There's always a certain torture in reading a foreign genius. It's awful to read a translation and to know that the author's full meaning is lost to us through the medium of another person. The pleasure I get from reading Milton and Shakespeare in English is paid back in the pain of knowing that I, as a speaker of English and middling Spanish, will never fully experience a vernacular other than my own. The best one can hope for is a reliable translator.
I like to think I've found this in Laurence Binyon. Why? In part, I just feel it. I suppose this is shoddy excuse for recommending one translation over another, but then again, this is one of my favorite definitions: "Poetry is the untranslatable."
I accept that there are elements of Dante's style which must inevitably be left aside; I desire that a sufficient amount of Dante's ideas are conveyed as to not distort them greatly. With these two considerations in mind, Binyon's is the best translation I've found. It works well enough for conveying Dante's philosophy and theology, and--most importantly--does not sacrifice aesthetic considerations for the sake of literalness. The aesthetics of Dante's Italian probably cannot be translated--this is the misery of the "untranslatable" from the joke--which means that any good translation must erect an aesthetic of its own. This is where Binyon succeeds, and Musa falters.
It is a shame that Penguin has swapped translations from Binyon's to Mark Musa's. I've read Musa's translation of the Inferno, and though it may be a more literal translation Dante's Italian, what it makes up for in literalness it loses in aesthetic flair.
A good comparison comes in Canto XXXIV, when Dante and Virgil are just about to emerge from Hell.
Musa:
My guide and I entered that hidden road
to make our way back up to the bright world.
We never thought of resting while we climbed.
We climbed, he first and I behind, until,
through a small round opening ahead of us
I saw the lovely things the heavens hold,
and we came out to see once more the stars.
Binyon:
The Guide and I, entering the secret road
Toiled to return into the world of light
Nor thought of any resting-place bestowed
We climbed, he first, I following, till to sight
Appeared those things of beauty that heaven wears
Glimpsed through a rounded opening, faintly bright
Thence issuing, we beheld again the stars.
Dante's arriving at the island of Purgatory is one of the great reliefs I've ever felt while reading; after thirty-odd cantos of torture and misery, we are suddenly on a serene island on Easter Day, minded by the benevolent light of the cardinal virtues above us. Binyon's translation carries us boldly and fluidly across this threshold, while Musa's stilted, more literal translation, bogs us down in mere details when, in truth, a proper emphasis should be on the feeling of the moment.
There are a number of ways in which Musa mutes the feeling of the scene. For one, there are too many details. Surely this is sign of Musa working closer to the source, but is this really necessary? Do I really care if the hole is a "small round opening?" In the Italian this description may be mellifluous, but in English the additional detail of "small" seems merely superfluous, all the more so since it diminishes the force of the line.
Musa's sentence structure is strange as well. The stanzas I've selected are a leading up to a great escape--perhaps the greatest in all literature--and in Musa's the propulsion is dampened by needlessly breaking it into three separate sentences. Compare that with Binyon's, who ushers us with majesty out of the depths and back into the world of hope.
Then take these lines: "We never thought of resting while we climbed./We climbed, he first and I behind" Why the repetition of "we climbed?" This so stilted Hemingway would be proud. But in this situation, the repetition conveys no further information (we already knew they were climbing) and it forces the reader to stop for a moment and focus on climbing, as if the climbing were the central focus of this selection. But it's not--escape and emergence are far more important emphases. The total effect is almost alienating.
Admittedly, Binyon's translation has its flaws. In some cases, Musa's literalist interpretation adds to the horror of the Inferno where Binyon's loveliness can have the tendency to elide some of Hell's more disgusting aspects. Still, Binyon's translation is something magisterial, a work of art in its own right. Musa's rendition too often feels like a transcription from the Italian, and never fully succeeds in the translator's hardest task: making the reader feel he is reading a native work.
And so, find the Binyon translation if you can. One of the most pathetic aspects of our current literary culture is an overemphasis on "studying" a work of art, and much less on enjoyment. The transition from Binyon to Musa is indicative of this, for no doubt Musa provides a more literal reading of Dante's Italian. But Binyon succeeds at adding to the work a spirit--perhaps a spirit not wholly Dante's, but a spirit nonetheness. Through the medium of Musa, Dante's Hell may be better able to stir the imagination and instill in us graphic images, but through Binyon we can have our hearts stirred.
Aside from the translation, I recommend that a reader approaching Dante for the first time acquaint himself with at least an overview of medieval theology. The worlds Dante inhabits are Aquinas', guided by God the Prime-Mover by logic and reason. Getting an idea for Aquinas' theology and metaphysics was very helpful to me in preparation for reading this book. To this end, I recommend Chesterton's short book on Aquinas, or for a lovely tour through medieval art and culture, including a paean to Aquinas, Henry Adams's Mont St. Michel and Chartres.