Paul Schmidt’s was the fourth translation of Rimbaud’s hallucinatory poetry that I’ve encountered, having previously read renderings by Louise Varèse, Wyatt Mason (my first entry into the mercurial world of Rimbaud) and Wallace Fowlie. Of the three translations of the complete works – Fowlie’s, Schmidt’s and Mason’s – Mason’s was the most recent, published 35 years after the other two first appeared in print. And perhaps in hindsight, and with the other two translations as guides, Mason provides what I think is the truest interpretation of Rimbaud’s works. Although this review is of Schmidt’s work, I will refer to the Mason translation many times throughout: (1) because it does combine some of the best of the Schmidt and Fowlie translations, both of which Mason was very familiar with and relied upon when he wrote his own translation, and (2) because in the intro to his work Mason draws many comparisons between his translation and those of these two predecessors.
In the introduction to Mason’s work, he uses up a good deal of space discussing the art of translation, sometimes with humorous and interesting examples to make his point. He begins this section writing: “The number of ways in which any single line can be translated is exceeded only by the number of theories of translation that have been advanced over the years.” He then proceeds, focusing on the “yin and yang of translation, its irreconcilable poles: literalism or liberty,” the latter sometimes referred to throughout as ‘poetry.’
Mason’s treatment of Rimbaud walks a fine middle line between the interpretations by Schmidt and Fowlie, with Schmidt favoring ‘poetry’ or ‘liberty’ and Fowlie preferring literalism, often neglecting (in the process) rhythm and form. Of Fowlie’s translation, Mason writes: “Fowlie’s is the ideal translation for a student of French who wishes to read the original but requires a crutch. As such Rimbaud’s pages are presented on facing pages, making it impossible to forget the translations’ dependence upon them: they are joined at the hip.” One thing that I actually quite enjoyed about the Fowlie translation when I read it was the parallel French text (something one also finds in James McGowan’s treatment of Baudelaire’s The Flowers of Evil, the next book in my to-read queue, which I read for the first time last year). Mason’s Rimbaud Complete includes the French poems in a separate section after his translations. This is fine, too, but not my preference. Schmidt’s Arthur Rimbaud. Complete Works does not include the original French versions of the poems at all, and that was actually one of my major qualms with Schmidt’s work.
Mason also points out that Fowlie’s work “ignores the consequential fact that French grammar and English grammar are very different,” accusing him of using a “third language that lies between the two, the language of translatorese that fuses (in this case) English words onto French grammar.” One example of this that Mason points out is where Fowlie translates ‘casquette de moire’ as ‘cap of silk,’ which he argues has an “antique quality” – Mason’s translation prefers the rendering ‘silk cap.’ I, personally, preferred the Fowlie translation in this case, particular for the way that it flows, even though I agree with Mason that this would simply be translated as ‘silk cap’ in English. This is a bit nitpicky to me, but the point is valid, nonetheless.
Compared to Fowlie’s translation, Mason writes, Schmidt’s “could not be more different. Schmidt has not translated the poem’s words, but rather its style and apparent subject (erotic horseplay). . . . Whereas Fowlie ignores rhyme and rhythm, Schmidt bravely holds on to them. . . . In so doing, however, Schmidt writes a totally new poem that may or may not be beautiful . . . but which has little to do with the literal sense of what Rimbaud wrote.” When I read other translations of Rimbaud (after my first encounter) it seemed that I had more or less, read the poems before. This time around, there were many poems that seemed entirely new to me due largely to the liberality with which Schmidt approaches the original, his free poetic approach versus a literal interpretation.
I found Schmidt’s version novel, but it didn’t have the feel of Rimbaud that I’ve become accustomed to. But I can forgive Schmidt this, because he acknowledges in his introduction to the work that the purpose of his translation is to “speak [Rimbaud’s words] in my own language.” His translation, he writes, is “a drama that Rimbaud has written, and I now perform. This is my Rimbaud. . . .” Just as filmmakers give their own interpretations to works when they adapt them from print to the screen, so too Schmidt reimagines the words that Rimbaud might have used if he were writing his poems in English in the later 1960s.
Mason’s translation, the first that I read, is probably the truest of the three, as it treads the fine thin line between Schmidt’s radical interpretation and Fowlie’s conservative and comparatively rhythmless one. A future task is to read the three translations side by side (maybe next year?). I do think there is veracity to the claims of many critics that Wyatt Mason’s translation is “the definitive one” for the time in which we are living.
One thing that I enjoyed most about Schmidt’s interpretation was how he broke the work into eight seasons that defined the life of young Rimbaud, each opening with a different passage from Une Saison en Enfer. At the very beginning, Schmidt justifies this style in his introduction, focusing on Rimbaud’s own preoccupation with seasons, “those stretches of time that open unawares and close painfully in our lives.” I also liked that before the poems and letters contained in each of these “seasons,” Schmidt offers readers a biographical sketch of the said period in Rimbaud’s life.
Mason’s biographical sketch of the artist is scanty, focusing solely on the work of the artist, and Fowlie’s brief biography of the artist comes at the onset. By presenting Rimbaud’s life in seasons, Schmidt really captures effectively the blossoming of Rimbaud’s genius and style and then his sharp split with art in favor of commerce. By the eighth and final season we are presented with a sober and straight Rimbaud, not this young libertine that we met before: “The voice we hear . . . is that of Rimbaud the businessman, clearly distinguished from the work of Rimbaud the poet. Rarely are the two voices so distinct. Poets’ letters tend to be just that—conscious, literary ‘artistic’ pieces of writing. Only occasionally do we find the vatic voice so clearly distinguished from the mundane one. With Rimbaud the separation is complete.”
I would have liked having the original French versions available in the work for purposes of reference (I favor the parallel text that one finds in the Fowlie translation), and I would have preferred a bit more of a literal interpretation. I think that Mason gives us the best taste of what Rimbaud truly was saying. Fowlie’s translation is honest, but bland in comparison. And in Schmidt one can find hints of the essence of Rimbaud, but there are sharper flavors that dominate the senses. Schmidt’s translation is certainly worth reading, and it is beautifully organized, but it is really a very free interpretation, Schmidt telling Rimbaud’s story, but adapting it to the words and style he feel are best suited to communicate the message. This is, after all, not Rimbaud per se, but Schmidt’s creative interpretation of Rimbaud.