On Cyprian Norwid. Studies and Essays

Let us now follow the course of the Greek plot, noting the deviations in the translation. The invocation to the Muse foreshadows a partial picture of Odysseus’ journeys and the death of his companions. Homer states that in their stupidity they ate the bulls of Helios, for which they were punished by the god. The Polish translator presents it as if the matter concerned only one animal, the head of the herd. The Greek singer considers the guilt to be serious, and the punishment to be just; Norwid sees its essence in frenzy, in human madness. The god’s retaliation in that context turns cruel. There was enough food for one day, and for that one day Helios prevented the guilty from returning to their homes. While the result was the same, the crime was not.

All those who escaped death in battle returned home; only Odysseus wandered, persecuted by Poseidon, who continued to torment him although all deities felt pity for the wanderer. The course of events was somewhat complicated by Norwid. His translation shows that the gods began to favour Odysseus only after he came to Ithaca. The rest of the story, however, conforms to the Greek plot. When Poseidon went to Ethiopia, at a council of Olympic deities Athena raised the case of the unfortunate wanderer and won Zeus over, who allowed her to cooperate with Hermes. Athena went immediately to Odysseus’ castle, where she was first recognised by Telemachus, sitting alone among his mother’s suitors. Homer does not say why it was Odysseus’ son who noticed her; one can only guess that such a turn of events was in the deity’s plans and that the young man was not busy playing dice. Norwid gives his own explanation, based on the Homeric epithet “godlike.” The translator’s conclusion introduces a certain mysticism as a factor of the plot, which reverberates in the words: “Telemak, sam że prawie podobny do bogów, / Pierwszy boginię zoczył […]” (DW III, 297) [Telemachus, quite similar to gods himself, First saw the goddess…]. The young man welcomes the guest politely, away from the suitors who demand a song after the feast. He complains about his fate, but Athena foretells a happy return of his father. She also tells him to have a meeting of Ithacans, scatter the suitors away, send his mother to her family, and set out in search of his father.

Meanwhile, the singer recreates the events of the Trojan War to the sound of music. Penelope opposes the song because, according to Homer, it hurts her heart; according to Norwid, it is because it profanes one dear to her heart in the presence of a crowd of suitors. The Penelope from the Greek tale does not give a clear answer to her suitors, waiting for her husband’s return; Norwid’s heroine does not mark her position towards the intruders at all. Disregarding this detail, the translator omits one of the motives for action.

The changes in the plot are therefore usually quite insignificant; they mainly concern the motives of action, which Norwid sees in the words of the story, and only once they caused a gap in the story. Two short excerpts from songs VI and XI provided no differences in the plot. The episodes of washing the linen or giving a sacrifice to the dead are too small; they might have brought some differences in imagery at the most.

The general conclusion from the translation of song I can be drawn in favour of the translator who, by introducing his own psychological motivations into the plot, did not disturb its basic lines. But with this method, the figures of people and gods had to transpire differently.

Starting with Zeus’ judgement of the mortals: In Homer’s work, he turns against the stupidity which causes suffering contrary to destiny. Norwid’s Zeus accuses people of something else, as he claims they violate laws, professing them ostensibly, and in fact despising them. Thus, man acts hypocritically when he invokes laws that he does not plan to obey. And Zeus, who in the Greek story is a benevolent ruler of gods and people, who consults with the gods, is transformed by Norwid into a serious ruler, raised above the level of earthly and divine existence. He grows to the highest power “na zenitach / Człowieczeństwa i bóstwa władnąc jednakowo” (DW III, 294) [reigning equally on the zeniths of Humanity and divinity]. He speaks from a high position, seeing childishness in the words of Athena, and speaks with the solemnity of a mighty protector about the councils that he intends to have with other gods: “Atoli Olimpijskiej wyrokiem narady / Gdy się Ulissa poprze, on ujdzie zagłady” (DW III, 296) [Yet if with the judgement of the Olympus council / Ulysses is supported, he shall escape death].

