Chapter 6 Between a ‘Golden Poem’ and ‘a Shakespearean Sonnet 1. Pri to 1916: A meaningful void Shakespeare was not so much a mentioned In Hebvew sources until the [Enlightenment period, usualy died for Hebrew iterate a beginning inthe mith century Nedless toy, no work his had as yet ben translated into ‘hat language, just as hardly anything ese had been tale from English ature alone drei fom the English Language (se Chapter 7). By the time of the Enlightenment ise! (as amply demonstrated by Dan Almagoe in 3 comprehensive bibliographical survey (1975), Hebrew writers ad ets came to rear the Bard as one ofthe major gues in word erature, along with tes like Homey, Goethe and Tolstoy. Tals change, however was Tater Superical: for a major part of the Hebrew literary mileu of the period, ‘Shakespeare was hardly more than name to be dropped a a sign of eultural >on on. in actual ft, is postion in Hebrew erature ezained marginal nd hs impact ont development vitally al. Moreover, inasmuch as Shakspeae’s name was mentioned in brew witngs of the period, what wa refered t0 almost excusively was his reptation 25 playwright His fist tastions into Tebrew too? and for almost a whole century thereat, were either mono: logue other short pssges fom pl, lost excusvely agli (AlagD" 1995: 756-28), and mest of them were presented — and read — 3 pes. 1. who tan Be Alger or sasstare i asus Deora mae. 2. heft ulations fn Shapes wns io Hee ae ted a note to coe. ETWEEN "GOLDEN POEME AND A SONNET ns “Thus, despite the fact than mast EacopeanenturesShalerpese's Sonnet ‘cyte has already come tobe regarded as an important part of his uve, and ‘ven though, in the Hebrew waitin sel, the sonnet ha alwys played a more Important role and enjoyed much mote central pestion than any damatic ‘genre, Shakespeare’ carer asa sonneteer was hatly ever mentioned, While ‘wanulations of Shakespear's sonnet have long gure in iterates with which ‘Hebe literature had chose contacts ~ most notably iaritions inte German, Russian and Polish — har akan even longer for them to begin being ranted into Hebrew: the frst known tasltion ofa Shakespearean sonnet dates fom 16, by which time there had already been brew translations not ony of dozens of passages fom Shakespeare’ plays but also of five of his tragedies ia ‘heir emirery: Otho (189), Romeo and ule (199), Machel (185), King Loar (0899) and Hamlet (3900-190). ven after the ara ofthe fst Shakespearean sonne's the pice of ther Induson In the repertoire of texts avaable for transition into Hebrew was tthe slow and hesitant. "To anyone who wishes to proceed from the asumption that transitions foum an integral part of the relent culture, the delayed arial ofa rantion ‘would seem 3 mesningfl voll, an absence deserving explanation, lathe case ‘ues review here, we ned not beg the question though: the explanation i Imegra to the material Isl. Thus, the most likely, and most historically ented explanation forthe fact that ansations of Shakespeare's sonnets were sont, slow apd hesitant In ariving, even wien compared to the wansl- on of Shakespeare's work in generals precy hat unlike drama (swell ‘ter itera genres which also supple texts or translation), the sonnet had a fay extensive tradition within tha Hebrew system itl ‘The Hebrew sonnet fs pened in Kay sound 1300, wth tana of Re 1wi0-. 130) — Le, a whow genraion beibre Perch. Thus, Hebrew iteatre ctl predated by fr al rates which adopted thi Ilan gene: ewer, immarues was an oes epsode, and 2 te sonnet wadton in Hebrew iterate ‘ado wal anor centry oF 30 to ereige The Hebrew sonnet, medeed on the alan example, then Became expecta the Ty carts, the mow wide spre gure in Hebrew poety i kay (Landau 170). Moreover, not ony seule 2. Balaton ches Wesonoe wee uw es tha he asthe he, re not ese wrong wh pect oy pee Pal, Howe thee ‘panto power a Metra ee sl16 [DESCRIPTIVE TRANSLATION STUDIES AND BEYOND oars were writen n Hebrew n the sont form, i thea trio al, bat Soe one as we ncluing eal mes "he Hebrew sonnet wes eren accorded name of sown, which one pone Sin of ks apprepatin within ack wadtn: zoho Uae, ht epresion nea 2 poe of gold” Hower, what i esabshnent actually repeats = rumeolgal manipulation own as ometio, wheeby the some he lus sie tothe (consonants ofthe word zoho, actualy writen zoho (2+ Bs fourten—the fed number oie tne sonnet Ale sme tine the secon of the vera za