eTransfers. A Postgraduate eJournal for Comparative Literature and Cultural Studies
Issue 3 (2015): Anglo-German Cultural Relations
'What's in a Rose?' A Critical Study of English
Language Translations of Rainer Maria Rilke's
“Die Rosenschale”
BIRGIT BREIDENBACH
(UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK, COVENTRY, UK)
English Abstract
The history of Rilke reception in the Anglophone context has been rich and
formidable, rendering him one of the most influential poets – or perhaps even the
most influential poet – of the German language in the English-speaking world. This
article examines, compares and contrasts a number of English language translations
of Rilke's poem “Die Rosenschale” (“The Bowl of Roses”, first published in New
Poems in 1907), focusing on translation strategies, the question of the translatability
of Rilke's poetry as well as poetic and cultural aspects in Anglophone Rilke
translations. In doing so, I analyse the implications and connotations that English
language translators of Rilke have used to augment or interpret Rilke's poetry in
their versions of “Die Rosenschale” by comparing five different translations of the
poem: J.B. Leishman's 1964 version, Stephen Cohn's translation from 1992, William
H. Gass's as well as Galway Kinell and Hannah Liebman's versions (both from 1999)
and Anita Barrows and Joanna Macy's 2009 translation. I thus explore to what extent
20th and 21st century translations of Rilke's poetry have contributed to creating an
'English Rilke' or 'English Rilkes', respectively; a question that was recently raised by
critics such as Karen Leeder and Kathleen L. Komar. In conclusion, I address in what
sense this 'English Rilke' relates to or differs from the image of Rilke in the German
context.
German Abstract
Die Geschichte der Rilke-Rezeption im anglophonen Kontext ist reichhaltig und
eindrucksvoll und hat den Lyriker zu einem der einflussreichsten, womöglich sogar
den einflussreichsten, Dichter der deutschen Sprache im englischsprachigen Raum
gemacht. Der vorliegende Artikel untersucht und vergleicht eine Reihe von
Übersetzungen von Rilkes Gedicht „Die Rosenschale“ (erstmalig veröffentlicht in
Neue Gedichte, 1907), wobei im Besonderen auf Übersetzungsstrategien, die Frage der
Übersetzbarkeit von Rilkes Dichtung sowie poetische und kulturelle Aspekte in
englischsprachigen Rilke-Übersetzungen eingegangen wird. Die Analyse, die sich
auf J.B. Leishmans Version von 1964, Stephen Cohns Übersetzung von 1992, William
H. Gass' sowie Galway Kinneys und Hannah Liebmans Versionen (beide erstmals
1999 veröffentlicht) und Anita Barrows' und Joana Macys Übersetzung von 2009
stützt, behandelt zudem implizite Bedeutungen, Konnotationen und
Interpretationen, die die englischsprachigen Übersetzter in ihren Versionen von „Die
Rosenschale“ dem Gedicht beigefügt haben. Dadurch wird erforscht, inwiefern
Übersetzungen von Rilkes Dichtung dazu beigetragen haben, einen ‚englischen
Rilke’ (oder mehrere) zu erschaffen, eine Frage, die unlängst von Karen Leeder und
1
eTransfers. A Postgraduate eJournal for Comparative Literature and Cultural Studies
Issue 3 (2015): Anglo-German Cultural Relations
Kathleen L. Komar aufgebracht wurde. Abschließend wird untersucht, in welchem
Maße der ‚englische Rilke’ sich vom Bild Rilkes im deutschen Raum unterscheidet.
I. Introduction
In the English-speaking world, Rainer Maria Rilke (1875-1926) is generally
considered as the most popular and influential of all poets of the German language.1
The poet W.H. Auden even claimed that “Rilke is probably more read and more
highly esteemed by English and Americans than by Germans.”2 The high demand
and praise for Rilke's poetry in the Anglophone context suggests that either the
individuality and 'spirit' of the poetry must be preserved and transmitted in the large
number of its translations, or that the translations themselves create an attraction for
speakers of the English language which is not inherent in the poetry, but is rendered
by its English language translations. The question that arises in respect of Rilke's
complex and idiosyncratic poetry is: how do translators “[render] into English
intensely lyrical poetry written in an intensely German style”3?
This study is going to examine, compare and contrast a number of English
language translations of Rilke's poem “Die Rosenschale” (“The Bowl of Roses,” 1907),
focusing on translation strategies and challenges to the translator in the original text.
Further aspects in my analysis will address the question of the translatability of
Rilke's poetry as well as specific poetic and cultural aspects in Anglophone Rilke
translations. In this, I will focus on the implications and connotations that English
language translators of Rilke have appended to Rilke's poetry in their versions of
“Die Rosenschale,” and I will thereby endeavour to contribute to a recent research
desideratum in 'Rilke studies': the field of Rilke's reception in the English-speaking
world and how translations and poetic responses to his poetry have contributed to
creating an 'English Rilke' or 'English Rilkes', respectively, a question recently tackled
1
I would like to thank Dr John Gilmore for introducing me to the theory of translating poetry during
my graduate studies and for his helpful feedback on this essay.
2
W.H.
Auden,
“Rilke
in
English,”
The
New
Republic
(September
http://www.newrepublic.com/book/review/rilke-in-english, accessed 13 June 2015.
3
Susan Ranson and Marielle Sutherland, “Note on the Translation,” in Rainer Maria Rilke: Selected
Poems. With Parallel German Text, ed. Robert Vilain. Translated by Susan Ranson and Marielle
Sutherland (Oxford, New York: OUP, 2011), 36-39, here: 36.
2
6,
1939),
eTransfers. A Postgraduate eJournal for Comparative Literature and Cultural Studies
Issue 3 (2015): Anglo-German Cultural Relations
by critics such as Karen Leeder4 and Kathleen L. Komar5. Though answering this
question in a satisfying way lies well beyond the scope of this article, I will attempt to
touch upon the question in what sense the 'English' Rilke(s) in “The Bowl of Roses”
differ(s) from the Rilke that is recognised in German criticism. Have the modes and
practices of translating Rilke contributed to his success and appreciation in the
English-speaking world? Or are they based on a certain degree of translatability in
the poetry itself?
In conclusion, I will consider in what sense studies of poetic texts and their
translations can inform the theory and practice of translation as a whole. According
to Lawrence Venuti, “poetry translation is more likely to encourage experimental
strategies that can reveal what is unique about translation as a linguistic and cultural
practice.”6 In looking at translations of Rilke, I will outline in what sense translation
across languages and cultures is not merely an act of mediation, but of interpretation
and active creation.
II. Rilke's Idiosyncrasic Poetry and Its Challenges for Translation: “Die
Rosenschale”
It's been frequently said that translation is a form of
betrayal: it is a traduction, a reconstitution made of
sacrifice and revision. One bails to keep the boat afloat.7
My case study for the translation of Rilke's poetry will be “The Bowl of Roses” (1907),
a poem that is emblematic of Rilke's strand of Dinggedichte ('poetry of things'),
particularly through its intense and multi-layered figurative language. Like many
others of the collection New Poems in which it was published, “Die Rosenschale”
focuses on a single object indicated by its title; and yet, in poetic terms, this object
4
Karen Leeder, “Rilke’s legacy in the English-speaking world,” in The Cambridge Companion to Rilke,
eds. Karen Leeder and Robert Vilain (Cambridge: CUP, 2011), 189-205. In the following, this source
will be quoted in the continuous text as (RL).
5
Kathleen L. Komar, “Rilke in America: A Poet Re-created,” in Unreading Rilke: Unorthodox Approaches
to a Cultural Myth, ed. Hartmut Heep (New York: Peter Lang, 2001), 149-170. In the following, this
source will be quoted in the continuous text as (RIA).
6
Lawrence Venuti, “Introduction,” in Translation Studies 4:2 (2011), 127-132, here: 127.
7
William H. Gass, Reading Rilke. Reflections on the Problems of Translation (New York: Basic Books,
1999), 51. In the following, this source will be quoted in the continuous text as (RR).
