Dis-contenting Khayyam in the Context of Comparative Literature: An Invitation to Translating Rubaiyat with a Focal Shift from Content to Form

Sajad Soleymani Yazdi

Abstract


Since its conception in France in 1877, Comparative Literature, always subject to a critique of Eurocentrism, has been in a state of perpetual crisis. In “The Old/New Question of Comparison in Literary Studies: A Post-European Perspective” (2004), Ray Chow argued for a Post-European perspective in which comparatists begin with the home culture and look outwards to the European cultures, contrary to the dominant approach of doing just otherwise. Missing in Chow’s argument is the position of translation in this post-European perspective. In the 14 years between 2004 and 2018, the grandiose claims of comparative literature have been problematized and addressed; the lay of the land, however, remains predominantly Eurocentric, as it still focuses on content disproportionately. In this paper, through a study of English translations of Khayyam’s Rubaiyat, and taking Chow’s argument further, I argue that with its commitment to transfer the form of a text as much as the content, translation studies can further help comparative literature to distance itself from Europe. To exemplify the implication of this, I suggest that a translation of Khayyam’s Rubaiyat from Farsi to English would be more faithful to the original if its translations were to focus on the poem’s form rather than the content. I argue that translating with a focus on form would foreignize Khayyam’s poetry, hence an act of resistance against cultural hegemony.

Keywords


Comparative Literature, Translation Studies, Post-European, Persian Literature, Form and Content, Khayyam, Rubaiyat

Full Text:

PDF

References


Abrams, M. H. (1971). The Mirror and the Lamp: Romantic Theory and the Critical Tradition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Aminrazavi, M. (2005). The Wine of Wisdom The Life, Poetry and Philosophy of Omar Khayyam. Oxford, UK: Oneworld Publications.

Bernheimer, C. (1993). Comparative Literature in the Age of Multiculturalism. Washington D.C.: John Hopkins University Press.

Cao, S. (2014). The Variation Theory of Comparative Literature. Berlin: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

Carré, J. M. (2009). Preface to Littérature Comparée. In D. Damrosch, N. Melas, & M. Buthelezi (Eds.), The Princeton Sourcebook in Comparative Literature (pp. 158-160). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Chow, R. (2004). The Old/New Question of Comparison in Literary Studies: A Post-European Perspective. English Literary History, 71(2), 289-311.

Damrosch, D., & Melas, N. B. (2009). Introduction. In D. Damrosch, N. Melas, & M. Buthelezi (Eds.), The Princeton Sourcebook in Comparative Literature (pp. ix-xvi). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Gillespie, G. (2013). Comparative Literature in the United States. In S. Tötösy de Zepetnek, & T. Mukherjee (Eds.), Companion to Comparative Literature and, World Literatures, and Comparative Cultural Studies. (pp. 353-371). New Delhi: Cambridge University Press India.

Guillen, C. (n.d.). The Challenge of Comparative Literature. (C. Franzen, Trans.) Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Gupta, S. (2015). Philology and Global English Studies: Retracings. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hedayat, S. (2013). The Blind Owl. (I. Bashiri, Trans.) Retrieved from AngelFire: http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/bashiri/BlindOwl/blindowl2013.pdf

Hesiod. (2006). Theogony, Work and Days, Testimonia. (G. W. Most, Trans.) Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Khayyam, O. (n.d.). Ruba'i Twenty Four. Retrieved from Ganjoor: https://ganjoor.net/khayyam/robaee/sh24/

Longxi, Z. (2009). Comparative Literature and the Plural Vision of Discourse. In L. B. Behar, P. Mildonian, J.-M. Djian, D. Kadir, A. Knauth, D. R. Lopez, & M. S. Silva (Eds.), Comparative Literature: Sharing Knowledges for Preserving Cultural Diversity (Vol. 1). Oxford, UK: EOLSS Publication.

Medendorp, L. (2013). The Power of the Periphery: Reassessing Spatial Metaphors in the Ideological Positioning of the Translator. Transcultural, 5(1-2), 22-42.

Meltzl, H. (2009). Present Tasks of Comparative Literature. In D. Damrosch, N. Melas, & M. Buthelezi (Eds.), The Princeton Sourcebook of Comparative Literature (pp. 41-49). Princeton, nJ: Princeton University Press.

Miner, E. (1987). Some Theoretical and Methodological Topics for Comparative Literature. Porter Institute for Comparative Literature, 8(1), 123-140.

Mukherjee, T. (2014). Comparative Literature and Ex-Centricity. In S. Tötösy de Zepetnek, & T. Mukherjee (Eds.), Companion to Comparative Literature, World Literatures, and Comparative Cultural Studies. Delhi: Cambridge University Press India.

Niranajana, T. (1992). Siting Translation: History, Post-Structuralism, and the Colonial Context. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

Posnett, H. M. (2009). The Comparative Method and Literature. In D. Damrosch, N. Melas, & M. Buthelezi (Eds.), The Princeton Sourcebook of in Comparative Literature (pp. 50-60). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Remak, H. H. (1961). Comparative Literature, Its Definition and Function. In H. Frenz, & N. P. Stallnecht (Eds.), Comparative Literature: Method and Perspective (pp. 3-37). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Robbins, B. (2009). Comparative Cosmopolotanism. In D. Damrosch, N. Melas, & M. Buthelezi (Eds.), The Princeton Sourcebook in Comparative Literature (pp. 309-328). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Rumi. (n.d.). Ghazal No. 1248. Retrieved from Ganjoor: https://ganjoor.net/moulavi/shams/ghazalsh/sh1248/

Said, E. (2003). Introduction. In E. Auerbach, Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature (pp. ix-xxxii). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Saussy, H. (2006). Comparisons, World Literature, and the Common Denominator. In A Companion to Comparative Literature (pp. 60-65). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.

Spivak, G. C. (2003). Death of a Discipline. New York: Columbia University Press.

Venuti, L. (2008). The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation. London and New York: Routledge.

Weisstein, U. (1974). Comparative Literature and Literary Theory: Survey and Introduction. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Wellek, R. (2009). The Crisis in Comparative Literature (1959). In D. Damrosch, M. N. Melas, & M. Buthelezi (Eds.), The Princeton Sourcebook in Comparative Literature (pp. 161-174). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Wolfreys, J. (2010). The English Literature Companion. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Zare-Behtash, E. (2012). The Reception of FitzGerald’s Rubáiyát of 'Umar Khayyám by the Victorians. In A. A. Seyed-Gohrab (Ed.), The Great 'Umar Khayy¬ām: A Global Reception of the Rubáiyát (pp. 203-214). Leiden: Leiden University Press.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijclts.v.7n.1p.24

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Bookmark and Share


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2013-2023 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD.

International Journal of Comparative Literature and Translation Studies

You may require to add the 'aiac.org.au' domain to your e-mail 'safe list’ If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox'. Otherwise, you may check your 'Spam mail' or 'junk mail' folders.