--part1_da.2f4a678.27cfbb5b_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 3/1/01 8:04:06 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
> > Good thought abut Urania in Purgatorio. Interestingly the "Temple
> > Classics" edition of "Purgatorio" that TSE carried in his pocket puts
> > that canticle thusly:
> >
> > Now 'tis meet that Helicon for me stream forth
> > and Urania aid me with her choir to set in verse
> > things hard to conceive.
> >
> > Note the last word "conceive" fits nicely into the context of your
> > reading.
>
>
> While the translation including the word "conceive" fits the context,
> I don't think the original nor other translations do. I doubt that
> the Italian "pensar" is used or was used in any kind of way for
> physical conception.
>
>
>
Rick Parker,
Rick Seddon is to the point, and I should actually have checked out the
Temple Classics translation. This is the edition Eliot used and recommended
as "the best." So if one wants some take on what Eliot was reading when he
read the Commedia, it's the TC edition that one wants to see, and it's
pointless or a waste of time to be fiddle-faddling around with Mandlebaum or
whatever someone thinks is a "better" translation.
Sure check against Singleton, Grandgent, or whomever one wants, and I
actually checked and compared the annotation in just about every translation
I could find. But don't forget that the focal edition for studying Eliot is
the edition he read and recommended himself, and that's the TC. If you look
in the bilbiography for my book, you'll see that I've traced which edition of
the TC would have been available at the time, and I don't see much sense in
using anything else, at least not when studying Eliot.
The TC isn't on the internet, which makes things awkward. I usually do
searches on an internet translation made recently by a professor at
Stonybrook. Then one has to go back and find the same passage in the printed
version of the TC. Certainly I've always done this in any paper or book to be
published. But I cut corners in this case (laziness), and I'm grateful that
Rick Seddon filled in the gap by showing us the lines in the right edition.
If we know the edition used by Eliot, what could possibly be the
justification for using a different edition? I can understand your passion
for wanting to do everything on the internet, because I too like the lazy
fantasy of never getting out of one's chair. But the Internet isn't ready for
that at this point, and may never be ready. Nancy is quite right that one has
to use it with caution.
pat
--part1_da.2f4a678.27cfbb5b_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial Narrow" LANG="0"><B>In a message dated 3/1/01 8:04:06 AM Eastern Standard Time,
<BR>[log in to unmask] writes:
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></B>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">> Good thought abut Urania in Purgatorio. Interestingly the "Temple
<BR>> Classics" edition of "Purgatorio" that TSE carried in his pocket puts
<BR>> that canticle thusly:
<BR>>
<BR>> Now 'tis meet that Helicon for me stream forth
<BR>> and Urania aid me with her choir to set in verse
<BR>> things hard to conceive.
<BR>>
<BR>> Note the last word "conceive" fits nicely into the context of your
<BR>> reading.
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>While the translation including the word "conceive" fits the context,
<BR>I don't think the original nor other translations do. I doubt that
<BR>the Italian "pensar" is used or was used in any kind of way for
<BR>physical conception.
<BR>
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial Narrow" LANG="0"><B>Rick Parker,
<BR>
<BR>Rick Seddon is to the point, and I should actually have checked out the
<BR>Temple Classics translation. This is the edition Eliot used and recommended
<BR>as "the best." So if one wants some take on what Eliot was reading when he
<BR>read the Commedia, it's the TC edition that one wants to see, and it's
<BR>pointless or a waste of time to be fiddle-faddling around with Mandlebaum or
<BR>whatever someone thinks is a "better" translation.
<BR>
<BR>Sure check against Singleton, Grandgent, or whomever one wants, and I
<BR>actually checked and compared the annotation in just about every translation
<BR>I could find. But don't forget that the focal edition for studying Eliot is
<BR>the edition he read and recommended himself, and that's the TC. If you look
<BR>in the bilbiography for my book, you'll see that I've traced which edition of
<BR>the TC would have been available at the time, and I don't see much sense in
<BR>using anything else, at least not when studying Eliot.
<BR>
<BR>The TC isn't on the internet, which makes things awkward. I usually do
<BR>searches on an internet translation made recently by a professor at
<BR>Stonybrook. Then one has to go back and find the same passage in the printed
<BR>version of the TC. Certainly I've always done this in any paper or book to be
<BR>published. But I cut corners in this case (laziness), and I'm grateful that
<BR>Rick Seddon filled in the gap by showing us the lines in the right edition.
<BR>
<BR>If we know the edition used by Eliot, what could possibly be the
<BR>justification for using a different edition? I can understand your passion
<BR>for wanting to do everything on the internet, because I too like the lazy
<BR>fantasy of never getting out of one's chair. But the Internet isn't ready for
<BR>that at this point, and may never be ready. Nancy is quite right that one has
<BR>to use it with caution.
<BR>
<BR>pat</B></FONT></HTML>
--part1_da.2f4a678.27cfbb5b_boundary--
|
