← Back to Arc Publications

Plagiarism in translation


Translation isn’t plagiarism because the original author is credited and if alive their permission is asked. If a translator doesn’t speak the language they need to work with someone on a literal translation to work from. If they then want to look at other translations to compare approaches they could avoid plagiarism - it’s so obvious when the first translator has to invent ways to get the sense across and others copy. It really annoys me that translation is often treated as an area where anything goes, whether it’s translating without the original author’s permission or lifting whole chunks of a translator’s work without their permission.


As a translator of Dutch poetry who has contributed to Arc’s translation app, I wouldn’t like anyone to interpret that as surrendering copyright or giving people the right to edit my work and then publish it under their own name, and I think that’s the essential distinction, as some others have pointed out. You’re free to do your own versions of anything, original or translation, it’s only when you claim or publish them that you run the risk of being called a plagiarist. Another point I could make about this thread, having just encountered it, is that the aggressive tone quoted above is, I’m pretty sure, that of Bart Droog, the notoriously combative Dutch blogger who first broke the case. It’s not from a Dutch translator at all. It’s true that there are often similarities in different translations of the same poem, but this varies greatly from poem to poem, that’s why it’s often more useful to look at particular cases in depth. From my perspective, just looking at the Spender competition poems, Prowle’s commended translation could have arisen independently, but the winning translation is clearly an edit of James Brockway’s published translation, complete with repeating translation errors/slips. Comically even Google Translate would have pointed away from one of these. If Prowle had published the translation without acknowledging the source it would have been fair to call it plagiarism. In the context of this competition, where this working method is prohibited by the rules and where translators are required to provide a translation commentary, the omission is much worse.


That’s quite a helpful comment, David, for all sorts of reasons. While it doesn’t seem particularly surprising to me that someone would plagiarise without meaning to, or do something that some would consider plagiarism and others wouldn’t, I agree that the way the competition rules are formulated should make it clear enough. I wonder about the commentary. You would think that that would serve the purpose of making the translator reflect on his/her practices and at least at that stage notice if it might be construed as plagiarism. I felt, when Alan Prowle was attacked, especially in that aggressive way, that it was best to give him the benefit of the doubt. Now I just don’t know.


I wouldn’t like to speculate about his motives, but if nothing else he was very naive to think that this working method might go unnoticed and unchallenged. You could do it perhaps with little German and a Rilke that’s available in multiple translations and hope to produce something that can stand alone as an independent work, but to lean so heavily on a single published translation (available online on the first page of Google!) was asking for trouble. Which is not to say that I endorse the heavy-handed article by the Dutch blogger or the mini-essay by the “plagiarism expert” which supposedly proved the case. I’d be curious to see the other Koplands he submitted. Maybe he had the misfortune to win with the one translation that was most visibly derivative!


First point: there’s a useful distinction to be made between ‘translation’ and ‘imitation’. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, imitations were all the rage. The source text crosses over into the target language and undergoes a number of creative metamorphoses. Its images and allusions are often updated. New images and ideas and sometimes whole new lines may be added ad libitum. Robert Lowell did much the same thing with his versions of famous poems in other languages. This is always a perfectly legitimate exercise, even if more literal and accurate translations have been consulted along the way: legitimate, at any rate, to the extent that what results genuinely adds to the target language’s literature something that is of lasting value.

Second point: unfortunately, many of the best poems in English purporting to be translations from other languages have been made by poets whose grasp of the source language was either shaky or virtually non-existent. Pound’s magnificent slim but seminal volume Cathay commits not a few risible howlers, but has outlasted many much more accurate translators by tin-eared scholars surrounded by the very best reference books and chock-full of academic learning, but totally devoid of any feeling for their own language. Rexroth began his career as a translator by working, not from the original Chinese texts, but from Judith Gautier’s translations into nineteenth-century French. (Admittedly, his Chinese improved over time, as did Pound’s.) I doubt whether Edwin Morgan was fluent in all the languages he translated so skilfully and powerfully; but who would be without any of his work as a ‘translator’? Fitzgerald’s Omar Khayam came to us unfiltered by any depth of Oriental learning on his part. Many of the best poetic ‘translations’ in the English language are by poet-dilettantes of this kind.

