در وصف کارهای مولانا جلالدین بلخی و یا رومی
Mawlana was the greatest philosopher of the centuries in terms of expressing the absolute love.
most of his words are in Dari but in the world of translation it is very difficult to find the right person up who has done a loyal translation to his real words. R A Nicholson is one of the acceptable ones but there are many othere people who has done some great jobs.
(Note this is copied from Dar.al.masnavi please visit their web page for more information about Mawlana Rumi)
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VERSIONS AND TRANSLATIONS
It is therefore necessary to clarify the difference between true translations of Rumi's verses (made directly from Persian) and versions (falsely advertised or claimed as "translations"). Accurate translations of Rumi's poetry have been made by such scholars as R. A. Nicholson, A. J. Arberry, Annemarie Schimmel, William Chittick, and Franklin Lewis. Iranian authors who have made popular translations into English from Persian (which are of variable reliability due to unfamiliarity with classical Persian, religious terms and references, and compromises with popularization) are Shahram Shiva and Nader Khalili. Translations from secondary languages into English (of variable reliability) have been made by Nevit Ergin (from translations into Turkish from Persian by Golpinarli). And reliable translations have been made by Simone Fattal (from translations into French from Persian by Eva de Vitray-Meyerovitch) and Muriel Maufroy (from de Vitray-Meyerovitch's French translations).
Among version-makers, the most responsible are Kabir and Camille Helminski (versions of Masnavi and Ghazals, based on translations by Nicholson and Arberry, but only indirectly acknowledged).
Others are Coleman Barks (based on translations by John Moyne, the translations of Nicholson, Arberry, and Nevit Ergin); Daniel Liebert (no source translations mentioned, but some are based on those by Nicholson); Andrew Harvey (no source translations mentioned, but some are based on those by de Vitray- Meyerovitch); James Cowan (based on translations by Nicholson, but not acknowledged); Jonathan Star (based on translations by Shahram Shiva); Muriel Maufroy (based on the French translations by de Vitray-Meyerovitch); Deepak Chopra (based on translations by Fereydoun Kia in his first book, no sources listed in his recent book); Azima Melita Kolin (based on translations by Maryam Mafi); Raficq Abdulla (based on translations by Arberry, but not acknowledged); Kabir and Camille Helminski (quatrain versions based on translations by Lida Saedian).
One would think that, in the case of collaboration between a gifted American poet and a competent translator of Persian, that the two would work together in such a way that the poet would render Persian idioms into suitable American ones, soften overly literal translation words into more pleasant-sounding equivalents, etc. and that the Persian translator would review such renderings and be responsible for overall faithfulness to the original by pointing out instances where the English renderings had gone seriously astray from the original text.
Unfortunately, this rarely seems to have been the case, and one can only conclude that the version-makers used literal translations with a "free hand" to interpret however they wished (often according to how they imagined they would like Rumi to speak) and that their "creative" renderings were the final ones.The following critique of version-makers is not intended to utterly "dismiss" their work. After all, it is almost entirely due to their books that Rumi has become so extraordinarily popular-- and they deserve much gratitude for this. Rather, the intent of giving examples of defective interpretations (which include some of their most glaring errors) is to show how badly Rumi's verses have been mangled by well-meaning individuals who tried to make dry, academic, and old-fashioned-sounding literal translations more poetic and attractive.
Many readers who are devoted to the versions care little for what has been distorted or left out. Others become shocked to find out how badly the poems have been altered and feel that the "magic" of the versions is completely gone for them. Of these, the ones who remain "lovers of Rumi" are those who become seriously interested in studying accurate translations of Rumi and exploring his teachings at a greater depth. They find that authentic translations provide a vastly more rich, wise, and profound understanding of Rumi's greatness as a mystic than did the versions. In the sections below, it is highly recommended that the reader read the first footnotes immediately following each selected version This is because the footnote contains explanations about how the versioner made the particular mistaken interpretation.
These footnotes are easily accessed online by clicking on the particular footnote number (and if this number is remembered, then it is easy to return to where one has left off in the main text). The second footnotes (following accurate translations of the particular passages) may be of interest to the general reader who has access to the books mentioned as having alternative translations and versions to a particular quatrain.
The listings in this section refer to the original Persian text involved (using ghazal and quatrain numbers from Foruzanfar's authentic 10-volume edition-- not those from the one-volume commercial edition), plus a transliteration of the original Persian words.
For more information please visit:
http://www.dar-al-masnavi.org/corrections_popular.html#By%20John%20Moyne
