A NOTE ON ONE CHAPTER IN THE JUNGLE BOOKS

Marta Kupcová, 1999

I am going to deal with two Czech translations of  the famous Jungle Books by  Rudyard Kipling. To be more exact, I chose one translation of The Jungle Books and one translation of All the Mowgli Stories, which is a selection of stories from The Jungle Books, where the boy Mowgli is the main hero. This selection was published by Doubleday & Company in New York, 1936.
      Both of the Czech translations were published in the sixties of  our century. The older one called Mauglí (Povídky z džungle)  was translated by Zdeněk Hobzík and Jan Beránek and published in 1960. The second book Knihy džunglí  was translated from original The Jungle Book  and The Second Jungle Book , by Hana and Aloys Skoumalovi in 1965. I used the fourth publication of the book from 1974. The translation by Skoumalovi is well known in our country and their interpretation of the Kipling’s book has got through hands of many children for several decades. That is why I want to compare this translation with another one and show the better and the worse features of both of them. For a more detailed analysis I chose one chapter called in original “Tiger-Tiger!”
      Every chapter of Kipling’s book begins with a kind of poem related to the jungle and the animals living there. So we can compare the original version of the short poem written in the beginning of chapter “Tiger-Tiger!” with its translations into Czech.

   What of the hunting, hunter bold?
      Brother, the watch was long and cold.
   What of the quarry ye went to kill?
      Brother, he crops in the jungle still.
   Where is the power that made your pride?
      Brother, it ebbs from my flank and side.
   Where is the haste that ye hurry by?
      Brother, I go to my lair to die.
                                  (The Jungle Books, 36)

   Měls, slavný lovče, dobrý lov?
      Byl dlouhý, těžký, škoda slov.
   A jakou kořist jsi to sklál?
      Ta, bratře v džungli běhá dál.
   Kde tvá je zdatnost, tvá je sláva?
      Ta z boku zvolna odkapává.
   A to teď tolik spěcháš spát?
      Jdu v doupě, bratře, umírat.    
                               (Mauglí, 83) 

   Na lov zda smím se, lovče, ptát?
      Na číhané mě roztřás chlad.
   Kde jeleni jsou skolení?
      Dosud se pasou v osení.
   Kde je tvá zpupnost zbojníka?
      Z boku mi proudem uniká.
   Kam pospícháš a co je ti?
      Jdu umřít ve svém doupěti.
                             (Knihy džunglí, 48)     