Col) tom amon al he posible Hebrew words which eeu have represen the vale 1 testis not ony to the Mtteolzton of the genre etre Satur, but abo othe pega ou acquted ee ‘The sonnet, then, ints mowed Ital version, had relatively unin raped story tn Hebrew iterate toured in Raly self main a the 17th 20th centres, atl ater figured in the poetry ofthe Hsbreve Enlighten ‘ment of Central ana Fasten Europe as well and inthe poetry that developed out ‘of itinHurope, and eventually in Palestine, on the one hand ad in the United ‘Stats on the other. Ths, there was no ‘wok! with respect to this gene fa Hebrew Merature, 20 that no ned war fet to compensate for one. To put somewhat ferent no need arose to put any (trary and linguistic) iste rents tthe west in prepaion for asmting the soanet into the target system, as was the cise in ther domains of itera transltion into Hebes at ‘aris period. "Ths explanation Seems al he more vali corsserng the many other cases ‘of woldanc, when i came t0 the tration of sonnets into Hebrew. For Instance of theft are mamber of sonnets witen by Goethe, why Was not single one arsed, even though Goethe was among the poets most massive Iy rendered into Hebrew (as exemplified by Lachower’s bibliography (1852- 195)? The sme holds tre for many other authors whose poetic crop also Included sonnets, And ae fra sonetees par elon ae concerned, amon ‘hem Petrarch himsel, Hebrew tansbtens of tel Works ld not appear unt 2, 1916-1923: Modified ‘Golden Poems! 1 was not unt 196, then, that the fst wo of Shakespeare's sonnets (nos. 18 sn 60) appears in Hebrew translation. The period vas one of ms mmigra ETWEEVA ‘GOLDEN FORME AND A SONNET w tion tothe United States by Jews from Fartern Europe, which, a tht tle, sll functioned asthe Hebrew trary centr An obvious result was that mary Jews were begining to come into diet, more and more intense contact with the “English culture including Shakespeare's Merary works. heist wansator lal Jacob Schatz (IRS-197), is fll representative of the mew trend: Bor in ‘ovo (Lithuania, Stat tended ayesha religous shod n 1906, =the 2g¢ of 21 he immigrated to the US, where he becaea teacher Hs erry work ‘ss mostly confined to Yiddish, but he also ted hi hand at Hebrew Both (rginalwsting and translation. Sctiea’s fist uanslations of Shakespearean sonnets appeared in an ‘American Hebrew periodical (ator), which, in terms ofthe Hebrew culture at lage, was ater marginal. This explains how these translations managed to ‘cape attention. Even Almagoy who has done exensive digging ino the ‘croaology of Shalespeare in Hbre, fale to notice therm tl fier his ‘compreheaive bibliographical survey was published in 197%. Seven yar ae, ‘in 1923, the same Schwartz published another ten sonnes. Tis time they {eaured in one of the central organs of Hebrew lterature, the journal Hau, and hence atc mich greater attention. At the same tne, they hardy let ‘any mark nthe Hebrew culture nr indeed were they ever regarded as part of| sera heritage ‘Thest ten sonnets appea im sequence, a6 8 unitary group, under the Inclusive — and misleading ~ heading “The Sonnets of Shakespeare”. The selection they represent does not even constitute a consecutive sere. jut lan auortment of sonnet fom Shakespear's Cyl, selected a tandem, which Ive not even beon pie in thei orginal order (6, 3,7, 6,7, 34, 2, 29, 27, infact, nowhere ay teference made those numbers, which might ‘a ast have hinted a thee onder inthe Shakespearean Cyele ll thi nates that thee is no ground for sisuming any Sonnet Cycle conscousness on the tranlators par, or ary avarenes of the indikulsonnes relative positions within the eye, whatever one may feel abou the crgin andor significance of| thelr sequence and sequencing (which does constitute a problem in Shake- spearean sti). ‘What is mest stikng about Schwart’s translations is tht although all twelve of them belong to that part ofthe Cycle Known a6 the “Soanets (0 a ‘Young Man (ns. 1-126, allof them, except sonnet no 60, which contains no markers either vay, have been tanlted ae adaesng a Beloved woman. Toe sue, the “leminine’ or mascitine’ character ofan utterance which s basil ‘onative would always be much more conspicuous n Hebrew than in English,since the distinetion between the we s elitr nthe econ person singular in the pronouns, in noun delenions, in prepositions and other particle eciensions