3
eTransfers. A Postgraduate eJournal for Comparative Literature and Cultural Studies
Issue 3 (2015): Anglo-German Cultural Relations
harbours a multiplicity of meanings. Before I will look at translations of the poem, I
shall point out a number of specific linguistic features in the original text.
The metaphor of the rose, a recurrent, sometimes clichéd, symbol in poetry,
plays a central and quite specific role in Rilke's œuvre: the rose depicts the tension
between inner being and the outside, the interior and the exterior, in both spatial
(outside vs. inside) as well as linguistic (outer appearance vs. 'inner' meaning) and
epistemological terms (that which is perceived of an object in the world vs. that
which is inherent to it). In opening its petals, the rose opens itself up to the world
and undergoes a transformative act. At the same time, it filters that which seeks to
penetrate it from the outside as its petals filter the light: “Aus den tausend Himmeln
/ filtern sie langsam jenen Tropfen Dunkel, / in dessen Feuerschein das wirre
Bündel / der Staubgefäße sich erregt und aufbäumt.”8 The petals are likened to
eyelids: once they are opened, the interior can 'see' what is outside.9
As Shimon Sandbank observes, the German word 'Lid' (lid) and its homonym
with 'Lied', the German word for song, also suggest a meta-poetic layer of meaning:
The poem itself is a 'lid' that filters impressions from the outside—in this case the idea
of a bowl of roses—through to the reader's mind. It operates like a filter in the sense
that it conveys words and meaning from the outer world to the individual reader. As
an 'Augenli(e)d', an 'eye-song', it must be perceived and read through the sense of
sight; through reading it, the reader makes it 'sing'. In the original version, “Die
Rosenschale” is thus as much a poem about the roses’ being [sic] a symbol of human
existence as it likens the roses to that which their image is created in and by: the
poem.10
8
Rainer Maria Rilke, Gesammelte Gedichte (Munich: Goldmann, 2006), 499. In the following, this source
will be quoted in the continuous text as (GG).
9
The image of the rose petals as eyelids is explored in an entry dated September 27, 1900, in Rilke’s
Worpsweder Tagebuch: “Ich erfand mir eine neue Zärtlichkeit: eine Rose leise auf das geschlossene
Auge zu legen, bis sie mit ihrer Kühle kaum mehr fühlbar ist und nur die Sanftmut ihres Blattes
noch über dem Lid ruht wie Schlaf vor Sonnenaufgang” (Rainer Maria Rilke, Tagebücher aus der
Frühzeit, eds. Ruth Sieber-Rilke and Carl Sieber (Frankfurt am Main: Insel Verlag, 1973). My
translation: “I invented a new form of tenderness: quietly laying a rose on the closed eye until its
chill can hardly be felt anymore and only the gentleness of its petals rests over the eyelid like sleep
before sunrise.” As Rilke metaphorically equates the rose petals with eyelids, which gently separate
the interior of the rose from its exterior, he suggests that the roses themselves possess a degree of
sensitivity and perceptiveness that can be likened to human perception.
10
Shimon Sandbank, “The Sign of the Rose: Vaughan, Rilke, Celan,” in Comparative Literature 49:3
(1997), 195-208, here: 201.
4
eTransfers. A Postgraduate eJournal for Comparative Literature and Cultural Studies
Issue 3 (2015): Anglo-German Cultural Relations
In this sense, the poem does not merely depict a bowl of roses; beyond that, the
design of the language itself imitates and thereby creates the idea of a bowl of roses
and brings it before the eyes of the reader. As William Waters points out, many of the
New Poems “have often been called ‘made things,’”11 things that are evoked and
'made' by the poem. In this context, poetic means suggesting space and motion are
crucial for the rendering of the image and the evocation of space and presence. The
following stanza renders the image of interleaved petals containing each other
through words 'containing' and 'embracing' each other:
Lautloses Leben, Aufgehn ohne Ende,
Raum-brauchen ohne Raum von jenem Raum
zu nehmen, den die Dinge rings verringern,
fast nicht Umrissen-sein wie Ausgespartes
und lauter Inneres, viel seltsam Zartes
und Sich-bescheinendes - bis an den Rand:
ist irgend etwas uns bekannt wie dies?
(GG 498f.)
In the phrase “rings verringern”, the word “verringern” (reduce) phonetically
contains “rings” (around): the two words depict two 'neighbouring' petals, one of
which contains the other (i.e. the former is enveloped by the other). While “Inneres”
(interior) is actually placed in the middle of a line, “Rand” (seam) is located at the
end of another. The poem itself, as a phonetic entity, is something that exists in space
without actually taking up space, as it describes the roses: “Raum-brauchen ohne
Raum von jenem Raum / zu nehmen” (“taking up space, without taking space from
this space,” my translation). In addition to this, the word “Ausgespartes” (that which
is omitted) appears in an elliptic sentence lacking a verb. The wording of the poem is
thus so closely intertwined with the sensory image of what it depicts that the poem
itself seems to be that for which the symbol of the roses stands.
In this sense, the poetic speaker, an undefined 'we' addressing an
undistinguished 'you' (presumably the reader), could be identified in (at least) two
different ways: as the 'we' of a collective of human beings, or a 'we' representing
11
William Waters, “The New Poems,” in The Cambridge Companion to Rilke, eds. Karen Leeder and
Robert Vilain (Cambridge: CUP, 2010), 59-73, here: 59. In the following, this source will be quoted in
the continuous text as (TNP).
5
eTransfers. A Postgraduate eJournal for Comparative Literature and Cultural Studies
Issue 3 (2015): Anglo-German Cultural Relations
poetry; that is, 'Augenlider', 'Lieder': songs, poems. This ambivalence can be traced
further in the second stanza:
Nun aber weißt du, wie sich das vergißt:
denn vor dir steht die volle Rosenschale,
die unvergeßlich ist und angefüllt
mit jenem Äußersten von Sein und Neigen,
Hinhalten, Niemals-Gebenkönnen, Dastehn,
das unser sein mag: Äußerstes auch uns.
The bowl of roses is described as an object “containing / the utmost forms of being
and leaning, / holding out, never being able to give, standing there” (my translation),
forms of existence that the poetic 'we' also possesses: “utmost, also, to ourselves.”
Being, leaning, holding out, being unable to give and standing there can be
considered metaphors of human existence and activity. However, the static element
('standing there') and the notion of objecthood render the meta-poetic reading of the
poem equally, if not more, valid. The German verb 'dastehn' can be translated as
'standing there'. At the same time, though, it is used to refer to that which is on a
page: Es steht dort indicates that which 'stands' on a page. The poetic 'we', as poems
speaking to the reader, are that which is 'standing' on a page; they hold out a
message to the reader, yet simultaneously they can never quite 'give' the reader
anything material. Poems are not a facility that 'gives' meaning to the reader; the
reader must engage with them from a spectator's point of view, as does the person
who looks at a bowl of roses: they do not serve a material function, and it is up to the
recipient to see meaning in them.
The roses are then compared to other entities: humans, other objects,
memories – their potential for meaning seems to be infinite: “by virtue of the poem’s
own seemingly endless ability to compare the roses to other things – ‘what can’t they
be?’ Rilke asks – they come to include everything” (TNP 66). However, this totality is
not a totality of meaning – since a symbol meaning everything would essentially
mean nothing and dissolve meaning in itself; instead it is a totality of subjectivity: the
roses see everything, they 'filter' the totality of impressions that we call the world and
harbour infinite meaning in what they 'unfold.' This all-embracing subjectivity can
correspond to both suggested readings of the poem: firstly, the roses as a metaphor
6
eTransfers. A Postgraduate eJournal for Comparative Literature and Cultural Studies
Issue 3 (2015): Anglo-German Cultural Relations
for human subjectivity; or secondly as a metaphor for the totality of representation
and infinite meaning potential that poetry harbours. This second suggestion,
foregrounding the meta-poetic element in the poem, is echoed in Waters's
interpretation of “Die Rosenschale” which calls attention to the
deliberate highlighting of language as a material with tensile and sensuous qualities
that are to some degree independent of what the poem is ‘saying’. This
independence means that the pleasure of reading comes in part from following the
intelligence with which subject matter and artistic means are balanced against one
another. This equilibrium, too, works to reduce the substantiality of the ‘thing’ or
subject matter – it draws part of our attention to the language and so away from its
supposed referent – even as by the same token the poem itself comes to seem more
‘thing-like’ than would be the case were the poems less rhetorically crafted. (TNP 70)
The language of the poem underlines its linguistic materiality and turns it into a selfreflexive entity; and the self-reflexivity is itself a feature of the roses, which contain
themselves. At the same time, the poem sustains its semantic ambivalence,
simultaneously insinuating that the roses can be interpreted as a symbol for human
subjectivity.