The formal structure of all three poems is the same. They are in the form of questions and answers, where answers are written in italics. Last words of questions and answers are rhymed. In these aspects the translations are the same. They only differ in choosing words. It is interesting to notice that lines of the Czech versions (especially Skoumalovi) are relatively shorter than original poem. The poem by Skoumalovi seems also simplier - there are short and simple questions and answers here. It flows more like a poem for children than talk of the jungle beasts. The second translation tries to be more exact in choosing words. It preserves a bit old-fashioned tone of the original poem. They translate, for example, “hunter bold“ (line 1) as “slavný lovče“ and not just “lovče“ as Skoumalovi and they use words and phrases that sound more poetic, for instance, “jakou kořist jsi to sklál“ (line 3) or “jdu v doupě“ (line 8). This translation also tries to keep the form of adress “brother“ („bratře“) where it is possible. They use it in their translation of the poem twice - in line 4 and 8 - while Skoumalovi did not put this form of adress into their version of the poem. 
     To sum up the two translations of the poem I would say that the poem by Skoumalovi is shorter and simplier in vocabulary - it is clear here that it was translated for children. But its rhythm is alright and the meaning and also the form is the same as the meaning and form of the original version of the poem. Translation by Hobzík and Beránek tries to keep to the original more precisely and they try to translate as many words as possible and to keep the old-fashioned tone of the poem.
     Even from this short poem we could see the main differences between the two translations. But we cannot compare two translations of the same text only by comparing a short poem. So now I would like to show the main aspects of the two versions on one chapter of the book, which I took as a representative of the whole.
     Generaly it can be said that the older translation, the one of Hobzík and Beránek, is longer and more close than the version of Skoumalovi. Hobzík and Beránek sometimes make the sentences even longer than they are in English and add in Czech words and phrases, which are not always necessary to understand the text. For example, an English sentence “... opened his mouth, and pointed down it to show that he wanted food.“ (The Jungle Books, 57) they translated as “... otevřel ústa a ukazoval, že by chtěl něco jíst, že má hlad.“ (Mauglí, 83) It looks as if they were not sure if the reader can understand from the sentence that he wanted food because he was hungry. Skoumalovi do not find it necessary to add anything. Their sentence is: “... otevřel ústa a prstem si do nich ukazoval, jako že by chtěl jíst.“ (Knihy džunglí, 48) I think this is enough to imply that the boy was hungry especialy when it is said in the text before: “Mowgli walked on, for he was feeling hungry...“ (The Jungle Books, 56) and it is also in Hobzík and Beránek’s version: “Mauglí šel dál, protože měl hlad...“ (Mauglí, 83). Hobzík and Beránek also try in a way to explain Indian culture and in one place they even add the term for an Indian priest although it is not in original: “...aby přivolal bráhmana, jejich kněze...“ (Mauglí, 84) In original: “...shouting for the priest...“ (The Jungle Books, 57). In another place they do not forget to explain the term huqas, which was not so much known in our culture and especially children, whom the book is written for cannot know what it means. Kipling realised this fact as well and explains the term in original: “ ...pulled at the big huqas (the water-pipes)...“ (The Jungle Books, 60). Hobzík and Beránek translated thi as: “...bafali ze svých velikých hukk (hukka-vodní dýmka)...“ (Mauglí, 88). Skoumalovi’s version is without any explanation: “...bafali z hukky.“ (Knihy džunglí, 52) I think in a book for children such a term should be explained, especially when it is explained in original. It is only interesting that Skoumalovi, who simplify the text for children, did not translate this.   
     As it has been already mentioned, Hobzík and Beránek’s translation is more close to the English original. In some cases they are so close that one can feel from the word order of their senteces the English model. For example the English sentence, “The wolves dropped out of sight as soon as they saw the man coming.“ (The Jungle Books, 67), they translated as, “Vlci se ihned skryli z dohledu, jakmile se objevil člověk.“ (Mauglí, 96) In Czech the more natural version would be if the second clause of the sentence,“jakmile se objevil člověk“, was in the beginning. Skoumalovi realized that and their translation is : “Jak vlci zmerčili člověka, hned zalezli.“ (Knihy džunglí, 60) Comparing these two Czech sentences one can clearly see that the Skoumalovi’s version is better Czech. And it is not an only case where Hobzík and Beránek use a bit unnatural language. Their Czech sounds more old-fashioned, they use a lot of participles, as “...řekl Mauglí, ani se neohlédnuv.“ (Mauglí, 97) or “...řekl Mauglí, vztyčiv ruku.“ (Mauglí, 94) They also use old verb forms, as in “Přepočtěte si je!“ (Mauglí, 100) It is true that the language of the Kipling’s book sounds also a bit old- fashioned but one must realise that he wrote the book in the end of the last century. If the translator wants to translate an older book for todays’ readers he or she must be very careful to do the right compromise between modern and older language so that the reader could read the book fluently and so that the book did not loose its original tone.