atin conjugation Theres simply ao wy to compare a conative laterance which s not marked for gender At the same time, the atl nomber of feminine maser often far exceeds whatever Would hive been Cassie 4s ‘obligatory. Ths, in a single uansatedsornct a many a8 160) sich masher, may occur (no. 18). Asa est, eleven of the twelve sonnets tanlated by Schwartz became love poems which ae unequlvecally dicted a woman in make contrast to ther orginal Inlet This was halo rear afer 1923, ‘except in olted cases, even though the “Sonnet to Young Man” were oft ‘the move popular among the tanlstos, and act just beeaese they form the najonty of the orginal Ey ele. ‘Schvat’s behaiour i this repo nt dificult to account fog, night ofthe prvaling norms ofthe pero: Dating he fist thi ofthe 20h entry, ‘much of Hebrew poctr,origial 2s wells tanlated, wail Beng weten by observant ws, of a ast, Dy Jews who ha had intensive religous taining. “They were also intended fo an audience ofthe same backround or tem, owe betwen two men —whtovesuch love may hale mean fr Shakespeare and is ‘contemporaries —was simply ot of hounds. Feminizng the masculine sonnet ‘vas an observant Jew’ Way of establishing a compromise between his admic sion of Shakespeare ap his sonnets eflecd in atong desire —fancratie in Itself — to intradce them to the Hebrew readey, ae the demands ofthe kt ‘tral mode! Tn down by the receptor culture. As is wel known, a similar ‘wend could be observed in othe iterrures as well* However in Hebrew, this type of compromise i not only much mee stiking than in anyone ofthese taitions, due to the specific features ofthe lnguge, butts beg stuck long ater being abandoned by translators ito other lnguoges, de tothe belated Stat of modern, secular Hire iterature andthe spi course of Its develon- In this particular cise, Schwart's compromise can be chartered #8 Involing voluntary conanhip. Howewe, the necd to compromise was not confined to tis thematic domain, where a global decision should be assumed ‘which was then systematically realized in dovens of livia instances in the texts themselves. Afterall, compromise fa key-word in any attempt to acount {Rede wat Deas (1985; 18.21 hat oy he the tontton’ ad the ‘owen! fie "Sonnets oun Mirah Gema eet pee ETWEEVA ‘GOLDEN FORM AND A SONNET ne (or translations and transition practices; namely, a compromise between competing model, drawing onthe sourcelanguage text, on the one ha, nd on internal target culture norms, on the other In Schwa cs, this compro- mise as wast customary with teary ansations io Hebrew at tha pee, ends to lean much more heavily on tet medele and notms than onthe ‘econstrcton of features which are more) relevant fom the pont of vw of the source text. In other wort, actptblty sven precedence Ih most domains. The price thats pai in terms of trandatlonl adequacy Is conser abl, even though not total. Ts, Schwa’ end produce never a ee eprod ‘Non ofthe Shakespearean Sonnet, buts nota pure ‘Golden Poeny ether Chief among the features of the sonnets whee Schwartz's trarsational approach reveals ts pecula compromise i the forma one, The Shakespearean Sonnets known to dite widely from the Kalan ne ~ 4 model which wes st the base ofthe Hebrew sonnet down through the age. Scars 00 was ised ‘on the Halian model in its Hebrew modification unl such time ashe fist ‘encountered Shakespeare's sonnets, As the ist person to translate thee into Hebrew, Schwarz hd clear opportunity to inrodce a novelty into Hebrew IMerature inthe form ofan unkowa, or ‘devlan gene model On the other hand, he could also ptt subject his tansstions to whatever model prevaled In Hebrew erature Well. tn view ofthe scondary sets of English erature 2.4 source for translations imo Hebrew at that ime, ene might have expected {he translator to adopt rather conservative approach vi-- the forma ais ofthe Shalaspearean sonnet, whic deed he ie AE he sme ie, he dl mot confinehimselo the purely Hebrew option ether, butchose a kind of mide ‘course. This decsion ~ and it involved real, non atomic decslor-msking — ‘may be tae a9 an Inlcation ofthe as yet undefined, not Insecure status which Shakespeare's sonaets mast have had fr Schnat, not recess as ah Individual, ut crainly a representative ofthe receptor cur apd Iiteatue, ‘Le, In his eapesty a5 tsar As fares the ym scheme is concerned, for example, the Shakespearean sonnet fellows