Don Quixote Translation

>>9970217
the original edited by the RAE works great

>>9970217
You should try reading it in the original Arabic

>>9970217
Samuel Putnam all the way. Motteux isn't particularly reliable. Same goes for his translation of Rabelais.

>>9970217
>picture of characters on cover
when do publishers do this?
absolute whitewash... don quixote was black

read Grossman the first time or you'll get a headache

>>9970640
>>9970884
Not OP but what are the pros and cons of Putnam vs Grossman. IIRC it's readability vs preservation of the original humor, right?

>>9971038
Partly yes, but there is also the question of which manuscipt one implements. You can read about some of the problems here.

https://www.h-net.org/~cervantes/csa/artics-f06/eisenbergsf06.pdf

Putnam:
>Samuel Putnam (1949) is of all the English translators the one who shows the most sensitivity, and gives us the most information about competing editions of the Spanish text. He tells us (xvii) that “one of the most important accomplishments of the modern specialist has been a reconstruction of the text of the first editions, such as that achieved by Professor Schevill. In the past the best of the English-language translators of Don Quixote have had a very unsatisfactory text from which to work and too often have relied upon later printings and the ‘emendations’ to be found in them; whereas the principle followed by textual critics of today, as in the case of this work, is the one laid down by Schevill, to the effect that the first editions are to be treated with the same reverence as if they were the original manuscript itself and must accordingly be employed as the scientific base for any edition—and this applies to any translation as well—that aims at being definitive.”

Grossman:
>The most textually ignorant of the modern translators is Edith Grossman (2003). She states that she “chose to use Martín de Riquer’s edition of Don Quixote” because it “is based on the first printing of the book (with all its historic slips and errors)” (xviii), and refers to it in notes (50 n. 16, 376 n. 1, 434 n. 1, 657 n. 3). She does not specify which of Riquer’s editions she uses, blissfully unaware that he has published two quite different ones, the older and better known Clásicos Z edition, available under a number of imprints, and the corrected edition of 1989, published only by Planeta. Textual evidence, however, reveals that she has used the older edition only.