred was written in the summer of 1816, while Byron lived near Geneva, and happened to read some excerpts from Goethe‘s Faust. The plot unfolds in the Alps, in the same dreamy landscape that inspired this tragic story (Marchand, 2001).

(21)

21

Byron used many autobiographical elements in his poetry. Here, in particular, what triggered the writing of Manfred was the unspoken relationship with his half-sister, Augusta, who condemned his marriage from the beginning, and also the political situation that prevailed during that time throughout the European continent (Blackstone, 1975; Raizis, 1994).

Manfred is one of the most personal works of Byron, an expression of his worldview and biological theory, which the poet applied to a point and wanted to have the courage to fully comply with. Therefore, his art has a psychological support, which is a necessity for him since he reaps the basics for his themes from his personal history. Without claiming the title of the pioneer in the English literature, it is certain that he added his own footprint. The stirrings of his soul combined with the musicality of his vivid language, illuminate his poetic essence. The reason for this is that his mind is flooded with a vision, a dominant feeling, to which he gives form and brightens it with rare beauty, in a desperate attempt, perhaps, to exorcise this vision. Although his attitude towards life was irrevocably determined and fixed by pessimism, his rational structure of beliefs in this work is characterized by vigour and intensity.

But who is the Byronic hero? The Byronic hero is not generally a representative of the human race; he is a manifestation of diversion, the possibility of the better to regulate their failures by themselves, a likely next step in evolution.

Superior to the common people, both in terms of passions and strengths, mysterious and gloomy, indifferent and self-sufficient, apolitical and revolutionary, respecting his own code of values, maintaining the memory of an unspeakable guilt, defying the natural and supernatural obstacles, erotic and combatant, knower and depressed. This is the Byronic hero.

Manfred is the most Faustic hero of Byron, expressing both sadness and knowledge. The poet was in fact influenced by the first Faust of Goethe and it is noteworthy that Goethe later would be under the influence of the Byronic hero when he wrote the second Faust.

In his castle in the higher Alps, Manfred calls the seven spirits and asks them to help him forget. Actually he wants freedom, which means forgetfulness of high treason. He ―betrayed‖ the very Goddess of Love, Astarte. After a failed attempt to kill himself up on the rocks and then refusing to obey the witch of the Alps, he

(22)

22

continued to seek answers and met Arimanes himself in the hall of his throne. Later, an Abbot visited him in his tower and tried to save his soul.

But there is neither redemption nor catharsis, only arrogance and rebellion, bitterness and anger, kindness and curse, superiority and death. The arrogance and rebellion is also illustrated by Manfred‘s attitude towards the prince of demons Arimanes, when the demons asked him to kneel:

Fifth Spirit. Dost thou dare Refuse to Arimanes on his throne What the whole earth accords, beholding not

The terror of his Glory?—Crouch! I say. Man. Bid him bow down to that which is above him,

The overruling Infinite, the Maker Who made him not for worship—let him kneel,

And we will kneel together.

(Byron, 1819)

Equivalent is the answer that Manfred gives to the priest when he asked him to repent:

I hear thee. This is my reply: whate’er I may have been, or am, doth rest between Heaven and myself; I shall not choose a mortal

To be my mediator. Have I sinn’d Against your ordinances? prove and punish!

(Byron, 1819)

Manfred farewells respectfully only the Sun, for the last time before he goes down:

Thou earliest minister of the Almighty, Which gladden’d, on their mountain tops, the hearts

Of the Chaldean shepherds, till they pour’d Themselves in orisons! Thou material God!

And representative of the Unknown, Who chose thee for his shadow! Thou chief star!

Centre of many stars! which mak’st our earth Endurable, and temperest the hues And hearts of all who walk within thy rays! Sire of the seasons! Monarch of the climes,

(23)

23

And those who dwell in them! for near or far, Our inborn spirits have a tint of thee, Even as our outward aspects;—thou dost rise

And shine, and set in glory. Fare thee well!