the Abu coco HE Ge pate: Le, It Includes tree quatains, ach of them with diferent aerate sym. As agaist this, the Hebrew (Gullah) sonnet prefersthe embeacing tne pater (AHA) and use to ential shyme-membes (ynemes) ins two tas, Now ln Scat’s translations, of the 166 lines (12x10, only 8 (4.260), amounting to two ‘quatrains out of $6 (3.57%), follow the Shakespearean tyme Scheme. All the ‘er lines ade by the scheme establised inthe Hebe teaition, ignoring, hhoweve the nom of having tw ental shyremes in the ist two tains.120 DESCUPIVE TRANSLATION STUDIES AND BEYOND By contrast in terms ofthe mes (even though not from the typographical: ‘sl standpoim), the tale sonnets ae divided int three quarans * a losing couplet, wih seven diferent iymemes, ain the son's which served 2 ther sree, rahor than into two quran # two terete based on oly Sve ‘iymemss, 25 in the Hebrew Italian tation. The independence of i ye ‘of te closing couplet ofeach sonnets als retained ~ unlike anything inthe Hebrew sonnet until then, however eb the thyme patterns Of ts ses ad been ‘With respect to meter, Sctsat aopts not merely ham, the amc ‘entometer, Ths fa, bowees, the Shakespearean model til tales with the {tation established bythe Hebrew Golden Poem, atin which prevaled cre since Hebrew poet fist appropriated the tnicsylablc metal system (Giastovsk 9719 In fact, wale practically al the tarslatos of Shakespeare's sonnets ino Hebrew flowed the iambic pater, several expanded the orginal Dentamter into a hewancer, mainly in onder to pay compensate for the Inability ofthe target language tof al ofthe kexico semantic material ofthe English onginal into the eignal Procrusten bed since Hebrew words ted to comprise a much higher number of sabes, While Swarts dil establish the pentamtrc norm at polnt of departs ‘he truth ofthe mater ethat he to ind exameti nes in every single ‘one of his sonnet translations. Inthe mast extreme cases, he Went $0 fa 80 Include as many as eight (0s 17, 32,71) 0 in ane instance, even fen (2. 27) hexameric inet ina singe sonnet. There even one cs of seven iambic fest inalineGambic eptameen may Seem, ten, that he sates of pentameter st the baste metal norm is mo mere tan a stars outcome. Inf, HOME, a sefot vere for Seta is nither a tse nor even a secondary noe, Kis simply tolerated” phenomenon (see Chapter, a ay ofeoping witha specific dient. This aim is trter attested to by the fst that he op for ety of formulation. Thus, he aolds wasting too much space on long and complex cexpessions, indading conjoint phass of (near synoayms, to replace single nor simple lexical ems a practice which wa 9 common i te ation ‘of poetry transaton upon which he argey drew ee Chapter 5. In this respect too, en, Setar appears to have artved at a definite compromise between ‘inditiona Hebrew norms and the ones efit bythe origi sonnets ‘One purely Hebrew aspect of the compromise in the prosody of the translated sonnets ies in the fat that all of Scart’ ines are penultimtely stresed, ths eng i so-called eminem twas the tadtion of ‘Sephari’ Hebrew poetry in Hal that lak down the demand to reftaln from [ETWEEN ‘GOLDEN POEM AND A SONNET mw ring ultimately sd penaltimutelystssed ines uation whlch vas ater ‘work it way into the Hebrew posry of Central an Eastern Europe 3s wel, which reflected a very diferent, ‘Aahkenaa\ pronunclation. Conveniently ‘rough, the imported prosodic norm was matched by the propestes ad posites ofthe language isl, snce theses Aslenacl Hebrew susvally fon the penultimate syllable to begin with — greally facitating the use of feminine tymes. Nonethekss, ete to Schwart: permits himself a minor dvatlon: he docs not confine his shying words to thse characterized by enulinatestrexs In both Achlenaei Hebrew and tht Sephanic pronancation ‘which preva in aly (Pgs 1973: 660), thus failing to obey another norm in {he ares of hyn. rom the standpoint ofthe language of hi ranstions, Swat is wery ‘ows to the postry of the Enlightenment, whose norms were stl active ia Hebrew lieature, especially the wansLted part although thest too were rly relegated to peipral postion and supeseded bythe poetlc noes ‘Of the Revival Perio. His adherence to thove Enlightenment norms may be Secounted fo, a ast pr, by he place of residence, the United States, where he was cutoff rom the mainstream of Hebrew ature and is major couse of development. Sena’ adherence to the older norms may have been ea forced bythe sats asiged to de org text a5 ‘classics, even though that sand was mich more characteristic of the tansltional attude towards Shakespeare's ted and, at any rt, epgonism was typi of most ofthe Hebrew wtrs ad translators who have lived in the US throughout te 20th century. Tooked from the oppesite cet, translational slutions were all but iced bya dec acceptance of the ver formalation ofthe source texts 52 ‘major constraint, Cleat, they were not a eult of confronting that formulation ‘sith the il ange of posites afforded by the Hebrew language ofthe period. In ft, Schwartz approached those texts equipped with a relatively mit repertoire of targetlanguage options, put at his esposal by the prevalent linguiste and rhctorcal modes (Toury 1980s: 131-128). 1 be mainly this repute, tan a6 4 mote orks closed Ist of tansation ‘solution’, tat ‘Anat of is el wall wane hase no a oct ngage and et ct poet es ht nf ve farting ca, Both er il ad for is ‘poepecn render, Ps ely meses anstigto fe poeta ts Gre pus pemtion f be pty, water immediate prec he ‘tars ofr enoed” (Golo 18:28)m [ESCRUTIVE TRANSLATION STUDIES AND BEYOND ‘tte his trandationa behaviour onthe language plane, which may badly be ‘ado rele in any dzect way to the nature ofthe originals, The mat consp- ‘us manifestation ofthis artitde 3 Schwarz strong tendency 10 eV on {ragmens of verses from the Hebrew canonical sources, ally the Be rd to string these together tn fac, often happens thatthe choke of ane uc fragimet affects the manner in which the translation continues the emerging text 38 were, forced to follow through on it rather than adhering to the wording ofthe original text. ‘One thing tha follows is that one would be hast put to define the translational unit —Le, the lnguisticextl unit i the orginal text within hich the translator tended to work since the role ofthe target language ard vem ofthe emerging target text in defining ec unit ia east an marked Be that as It may, fone proceeds by examining the serie of coupled pals of replacing + replaced segments which emerge through a systematic contrastve ‘analy ofthe translation vs. te sources, one covers atleast this much, that Schwart's teelaional wt is fity tage In fact f the “noetone? ‘conditions aheredto, the unit pertinent ahi tansltional behavior ie often fount to transcend the houdaries ofthe poetic ine. Tying to sum up Shar’ approach to the sonnets, tars out hat he ‘cose to plce his translations ata point where the innovation they represent ‘through the reflection of source text fatures wil be tempered by habitual nd ‘established practices sulicent to ensure thatthe tet a3 whole will not devite “unduly rom te pretalen norms. The outeome of his endeavours may therefore ‘be characterized as kin of Shakespearealke Golden Poe, which difles fom other varktes of the Hebrew Golden Poet alo used at that time in ign writing 38 well a wansation 3. 1920 Am alternative point of departure ‘Tis then ws the main point of departure for future transhtions of Shakespeare sonnets into Hebrew. A few yet ate, however (1828), one ofthe ten sonnets translated by Schwartz for Hatha (no. 66) appened In another Hebrew ‘easton. The princes ingrained in thie scon! translation, which, cone Joglally peeking, stl belongs in the same period, indicate the possi of caiferen point of departure for uanslating the sonnets into Hebrew. The ‘esodial in which this translation was published, Kiwi the organ of Hebrew Iodemism, war 3 that time inthe throse ofa massive attack on the poetic ‘norms of the previous Iterary generation, the so-alled Reval Peed, from ‘which twas to emerge vitorious (ee Z Shavit 1982) The transition tel i ‘wosgned bt it has been ascribed to Avabam Shionsky (1900-1973), the man spokesman of Hebrew modernism and the crestor of ne, and highly influen "al ‘ichoo of terry translators. nll ikebInood, just as other Shakespesrean ‘sandtions of Shlonky’s were not made dec from the English orginal, either was this ‘bya ag, this trarstion isin eeping with the pete of Hebrew modeen- ‘sn? whose norms —bedh in oginal wen nd in ransation were then tll on {he psighery of ere erature, strung towads its center. Among ts most ‘conspcuous characteris the folowing deserve to be mention ()) In uter conformity to the modernist rebellion against outmoded iterary Institution, the