DON QUIXOTE REVIEW

DON QUIXOTE REVIEW

Introduction

The novel Don Quixote has great rich content and complexity which has been an inspiration to many authors who have made efforts to translate the publication from original Spanish to other languages to reach full readers. Some translators of the book have transformed the works of Cervantes’s to read the text in the 18 century popularly. Many of the authors who have translated the book worked simultaneously to render their versions of the novel and have resulted in many different versions that were produced consecutively.

The original book is considered to be the original modern storybook which was published during the period of Spanish golden era. The novel portrays stereotype roles and atypical gender functions. It entails the collection of experiences between same sex and opposite sex. This article analyses three versions of English translations of the novel Don Quixote which is referred to as “El curioso impertinente.” The analysis in this paper utilizes descriptive translation framework to discuss the difference between the three versions. The methodology of comparison applied utilizes textual analysis to evaluate the source content and target content to determine lexical differences and associations that exist in the segment the novel used.

The segments form the novel’s three different versions are compared to determine translational preferences relating to the representation of feminine and masculine factors that exist in this Spanish story that is set in Florence. For the analysis, works of Tobias Smollett, Edith Grossman and Samuel Putnam are considered as translators from 18,20 and 21 century respectively. The three publications represent three different era’s and the difference in time portrays translator interpretation and techniques used in the Spanish novel. The Cervantes’s initial work was produced in 1605 that is written in Spanish and is entitled “El ingenioso hidalgo Don Quixote de la Mancha”.

Tobias Smollett translation was produced in 1775 and is titled “The history and adventures of the renowned Don Quixote de la Mancha” and the Samuel Putnam version dates to 1949 and bears the heading “The Ingenious Gentleman Don Quixote de la Mancha.” The translation by Edith Grossman is titled Don Quixote and was produced in 2003. The original title of the novel is called “Donde se Cuenta la Novela del “Curioso impertinente” while Smollet translated it to “The novel of the impertinent curiosity”; Putnam named his version “Story of the One Who Was Too Curious for His Good” and Edith uses the title “Which recounts the novel of “The Man Who Was Recklessly Curious”. The title translation by Smollet do not exhibit any form of gender and is considered to be more impersonal.

The is the absence of masculine traces, and the name does not include the protagonist of preceding events. The explicit in the text seem lower when compared to the original title. The Putnam’s title exploits explication which is specific to language grammatical structure. The words “for His Own Good” used by Putnam offers extra information while implicating moral tone and reflects masculine gender. Edith’s title indicates gender and imitates Spanish lexical word structure closely. The following texts are an extract of three versions of the novel:

• “… volviese a ser señor de su casa y a entrar y salir en ella como de antes, asegurándole que su esposa Camila no tenía otro gusto ni otra voluntad que la que él quería que tuviese, y que, por haber sabido ella con cuántas veras los dos se amaban, estaba confusa de ver en él tanta esquiveza (328).”
• In Smollett translation: “…to be master of his house, and to come in and go out as formerly, assuring him that the inclinations of Camila, in that respect, were exactly comfortable to his own; and that, knowing the perfect friendship which subsisted between them, she was extremely mortified of his late shyness (337).”
• According to Putnam, the text translates “…to resume his old place as master of his friend’s household, coming and going as he liked. Camila, he added, had no other will or pleasure than his own, and when she learned how fond the two were of each other, she had not known what to think of such coldness on Lotario’s part (281).”
• In Grossman translation: “ …that he makes Anselmo’s house his own again, and come and go as he had before, assuring him that his wife, Camila, had no wish or desire other than what he wanted her to have, and she, knowing how truly the two men had loved each other, was bewildered at seeing him so aloof (273).”

The will of males and females differ in the three versions where Smollet and Samwel apply the words “master of his house” and “masters of his friend’s household” to portray that Lotario should think of Anselmo house as he regards it before. In Grossman’s version the words “make Anselmo’s house his own again” exhibits different perception of the association between the two men as the dedication of power to Lotario. According to Smollet Camila’s “inclinations” was “comfortable to” her spouse’s. According to Putnam, Camilla “had no will or pleasure than his own” indicating Camila’s submissive stand which is similar to Grossman’s translation.

The female is possessing stronger voice in Tobias Smollett version, while on the other hand Grossman and Putnam’s versions indicate that the man was speaking on the wife’s behalf. The relationship between the males is expressed differently and intensifies as the versions are produced through the indicated years above. Smollet expresses “perfect friendship” while Putnam expresses “how fond the two were of each other” and Edith writes “how truly the two men had loved each other.” The different levels of appreciation indicate a distinct association between the two masculine protagonists.