     Another aspect of Hobzík and Beránek’s translation, which also tends to be close to original, is keeping the form of most of the words that are in Enlish written in italics. We have alredy seen the example with huqas, another could be: “...he limps too...“ (The Jungle Books, 61) and its Czech version: “...ten kulhá taky!“ (Mauglí, 89). In this case translators also use the exclamation mark, which is not in original, to emphasise the report. Another words written in italics are interjections: “Hai, Rama! Hai! hai! hai!...“ (The Jungle Books, 67) - “Haj, Rámo! Haj! haj! haj!...“ (Mauglí, 95). Skoumalovi do not emphasize the words like that because it is not very usual in Czech.
     It is interesting that in Hobzík and Beránek’s translation, which tries to be so close to original, is one small part of the English text missing: “He certainly had no notion of what fear was.....Messua’s husband paid much good silver to comfort the god.“ (The Jungle Books, 59) They could either overlook it, but it is not very probable when two people came through it, or it could slip the print.
     In Hobzík and Beránek’s translation one can find mistakes when translating phrases as, “...two or three woman...“ (The Jungle Books, 57). They translated this into Czech as,“...dvě nebo tři ženy.“ (Mauglí, 84) Their version is understandable but these kind of phrases is not very usual in Czech and it is often translated more generaly, as shows for example the Skoumalovi’s version, “...pár žen.“ (Knihy džunglí, 49)
     One mistake in meaning of Hobzík and Beránek’s version that I would like to mention is their translation of the word “kite“ as “sup“. Not to speak that the word means “luňák“ in Czech I am not quite sure if sup lives in India and in this case the translators can make reader believe that it is so. 
     In both translations one can see two different ways how to cope with English measurements. For example English “...twenty miles...“ (The Jungle Books, 56) Skoumalovi translate as “...dvacet mil...“ (Knihy džunglí, 48) and Hobzík and Beránek as “...třicet kilometrů...“ (Mauglí,83). In this case it does not have to be so important if it is translated as miles or kilometres but in cases as “...a ten-foot tiger...“ (The Jungle Book, 67) it is better to transform it so that the Czech children could imagine how big the tiger was. This does the Hobzík and Beránek’s version: “...tygra tři metry dlouhého...“ (Mauglí, 96) while Skoumalovi keep the English measurement: “...desítistopého tygra...“ (Knihy džunglí, 60). I think that it is better to transform the measurements in the whole book, it will not do the original harm and Czech reader can understand it better.
     Another difference of the two translations refers to the names. There are some of them that are not as important such as “Buldeo“ (The Jungle Books)  translated into Czech as “Baldeó“ (Mauglí) and “Baldév“ (Knihy džunglí) but the names of the main heroes, the beasts are of greater importance. For example “Mother Wolf“ and “Grey Brother“ are translated by Skoumalovi as “máma Vlčice“ and “Šedák“ and by Hobzík and Beránek as “Matka vlčice“ and “Šedivý bratr“. The Skoumalovi’s “máma Vlčice“ sounds more like a mother of a pet-wolf family. I prefer the second version, it is important here to imply  the relations - that is why “Šedivý bratr“ sounds better than “Šedák“ - and it is not adequate to call the jungle beast, the wolf “máma Vlčice“.
     Skoumalovi’s translation as a whole is shorter and more simple. They use present Czech with many colloqial words, for example “třesky plesky“ or “spratek“ (Knihy džunglí, 53).  Their text flows quickly and is readable, especially for children. But one can also find some mistakes in their version. For example their translation of English: “...he is not unlike thy boy that was taken by the tiger. .....Indeed he is not. He is thinner, but he has the very look of my boy.“ (The Jungle Book, 57) is: “...vypadá jako tvůj chlapec, kterého si odnesl tygr. .....Kdepak, on to není. Je hubenější, ale jinak vypadá jako můj chlapec.“ (Knihy džunglí, 49). “Indeed he is not“ means in fact that the woman agree that her boy was similar and right solution could be Hobzík and Beránek’s “Opravdu, je mu podobný.“
Another Skoumalovi’s mistake is translation of an English “We need not walk into Shere Khan’s mouth.“ (The Jungle Books, 62) as “Nač mluvit přímo před Šér Chánovou tlamou.“(Knihy džunglí, 54) It looks as if they read “talk“ instead of “walk“. The right version we can see in Mauglí (90): “Nemusíme lézt Šér Chánovi rovnou do tlamy.“
     I would like to mention one more problem in Skoumalovi’s translation. It is the way how they translate “the village hunter“ (The Jungle Books, 60). In their interpretation it is “vesnický myslivec“ (Knihy džunglí, 52). This term is really not adequate. I wonder how they can call an Indian hunter “myslivec“. This term has its own proprieties and these do not stand for Indian hunter. The best solution is here the neutral “vesnický lovec“ (Mauglí, 88).    
     As I have briefly shown there are better and worse features in both translations. Skoumalovi are shorter and use modern Czech while Hobzík and Beránek’s translation is more close and tries to keep a bit old-fashioned tone of the book. It is hard to say which of the two translations is better. The best solution would probably be something between the two.

WORKS CITED  

Kipling, Rudyard. The Jungle Books. London: Penguin Group, 1994.
Kipling, Rudyard. Mauglí. Povídky z džungle. Zdeněk Hobzík, Jan Beránek. Praha, 1960.
Kipling, Rudyard. Knihy džunglí. Aloys and Hana Skoumalovi. Praha, 1974.