III. Modes and Strategies in Translation: “Die Rosenschale” in English
I shall now look at a number of translations of the poem, those by J.B. Leishman
(1964)12, Steve Cohn (1992)13, William H. Gass (1999, GG 4-8), Galway Kinell and
Hannah Liebman (1999)14 and Anita Barrows and Joanna Macy (2009)15, and their
strategies of rendering the complex imagery and its being intertwined with the
structure and wording of the poem. One of the obvious problems for the translator is
tackling the poetic devices that are intimately connected to the multiple layers of
meaning of the original poem in the act of translation. For instance, none of the the
12
Rainer Maria Rilke, New Poems. The German Text, with a Translation. Introduction and Notes by J.B.
Leishman (London: The Hogarth Press, 1964), 157-159. In the following, this source will be quoted in
the continuous text as (NP).
13
Rainer Maria Rilke, Neue Gedichte/New Poems. Translated by Stephen Cohn (Manchester: Carcanet,
1992), 135-139.
14
Rainer Maria Rilke, “A Bowl of Roses.” Translated by Galway Kinell and Hannah Liebman, in
American Poetry Review 28: 3 (1999), 61.
15
Rainer Maria Rilke, “The Bowl of Roses,” in A Year with Rilke: Daily Readings from the Best of Rainer
Maria Rilke, edited and translated by Anita Barrows and Joanna Macy (New York: HarperCollins,
2009), 164-166.
7
eTransfers. A Postgraduate eJournal for Comparative Literature and Cultural Studies
Issue 3 (2015): Anglo-German Cultural Relations
five translations under discussion have managed to retain the homonym 'Lid' –
'Lied', which is virtually impossible to translate into English. In the following, I will
compare the different English versions of the seconds stanza, which in the original
also points towards a meta-poetic layer of meaning:
But now you know how such things are forgotten;
for now before you stands the bowl of roses,
the unforgettable, entirely filled
with that extremity of being and bending,
proffer beyond all power of giving, presence
that might be ours: that might be our extreme.
(Trans. J.B. Leishman)
But now you know how that may be forgotten.
Before you stands the bowl of roses, filled
unforgettably with what is most
extreme in tendency, extreme in essence;
all this is offered never to be given
and could be ours – reach even to ourselves.
(Trans. Stephen Cohn)
But now you know how to forget such things,
for now before you stands the bowl of roses,
unforgettable and wholly filled
with unattainable being and promise,
a gift beyond anyone's giving, a presence
that might be ours and our perfection.
(Trans. William H. Gass)
But now you know how these things are forgotten:
for here before you stands a bowl full of roses,
which is unforgettable and filled up
with ultimate instances of being and bowing down,
of offering themselves, of being unable to give, of standing there
almost as part of us: ultimates for us too.
(Trans. Galway Kinell & Hannah Liebman)
But know you know how things are forgotten.
For here before you stands a bowl of roses:
unforgettable, complete in itself,
a fullness of being:
self offering without surrender, sheer presence
becoming what we truly are.
(Trans. Barrows & Macy)
While the first three lines of the stanza are translated in a similar way in all five
translations, the way lines four to six are rendered shows a considerable degree of
8
eTransfers. A Postgraduate eJournal for Comparative Literature and Cultural Studies
Issue 3 (2015): Anglo-German Cultural Relations
variation: Kinell/Liebmann's enumeration of the 'activities' of the roses is the most
literal of the five; Leishman's version, too, is fairly close to a literal translation,
whereas Gass's, Cohn's and Barrows/Macy's translations display a greater amount of
interpretive freedom. In Cohn, “Äußersten von Sein und Neigen, / Hinhalten,
Niemals-Gebenkönnen, Dastehn, / das unser sein mag” is interpreted as “what is
most / extreme in tendency, extreme in essence; / all this is offered never to be given
/ and could be ours.” This way of phrasing is considerably more abstract than the
original version, which evokes the notion of the physical presence of the object that is
discussed: the bowl of roses, with roses standing in it, bending out, and so forth.
Cohn's translation, as opposed to this, points more strongly to a transcendental
quality beyond the physical object, a symbolic 'essence' beyond material reality, and
so does Barrows and Macy's version with its “fullness of being” and the very freely
translated “self offering without surrender.”
While the word “Dastehen” in the original strongly suggests a meta-poetic
reading of the poem, its translations “presence” and “standing there,” respectively
(whereas Cohn completely leaves it out), lack the connotation of 'standing on a page'.
The last phrase of the poem, “Äußerstes auch uns,” which in the German version
gives rise to a reading of the poetic 'we' as a voice of the lyrical form itself, of the
poem, has prompted a number of very different translations: in Leishman, it becomes
“that might be our extreme”; Kinell/Liebmann similarly render it as “ultimates for us
too.” As opposed to this, Gass translates it as “our perfection,” Cohn as “reach even
to ourselves,” and Barrows/Macy as “becoming what we truly are.” Each of these
versions carries a different shade of meaning, which offers insights into the different
shades of meaning the translators emphasise in their translations.
The roses as “ultimates” for the poetic 'we' in Kinell and Liebmann's version
suggest the idea of the being, bending down, etc. of the roses as a symbol of the most
fundamental aspects of human life and experience: the poetic speaker identifies the
condensed fundamentals of human life in the simple being of the roses and
represents humanity, a collective 'we.' The activities “of being and bowing down, /
of offering themselves, of being unable to give, of standing there” would, in human
9
eTransfers. A Postgraduate eJournal for Comparative Literature and Cultural Studies
Issue 3 (2015): Anglo-German Cultural Relations
terms, equal being, surrendering, offering oneself in terms of affection or profession,
lacking or failing and standing somewhere or being present, i.e. some of the most
universal and basic elements or formulas of life. Cohn translates this passage as
“reach even to ourselves,” thus similarly implying that the simple acts of being that
are represented by the roses reach out to the corresponding elements in human
existence. In this, the roses 'reaching to our selves' signifies that the display of these
essential forms of being leads us back to our innermost and simplest forms of
existence, as do Kinell/Liebmann's and Barrows/Macy's translations. Especially the
latter, “becoming what we truly are,” conveys the notion of human self-realisation
and discovery of one's true being.
Gass, on the other hand, interprets this passage quite differently: by
translating it into “our perfection,” he describes the roses as representing an idea of
ideal existence. In their simplicity, their humble 'activities' are a perfection and
crystallisation – if human or non-human is not entirely clear. In Leishman's version,
however, a very different impression evoked: Using the word “extreme” instead of
“ultimates,” Leishman implies that the roses do not represent our everyday life, but
something extreme in the sense of the limitations of our being. At the same time, he
alludes to a semantic implication in the original version: “Äußerstes,” 'utmost' or
'ultimate,' is etymologically related to “Äußeres:” 'that which is outside.' Thus, the
German original might suggest that the roses are the concrete outer representatives
of our abstract forms of experience. Leishman's “extreme” points towards this by,
very subtly, implying the notion of the outside as in the word 'extremities.'
