The essential pre-condition for comprehensive studying of the text of “The Man in the Panther’s Skin” by Shota Rustveli is as much adequate interpretation of the poem on the basis of scientific research, as possible. Alongside with scientific research of the essence of any text, actual fact of its interpretation is its rendering in another language. With consideration of that attitude, we will attempt to represent the analysis of two following lines of one stanza (#1498) from the poem by Shota Rustveli against the background of its English translated versions:

 „ამ საქმესა დაფარულსა ბრძენი დივნოს გააცხადებს:

ღმერთი კარგსა მოავლინებს და ბოროტსა არ დაბადებს,

ავსა წამ-ერთ შეამოკლებს, კარგსა ხან-გრძლად გააკვლადებს.

თავსა მისსა უკეთესსა უზადო-ჰყოფს, არ აზადებს“  [6, p. 310]

The selection of these lines under the present article was caused by as follows: this particular stanza contains the main idea of Neo-Platonism as the leading philosophical doctrine offered in the poem. It is worth mentioning that the author of “The Man in the Panther’s Skin” was aware of not about the Neo-Platonic tradition only, but also of the Bible and Koran, Eastern Church, and Sufism and all that is justified by reflecting of Sufism themes under the poem by him (mystic love towards God was idealized in Arabic Sufism that somehow contributed to creation of Rustveli’s Love Theory [8, p. 402].

Neo-Platonism in Georgian thinking was represented by scholarly works of Pseudo-Dionysus who was the first to elaborate the Neo-Platonism teaching that was developed later under philosophy of Ioane Petritsi. Corresponding to outstanding Georgian philosopher and translator, Shalva Nutsubidze, Georgian thinker of V century - Petre Iberi, an author of Areopagite books, was the same as Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite [11, p. 6-7].

Rustveli’s poem represents the apotheosis of this world’s love and the basic form of representation of kindness is actually the love of this world that is elevated up to the divine level at which the object of love is a human. The thesis on deification of a human being, i.e. theory on so called “Theosis” is represented directly under the works by Petre Iberi – Pseudo-Dionysius, who provides the basis for possibility of God to be humanized and the human being to be deified [11, p. 86-87]. “Direct Road to Good” by Petre Iberi was one of the achievements of antic philosophy, and the idea of good was the essence of unity of existence, key to which was identified by Neo-Platonists and that was reflected by Rustveli under the stanza we are interested in: “God sends good, He creates no evil”, i.e. God creates only good and that is in compliance with the Bible.

Teaching of Neo-Platonism pertaining to the world unity meant identity of God with a human being and rejecting existence of Evil, since the latter does not exist separately, as the substance, and it is the shortage of good, which is the main idea of the text to be analyzed. The worldview of the author of “The Man in the Panther’s Skin” in general justifies deep conceptualization of antic philosophers (Plato, Aristotle) as well as of Neo-Platonism (Pseudo Dionysius the Areopagite) theosophy [9, p.55].

This article aims at studying above reviewed two lines from one stanza by Rustveli as to those compared with English translations of the poem offered by M. Wardrop (1912), V. Urushadze (1968), R. Stevenson (1977), K. Vivian (1977) and L. Coffin (2015).

The literature generally is restricted by its linguistic limitations and without translation it would be impossible the remainder world to get familiarized with it. That is why the correct perception and adequate translation of Rustveli’s poem in foreign languages, in particular in English, is of crucial significance, as the latter represents the widespread language worldwide. All English renderings of the poem are based in the main on those findings and data that Rustvelology had achieved by the time of their renderings. Rustvelology, as a branch of philology, originated from the Georgian king, Vakhtang VI, who studied and printed the poem as early as in 1712. A century later it was Teimuraz Bagrationi, who offered meticulous definitions and explanations for each stanza, especially of its every line and special words. Nowadays we mostly refer to the editions published in 1951 and 1957 as a result of studies and editorial work by A. Baramidze, K. Kekelidze and A. Shanidze [6], alongside with the one offered later by N. Natadze [7].

With regard to the English translation of the poem it is to be noted  that whilst representing “The Man in the Panther’s Skin” on an international level, it is highly important the philosophical ideas offered by Rustveli under the poem to be reflected in translations in an adequate and appropriate manner, however it is not always realized in renderings,  as it seems.

European readers were enabled to get acquainted with the adequate representation about the text of “The Man in the Panther’s Skin” by translation of the poem offered by an English woman, Marjory Scott Wardrop, whose rendering for the first time was published in England in 1912, following her death. The Preface to her translation was written by her brother, famous diplomat and researcher Sir Oliver Wardrop (preface, along with the comments and appendixes were enclosed to the first edition by Sir O. Wardrop, however it may not be elaborated by him only. In the course of translating the text, M. Wardrop was making the footnotes and was expressing her opinions with regard to the suspicious issues related to the text. The comments to the translation by Wardrop have never been studied by researchers, however they do comprise interesting findings and data with regard to the problematic topics of the poem [1, p. 11]), which is rendered by researchers (please refer to research studies by T. Sakhokia, A. Gatserelia and S. Tsaishvili) as one of the best works written on Rustveli.