This is not to deny that some of the best translators are also those whose scholarship equals their creativity: Arthur Waley and Burton Watson spring to mind in the field of translation from classical Chinese. But more frequently, the translator whose knowledge of the source language is most advanced lacks a feeling for how the target language works.

It must be remembered that whether your command of the source language is superficial or profound, any translation is always an interpretation: in much the same way that an instrumentalist doesn’t just perform a composer’s score, but also interprets it: and every interpretation is (as it should be) different and unique. Some will be better, some worse—but all are arguably necessary: since one can learn as much from a poor interpretation as one can from a good one. One can take this analogy one step further. Some classical musicians choose NOT to listen to other interpretations while preparing for a performance or recording. Others listen to as many as possible. I don’t see why a translator should impose upon him- or herself a self-denying ordinance of this kind; personally, if there are other translations around, I’ll often seek them out, if only to compare them with my own. Sometimes they’ll influence this or that draft, and sometimes they won’t. If they do, I’ll either consciously alter a word or phrase to ensure that it DOESN’T resemble the other translation, or else sometimes I’ll think, no, that particular word-choice is so much better than mine that I’ll borrow it, because I don’t see how it could have been done better. It’s certainly more honest to acknowledge this in a footnote, but if only one word is involved, I don’t think it’s in any way obligatory. As one contributor to this discussion has already pointed out, some ‘plagiarisms’ occur through sheer absent-mindedness: one consults so many sources while making a translation of one’s own (which can be a very protracted process, sometimes stretching over years and even decades) that it’s easy to forget which bits were entirely one’s own and which bits weren’t. (But it’s better to check before going into print, I agree.)

Third point: it’s true that some ‘translators’ feel compelled to start their own versions of a poem they’ve initially encountered only in someone else’s translation precisely because they’re so dissatisfied with it as it currently stands. Yes, what follows is something that’s been ‘edited’, not translated, and (unless you’re already a very great poet in your own right) it definitely shouldn’t ever be printed, or submitted for a competition. But it can still be a useful exercise, if only in that it might lead one towards a language that one hadn’t previously bothered to learn or get acquainted with.

Finally, literatures often actually benefit from misunderstandings and mis-translations. One example. Ezra Pound and Amy Lowell founded the Imagist movement on what is really a gross distortion of what Chinese poetry is really like. (Short, metaphor-free ‘snapshots’ of reality? More frequently nothing of the sort. Many Chinese poems are extremely long, and are stuffed with ‘show-off’ allusions and wildly opaque metaphors.) But the influence of Imagism is pervasive in British, American and European poetry a hundred years later.


Certain foreign poets become well-known, you could say popular: Baudelaire, Lorca, Cavafy: Mallarmé, Verlaine, Rilke, Goethe, Pushkin, Akhmatova, Neruda, La Fontaine… More publishers, and bigger publishers, want these poets on their lists. So more translations are commissioned. Sometimes, the new translators go to bizarre, baroque lengths, to get novelty and to avoid repetition and reproach. Rarely does a bigger publisher buy a perfectly good text, instead, from a smaller one. Sometimes a new version is a winner; but not very often. Too many of us are running after the same football. We need to look beyond the classical, the important, the significant: to go down roads no-one has taken. Translation shouldn’t be a big deal: it should be commonplace.


Yes, I agree, Tim - it should be commonplace. If we agree with Walter Benjamin, then it’s just the way texts survive. So, if we want poems to survive we translate them. That’s why, in the anthology of Holocaust poetry I’m doing, I am trying to find poets that no-one has heard of, or poems by well-known poets that no-one has read. It’s also why many of Arc’s books are by less well-known poets. (Less well-known in translation, anyway.) You come across the most amazing things by going to places other people don’t.