Chapter 6 – Edwards 1967
The comparison between Siebenhaar 1927 and Nahuijs 1868 yielded several interesting insights.
Siebenhaar 1927 emphasized the Dutch setting of the narrative much more than Nahuijs did. This lead him into problems in those instances where the language of the characters was at stake. Siebenhaar also seemed very keen to preserve those aspects of Drystubble’s words and thoughts that helped to give the reader an impression of his mental make-up as a rather superior and mean-spirited individual.
In comparison with Siebenhaar, Nahuijs 1868 underplayed the Dutchness of the setting and the fact that the characters are meant to be speaking in Dutch. He cut corners here and there, mainly through various omissions.
These observations remain entirely provisional. From a methodological point of view it is interesting to note that staring at a single translation only produced comments about its internal consistency, but that comparing two translations, even without reference to the underlying original text, allowed for a much more focused analysis on the basis of striking differences between the two versions.
However, it is also important to realize that the analysis of different translations can identify similarities and shifts but it still cannot tell us anything about what motivated or caused the things we observe.
Let’s add our third translation, Edwards 1967. We can now triangulate. Assuming that Edwards was aware of both Siebenhaar and Nahuijs when he worked on his translation, we can compare his choices with those of both his predecessors.
Begin by looking at the proper names in Edwards’s translation, particularly that of Drystubble and Shawlman, and Drystubble’s address.
Now explore the Questions.