Apart from this very subtle indication, the meta-poetic layer of the poem
remains either fully absent or entirely implicit in the five translations. Instead, the
understanding of the poem in its English versions is very strongly guided by a
privileging of the anthropocentric manner of reading of it: it seems that almost all the
translators under discussion, except for Gass, and – only very subtly – Leishman,
create an image of “Die Rosenschale” as depicting a symbol of human existence and,
in Cohn and Barrows/Gacy, even self-realisation. They render Rilke as a poet of
being (or, in Heideggerian terms, Dasein) rather than a meta-poetic poet. This notion,
10
eTransfers. A Postgraduate eJournal for Comparative Literature and Cultural Studies
Issue 3 (2015): Anglo-German Cultural Relations
which is reinforced by changes in tone and register, for instance by the replacement
of 'essence' with 'being' in Cohn's translation, thus conveys a much more
transcendental and abstract layer of meaning than the original text does on the
surface layer of the poem. The privileging of the Existentialist mode of reading is an
indication of an image of Rilke as a poet of the human self and its subjectivity, a poet
of 'inwardness' (cf. RL 196).
However, Rilke's poetry, Peter Robinson argues, goes beyond a mere poetic
practice of finding abstract meaning in and beyond concrete things and physical
objects:
[Rilke's] legacy has been the Dinggedichte; but those famous works [...], they're
Kunstgedichte. [...] Even his most world-embracing works sublime things with the
poetic techniques of his subjectivity, and in this they contribute to an aesthetic
spiritualizing, one which simultaneously makes a fetish of the artwork's unique and
'untranslatable' perfection.16
There are several aspects in Robinson's argument on which I would like to dwell. In
considering Rilke's poetry as Kunstdichtung (poetry of art) rather than Dingdichtung
(poetry of things), Robinson, on the one hand, seems to imply that its 'function' lies
beyond a mere poetic depiction of things in the world. Kunstdichtung, on the other
hand, could refer to two different notions of poetry: poetry whose value lies beyond
the pragmatic (which, in the Dinggedicht, would be the depiction of material reality),
or poetry that is concerned with art itself. This latter aspect gives rise to what
Robinson describes as an element of “aesthetic spiritualizing” in the poetry, an
understanding of Rilke that goes hand in hand with the meta-poetic reading of “Die
Rosenschale.”
However, according to Robinson, it is the poet's subjectivity that turns Rilke's
poetry into Kunstdichtung and that – due to this subjective point of view – eludes
translation. Yet, in my opinion based on my reading of the original text, it is not the
subjectivity of the creative genius that creates obstacles for translation; it is the dense
nature of the poetry itself, and its manner of putting together layers of meaning that
interact and 'embrace' each other – like the petals of roses. In a nutshell, I consider
Rilke's works, especially “Die Rosenschale,” as poetry of poems, while Robinson
16
Peter Robinson, Poetry & Translation. The Art of the Impossible (Liverpool: Liverpool UP, 2010), 72.
11
eTransfers. A Postgraduate eJournal for Comparative Literature and Cultural Studies
Issue 3 (2015): Anglo-German Cultural Relations
conceptualises them as poetry of the poet. It seems that English language translators
seem to privilege Robinson's image of the poet genius by rendering the role of
human being and subjectivity more prevalent than that of meta-poetic contemplation
in the act of translating Rilke. And yet, William H. Gass describes the notion of
perfection in Rilke as something that lies beyond the human: “Beauty, in Angels and
elsewhere, is the revelation of a wholly inhuman perfection, for art, as Rilke wrote,
goes against the grain of nature and transcends man” (RR 68). Gass thus, against the
grain of his fellow translators, reinforces the notion of meta-poetic transcendentalism
in Rilke's poetry, and reflects this manner of interpretation in his translation of “Die
Rosenschale:” If the poetic ‘we’ describes the roses as “our perfection,” it cannot be
humanity that is speaking – it must be poetry itself that is the locus of perfection
beyond the realm of the human.
IV. The Cultural and Historic Specificity of Translation and Its Effect on
Translation Strategies: The 'English Rilke'
Through a close reading of a part of “Die Rosenschale,” I have detected quite distinct
tendencies the translations reveal in the respective translator's interpretation of the
poem's meaning. Presuming, in compliance with Gass, that this is not a coincidence,
and that poems are not “approached in innocence, and with the absence of
lubricating forethought. [...] Many of our translators have programs – organized
preconceptions – which drive and direct their labors” (RR 72). I will in the following
examine to what extent the acts of translating and, in doing so, interpreting “Die
Rosenschale” have been determined by cultural and historical factors. By looking at
the various translations, I will focus on the cultural implications and the semantic
structures favoured by the different English versions of the poem.
Tracing the history of Rilke's reception in the English-speaking world, Hartmut
Heep observes that
Rilke’s works have been received in four different waves by the Englishspeaking world. The first and second waves occurred in the 1920s and the 1940s in
England. During the 1960s the center of attention given to his works shifted to the
United States. Today, almost forty years later, Rilke’s works have appeared in two
12
eTransfers. A Postgraduate eJournal for Comparative Literature and Cultural Studies
Issue 3 (2015): Anglo-German Cultural Relations
major Hollywood productions: Awakenings and Sister Act 2, adapting his poetry to a
new medium and audience.17
How can the translators under discussion be associated with these four waves of
Rilke in English? The British scholar and translator J.B. Leishman is commonly
considered a pioneer in terms of translating Rilke into English: “Leishman, more than
anyone else, has given us our poet, Rilke, in English” (RR 77). The Rilke translations
of the Oxford professor, probably the most important figure in the 1940s wave of
Rilke in English, have long been canonical and widespread. Though he translated
New Poems in their entirety relatively late (1964), his translation of them is to be
associated with the second wave of Rilke's reception in English. His translation is
marked by a high degree of faithfulness to the original: It is very literal and indeed so
close to the original that the sentence structure and morphology often display traces
of German language features; in the following example, these are typically Germanic
compounds and the syntax of German hypotaxis:
What can they not be: was that yellow one
that lies there hollow, open, not the rind
upon a fruit, in which that self-same yellow
was the intenser, orange-ruddier juice?
While this translation strategy may succeed in transmitting the wording and
structure of the original in a quite faithful manner, its result could almost be
described as a transcription into English rather than a 'poem': It is true to the original,
but in English lacks its rhetoric and poetic force, a strategy that helps to preserve the
content of the poem, though it cannot maintain the 'spirit.' Leishman's main principle
is thus to offer a literal translation without influencing it too much through his own
interpretation. Consequently, his version does not provide clear indications to the
meaning of the roses – since, in the original, the meaning (or meanings) is evoked
through subtleties and ambivalences that a literal translation can hardly maintain. As
mentioned before, Leishman offers a tiny glimpse into the meta-poetic meaning of
the original: his rendering of “Äußerstes” as “extreme” might suggest that the roses
17
Hartmut Heep, “Introduction,” in Unreading Rilke: Unorthodox Approaches to a Cultural Myth, ed.
Hartmut Heep (New York et al.: Peter Lang, 2001), 1-8, here: 2.
13
eTransfers. A Postgraduate eJournal for Comparative Literature and Cultural Studies
Issue 3 (2015): Anglo-German Cultural Relations
are the external representation of an otherwise immaterial entity, the poem. In his
comment on the poems, Leishman reveals his understanding of Rilke's poetry:
[T]he poetic ideal which Rilke was there trying to realise might be regarded as an
attempt to reconcile two views of poetry, that of the Romantics, with their eager
quest for sensations and their belief in the uniqueness of the poet’s calling, and that
of Mallarmé and, to some extent, of the Parnassians, for whom the ideal poem was
something absolute in itself and free from anything that might be called the private
tastes of its maker. (NP 5)
Leishman's awareness of the ambivalence of Rilke's poetic stance – the preoccupation
with subjectivity vs. self-reflexive poetry – informs his translation of “Die
Rosenschale.” Neither of the readings is favoured, and therefore both aspects are
maintained, though lacking the poetic force of the original. In this context, one needs
to consider the relevance of Leishman's professional position: As an academic, one
can assume, his translation is probably driven by accuracy rather than a poetic
imitation of the original.