(Byron, 1819)

So, the moment of truth and the last battle arrives. Evil and Good are claiming him, but no one is going to have him. He reminds to his black personal demon that his power was not purchased with a contract to exchange his soul, but with high knowledge. This doesn't mean that they own him. He is the master of his life and also of his death. He will decide how and when to live and how and when to die:

Spirit. The genius of this mortal.—Come! ’tis time. Man. I am prepared for all things, but deny The power which summons me. Who sent thee here?

Spirit. Thou’lt know anon—Come! Come! Man. I have commanded

Things of an essence greater far than thine. And striven with thy masters. Get thee hence! Spirit. Mortal! thine hour is come—Away! I say. Man. I knew, and know my hour is come, but not

To render up my soul to such as thee: Away! I’ll die as I have lived—alone.

[…]

Spirit. But thy many crimes Have made thee—

Man. What are they to such as thee? Must crimes be punish’d but by other crimes,

And greater criminals?—Back to thy hell! Thou hast no power upon me, that I feel; Thou never shalt possess me, that I know:

What I have done is done; I bear within A torture which could nothing gain from thine.

The mind which is immortal makes itself Requital for its good or evil thoughts,

Is its own origin of ill and end, And its own place and time; its innate sense,

When stripp’d of this mortality, derives No colour from the fleeting things without,

(24)

24

But is absorb’d in sufferance or in joy, Born from the knowledge of its own desert. Thou didst not tempt me, and thou couldst not tempt me;

I have not been thy dupe nor am thy prey, But was my own destroyer, and will be My own hereafter.—Back, ye baffled fiends!

The hand of death is on me—but not yours!

(Byron, 1819)

Then again, the abbot waits for a prayer for forgiveness, yet the response of Manfred is completely different:

Old man! ’tis not so difficult to die.

(Byron, 1819)

These last words of the superhuman self-affirmation seal the absolute resistance against all.

The original work (Byron, 1819) consists of three acts and a total of 1,335 verses. It is written in non-rhyming decasyllabic verse of the English theatrical tradition (blank verse), while the rhyming appears in lyrical parts where there are recitations and sayings of spirits.

At the macrostructure level, the language of the poem is far from the colloquial form of the time. It is poetic, with lyrical surges, characterized by its verbal and grammar / syntax antiquity, even in the time of Byron. At the microstructural analysis level (Kentrotis, 2000), namely the structure of the sentences and sequences, the poem demonstrates the features of the formal writing style, which according to House (1981) consists of: a careful structure with a refined vocabulary, and a high degree of cohesion and sequence logic (consistency).

The poet used to declare (for his own reasons) that the poem was not intended to be performed on the theatrical stage; however, he regarded the drama as the highest form of artistic literary expression, because it was the one that depicted the mythical and spiritual stability (MacCarthy, 2002). Thus, he used drama, but then it was difficult for him to maintain the traditional form, for reasons of dramaturgical capacity, temperament and personal philosophy. The result is a special style, which requires more attention from the ambitious, attentive translator.

(25)

25

The translation of Manfred presents all the difficulties faced by the translator in a poetic text, which has been built with a particular architecture (number of syllables and metre belonging to the English theatrical tradition). On the other hand, the way in which the metre and the internal rhythm are balanced with a particular orality is wonderful. The language used is melodic and rhythmic, and therefore it does not remind us of speech. The language, as mentioned above, is characterized by lexical and syntactic oldness, which can easily lead to misinterpretation those who are not familiar with the evolution of language over time.