The Polish reproduction of Pallas is also more serious. She holds a whole dispute with her father about the limits of divine justice and the duty to distinguish between good and bad. A supporter of consistency in judgements and actions, she demands consistency between decisions and deeds and calls for immediate implementation of ideas. For Telemachus, she is less of a kind adviser, as with Homer, and more of a professional educator. She delivers general sentences about the need for independent observations to stand out from the crowd. She wants to ensure that her pupil attains not fame among posterity, as in the original, but a place in chronicles, making sure, somewhat amusingly, that historians have something to do. “Niechże coś i przez ciebie latopis skorzysta” (DW III, 304) [Let the chronicler gain something through you], she tells Telemachus.

Presenting the events, Pallas returns to the topic twice. In Homer, she does it naturally; Siemieński gives a quite faithful translation: “Otóż słysząc, że ojciec twój wraca z podróży, tum zaszedł”⁷ [Hearing that your father is returning from his trip, I have come here]. Norwid has Pallas stutter and say something else. Instead of a sentence about the purpose of arriving in Ithaca, he gives an awkward reference to the main topic: “Słowem… coż mówiliśmy?… stanąłem więc na tym, / że Ojciec twój […]” (DW III, 300) [In a word… what were we saying?… So, I was saying that your Father […]]. The second time that Athena is afraid of saying too much; in the Greek tale she stops herself with the word “but.” Norwid emphasises the transition more strongly with the sentence: “Zmieńmy wszakże tok rozmów” (DW III, 301) [But let us change the course of the conversation].

Thus on one hand, Norwid’s Athena shows a tendency to philosophise, and on the other hand, she is more direct and less composed. However, the words of Zeus, which are incorrectly rendered in Polish, are wrong to deny her mental maturity. The Greek god calls Pallas his child and considers her speech inappropriate. In Polish, he disregards her words without reason or justification, saying: “Cóż to dziecinne usta twe seplunią?” [What is your childish mouth lisping?] Despite that inaccuracy, the general impression of seriousness of the philosophising goddess remains, contrasting with a certain impulsiveness attributed to her by the translator.

Poseidon is revengeful towards Odysseus, and all the gods must unite to destroy his vengeful schemes. But according to Homer, the god has grounds for revenge: his son had been blinded by the king of Ithaca. Poseidon is by no means evil or cruel in nature. He is sincerely familiar with the Ethiopians, taking part in their sacrifices, participating with the people in the hecatomb prepared for him. Norwid omits that direct participation in the ceremony, briefly mentioning that Poseidon left to Ethiopia where he soaked in the smoke of animals burned for his glory. Thus, He is less accessible to his followers. The translator did not make use of a motive that he should have particularly cared about; he did not indicate the simplicity in the relations of gods to people.

And Helios? He also becomes more severe in Norwid’s interpretation. Homer considers it natural to punish human stupidity; Norwid sees this as being overly severe. The ruthless god took cruel revenge on the people for their madness. They lost everything due to a moment of oblivion. Compassion for the comrades of Odysseus, compassion unknown to Homer who acknowledged the unquestionable divine right of retaliation, turns against Helios, against whom the reader may hold a grudge for his ruthlessness towards mortals. People also differ when seen through Norwid’s eyes. The portrait of Telemachus is the least similar. Homer portrays him as a young man, full of prudence and reason, who suffers both in distress about his father and with concern for his own fate. He, the king’s son, has to endure his mother’s suitors in his own house, robbing him of his fortune. Pallas stimulates and comforts him in his sorrow. Under the influence of the goddess, Telemachus announces his will to his guests, threatening them with the punishment of Zeus, and announces to his mother that, as head of the house, he takes all the worries for his father’s return on himself.