Comparing Leishman's rather faithful rendering of the poem to the other
versions, a particularly high contrast can be observed when considering the
translations of Cohn, Gass and Barrows/Macy, which are all associated with the
most recent wave in Rilke's perception in the Anglophone world. Cohn's and Gass's
translations were both published in the 1990s, while Barrow and Macy's version,
published in 2009, is the most recent one. All of them are marked by a greater
translational freedom and the tendency to suggest a particular reading of the poem
more strongly than Leishman's version. At the same time, the greater freedom of
interpretation results in more poetic renderings of the poem. Considering that
William H. Gass is himself primarily a poet and novelist, Stephen Cohn an artist and
Anita Barrows a poet and psychologist, their more artistic translation strategies are
not surprising. In addition to this, the sheer number of different translation from
roughly the same period suggests that a higher demand of Rilke's poetry arose in the
1990s, and that the prevalent translation strategy – Kinell and Liebmann's version,
which is still quite literal, being an exception – is that of rendering the poetry more
freely and poetically. This implies, though, that the idea of an 'absolute' version of
14
eTransfers. A Postgraduate eJournal for Comparative Literature and Cultural Studies
Issue 3 (2015): Anglo-German Cultural Relations
Rilke, as which Leishman's translations have long been considered, has been
replaced by the emergence of different 'English Rilkes.'
One of them has quite distinctly been identified by Kathleen L. Komar in her
study “Rilke in America: A Poet Re-created” (2001), in which she analyses a
particular form of contemporary popular reception of Rilke in the USA. She finds
that especially in 1990s America Rilke, considered primarily a poet of the self, has
become an icon of the New Age movement and “a guru for promoting sexual
relationships” (RIA 149). In what sense can this understanding be traced in the
translations of “Die Rosenschale”? Through the combination of transcendental
meaning and concrete objecthood in the roses, the poem is very much concerned
with the physicality of being, its depiction of the roses being quite eroticised. In
German, the noun 'Rose' is, grammatically, of the female gender. Likewise, Rilke's
poem describes them as physical, female beings. This feminisation is most prominent
in the sixth stanza, where they are not referred to as 'roses', but only through
grammatically female pronouns and attributes: “jene weiße” ('that [female] white
one'), “die errötende” ('the blushing one'), and so forth.
Sieh jene weiße, die sich selig aufschlug
und dasteht in den großen offnen Blättern
wie eine Venus aufrecht in der Muschel;
und die errötende, die wie verwirrt
nach einer kühlen sich hinüberwendet,
und wie die kühle fühllos sich zurückzieht,
und wie die kalte steht, in sich gehüllt,
unter den offenen, die alles abtun.
Und was sie abtun, wie das leicht und schwer,
wie es ein Mantel, eine Last, ein Flügel
und eine Maske sein kann, je nach dem,
und wie sie's abtun: wie vor dem Geliebten.
(GG 499f.)
The roses are depicted as erotic female beings: One of them is likened to the figure of
the Venus in Botticelli's famous “Birth of the Venus,” a highly erotic painting of a
nude, which is the theme of the poem preceding “Die Rosenschale” in Neue Gedichte,
“Geburt der Venus,” and an example of the complex network of imagery pervading
this collection. Another rose is described as blushing, which can be read as a sign of
arousal, while the roses that have opened their petals are likened to women, taking
15
eTransfers. A Postgraduate eJournal for Comparative Literature and Cultural Studies
Issue 3 (2015): Anglo-German Cultural Relations
off their clothes for their lover: “und wie sie's abtun: wie vor dem Geliebten” (“and
how they take it off: as in front of the lover,” my translation), while the 'lover' here
grammatically indicates a male person or being.
The sexual connotation is clearly foregrounded in Cohn's translation of the
stanza, and more tangible than in the other versions and in the original:
Look at the white rose blithely opening
to stand revealed within its cup
like Venus rising naked from her shell;
then see this blushing one which helplessly
must reach across to touch the cooler one
although it shrinks away, withdrawing from it;
and see one colder still, clothed in itself,
below the others who, more generous,
shed everything – and see too what they shed:
it can be light or heavy, it can be
a cloak or else a burden, or a wing,
a mask for carnival, an anything undressing like a woman for her lover.
The phrase “aufrecht in der Muschel” (literally: “erect in the shell”) is translated into
“rising naked from her shell,” an obvious reinforcement of the sexual undercurrent in
the act of translation. Moreover, Cohn reproduces the notion of femininity in the
roses by clearly indicating it by adding the simile “like a woman” to the phrase
“undressing for the lover. 'Turning to' (“hinüberwenden”') in the original is rendered
“touch” in Cohn's version, thus further foregrounding the physicality of the poem.
For comparison, the more literal translation of, for instance, Gass does not suggest
the sexual undertones as strongly as Cohn's does:
Look at that white one which has blissfully unfolded
to stand amidst its splay of petals
like Venus boldly balanced on her shell;
look too at the bloom that blushes, bends
toward the one with more composure,
and see how the pale one aloofly withdraws;
and how the cold one stands, closed upon itself,
among those open roses, shedding all.
And what they shed: how it can be light or heavy,
a cloak, a burden, a wing, a mask – it just depends –
and how they let it fall: as if disrobing for a lover.
Though Cohn himself is a British artist, he has also lectured on Rilke and been
published in the US. The sexual connotations in his translations can thus be
16
eTransfers. A Postgraduate eJournal for Comparative Literature and Cultural Studies
Issue 3 (2015): Anglo-German Cultural Relations
considered an indication of (or perhaps a cause for?) Rilke's reception as an icon of
love and sexual relationships in the American context, while Barrows and Macy's
translation displays the image of the poet as a “patron saint of the New Age
movement,”18 as Rüdiger Görner slightly polemically phrases it. The fact that it was
published in a volume called A Year with Rilke: Daily Readings from the Best of Rainer
Maria Rilke suggests that Barrows and Macy's translation was composed for a
popular audience. Furthermore, it renders only an abbreviated version of “Die
Rosenschale,” leaving out the sixth and seventh stanza. It thus seems that the
translation is meant to serve day-to-day rather than academic or literary purposes.
Moreover, the translation clearly conveys a 'New Age' spirit:
But know you know how things are forgotten.
For here before you stands a bowl of roses:
unforgettable, complete in itself,
a fullness of being:
self offering without surrender, sheer presence
becoming what we truly are.
Soundless existence ever opening,
filling space while taking it from no one,
diminishing nothing, defined by nothing outside itself,
all coming from within, clothed in softness
and radiant in its own light, even to its outermost edge.
[...]
And this above all: that through these petals
light must pass. From a thousand skies,
each drop of darkness is filtered out
and the glow at the core of each flower
grows stronger and rises into life.
The translation thus turns “Die Rosenschale” into a poem concerned with selfrealisation and the connection between spirit and self, even harbouring motivational
undertones for the search of “what we truly are.” “[A]ll coming from within,”
“radiant in its own light,” “grows stronger and rises into life” are phrases borrowed
from the New Age vocabulary, indicating that the translation is informed by the
philosophical views of one of the translators, Joanna Macy, an Eco-philosopher and
18
cf. Rüdiger Görner, Rainer Maria Rilke: Im Herzwerk der Sprache (Vienna: Paul Zsolnay, 2004), 12.
17
eTransfers. A Postgraduate eJournal for Comparative Literature and Cultural Studies
Issue 3 (2015): Anglo-German Cultural Relations
scholar in Buddhism. The 'American Rilke' is a poet who is predominantly concerned
with subjectivity and the expression and illumination of the self (cf. RIA 166).
However, there does not seem to really be the American Rilke; he is an American
Rilke, alongside with others, for instance Gass's, who is much more concerned with
the poetic and poetological intricacies of Rilke's poetry. As pointed out before, Gass's
translation of “Die Rosenschale” maintains the semantic ambivalence of the original.
Being a poet himself as well as a scholar, Gass reads Rilke as a poet concerned with
the poetic:
The poem is [...] a paradox. It is made of air. It vanishes as the things it speaks about
vanish. It is made of music, like us, ‘the most fleeting of all’ yet it is also made of
meaning that’s as immortal as immortal gets on our mortal earth; because the
poem will return, will begin again, as spring returns: it can be said again, sung again.
(RR 186)
His “Bowl of Roses” stages this paradox by depicting the vanishing of the roses in the
medium of its own vanishing, the poem.