However, the morphological peculiarities are not the only ones detected in the text, since there are peculiarities in its content, too. The escalation of the plot and the deletion of the psychology of the main character, through the stories of the past and his acts to the end, testify the intensity and exuberance of emotions, with fluctuations in terms of quality and quantity. Precisely because of the fact that the plot revolves around a person haunted by panhuman feelings of guilt and grief, which are independent of culture, such culture-specific ideas or values do not appear in the text. Thus, no additional difficulties are created in the translation process, and therefore this should be an additional criterion for the translation‘s quality. Consequently, form and meaning have a covalent presence in the poem and therefore, the incorrect unilateral emphasis on one of the two would be unfair, as noted by Beaugrande (1978).

We can now proceed to the presentation of the two different translations of the poem into Greek and their analysis, in section 2.

2. Presentation and Analysis of the Two Translated Texts 2.1. Presentation of Lila Karanikola’s Translation

Lila Karanikola is a translator who translates poetry, but also literature and biographies. Some of her translations are: Van Gogh a man and his life, The fabulous secret (D. Lloyd) et al. (www.bookinist.gr).

Lila Karanikola, unlike the translator Dimitris Zachos, is limited to the provision of short biographical data about the poet in the introduction of her translation, and regarding the plot of the poem she just reports that: ―The hero of Manfred, an Orpheus of the Middle Ages, with spells and potions, wants to find the lost Eurydice, his beloved dead Astarte‖ (Byron, 1973: 7-8). In this way though, she does not give the reader an idea on the poem that will follow.

(26)

26

The translation of Karanikola, chronologically older and in a period particularly difficult for the intellectual production of Greece because of the censorship, is metrical (although the iamb is not always achieved), but in such a form (seven or eight syllables in each verse) that seems poorer than the original. On the other hand, the meaning of each verse extends far too often, which makes the verses seem too long, with no obvious purpose than filling the rhyme. This tendency, however, wearies those who have knowledge of the original text. Especially in points where the narrative is more extensive than in the original, the translation is divided into sections which correspond to about twenty English stanzas, resulting in the translation being more than double in length, than the original text. The first part, for example, which corresponds to the verses 1-16 of the English text, consists of 33 in the translation of Karanikola. Below, I have quoted part of the original English text, and underneath I present the Greek translation on the left, as well as the corresponding English text (mirroring the Greek translation) on the right, in order to compare and contrast the form of the original to the form of Karanikola‘s translation:

(Original)

THE LAMP must be replenish’d, but even then It will not burn so long as I must watch. My slumbers—if I slumber—are not sleep,

But a continuance of enduring thought, Which then I can resist not: in my heart There is a vigil, and these eyes but close

To look within; and yet I live, and bear The aspect and the form of breathing men. But grief should be the instructor of the wise;

Must mourn the deepest o’er the fatal truth, The Tree of Knowledge is not that of Life.

Philosophy and science, and the springs Of wonder, and the wisdom of the world, I have essay’d, and in my mind there is A power to make these subject to itself—

(Byron, 1819) (Karanikola’s translation) Θάκπσζε ην ιπρλάξη κνπ πξέπεη λα ην γεκίζσ λα κνπ θξαηήζεη σο ηε ζηηγκή πνπ ζα ηειεηώζσ. Πίζσ ζε ιήζαξγν λα πέζσ εγώ. Τ’ αιαθξνθνίκηζκα γνξγό Ύπλνο δελ ζάλαη κόλν ζπλέρεηα ζθέςεσλ ζθνηεηλώλ γηα ηνλ θξπθό κνπ πόλν. Μεο ηελ θαξδηά κνπ θώιηαζαλ

(English corresponding text)

My lamp has dazzled I have to replenish it to make it last until the moment

I finish. Back to the slumber I shall fall. The soft sleeping is swift Sleep it will not be, only a continuance of dark thoughts

for my secret pain. Nested in my heart

(27)