It is worth mentioning that at the threshold of XIX and XX centuries, when Marjoary Wardrop started translation of “The Man in the Panther’s Skin” in English, Rustvelology had not had clarified and justified number of topics related to the poem, and artistic metaphoric, rhythmic, worldview issues and specific matters of comprehensive character had not been resolved by then. That was why Sir Oliver Wardrop, British diplomat, and high representative of the United Kingdom to the South Caucasus and Georgia, deemed that the translation of his sister – Marjory Wardrop was “a contribution to Georgian studies in Europe, a stepping-stone to help others in a difficult task” [12, p. 14]. And it really happened so, since Marjory Wardrop managed to overcome the linguistic phenomena of Rustveli, when she studied Georgian language and provided future translators of the poem with proper orientation and direction from the standpoint of translating the poem in European and Russian languages.  

It needs to be noted as well that M. Wardrop manages to reflect the substantial essence of original text into her translation effortlessly by applying of translating skills of the highest level.

This is how the lines to be analyzed under the present article, are translated by M. Wardrop:

M. Wardrop suggests „this hidden thing“ for “ამ საქმესა დაფარულსა” , representing the adequate translation of respective line.

The name “Divnos”is also maintained as unchanged in translation; hence the translator complies with the principle of personal names not to be translated, unlike other translators, who unveiled the identity of Divnos, i.e. ofDionysius the Areopagite.

In case of the second line too, M. Wardrop adequately and precisely reflected the essence of original in translation and respectively represented the attitude of Dionysius towards Good and Evil in her translation, that complies with the modern methodology of translation studies, i.e. when the original and the translated texts are evaluated as per representation and realization of at least four types of information (substantial-factual, substantial-conceptual, sub-textual and substantial-representational) [4, p. 288].

In the second half of XX century the translation of “The Man in the Panther’s Skin” was commenced by Venera Urushadze, who had contributed much to translating number of samples of Georgian poetry in English. Her translation of the poem was at first published by Publishing House “Soviet Georgia” in Tbilisi in 1968. The translation was enclosed with the translator’s preface, introduction by famous English Kartvelologist David M. Lang, and the editors were:  Kevin Crossly-Holland and Niko Kiasashvili [14].

Commencement of the new translation of the poem was based on objective reasons, as according to Kevin Crossly-Holland, there had been left scanty number of English translation of the poem by Wardrop, moreover the changes to the English language caused requirement for the poem to be translated again [1, p. 31].

According to V. Urushadze, she was in debt to Marjory Wardrop, since translation by Wardrop had been to her - a stepping-stone in a difficult task [14, p. 8].

Please find below the stanza to be analyzed in rendering offered by V. Urushadze:

The first line of the stanza in V. Urushadze’s translation is approximated to the original from substantial standpoint, however unlike the opinion expressed by the author of the poem, who represents the teaching of Areopagite as an eternal, the same teaching of Dionysius the Areopagite is represented by translator as an action that already had occurred the past, i.e. an unitary action (revealed). The subjective inclusions by translator are also met at the text: e.g.  „following wisdom“ , whereas there is neither word “following” , nor “wisdom” (although wisdom  may mean the thing) in the original.

In case of the second line, V. Urushadze is more approximated to the original and does not violate the attitude of Dionysius the Areopagite to Good and Evil, expressed by Rustveli in his text that certainly speaks in favor of translation of these specific lines.

The translator makes all her efforts to maintain Rustveli’s line from the standpoint of essence of the text and approximate the translated version of the text to its original. By adding her own words and expressions, V. Urushadze tries to intensify the dynamics of the text, however without rendering substantial changes to its content, representing the positive side of rendering, since substantiality and essence of specific philosophic doctrine (Neo-Platonism) is not violated at that.

In XX Century the poem was translated also by English Kartvelologist Robert Stevenson, who decided to translate the poem in prose [1, p.10]. R. Stevenson had been translating the poem for almost 25 years and his translation was published by UNESCO in America in 1977 [3, p 152]. R. Stevenson enclosed his rendering of the poem with very interested research work enabling the readers to get familiarized with the challenges being in the course of translation along with the ways for their solution.

Please find below the lines of survey as per the rendering offered by R. Stevenson:

It is worth mentioning that R. Stevenson translated Divnos as Denys, which is distinguished from all the versions, suggested by other translators. The basis for such selection might be Dennys (Dennis, Denis), originated from Greek-Roman name that represents the modern interpretation of that name in translation.

Concerning the issue that we are interested in, in particular the Neo-platonic teaching, it needs to be noted that the main essence of the lines of study, are neither lost nor violated under his rendering.