Norwid’s Telemachus is quite different. He is more cautious and careful with intruders; even his face is motionless when they look at him. He is close-lipped and does not like to dwell on his grievances and confesses his misfortune, not to ease his sadness, but only because of the goddess’ questions. When Homer makes him complain of poverty and regret the fact that he does not have a father who dies in old age among the riches he has accumulated, Norwid’s protagonist takes pride in his plight, and considers his father’s misfortunes to be a valuable inheritance. Proud that he is not the son of a rich man, he says haughtily: “Nie pochodzęć od męża, co gdzieś umarł z trwogi / O skarby swe – przeciwnie, dziedziczę zniszczenie: / Nieszczęsnego widoczne jestem pokolenie” (DW III, 301) [I do not come from a man who died somewhere of fear / For his treasures – on the contrary, I inherit destruction, / I am clearly of the unfortunate’s generation]. He even examines his own nature. “Któż wreszcie zna się z gruntu na sobie?” (DW III, 301) [Who then knows the truth about himself?], he says in a Socratic spirit.

In the original, the young man simply says that no one knows their own birth. Norwid’s Telemachus reveals a specific tendency to generalise, to abstract in the spirit of Stoic principles. Despising wealth, he rises above the whims of changeable fate and does not want to be a plaything of false hopes. He indicates to his mother the way of self-control as the only one in her life, wishing to instil in her a soul resistance to pain and disappointments. Homer awakens a longing for fond memories with his posterity in him. Norwid makes him almost a Renaissance man, passionately hungry for an honourable mention of himself in history. He is terrified by a nameless death. In life, he already looks at himself as a historical figure. He is not youthful blood fleeting melancholy but has the composure and deep pain of a mature man – such are the psychological features of Norwid’s Telemachus. The goddess’ arrival not only gives him strength and self-confidence, but also maintains the feeling of independence from suffering, which is so strongly visible in the advice given to his mother. That advice is not included in the original.

Penelope, when she visits the action scene, although for a short time, also becomes different in the Polish translation. In the Greek story, she cannot listen to a song about her husband, for tears are choking her, and she asks the singer to choose another subject for the performance; according to Norwid, she comes to the room to scold the singer because he is presenting an important object to people who barely condescend to pay attention. So, it is not about the painful renewal of wounds, as in the original, but about the wrong listeners. According to Norwid’s views, she believes that the greatest pain is expressed by silence. Hence, hearing the song about the Trojan heroes, she utters the characteristic words: “Lecz ów tren serce moje najostrzej przeszywa, / Żal mój głębiej go umie, choć słów nie używa” (DW III, 307) [But this lament pierces my heart most sharply, / My sorrow knows it more deeply, although it does not use words]. Even Penelope’s external appearance is translated differently. Norwid praises her beauty: “twarz z profilem czystym, / Miała przymgloną nieco owiciem przejrzystym” (DW III, 307) [a face with a pure profile / Was somewhat clouded with [her] transparent wrap]. Homer makes no mention of her features, or the charm of the veil that falls over her forehead.

In the Polish interpretation, Telemachus and Penelope are of composed minds, capable of profound experiences; they are secretive in nature, knowing the significance of speech and silence. It is visible that those elements were added to their characters by an adherent of frugal speech and silence deeper than speech. Laertes appears in Pallas’ brief account. Odysseus’ parent has withdrawn to the side-lines and lives a lonely life under the care of an old woman who cooks his food. In Norwid’s version, Laertes is much sadder. Not only does he walk through the vineyards away from the city and people but gives the impression of a wretched cripple: “Posępnie się wlekący śród drzew, które maca” (DW III, 300) [dragging himself gloomily among the trees, feeling them]. There are also changes to the psyche of the suitors; they are revealed in the dispute with Telemachus. Antinous from the Greek tale is afraid that Zeus will entrust the throne to the son of Odysseus but does not reveal the reasons for his dislike of the young man. The Polish translation changes the entire matter because Antinous gives the love of the motherland as his explanation. He does not reproach Telemachus, but he expresses his intentions clearly. “Jak patryjota jednak, drżę o wyspy berło” (DW III, 309) [As a patriot, however, I tremble for the island’s sceptre].

