Aesthetic poetry and creative translations: a translational hermeneutic reading

The paper reorients aesthetic-poetic translation via translational hermeneutics, shifting the central question from whether a text is translatable to how it can be translated. It asks where textual meaning is located in poetry, how it is reformulated and transferred in translation, and how far hermeneutic tools can reliably address these issues. Translation is framed as re-creation aiming at equivalence of message and effect rather than identity. By assessing ten English translations of two lines from Labīd’s Mu’allaqa, the study follows Berman’s path to show that translation is always retranslation and that all translation is relative, never reducible to a fixed truth. The importance of stylistic features, cultural-historical mutability of literariness, and translator subjectivity are highlighted as essential to understanding and mediating poetic meaning.

The review situates the study within translational hermeneutics, which views understanding as a dynamic, open-ended process and translation as re-formulation and presentation rather than transfer. Core notions include social constructivism, subjectivity, and historicity: meanings are culturally constructed; the translator’s habitus and horizon shape understanding; and time keeps meanings in motion (Gadamer; Robinson; Stolze; Cercel et al.). Style is central to literary meaning: poetic language employs foregrounding, ambiguity, sound, and form to convey attitude and affect (Boase-Beier; Verdonk; Freeman). Figurative language, especially metaphor, participates in inventing meaning and supports “equivalence without identity” (Ricoeur). The review contrasts adequacy/acceptability in Skopos frameworks (Toury; Hermans) with hermeneutic selectivity; all emphasize selective appropriation and the inevitability of plurality and retranslation. Reading for style, avoiding fixation on authorial intention, and enabling target readers’ own interpretations are underscored. For pre-Islamic qaṣīda, stylistic artistry, superlativeness, and the primacy of poetic mood and microstructure are noted (Stetkevych; Montgomery).

The study applies Berman’s translational hermeneutics protocol to a focused case: two consecutive lines from Labīd’s Mu’allaqa (transition between rahil and fakhr). Step 1: Understanding the source text (ST) through close stylistic analysis (ellipses, personification, dead metaphors, simile, conditional syntax, ambiguity) and consultation of Arab and Western commentaries to clarify communicative dimensions and cultural context (pre-Islamic qaṣīda form, Labīd’s background, desert imagery). Step 2: Corpus assembly of ten English translations (1789–1993). Step 3: Conversion of perspective—each translation is first read as a text in its own right, outside relation to the ST. Step 4: Identification of translation supports (translator background, paratexts, notes). Step 5: Diachronic and synchronic scrutiny—comparisons across time and across versions, and with the ST. Step 6: Productive criticism—a comparative confrontation to reveal translators’ positions, projects, and horizons, and to assess consistency with target-language norms and internal textual coherence. The method foregrounds ST signifying zones, translator choices (explicitation of ellipses, handling of personification and dead metaphors, modulation of simile), and alignment with functional norms within a hermeneutic framework of re-creation.

• Translators’ choices cluster into three approaches: (1) literal translation, (2) paraphrasing of imagery, and (3) creative hermeneutic re-formulation. These reflect differing understandings and horizons, confirming translator subjectivity and the plurality of acceptable outcomes.
• Localization of meaning: In this poetic ST, meaning resides in style—imagery, figurative language, syntax, and cultural allusions—rather than in lexis alone. Attempts at identity of meaning tend to weaken aesthetic effect; hermeneutic equivalence is more productive.
• Explicitation patterns: Most translators lexicalized ellipses (sun, horse/mare), reconstructed substitutions, and filled conditional structures, increasing clarity but often conventionalizing the TT. Paraphrasing (e.g., Nouryeh; S. Stetkevych) brought the message to presence but not its aesthetic essence.
• Creative re-creation and acceptability: The Blunts (Trans.4), Arberry (Trans.5), and Beeston (Trans.7) are assessed as fulfilling hermeneutic process goals—accessing and assimilating the ST and mediating its sense/imagery through re-formulation. Jones (Trans.1) is stylistically aware but weakens the simile by shifting the vehicle; Lyall (Trans.2) is stylistically aware yet violates functional norms (temporal logic, affect); Polk (Trans.6) introduces non-idiomatic phrasing and inconsistent setting; O’Grady (Trans.8) omits the first line and alters function.
• Form vs creativity: No straightforward link exists between verse/prose form and creative success. Lyall’s verse abrogates functional norms, while Beeston’s prose exhibits creative, stylistically sensitive re-creation.
• Process principle confirmed: Retranslation across 1789–1993 demonstrates temporality and historicity in literary translation; no translation is final, and acceptable renderings remain multiple and context-dependent.

The findings address the research questions by demonstrating that textual meaning in poetry is inseparable from stylistic form and cultural context, and that translation, conceived hermeneutically as re-creation, transfers meaning by reformulating these stylistic signifying zones for new audiences. Divergent yet reasoned translator choices (literal, paraphrase, creative re-creation) show how understanding guides mediation of sense and effect, supporting the notion of equivalence without identity. Analyses of personification, dead metaphors, and similes reveal that acceptable translations are those that respond to ST functions and contexts while remaining coherent within target-language norms. The diachronic-synchronic comparison evidences translator subjectivity, social constructivism, and historical variability of literariness. Overall, the study validates translational hermeneutics as a robust analytical tool and underscores that translating responsibly entails translating responsively to the ST’s stylistic cues and the TL’s horizons.

The paper contributes a hermeneutic, style-centered assessment of ten English translations of two lines from Labīd’s Mu’allaqa, showing how textual meaning is reformulated through translator choices and cultural-historical horizons. It confirms retranslation’s inevitability, the plurality of acceptable outcomes, and the primacy of stylistic awareness in mediating poetic effect. The study underscores that literary translation is dynamic, process-oriented, and inherently creative—aiming for equivalence without identity—and that translations can multiply voices and reader engagement beyond the original’s single dominant voice. It highlights the value of reading for style and of assessing functional norms to achieve responsive, aesthetically persuasive renderings.

Limitations are not explicitly discussed. The analysis focuses on two ST lines and ten English translations spanning 1789–1993, which may constrain generalizability across genres, larger corpora, or other poetic contexts.