27 νη πίθξεο θη ε αγξύπληα. Τα κάηηα κνπ αλ θαη θιεηζηά κέζα κνπ βιέπνπλ θη’ ήπηα ηηο πίθξεο όιεο θη όκσο δσ ζηνλ άμελν απηό ηόπνλ θη έρσ ην ζρήκα ηελ εηδή ησλ δσληαλώλ αλζξώπσλ. Μα ε Θιίςε δάζθαινο ζθιεξόο ηνπ δηαιερηνύ Σνθνύ. Πίθξα είλαη Γλώζε. Πην πνιιά ζαλ θξύβεηο κεο ζην λνπ θιαηο θαη ζξελείο πεξζόηεξν γηα ηε κνηξαία Αιήζεηα. Γελ είλαη δέληξν δσηηθό ην δέληξν ηεο Σνθίαο. Τελ Δπηζηήκε ηε βαζεηά Κιείλσ θξπθά ζηα ζηήζεηα ηε Γλώζε, ηελ απέξαληε γνεηεία ηεο Αξκνλίαο. Τνπ Κόζκνπ ην βαζίιεην η’ αζηέξηα θαη ηνλ Ήιην Τα πάληα όια δηθά κνπ πηζηά ππνηαρηηθά κνπ. (Byron, 1973)

the sorrows and the wakefulness. My eyes though closed inside me they see, and though I drank

all the sorrows, yet I live in this non-strange place and I have the form and aspect of the living people But Grief is a harsh teacher

of the distinguished Wise. Grief is Knowledge. The more you hide in your mind

the more you weep and mourn for the fatal Truth. It is not a tree of life

the tree of Wisdom. The deep Science I close hidden in my breasts

the Knowledge, the infinite allure of Harmony. The kingdom of the World

the stars and the Sun. Everything is all mine my faithful underlings.

2.2. Presentation of Dimitris Zachos’s Translation

Manfred is the first translation of Dimitris Zachos. In 1992, he wrote a book with the title ―Reading-writing‖ that he published by himself, however there is not much information available on the work of the translator (www.biblionet.gr).

The translation of Manfred by Dimitris Zachos is the most modern there is, since it was carried out in 2011, namely 38 years after the translation of Karanikola. The introduction of the work is much more detailed in this version compared to that of Karanikola. In addition to the biographical information, Zachos makes a complete description of the poem‘s plot, as well as of its meanings and its importance:

―The work presented here revolves around the main character, Manfred, a count of the Swiss Alps. From the outset, we are confronted with a man fallen, corrupt, and acquiescent to the inevitability of his ultimate loss. In the development of the drama, Manfred reveals to be a sinner and a saint, sometimes absolutely immoral within his hysterical absurdity, his full of rage outbursts, the children of his weakness to withstand his own self [...] After all,

(28)

28

why is ―Manfred‖ an important poem? Because it is a complete and accurate map of the human soul, of its terrors, its deepness and its sanctity at the same time. A psychograph that with its honesty and sincerity, claims the respect, causes deep emotion and fights for love‖ (Byron, 2011: 9-10).

As already mentioned above, the translation of Zachos is much more recent and is not subject to any kind of external restrictions. The translator is not particularly concerned about preserving the metre in his translation, and for this reason it is more similar to the original. But the similarities do not end there, since in terms of meaning, it faithfully follows the original text, limiting the number of verses, compared to Karanikola‘s translation.

For example, the first 15 verses, which were expressed conceptually with twice as many lines in Karanikola‘s translation, in the translation of Zachos they are actually expressed within fifteen lines, a translation largely true to the rendering of the original meaning:

(Original)

THE LAMP must be replenish‘d, but even then It will not burn so long as I must watch. My slumbers—if I slumber—are not sleep,

But a continuance of enduring thought, Which then I can resist not: in my heart There is a vigil, and these eyes but close

To look within; and yet I live, and bear The aspect and the form of breathing men.

But grief should be the instructor of the wise;

Must mourn the deepest o‘er the fatal truth, The Tree of Knowledge is not that of Life.