The suitor of Penelope is shown by Norwid in the cloak of hypocritical patriotism. Another suitor, Eurymachus, appears in the Polish translation as a hypocritical follower of democratic principles, which Homer does not mention in a single word. In the original, Eurymachus says that the deities have probably not conferred Ithaca to anyone yet; in the translation, he addresses Telemachus, the king’s son, scornfully saying: “mój arystokrato!” [my aristocrat!]. With that word, he threatens the privileges of hereditary power. Thus, the good of the homeland and the good of the social system are the slogans put forward by both suitors in the translation. As a result, they lose the feature of primordiality, donning masks of defenders of the public cause.

At Odysseus’ spell come the spirits of Hades. Homer calls them powerless heads. Norwid concretises the metaphor in the sentence: “Wezwę umarłych czaszki, delikatne kością” (DW III, 314) [I shall summon the skulls of the dead, delicate in bone], as if it was about the skeletal system and not the weakness of the dead. Norwid’s spirits are waiting for some test about which nothing is mentioned by Homer. Among the dead of different ages, there are old people, experienced in suffering: in Norwid’s works: “złamani bólem, cisi i szlachetni” (DW III, 315) [broken by pain, silent and noble]. That change in the characteristics was brought about by the translator’s favourite theory of silence.

In general, the gods and the people in Norwid’s version became more focused and serious, learned to think and abstract, and aligned their principles with the translator’s views. That intellectualism of the characters had to be reflected in their expression. Homer’s Zeus, through Hermes, threatens Aegisthus that his deed will be avenged by Orestes; in the Polish version, he speaks abstractly: “On uczył, że wyroki dojrzeją w Oreście”⁸ (DW III, 294) [He taught that the sentence would mature in Orestes]. When the ruler of gods and people assures Athena that Poseidon will yield to the decisions of all gods, Norwid’s Zeus discusses it in an abstract manner: “Skoro się bogów mnogie uznanie zespolni” (DW III, 296) [Once the gods’ multiple opinion unites]. Pallas speaks in the same manner. Outraged at Aegisthus, she wants the criminal to be punished in a similar way. In the translation, things are different. The concrete image of the villain is replaced by personalised concepts. “Podobną zbrodnię zemsta niech króci powtórna.”⁹ (DW III, 295) [Let repeated vengeance end a similar crime.] In the same style, Norwid’s Pallas adds a general sentence: “Sprawiedliwości wszelkiej jest granica” (DW III, 295) [There is a limit to all justice]; that conclusion is completely absent from the original.

When asking her father to send Hermes, Norwid’s Pallas again uses a detached style: “Niechże zbyt długa nie uwłoczy przerwa / Takowego wyroku, lecz stawa się czynem…” (DW III, 296) [Let a break delay not too long / Such a sentence, becomes a deed…], she insists, concerned about the fate of a wanderer. Caring no less for Telemachus, she wishes him recognition among people, when in Polish she resorts to an abstract conclusion, wishing that the young man: “własnego używszy rozumu, / Tej nabrał dostojności, co wyróżnia z tłumu.”¹⁰ (DW III, 296) [using his own reason, / gained that dignity which distinguishes one among the crowd.] Instead of an individualised image that Pallas sketches in the original, speaking of evil and cruel people who keep Odysseus away, there is a generalisation in the translation about the stay of the king of Ithaca “gdzie arcyczęsto potworni lub zbrodnie / Bohaterom uwłoczą” (DW III, 300)¹¹ [where very often monsters or crimes / delay heroes].

