“Witnessing War” Translation of the Thirty Year’s War

While reading the two translations from Guericke, I noticed some differences in the way that they were translated. Needless to say, one of the translations was longer and therefore had more details. Are the details of the longer translation really necessary? In truth, no but it gives insight to what the writer wants the audience to think. Should they think more about the brutality of the war or the aftermaths of it?

Of course no two translations are alike but these passages had differences in urgency and what I will call morals.

First off urgency… What does that mean? I regard it as the amount of emphasis that the translator puts on an event. In the translation by Tanaka, she forces the audience to be aware of General Pappenheim, the imperial commander. She calls Pappenheim, “a considerable force of men…” (Tanaka, 1) She doesn’t call him a dictator, probably because he’s not, but she forces the audience to be aware of his presence. In J. H. Robinson’s translation, they did not make such a claim about Pappenheim. Instead, Robinson simply stated that, “…General Pappenheim collected a number of his people on the ramparts by the New Town and brought them from there into the streets of the city” (Robinson, 1). In this version, Pappenheim is just there with his men. In fact, Pappenheim collected his people; he didn’t order them or force them, or even dictate them.

Tone… This is how the translator comes off as sounding to the audience. You may read my blog and think, urgency is just a sub category for the tone of the passages. Well, you’re not wrong. Yet, the tone is much more broad in terms of the overall passage. In both passages, the translation sounds sympathetic towards the destruction of Magdeburg.

I regard morals as the relationship between the character of the translator and the character of the writer, Guericke. For example, one of the translators may not care about certain aspects of the Thirty Year’s war such as the mass murdering of people, which the other translator cares about. For this reason, the morals of the two translations differ. Robinson said, “…tortured and put to death in so cruel and shameful a manner that no words would suffice to describe, not no tears to bewail it…” (Robinson, 1). The fact that Robinson said “so cruel and shameful a manner that no words would suffice to describe…” shows that the translator is referring to rape but he doesn’t implicitly say it. Robinson regards rape as a thing so bad, that it cannot not be said out loud. This reminds me of he who shall not be named.