Philosophy and science, and the springs Of wonder, and the wisdom of the world,

I have essay‘d, and in my mind there is A power to make these subject to itself—

(Byron, 1819) (Zachos’s translation) Πξέπεη λα μαλαγεκίζσ κε ιάδη ηε ιάκπα, αιιά αθόκα θαη ηόηε, δελ ζα θάςεη γηα ηόζν ρξόλν, όζν ρξεηάδνκαη λα κπνξώ λα βιέπσ. Ο ιήζαξγνο κνπ, αλ ζη‘ αιήζεηα απνθνηκηέκαη, δελ είλαη ύπλνο, αιιά ε εμαθνινύζεζε βαζαληζηηθήο ζθέςεο,

(English corresponding text) I need to replenish the lamp with oil,

but even then, it will not burn for as long as

I need to be able to see. My slumber, if I really fall asleep,

is not sleep,

(29)

29 ζηελ νπνία ηόηε δελ κπνξώ λ‘ αληηζηαζώ: ε θαξδηά κνπ είλαη ζ‘ επαγξύπλεζε θη αξθεί κόλν λα θιείζσ ηνύηα ηα κάηηα γηα λα δσ κέζα κνπ· θη όκσο δσ, θη έρσ ηελ όςε θαη ηελ κνξθή ησλ δσληαλώλ. Αιιά ε ζιίςε ζα‘ πξεπε λα είλαη ν νδεγόο ησλ ζνθώλ· ε ιύπε είλαη γλώζε: εθείλνη πνπ μέξνπλ ηα πεξηζζόηεξα πξέπεη λα ζξελνύλ βαζύηεξα γηα ηε κνηξαία αιήζεηα, ην δέληξν ηεο γλώζεο δελ είλαη απηό ηεο δσήο. Δνθίκαζα ηε θηινζνθία θαη ηελ επηζηήκε, θαη ηηο πεγέο ηνπ κπζηεξίνπ θαη ηε ζνθία ηνπ θόζκνπ, θαη ην κπαιό κνπ έρεη ηε δύλακε λα ηα θάλεη όια απηά θηήκα ηνπ- (Byron, 2011)

to which then I cannot resist: my heart is in vigilance if only I close these eyes to see inside me∙

yet I live, and I have the look and form of the living.

But the grief should be the guide of the wise∙

sorrow is knowledge: those who know the most should mourn deeper for the fatal

truth,

the tree of knowledge is not that of life. I tried the philosophy and science, and the sources of mystery and wisdom of the

world,

and my mind has the power to make all these my property-

2.3. Comparison of the Two Translated Texts and Possible Reasons for the Differences Found

As mentioned in section 1.1.3, the register of the text comprises three elements: the field, the tenor and the mode (Munday, 2001: 91). In the following sub-sections, I analyze each of these elements separately and I present examples from the two translations, in order to better explain the differences found.

2.3.1. Field

Munday (2001) mentions that ―the field of a text is associated with ideational meaning, which is realized through transitivity patterns (verb types, active / passive structures, participants in the process, etc.)‖ (Munday, 2001: 91). Moreover, by the notion field we mean the omissions and the discrepancies, all the linguistic elements that are present or absent and which make the two translations differ from each other. As already mentioned, Karanikola uses the colloquial language, just like Zachos. However, the language processing is different, resulting in a problem of internal consistency that affects the rendering of the text and causes significant discrepancies – both semantic and pragmatic. In particular, there are discrepancies as far as the polysemic words are concerned, that are either completely eliminated or have been translated in a different way:

Lord Byron ‘Manfred: A Dramatic Poem’: Comparison and Critical Analysis of Two Different Translations into Greek, of the Poem ‘Manfred: A Dramatic Poem’ by Lord Byron.

MA in Linguistics of European Languages

Master Thesis:

Lord Byron ‘

Manfred: A Dramatic Poem’

: Comparison and

Critical Analysis of Two Different Translations into Greek,

of the Poem ‘

Manfred: A Dramatic Poem’

by Lord Byron.

Maria Garefalaki

University of Amsterdam

Contents