V. Rilke and the Question of Translatability
Considering the findings from the analysis of a number of Rilke translations, I will
now move on to the question in what sense Rilke's poetry enables or might even
invite translation in the English-speaking world. Is there a certain translatability in
his work that appeals to the English translator? Walter Benjamin describes the notion
of translatability as follows: “Translation is properly essential to certain works – this
does not mean that their translation is essential for themselves, but rather that a
specific meaning inherent in the original texts expresses itself in their
translatability.”19 In other words, certain texts invite translations more than others,
and it is a specific feature in their meaning that stimulates translational activity and
is uncovered by it. Is it, according to this definition, a specific element in Rilke's
poetry that has prompted its many English-language translation? According to Gass,
this is the case: “[I]t is the ubiquitous presence of [...] type-tropes and generalizing
19
Walter Benjamin, “The Translator's Task,” translated by Steven Rendall, in The Translation Studies
Reader, ed. Lawrence Venuti (London, NY: Routledge, 2012 [1923]), 75-83, here: 76.
18
eTransfers. A Postgraduate eJournal for Comparative Literature and Cultural Studies
Issue 3 (2015): Anglo-German Cultural Relations
'ideas' in Rilke that makes translating him possible at all” (RR 79), despite certain
linguistic peculiarities in Rilke's use of the German language. Understanding Rilke as
a poet of ideas that are not distinctly German or European can thus account for his
popularity and vigorous translational history in the Anglophone context. If his œuvre
is conceived of as poetry of transcultural ideas rather than poetry that is completely
dependent upon its source language context, Rilke becomes a 'translatable'
phenomenon. However, other factors could have created a particular demand for his
poetry in the English context: Rilke represents something largely absent in English
poetry, but not beyond its reach. He epitomises the German poetic tradition, and
within it the apotheosis of the German language. As the poet and translator Michael
Hofmann puts it: Rilke is “the poet in whom its persuasions, abstracts and music are
most triumphantly effective” (quoted in RL 190).
From the perspective of Anglophone poetry, Rilke filled a 'market niche' by
representing the ideal of poetic language in German. This might be reason for the
popularity of Leishman's early Rilke translations, which offer a glimpse into Rilke's
'intensely German style.' Finally, Rilke is largely considered the fascinating figure of
the ideal poet, most prominently in the American context: “In Rilke they found
someone whom they were looking for: someone European who ultimately speaks
their own language.”20 Though the poet might 'speak' the American language in the
sense of transferable images and ideas, my analysis of different translations of Rilke
into English has shown that the act of translation has already 'made' him speak this
language.
VI. Conclusion
The study of a number of English-language translations of Rilke's “Die Rosenschale”
has revealed an insight into how translators have tackled Rilke's poetry and rendered
the German poet an Anglophone one. Both literal and free translations indicate that
the act of translating poetry is informed by cultural preconceptions and intentions
20
Hartmut Heep, “Introduction,” in Unreading Rilke: Unorthodox Approaches to a Cultural Myth, ed.
Hartmut Heep (New York et al.: Peter Lang, 2001), 1-8, here: 8.
19
eTransfers. A Postgraduate eJournal for Comparative Literature and Cultural Studies
Issue 3 (2015): Anglo-German Cultural Relations
and thus create an image and understanding – not only of the figure of the poet, but
also of his poetry – that is historically determined: In conclusion, translators have
created several versions of Rilke, 'English Rilkes', throughout the 20th century: Rilke
the Germanic poet, Rilke the poet of inward subjectivity, Rilke the New Age poet,
Rilke the poet of meta-poetic reflection. And others are yet to be created.
However, Rilke's appeal to the English-speaking world is not simply inflicted
on, but also harboured in his poetry, and it is a certain translatable quality of
meaning that translations have uncovered: “[T]he different versions of Rilke to
emerge over the last half century or so in the English-speaking world reflect not only
the needs of the particular moment but also the protean sensibility of the poet and
the unique challenge of his language to stretch our own ways of seeing and saying”
(RL 201). It is a fascination with and a veneration of Rilke's poetry that has
contributed to his appeal to the Anglophone audience, a romantic image of the
foreign genius poet that is, however, critically scrutinised in German Rilke criticism:
Nach Jahrzehnten verdiensvollster Rilke-Philologie und Deutungen kann der Leser
noch immer den Eindruck gewinnen, daß dieser Dichter ‘von jeher‘ gekommen war
und seine Dichtung eben Dichtung ‘an sich‘ sei. Andererseits glauben wir
inzwischen doch zu wissen, daß Rilke diese Tiefe des ‘von jeher‘ und ‘an sich‘ wie
ein Sprachkunstmittel einzusetzen verstand.21
Translation, and perhaps especially the translation of poetry, is a constitutive act: The
poems and poets it creates reflect our cultural preconceptions and demands. At the
same time, they fabricate new meaning in the originals, and give them a history of
interpretation and meaning. Poems are like roses that unfold and change through
translation; translation is the infinite process of opening of their petals: Was können
sie nicht sein?
Contact Address:
21
Rüdiger Görner, Rainer Maria Rilke: Im Herzwerk der Sprache (Vienna: Paul Zsolnay, 2004), 10. “After
decades of meritorious Rilke philology and interpretation, the reader could still get the impression
that the poet had come 'from time immemorial' and that his poetry were 'ultimate poetry'. However,
we have by now realised that Rilke knew how to use this depth of 'from time immemorial' and
'ultimate poetry' as a linguistic device” (my translation).
20
eTransfers. A Postgraduate eJournal for Comparative Literature and Cultural Studies
Issue 3 (2015): Anglo-German Cultural Relations
b.breidenbach@warwick.ac.uk
(http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/english/about/people/students/enpmcc/)
Keywords:
English: Rainer Maria Rilke; “Die Rosenschale”; New Poems; translation studies;
translating poetry
German: Rainer Maria Rilke; „Die Rosenschale“; Neue Gedichte; Studien zur
Übersetzungstheorie; Gedichtübersetzung
eTransfers. A Postgraduate eJournal for Comparative Literature and Cultural Studies
http://www.sllf.qmul.ac.uk/research/anglogerman/etransfers/
21
eTransfers. A Postgraduate eJournal for Comparative Literature and Cultural Studies
Issue 3 (2015): Anglo-German Cultural Relations
Appendix: Original Text and Translations
1. Rainer Maria Rilke: „Die Rosenschale”
Zornige sahst du flackern, sahst zwei Knaben
zu einem Etwas sich zusammenballen,
das Haß war und sich auf der Erde wälzte
wie ein von Bienen überfallnes Tier;
Schauspieler, aufgetürmte Übertreiber,
rasende Pferde, die zusammenbrachen,
den Blick wegwerfend, bläkend das Gebiß
als schälte sich der Schädel aus dem Maule.
Nun aber weißt du, wie sich das vergißt:
denn vor dir steht die volle Rosenschale,
die unvergeßlich ist und angefüllt
mit jenem Äußersten von Sein und Neigen,
Hinhalten, Niemals-Gebenkönnen, Dastehn,
das unser sein mag: Äußerstes auch uns.
Lautloses Leben, Aufgehn ohne Ende,
Raum-brauchen ohne Raum von jenem Raum
zu nehmen, den die Dinge rings verringern,
fast nicht Umrissen-sein wie Ausgespartes
und lauter Inneres, viel seltsam Zartes
und Sich-bescheinendes - bis an den Rand:
ist irgend etwas uns bekannt wie dies?
Und dann wie dies: daß ein Gefühl entsteht,
weil Blütenblätter Blütenblätter rühren?
Und dies: daß eins sich aufschlägt wie ein Lid,
und drunter liegen lauter Augenlider,
geschlossene, als ob sie, zehnfach schlafend,
zu dämpfen hätten eines Innern Sehkraft.
Und dies vor allem: daß durch diese Blätter
das Licht hindurch muß. Aus den tausend Himmeln
filtern sie langsam jenen Tropfen Dunkel,
in dessen Feuerschein das wirre Bündel
der Staubgefäße sich erregt und aufbäumt.