poem snot presented assonnet al, oedoesitontain ny typographical indetio to this effect ~ neither «division into qua rains a tercets nor any prominence to the dosing couplet, Only by {counting the nes can one dicover thatthe poem isin facta sonnet Needles to a there Is no menon anywhere of the mumber ofthe ctigial in a Cyl (2) Ontheorher hand, the translated poem given ull Dede tit, severing "entry rom the Shakespearean Cel nisl this tes in ul keeping with modernist poetics: it is embodied i the single "ig word “Word This same practice was toe duplicated in future teslations of Shake Sspeaean sonnets as well dene by mersber ofthe moderist schoo or is Mtergrots, whether pubished in olation or msl groups” antinastaeye tin atten fs ot pa, oa He ‘ce the nol nein qaston mance te mal yf he per, intrarenal on eatom fbr erp ton ey ‘ta pwr rem anos gues (cng sages ce Londen Berd sha ‘pon ile natn ng Seber. Wham at she Degen, 2. tay wb sme he pp of histacation mre actly dam mn ‘he meaingtansiton Wika Wes ed. Tas however ates ite rence whe Itsnot the ext sch ich et tbe bt ter th ere nin oa sung 9 | Int consctin He worth meetoning spc tow tnd sonnet ice ce in te eA of ih es, eed yen nar (ress) (112186). Tho (1p Tin’ Sythe 12) Wo wllmm DESCRIPTIVE TRANSLATION STUDIES AND BEYOND (©) ‘The tyme scheme of the transaton akemates macaline and ferinine stymes, as was the custom in modernist Hebrew poety, inthe wake of essan poetry. This contrasted not only with te Shakespearean sonnet but jbo with the poctic tradition of the Hebrew Golden Poem, which ‘demanded utter eparation between poems whos hyme scheme wes based ‘on ultimatestress meter and those whose rhyme scheme was bssed on Penulinatestress meter Pal 1973 659). By contrast, the thyme attr, lad hence the imped division ofthe poeas nt stanzas, ae Shakespenean (au cncp tc), an the transite sonnet unequivocally directed a 4 mon it has two definite masculine markers. (4) “The Language ofthe poem Is no longer typical ofthe Enlightenment, but nether iit modernist in nature Actally i this respect the aration ‘ote o ss epresentativeof the norms occupying the ene ofthe system at the time, those norms agaist which the modernists Wished 1 eben fat 35 translators Shlonsky and his contemporaries were rather show and ‘autos in adopting the new norms, which again goes t tay to the ‘conservatory power of transtion in mast situations ‘The model underying this isolated uarsltion, then, represents another posibie point of departure for taslating Shakespear's sonnets ino Hebros, Tnled, elements were ltr tle from this madersely modernized rnodel and added to the vestiges of the Hebrew Golden Poem, along with several Shalespencanfestures couched inthe Hebrew language, to establish together the Basie principles of tht talation ofthe sonnets tat was to gain canons ation in Hebrew iterate only one or two decades later 44.‘ Moving sway from the Golden Poem ‘sendy inated bee Irate hdr et come to regard Shakespear's Sonnet Cycle as an entity intl. The explanation fortis ita seems o be ete” (hy vl Sr” (ey Re Byes Coe” (no $5 “wuld Tat” (m. My “The Tilt of Lope oo 73 lave” (2. 16 “When Thow Pay 128) Thine ye. Las et Haine Ts” oo 8) "Ar Roe Int” (1). The tans ze al Shale Section ¢ ‘low bu ies se en by he elo who masa ck ea ‘Sted sl ter ape of wa bet Caper 5) [BETWEEN A ‘GOLDEN POEM? AND ASONNET ps «function of more than mere quantity, especialy bearing in mind that groups of tents published together tained neler thei consecutiveness no even thet fonder 1 eppeas tat te complete lack of acy’ notion Inthe Hebrew sonnet tition is teat ar mach ofa factor: the only thing which was known to it ‘ms the ifteen sonnet cycle where the at sonnets made up ofthe fist ines of the other fourteen, an even the notion was ater marginal Ine late hes, the poet Sh. Shalom (Shalom Shapira; 1904-1990) was to launch bis major Doe which wes to yes within afer yeas, the Sst version of the entine Eullection of Shalespene's sonnets in Hebe anslation. Shalom began by publishing 16 of the “Datk Lady” Sonnets (127-124 and 137-144 in thelr riginel onde and with express mention oftheir numbers, the Important Gant pevodial. These were followed. two year later, by the fire "Dark Lady" Gel in a spectal booklet, and another two years lat, Shalom put out te ist 17 of te “Sonnets to a Young Man” in the Moznayim fonihly. In 1943 all 194 sonnets