“Making the green one red.”
Macbeth on washing the fathomless blood from his hands; Shakespeare on the dual troves of English, the multisyllabic, grandiloquent Latinate and the blunt, earthy Anglo-Saxon.
This was shown to us in my life-changing freshman English class, Humanities 6. (Contrary to Harvard’s reputation for scorning undergraduate education in the snooty pursuit of higher scholarship, everything about freshman year was life-changing. I walked out of there fully equipped for a long and fruitful mental life in, as the faculty was called, “Arts and Sciences.” The rest was dispensable.) I’ve never forgotten that revelation of the unique resources of my language, laid down by the layers of English history: the Angles and Saxons, the Danes (who gave us the word “die”), the Catholic Church, the Norman French—and, buried at the bottom and squeezed to the margins, the druidic Celts—the amulet, the wild card queering the lot. What a pig-out for poets! The best of them land their most stunning punches using these contrasting palettes.
Over the centuries, though, something sad and strange has happened to English. Latin languages are beautiful, flowering with mellifluous flourishes; but in the dour climate of industry and commerce our Latinate words have dried out and stiffened into bureaucratic abstractions. Too many of them end in “–tion.”
I noticed the problem while trying to translate, or failing that, to show why it’s impossible to translate, Rilke, a German poet of immense tenderness. In Rilke’s hands German, of all things, is as rosy and warm and pliable as young flesh by candlelight in a Latour painting. I was trying to convey the intimacy of the words “Inneres der Hand” that begin one of his poems. “Palm of the hand” is a correct translation, but bare of the sheltering, sharing, confiding overtones, the trusting touch, of the word Inneres. Here, I’ll show you my secret, just the two of us. “Palm” is anatomically accurate and pleasantly tactile, a word that blends Fingerspitzengedâchtnis (“fingertip memory”—I just made that up) with the involuntary movement of the tongue rolling over in bed beside the silent “l,” as in “balm.” But next to Inneres it’s Samson without his hair, Saturn without its rings.
How do you translate that word? “Interior”? That’s from a real estate ad, not even Vermeer anymore. “Inside”? Bones and blood vessels. “Inwardness”? Awkward, and means something else, more disembodied, more solipsistic than shared. On the spectrum. Do you coin a word (as Rilke may have coined “Inneres“), like “innerness”? Too precious, and lacks the double whammy of being at once physically literal and emotionally resonant. “In-side,” with a hyphen, maybe, except it isn’t a side. It’s more like a face. Or an underbelly.
It’s worth noting that a German academy of the seventeenth century had as its mandate “to maintain the purity of German through the purging of foreign words (mainly French and Latin).” This obliged Germans to translate Latinisms into German or construct new abstractions out of German roots, which in turn keeps German abstractions closer to their roots. Their roots are showing. Few of us any longer see the weighing scales in the verb “to deliberate,” or, in “inexorable,” the child-eating monster under the bridge who “can’t be talked out of it.”
Purity be damned. English was born bastardized; it didn’t even exist until the Normans aristocratically raped the smallholder Saxons. “Inexorable” has taken on its own stony beauty:
and the light seems to be eternaland joy seems to be inexorableI am foolish enough always to find it in wind