Und die Bewegung in den Rosen, sieh:
Gebärden von so kleinem Ausschlagswinkel,
daß sie unsichtbar blieben, liefen ihre
Strahlen nicht auseinander in das Weltall.
Sieh jene weiße, die sich selig aufschlug
und dasteht in den großen offnen Blättern
wie eine Venus aufrecht in der Muschel;
und die errötende, die wie verwirrt
22
eTransfers. A Postgraduate eJournal for Comparative Literature and Cultural Studies
Issue 3 (2015): Anglo-German Cultural Relations
nach einer kühlen sich hinüberwendet,
und wie die kühle fühllos sich zurückzieht,
und wie die kalte steht, in sich gehüllt,
unter den offenen, die alles abtun.
Und was sie abtun, wie das leicht und schwer,
wie es ein Mantel, eine Last, ein Flügel
und eine Maske sein kann, je nach dem,
und wie sie's abtun: wie vor dem Geliebten.
Was können sie nicht sein: war jene gelbe,
die hohl und offen daliegt, nicht die Schale
von einer Frucht, darin dasselbe Gelb,
gesammelter, orangeröter, Saft war?
Und wars für diese schon zu viel, das Aufgehn,
weil an der Luft ihr namenloses Rosa
den bittern Nachgeschmack des Lila annahm?
Und die batistene, ist sie kein Kleid,
in dem noch zart und atemwarm das Hemd steckt,
mit dem zugleich es abgeworfen wurde
im Morgenschatten an dem alten Waldbad?
Und diese hier, opalnes Porzellan,
zerbrechlich, eine flache Chinatasse
und angefüllt mit kleinen hellen Faltern, und jene da, die nichts enthält als sich.
Und sind nicht alle so, nur sich enthaltend,
wenn Sich-enthalten heißt: die Welt da draußen
und Wind und Regen und Geduld des Frühlings
und Schuld und Unruh und vermummtes Schicksal
und Dunkelheit der abendlichen Erde
bis auf der Wolken Wandel, Flucht und Anflug,
bis auf den vagen Einfluß ferner Sterne
in eine Hand voll Innres zu verwandeln.
Nun liegt es sorglos in den offnen Rosen.
(GG 498-500)
2. “The Bowl of Roses.” Translated by J.B. Leishman
You've seen the flare of anger, seen two boys
bunch themselves up into a ball of something
that was mere hate and roll upon the ground
like a dumb animal attacked by bees;
actors, sky-towering exaggerators,
the crashing downfall of careering horses,
casting away their sight, flashing their teeth
as though the skull were peeling from the mouth.
But now you know how such things are forgotten;
23
eTransfers. A Postgraduate eJournal for Comparative Literature and Cultural Studies
Issue 3 (2015): Anglo-German Cultural Relations
for now before you stands the bowl of roses,
the unforgettable, entirely filled
with that extremity of being and bending,
proffer beyond all power of giving, presence
that might be ours: that might be our extreme.
Living in silence, endless opening out,
space being used, but without space being taken
from that space that the things around diminish;
absence of outline, like untinted groundwork
and mere Within; so much so strangely tender
and self-illumined – to the very verge: –
where do we know of anything like this?
And this: a feeling able to arise
through petals being touched by other petals?
And this: that one should open like an eyelid,
and lying there beneath it simply eyelids,
all of them closed, as though they had to slumber
ten-fold to quench some inward power of vision.
And this, above all: that through all these petals
light has to penetrate. From thousand heavens
they slowly filter out that drop of darkness
within whose fiery glow the mazy bundle
of stamens stirs itself and reaches upwards.
And then the movement in the roses, look:
gestures deflected through such tiny angles,
they'd all remain invisible unless
their rays ran streaming out into the cosmos.
Look at that white one, blissfully unfolded
and standing in the great big open petals
like Venus upright in her mussel shell;
look how that blusher there, as in confusion,
has turned towards a cooler bloom, and how
the cool one is unfeelingly withdrawing;
and how the cold one stands, wrapped in herself,
among those open roses doffing all.
And what they doff – the way it can appear
now light, now heavy – like a cloak, a burden,
a wing, a domino – it all depends –
and how they doff it: as before the loved one.
What can they not be: was that yellow one
that lies there hollow, open, not the rind
upon a fruit, in which that self-same yellow
was the intenser, orange-ruddier juice?
And did her blowing prove too much for this one,
since, touched by air, her nameless rosiness
24
eTransfers. A Postgraduate eJournal for Comparative Literature and Cultural Studies
Issue 3 (2015): Anglo-German Cultural Relations
assumed the bitter after-taste of lilac?
And is not yonder cambric one a dress,
wherein, still soft and breath-warm, clings the vest
flung off along with it among the shadows
of early morning by the woodland pool?
And what's this opalescent porcelain,
so fragile, but a shallow china cup
and full of little shining butterflies?
And that, containing nothing but herself?
And are not all just that, just self-containing,
if self-containing means: to take the world
and wind and rain and patience of the spring-time
and guilt and restlessness and muffled fate
and sombreness of evening earth and even
the melting, fleeing, forming of the clouds
and the vague influence of distant stars,
and change it to a handful of Within?
It now lies heedless in those open roses.
(NP 157-159)
3. “The Rose Bowl.” Translated by Stephen Cohn
You have watched anger blazing. Once you saw
two boys clenched in a single ball of rage
who rolled about the ground like maddened beasts
attacked by swarming bees, like actors overacting, steaming like foundering horses,
eyeballs rolling, baring their teeth as if to peel
the whole skull out through the snarling mouth.
But now you know how that may be forgotten.
Before you stands the bowl of roses, filled
unforgettably with what is most
extreme in tendency, extreme in essence;
all this is offered never to be given
and could be ours – reach even to ourselves.
A life of stillness, opening endlessly
and lived in space yet leaving unconsumed
that space which objects all the time diminish;
scarcely delineated, still unprinted,
so inward and so strangely soft and tender
so shining with a light that is its own:
do we know anything that is like this?
And then, that such sensations should be born
purely of petals touching other petals?
25
eTransfers. A Postgraduate eJournal for Comparative Literature and Cultural Studies
Issue 3 (2015): Anglo-German Cultural Relations
Or this, the manner of their opening:
one eyelid opens, underneath you find
a host of other eyelids tightly closed –
as if by tenfold sleep they would subdue
all that they see within. And then,
the light which penetrates through every petal:
they filter darkness from a thousand skies
which blazes fiercely to illuminate
the tangled stamens, bushy and erect.
Then – watch the roses, notice how they move,
their gestures are so miniscule
they would be imperceptible but that
the rays diverge and fill the universe.
Look at the white rose blithely opening
to stand revealed within its cup
like Venus rising naked from her shell;
then see this blushing one which helplessly
must reach across to touch the cooler one
although it shrinks away, withdrawing from it;
and see one colder still, clothed in itself,
below the others who, more generous,
shed everything – and see too what they shed:
it can be light or heavy, it can be
a cloak or else a burden, or a wing,
a mask for carnival, an anything undressing like a woman for her lover.
What might they not be? Was the yellow rose
now lying here discarded once the rind
around a fruit whose juice, a little stronger,
more vermilion, was this yellowness?
Was blossoming too much for this other one?
for in the air its pink-without-a-name
takes on an aftertaste of bitter violet.
And this, like cambric, is it not a dress
whose shift, as warm as breath, as delicate,
is still inside it? - taken off to bathe
in morning's shadows, at the woodland pool.
See this one, opal-tinted porcelain, as fragile
as a shallow china cup filled to the edge
with brightly-coloured little butterflies –
while this one contains nothing but itself.
Are they not all like this, all self-containing
if self-containing means they will transform
the world outside, the wind and rain, the patient
spring, the guilt, the unrest, muffled Destiny,
the darkness of the Earth at evening,
26
eTransfers. A Postgraduate eJournal for Comparative Literature and Cultural Studies
Issue 3 (2015): Anglo-German Cultural Relations
the wanderings, the migrations of the clouds,
and energies which drift from distant stars –
to change all to a handful of pure inwardness?