were ally published togeter forthe fist time, Despite the resets expressed by several cits when the book fst appeared, this vas to become the canonical tansaton of Shakespeare's sonnets forat least 4 years to come. Among oer things, when referred ton secondary Hebrew sources, Shahespeeran sonnets were almost always quoted in this particular version, even when there were already several versions to chose fom {Gee Section 3) In the sme vel, Shalom translation became the main cont DDulor wo anhologes of poems in existing translations to this very da. Trae ‘cough in 197, 2 econd fll translation ofthe sonnets was published but the ‘ranstionel approach It reflects represented a marked repression, especially twit respect (othe Iingutc consttuen of the mode which shaped his ‘ecisions, and his version i ot realy supersede Shalom’ The canonical status of Shalom’stransltion canst be accounted or solely bythe ct that t remained the on ful wansaton ofthe sonnets for ves histy Seam, Afterall I could easily have fallen oto oblivion much eal, or even ‘ght avay, In oder to explain ths stats, one would have to conser the ‘ommous conformity ofthis transbten fo the norms dominating Hebrew ‘erature a the ine, orignal nd ransted ate “Ts, whi Shalsweron id representa further move sway trom the oli tine waton of be Golden Poe this was not merely a mate of sting Or ‘ute econsttion othe properties ofthe Shakespearean some. albo volved {te adoption of significant parts of Hebrew modernist poetics —precsel those part tat had mean become extablished and had entered the epicenter of (he aytem, urn effect losing much oftheir tial markedness as sectoral26 DESCRIPTIVE TRANSLATION STUDIES AND BEYOND ‘An especially apt example of mainsueam modernist poetics Is Shaom’s recours toa considerable umber (dozen, if not hundreds) of neologiss, which is hazaly 2 feature of Shakespear's own sonnets, Tue, the need for ‘arloustypes of new wonls—espectallthse with penlimate tes which are ‘he exception in the "Sephardle’ pronunciation which now prevailed — arose from prosodic constrains, on the one hand, and from the overall need ‘minimize the numberof sllables in dhe Hebrew replacements, on the other, Stl the very readin to make use of neolgisms, let alone In such profusion, ‘would have been inconceivable in the previews period, eventhough both the rosie constrains ae the preblem of Hebrew word length were nothing new ‘Therefore i should be taken a aby product oF te modernist poets which had alreay provided fr thee leitinstion. iacklentally, the number of perl mately stressed words, and with tthe probable numberof new coinage, would have Been even greater ha the anslstr adopted the norm of sing masculine and feminine stymes altemately, which had meanwhile become stent fhuactenistie of Hebeew poetry in general (Haushowsk 1971b: 744, Shalom, however didnot sub othe intra Hebrew constraint in this rexpet) ‘The expansion of thelngulstiereservol uallabl tothe translator tn his andin other nay, vas ko Instumentalinalowing him to reconstruct reer pat the features ofthe orginal ext. Ths, deste testo starting poi, {he direction taken bythe ranaton of Shakespeare’ sonnes fom Scart Salo was in fll eeping th the overall evolution of itary translation into Hebrew in the 20 century: rom acceptability bound conserations within the confines of the get erature towards © rowing concer for translation dequacy "A reduction of the translational unt was another concomitant outcome: ‘his unit often shrank to thei ofa single phrse fnota single word Conte- ting to this trend wes the fac that English was jst thea Beginning to serve as {primary source of texts for tanlation. Ae the quantity of Hebrew tanlations from English began to increase, a gradual ‘elignment’ of the target language and Ieature vies thelr Els counterparts occured aswel, a rest of ontnua contact between the. This ealigamet as gradually 0 crease the inital tanslaabity of English texts — including many features of the Shakespearean sonnet ~ into Hebrew. It aso faitate working in ater small ‘nis, eften without Incuting the costo exesve deviation from noms of at leat linguistic) acceptability This terdeney was to gain momentum Iser on, although i never became the only one BETWEEN GOLDEN PORME AND A SONNET wy 5194S onwards: A mised situation mn the following decaer, dozens of occasional transitions of sonnets