People from Norwid’s interpretation use the same manner of speech. Thus, Homer’s Telemachus dreams of the arrival of his father, because then the intrusive guests would value the speed of running above all riches. In the translation, instead of those words, there is a periphrasis: “każdy! z onej rzeszy / Przeniósłby zyskać wawrzyn na gonitwie pieszej” (DW III, 299) [each one! from that crowd / Would have preferred a laurel in a race by foot]. Odysseus’ son does not trust the people who predict his father’s return; in Norwid’s approach, he expresses a general judgement about the matter in the words: “taka nadzieja… to – zdrada” (DW III, 299) [the hope of an executioner… it is – a betrayal]. He does not state, as in the original, that he is the son of the unhappiest of mortals, but he describes it in a detached style: “dziedziczę zniszczenie” (DW III, 301) [I inherit destruction]. In Greek, Telemachus brings words of simple consolation to his mother;¹² in Polish, he speaks to her in the form of a moral: “Niech, owszem, serce twoje umężnia się bardziéj / I słuchać prawd pouczy, a duch bólem wzgardzi” (DW III, 308) [May your heart grow stronger / And teach you to listen to truths, and may your spirit scorn the pain]. Penelope changed her style in Polish, too. Concerning the object of the song, she speaks in accordance with Norwid’s theory of silence: “Żal mój głębiej go umie, choć słów nie używa” (DW III, 307) [My sorrow knows it more deeply, although it does not use words]. More passages and quotations could be cited to prove that Homer’s protagonists in Norwid’s version speak in a more abstract style, using sentences absent from the original.

The translator thus verbally attires the story given by the author. At the onset, there is a generalisation about a wave: “Co i jednego rzadko rozbitka ocali; / Rzadziej!… gdy się ów troszczyć rad o społeczeństwo” (DW III, 293) [Which seldom saves even one survivor: / Less often!… when the latter is willing to care for society]. In that same style, he writes further on the dominion of Jupiter “na zenitach / Człowieczeństwa i bóstwa” (DW III, 294) [on the zeniths of / Humanity and deity]; in a similar way, instead of simply mentioning singing, which ends the feast, Norwid gives his vaguely formulated conclusion that singing and dances for suitors: “Są uwdzięczeniem uczty mniej niźli jej szczątkiem” (DW III, 298) [Are less an embellishment of the feast than a remnant thereof].

Norwid’s stylistic distinctiveness may be the strongest in presenting the goddess’ influence on the only child of Odysseus. In the Greek tale, Telemachus was amazed to discover that he was speaking with a deity. In Norwid’s work, Pallas breathed courage into the young man “I myśl, którą Telemak natrafił zdziwiony, / Że to stało się z Boga” (DW III, 304) [And the thought that Telemachus found in amazement / That it happened from God.” The plot moves into the depths of the hero’s soul, who, by penetrating into himself, gets to know the divinity of the being that was talking to him a moment ago.

Overall, the translation style contains more abstract and idealising features than the original. It also presents an intensification of emotions and a certain emotional hyperbolic. So the deities who pity Odysseus become the embodiment of pity. Hermes announces the gods’ verdict to the nymph in one breath. With emotional fervour, Pallas repeats to Telemachus the assurance: “Nie będzie Uliss z dala ojczyzny – nie będzie” (DW III, 300) [Ulysses will not stay far from the homeland – he shan’t]; intensity of feelings is also visible in the apostrophe to Odysseus, which is not present in the original: “…o! jakże by przez ciebie, Ulissie! / Byli śmiałkowie owi smętnie poswatani…” (DW III, 303) [… oh, how might you, Ulysses! / Make those daredevils sadly matched…]. The emotional wave in the heart of Norwid’s Pallas is reflected by a stutter, absent from the original. Above the pain expressed verbally rises the quiet, deep suffering of Penelope, as it resonates with the song in the Greek text. This song, which proclaims the misfortune of the Greeks, is listened to by the suitors in silence. Norwid intensifies the impact of the Greek singer in the words: “A śpiewał im wieszcz taki, że aż ucichnęli…” (DW III, 304) [And such a bard sang to them that they fell silent…]. Whether the translator depicts the unfortunate fate of Odysseus’ comrades or paints the abodes of the Cimmerians, he always uses darker colours than Homer. He even adds his own similes, such as, for example, comparing the night to the sound of lamentation (DW III, 312).

All those differences in the presentation of spiritual suffering form a distinct emotional tone of the translation, an atmosphere of deeper sadness. The greater intensity of feelings is closely related to the increased pace of action. It flows more intensely in translation, thanks to numerous technical means, such as skilful use of the present tense, variety in recreating Homeric epithets and repetitions, stronger emphasis on mental and emotional transitions with the use of appropriate conjunctions, changing the type of sentences, etc.