The roses hold all this, content, within them.22
4. “The Bowl of Roses.” Translated by William H. Gass
You've seen their anger flare, seen two boys
bunch themselves into a ball of animosity
and roll across the ground
like some dumb animal set upon by bees;
you've seen those carny bankers, mile-high liars,
the careening tangle of bolting horses,
their upturned eyes and flashing teeth,
as if the skull were peeled back from the mouth.
But now you know how to forget such things,
for now before you stands the bowl of roses,
unforgettable and wholly filled
with unattainable being and promise,
a gift beyond anyone's giving, a presence
that might be ours and our perfection.
Living in silence, endlessly unfolding,
using space without space being taken
from a space even trinkets diminish;
scarcely the hint there of outline or ground
they are so utterly in, so strangely delicate
and self-lit – to the very edge:
is it possible we know anything like this?
And then like this: that a feeling arises
because now and then the petals kiss?
And this: that one should open like an eye,
to show more lids beneath, each closed
in a sleep as deep as ten, to quench
an inner fire of visionary power.
And this above all: that through these petals
light must make its way. Out of one thousand skies
they slowly drain each drop of darkness
so that this concentrated glow
will bestir the stamens till they stand.
And the movement in the roses, look:
gestures which make such minute vibrations
they'd remain invisible if their rays
22
Rainer Maria Rilke, Neue Gedichte/New Poems. Translated by Stephen Cohn (Manchester: Carcanet,
1992), 135-139.
27
eTransfers. A Postgraduate eJournal for Comparative Literature and Cultural Studies
Issue 3 (2015): Anglo-German Cultural Relations
did not resolutely ripple out into the wide world.
Look at that white one which has blissfully unfolded
to stand amidst its splay of petals
like Venus boldly balanced on her shell;
look too at the bloom that blushes, bends
toward the one with more composure,
and see how the pale one aloofly withdraws;
and how the cold one stands, closed upon itself,
among those open roses, shedding all.
And what they shed: how it can be light or heavy,
a cloak, a burden, a wing, a mask – it just depends –
and how they let it fall: as if disrobing for a lover.
What can't they be? Was that yellow one,
lying there hollow and open, not the rind
of a fruit in which the very same yellow
was its more intense and darkening juice?
And was this other undone by its opening,
since, so exposed, its ineffable pink
has picked up lilac's bitter aftertaste?
And the cambric, is it not a dress
to which a chemise, light and warm as breath,
still clings, though both were abandoned
amid morning shadows near the old woodland pool?
And this of opalescent porcelain
is a shallow fragile china cup
full of tiny, shining butterflies –
and there – that one's holding nothing but itself.
And aren't they all that way? just self-containing,
if self-containing means: to transform the world
with its wind and rain and springtime's patience
and guilt and restlessness and obscure fate
and the darkness of evening earth and even
the changing clouds, coming and going,
even the vague intercession of distant stars,
into a handful of inner life.
It now lies free of care in these open roses.
(RR 4-8)
5. Bowl of Roses. Translated by Galway Kinell and Hannah Liebman
You saw angry ones flare, saw two boys
clump themselves together into a something
that was pure hate, thrashing in the dirt
like an animal set upon by bees;
28
eTransfers. A Postgraduate eJournal for Comparative Literature and Cultural Studies
Issue 3 (2015): Anglo-German Cultural Relations
actors, piled up exaggerators,
careening horses crashed to the ground,
their gaze thrown away, baring their teeth
as if the skull peeled itself out through the mouth.
But now you know how these things are forgotten:
for here before you stands a bowl full of roses,
which is unforgettable and filled up
with ultimate instances of being and bowing down,
of offering themselves, of being unable to give, of standing there
almost as part of us: ultimates for us too.
Noiseless life, opening without end,
filling space without taking any away
from the space the other things in it diminish,
almost without an outline, like something omitted,
and pure inwardness, with so much curious softness,
shining into itself, right up to the rim:
is anything as known to us as this?
And this: that a feeling arises
because petals are being touched by petals?
And this: that one opens itself, like a lid,
and beneath lies nothing but eyelids,
all closed, as if tenfold sleep
had to dampen down an inner power to see.
And, above all, this: that through the petals
light has to pass. Slowly they filter out from a
thousand skies the drop of darkness
in whose fiery glow the jumbled bundle
of stamens becomes aroused and rears up.
And what activity, look, in the roses:
gestures with angles of deflection so small
one wouldn't see them if not for
infinite space where their rays can diverge.
See this white one, blissfully opened,
standing among its huge spreading petals
like a Venus standing in her shell;
and how this one, the blushing one, turns,
as if confused, toward the cooler one,
and how the cooler one, impassive, draws back,
and the cold one stands tightly wrapped in itself
among these opened ones, that shed everything.
And what they shed, how it can be
at once light and heavy, a cloak, a burden,
a wing, and a mask, it all depends,
and how they shed it: as before a lover.
29
eTransfers. A Postgraduate eJournal for Comparative Literature and Cultural Studies
Issue 3 (2015): Anglo-German Cultural Relations
Is there anything they can't be: wasn't this yellow one
that lies here hollow and open the rind
of a fruit of which the same yellow,
more intense, more orange-red, was the juice?
And this one, could opening have been too much for it,
because, exposed to air, its nameless pink
has picked up the bitter aftertaste of lilac?
And isn't this batiste one a dress, with
the chemise still inside it, still soft
and breath-warm, both flung off together
in morning shade at the bathing pool in the woods?
And this one here, opalescent porcelain,
fragile, a shallow china cup
filled with little lighted butterflies,
and this one, containing nothing but itself.
And aren't they all doing the same: only containing themselves,
if to contain oneself means: to transform the world outside
and wind and rain and patience of spring
and guilt and restlessness and disguised fate
and darkness of earth at evening
all the way to the errancy, flight, and coming on of clouds
all the way to the vague influence of the distant stars
into a handful of inwardness.
Now it lies free of cares in the open roses.23
6. “The Bowl of Roses.” Translated by Anita Barrows and Joanna Macy
You have seen explosions of anger, seen how two boys
wrestle themselves into a single knot of hatred,
writhing on the ground like an animal assailed
by a swarm of bees. You have seen actors portray
paroxysms of rage, and maddened horses
beyond control, eyes rolling out of their heads,
teeth bared as if their skull were shaking loose.
But know you know how things are forgotten.
For here before you stands a bowl of roses:
unforgettable, complete in itself,
a fullness of being:
self offering without surrender,
sheer presence becoming what we truly are.
Soundless existence ever opening,
filling space while taking it from no one,
23
Rainer Maria Rilke, “A Bowl of Roses.” Translated by Galway Kinell and Hannah Liebman, in
American Poetry Review 28: 3 (1999), 61.
30
eTransfers. A Postgraduate eJournal for Comparative Literature and Cultural Studies
Issue 3 (2015): Anglo-German Cultural Relations
diminishing nothing, defined by nothing outside itself,
all coming from within, clothed in softness
and radiant in its own light, even to its outermost edge.
When have we known a thing like this,
like the tender and delicate way
that rose petal touches rose petal?
Or like this: that each petal is an eyelid,
and under it lie other eyelids
closed, as it letting all vision be cradled
in deepening sleep.
And this above all: that through these petals
light must pass. From a thousand skies,
each drop of darkness is filtered out
and the glow at the core of each flower
grows stronger and rises into life.
And the movement of the roses
had a vibrancy none could discern,
were it not for what it ignites
in the universe entire...
One could say they were self-contained
if self-contained meant
to transform the world outside,
patience of springtime, guilt and restlessness,
the secrecy of fate and the darkness of Earth at evening –
on out to the streaming and fleeing of clouds
and, farther yet, the orders of the stars –
take it all and turn it into
a handful of inwardness.
See how it lies at ease in these open roses.24
24
Rainer Maria Rilke, “The Bowl of Roses,” in A Year with Rilke: Daily Readings from the Best of Rainer
Maria Rilke, edited and translated by Anita Barrows and Joanna Macy (New York: HarperCollins,
2009), 164-166.
31