Dante's Inferno: The Divine Comedy, Book One. Данте Алигьери

      COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

      Copyright © 1928 by S. Fowler Wright

      Copyright © 2012 by the Estate of S. Fowler Wright

      Published by Wildside Press LLC

      www.wildsidebooks.com

      PREFACE

      I suppose that a very great majority of English-speaking people, if they were asked to name the greatest epic poet of the Christian era in Western Europe, would answer Dante, and that this answer would be given as decisively by those who would speak with an expert knowledge of European literature as by the larger number who would be repeating a received opinion.

      Yet those who can read him in the medieval Italian must be a very small and still decreasing minority, and when all that is possible has been said in support of any existing translation, it remains a fact that there is no English rendering of the Divine Comedy, even including the tepid competence of Cary, which has won a genuine popularity.

      For this, there are three reasons.

      First, there is the general and almost insuperable difficulty of translating poetry of any kind from or into any language whatever.

      Next, there is a special obstacle arising from the form in which the Divine Comedy was composed, which cannot be successfully imitated in English.

      Third, there is the fact that a student of Dante is confronted by such a massed accretion of commentary that his approach to the poem is almost forced toward the pedantic rather than the poetic. He is inclined to regard the obscure or halting line, the obvious padding, the enforced rhyme, which must occur at times in the greatest epic, as too sacred to be altered, and too important to be ignored. Here I am tempted to say that my first qualification for this undertaking is that, while I have some knowledge of European poetry, and some practice in its composition, I make no claim whatever to Italian scholarship!

      The first of these—the inherent difficulty of all translation of poetry—may be briefly stated in this way. A great poem must have beauty both of form and of content. Soul and body must both be admirable. Having his subject under control, the poet represents it in such a way as is most suitable to the rhythms and verbal beauties of which his language is capable. If a bilingual poet were to attempt composition of the same epic in two languages, without the feeling of obligation to himself which a translator must feel, I have no doubt that he would deviate very widely in details of expression, and often in the actual thoughts expressed, as he would be led by different felicities of expression or the suggestion or absence of a rhyming word.

      A translator, feeling an inferior liberty, faces alternate pitfalls. He may hammer out a verbal repetition of the original, phrase by phrase, which cannot result otherwise than in a doggerel imitation of poetry. He will labour diligently, and, in the end, he will not merely have failed to translate a poem: he will have produced a malignant libel. Alternately, he may be tempted to follow the lure of his own constructions, or to omit or insert as the exigencies of the verse may lead him.

      How can the narrow path be held successfully between these pitfalls—or, if one must be taken, on which side should the descent be made?

      In confronting these perils, there is a first and vital question to be decided. In what metrical form shall the translation be made? Naturally, the first thought, and the first preference, is for that of the original poem. The rhythm and structure of a poem are not accidental. They are parts of its individuality. But the two languages concerned may differ too widely in their accentuations, in their dominant rhythms in their grammatical and syllabic constructions, for such a repetition to be possible.

      In face of this (which is a usual) difficulty, the translator may wisely consider what form the poet would most probably have chosen had he composed the poem in the language into which it is intended to render it.

      Asking myself this question, I conclude that Dante would certainly not have selected for an English poem the terza rima in which the Divine Comedy is written, and that he would, with equal certainty, have selected the decasyllabic line, which is the finest and most flexible of which our language is capable.

      Coming to the question of rhyme, a greater doubt arises. The decasyllabic line can be used with equal success for blank and for rhymed verse. Dante used rhyme, which is a reason for adopting it, if possible. But the use of rhyme certainly increases the difficulty of a translation which is to be (if possible) both accurate and well constructed. My decision (which must be justified, if at all, by result) was to introduce rhyme with an irregular freedom, but to endeavour to reach a quality of verse which would be so far independent of this subordinate feature that its irregularity, or even occasional absence, would be unobtrusive to the reader’s mind.

      Having selected a form in which I hoped to be able to move with sufficient freedom, and which, in English, is best adapted to the spirit of the poem, I had to face the larger questions of formal and spiritual fidelity. In regard to these I recognize two primary obligations: first, I regard it as inexcusable to introduce any word or phrase which discolours the meaning of the original, or deviates from it; second, I am bound to present the substance of the poem with such verbal beauty as I am capable of constructing, even though an adjective be omitted or added in the process, or some non-essential order of narration be changed to obtain it. This last freedom of rendering is not merely a translator’s right, it is a clear duty, because the directness and vigour of the original cannot be reproduced by any verbal literality, and it is of the first importance that he should inspire the poem with a new vitality.

      My own approach to the poem having been poetic rather than pedantic, I have concerned myself very little with the subtleties of disputed words unless some fundamental question of spiritual interpretation be dependent thereto. Desiring to introduce it to English readers from the same standpoint, I have reduced the inevitable notes to the barest minimum, and have placed them at the end of the volume.

      Some knowledge of the conditions of Europe, social, political, and intellectual, as Dante knew them, some knowledge of the corruptions of Church and State, and of the civil discords which distracted his native Florence, and which prevailed in most of the cities of Northern Italy, may be essential to an understanding of the poem; a more detailed knowledge will add greatly to the enjoyment of many passages in it; but, finally, the Divine Comedy must stand or fall by its internal vitality, and it may gain more than it loses by being presented independently of the almost unbelievable accretions of disputation and commentary which have been piled upon it.

      The cosmographical idea on which the poem is founded is extremely simple. The earth is a fixed point in the centre of the Universe. The northern hemisphere is inhabited by the race of Adam. Purgatory is an isolated mountain in the seas of the southern hemisphere, which was unexplored at the time at which the poem was written. The seven Heavens extend, one beyond another, above the earth on every side, the seventh being infinite in extent. Hell is a central core of evil in the earth’s interior.

      Metaphorically, Dante represents himself as being entangled in the corruption of Florentine politics, and restrained from their temptations by his love of literature (Virgil) and by his memory of Beatrice, by which influences he is led through and out of this central Hell to the ultimate Heaven.

      It would be absurd to suppose that Dante believed in this Hell of his imagination as a physical fact. It would have been contrary to the logic of his intellect to suppose that he could discover its locality, or that of a material Purgatory, by his own intuition; nor, had he intended his readers to regard it otherwise than allegorically, would he have peopled it with fabled monsters such as Minos, Cerberus, and the Minotaur; or with demons of Persian, and centaurs of Greek, mythology.

      He drew widely and impartially, from every source of human imagination. He faced the mystery of evil without flinching. He saw that good and evil are inevitable and everlasting, as long as life be free-willed and finite: and, recognizing this, he asserted confidently the divine supremacy of love, and its continual conquest, so that the whole conception becomes one magnificent metaphor of the preponderance of good and its eternal triumph, the residuum of evil being