ether in \solation or n small groups, appeared In Hebrew newspapers, pevlodical and anthologies. A fist ight, this may seem a regression tothe period when the existence ofan orignal Sonnet Cycle was tally ignored in ct, however the {ntermiten appearance of nets when there no fl eye tal bck on — 35 was the case unl 1983 — isn no way sila tothe situation when such a ‘ele does exist ant wen every new atempt at tansating ane of Shakespeare’ Sonnets canbe, and often s egaded in ight ofan existing canon. This sal he ‘more true consblerng that most ofthe earslations from then on bore the ‘number ofthe corresponding source tet the Cyele as their only tle ‘These scattered tansatons reveal avery mixed situation. In esence, they ‘eflect pats of diferent, and competing ses of linguist, Ierary an tans Ison norms ~ old spd new, cetel and peeiperl To be more precise, they ino sate of flu betwen valous not systems, anda situation which ‘ery far from any clear decison, even in the case of poetranslators whose ‘original works (or other translations) represent the Inet trends fn. Hebrew poetry such as Mis Wiesel or Menachem Ben (Braun) As alrely mentioned, another complete translation ofthe Shakespeare sonne's appeared in 197, after parts of the Cyele had een published over ever year in various pevodleals. This talon was made by the editor "Ephaim Broide (912). Here again we observe a clear decision — one which, Dowevey, elects preference for old time norms which no longer played ny sultant role in taalation ito Hebrew except among an eve-dminishing {r0Up of transi (of whom Broke hese sone) an a aly well defined {roup of fxs consered ‘cask’ (of which Shakespeare's sonnets have b> ‘lousy become par). In many respec, the norms Broesubserbes to ae eve ‘mor old asioned than the ones Shalom subjected hms o thre decodes befor, ‘hich may weil be (part of the explanation why Broide's sonnets never realy Superseded Shalom’. The regressions comptible wih thestuation reveled y {he bistorcl move ofthe tamation of Shakespeare the papright into Hebrew. I {snot surprising thatthe ‘cle norm as always preva i the tanlation ‘ot his taedles Ge not 5, ard not necessarily of his comedic. “The etal reviews of Broke’ aston sed further ight on the norms unser which he worked, and expec onthe statu of hee nor in Hebrew culture nthe lt seventies. Thus, his ets fl into two lamericaly opposed roups fervent propenens vs. no ls fervent detractors. AS could be expected,ve DESCRIPTIVE TRANSLATION STUDIES AND BEYOND {his vision runs parallel othe aflation ofthe cites themselves (as conten ora, a critics, In some cases ever as writers and translators) with the ‘obsolete norms onthe one hand and with the new ones on the other Interest ‘ingly enough, the critics afi with these two well fined clases te the ‘ery same properties ofthe translations to prove a lutte thelr contentions, hich rea we recall, t opposite oles. 6. Aplimpse into the future {in 1991, a third Hebrew version of the ene Shakespearean Cycle was pub- lished, made by the compat al transistor Shimon Sandbank. Representing ait doss another huge tp aay ftom the Golden Poem ad towards Hebrew Shakespeare Sonnet, this tarslation may well come to mark 2 new begining, Inlied & a rather unified set of noe, hich ~ unl Bride's ‘eon ~ may eventually replace the ones stl irked by the cnonization of Shalon’s tnslation® Thus, Satank chose to lean heavily on the Hngustic ‘experience accumuloted by moder Hebrew poetry, especially in the wake ofthe poetics of Notan Sach nd Yeh michal. Among oer things, he waive the eed to establish exact rfymes and gave up other aspects ofthe strctural requirements of the sonnet. in exchange, more or les wellformed Hebrew poems were established, through which msjor aspects of the originals can Dowever stil be ed "A interesting aspect of the alternative offered hee seems to be the way it rally crazed. After al, Sandbank was among those who published the Sshoveementioned lot trandtions. Several of his trations appeared ia the seventies ar eighties in mor than one version ~ offering a unique oppor tunity of cng the evolution of a tranltors attitude towards the Shakespearean sonnet tad the end of the 200 century 9A tow moths 2 eve eon of Bcd’ rin ao pied He ‘eu bow wee made tn tel parag l wen gesa n ‘anc let of contig ra aerate to eer Slo teson Or ‘Sn’, wich wi pel Sar Is tue or pty no.