Among the translations of Rustveli’s poem the rendering offered by English writer and translator Katherine Vivian is also significant and interesting. By translating the poem, K. Vivian added the fourth rendering of our classic author to the English-speaking world. It is of high significance that K. Vivian studied Georgian and translated the poem in English in tight cooperation with Georgian Rustvelologists (S. Serebryakov, M. Karbelashvili, M. Gigineishvili, etc.) [1, p. 69]. In 1972 she arrived in Tbilisi and with the help of Georgian scholars, elaborated and revised her translation that was published by “Folio Society” in London in 1977. It is known that she was assisted much by Academician A. Baramidze in understanding the complex expressions of the poem, represented by Rustveli in his text.

Unlike K. Vivian’s previous translators, her rendering represents the popular, so called shortened version of the poem. As per translator, it is a “free prosaic rendering” of the poem that somehow clarifies missing of some passages in the version, suggested by her. With regard to the lines of survey, that stanza is also omitted under her translation; therefore, we are unable to review how K. Vivian had understood the stanza containing the idea of Neo-Platonism in its original text.

          The recent translation of “The Man in the Panther’s Skin” offered by American Poet and Translator Lyn Coffin was published in Tbilisi in 2015. According to the publisher N. Alhazishvili, for this translation there was used the text  published in 1966 by the State Commission for the Ascertaining of the Text (editorial board: I. Abashidze, A. Baramidze, P. Ingorokva, A. Shanidze and G. Tsereteli). Corresponding to N. Alhazishvili, the text was compared with the so-called “School Edition with Commentary” published by Nodar Natadze. The Prologue to the poem was developed at first as per verbatim by Gia Jokhadze and then Prof. Dodona Kiziria prepared the verbatim translation of the whole poem; critical comments and corrections by N. Natadze were also incorporated in the text. The text benefited also from comments and suggestions of Prof. Levan Gigineishvili [13, p. 358], who also wrote the Afterward to that text.

Rendering of the poem represents an attempt to translate the poem in poetry. The informative content of the poem in some cases is violated by means by following parameters of the text: factual, substantial, sub-textual or representational one. Unfortunately, Lyn Coffin does not know Georgian that might be one amongst the hindering factors of understanding the depth of the texts. It is obvious as well that she does not take into consideration the successful interpretations and findings of previous translators. Below is given the lines of survey under the translation offered by her (L. Coffin):

As it was noted above, attitude of Dionysius the Areopagite towards Good and Evil, is associated with eternity. As for Lyn Coffin, she expresses the same idea in her rendering in the past, by which narrows down the depth of Neo-Platonism, expressed by Rustveli in his poem. It is worth mentioning as well that translations of these specific lines, offered by V. Urushadze and L. Coffin, are closer to each other rather than with the original text: “Dionysious the sage has revealed the following wisdom to us”  (V. Urushadze), and “This hidden truth was revealed to us by Dionysus, the wise”  (L. Coffin).

Under the second line of the same stanza, translator expresses attitude of Dionysus to God and Evil in a correct tense (present simple), however the main content of the line related to Neo-Platonism is unfortunately violated. The original text says: “God… creates no evil”, whereas the rendering by L. Coffin offers: “he lets no evil in the world arise”, that does not correspond to above referenced and reviewed Neo-Platonism thinking about Good and Evil, moreover, it objects to Christian teaching. Upon reading all the referenced, English-speaking reader of that lines offered by L. Coffin might ask: if God does not let evil in the world arise, then how is it possible that evil does exist on earth? That is how the unjustified content was created under the translated version of the text.

Considering the fact that Lyn Coffin, who did not know Georgian, had been using the explanations and clarifications by N. Natadze in the course of translating, it is interesting whether she shared or not the interpretations offered by N. Natadze. There emerges the following question as well: what was the interpretation by Natadze for the referenced lines? We have checked the interpretation of above referenced stanza by Natadze and were assured once again in correctness of his scientific understating of Rustveli’s text with regard to Neo-Platonism teaching. As it seems, translator had not been familiarized with the clarifications by Natadze and other Georgian scholars, that is why she did not share correct interpretations of that line that had been translated adequately under all English renderings, offered for the first time by M. Wardrop and then by V. Urushadze and R. Stevenson.

Along with all above reviewed translations, Russian rendering of the lines of survey, offered by Shalva Nutsubidze, causes also great  interest: „Мудрый Дивнос открывает дела скрытого исток: лишь добро являет миру, а не зло раждает бог… ” [10, p.330], since he was an acknowledged Rustvelologist and Philosopher and Neo-platonic doctrine certainly was  precisely and adequately translated by him.

In the context of the stanza of survey, we may conclude that the translation offered by M. Wardrop represents the most adequate one. Renderings by V. Urushadze and R. Stevenson of that particular stanza might be considered as successful too, whereas the content of the same lines under the version by L. Coffin is substantially violated. English readers will be looking for better version of “The Man in the Panther’s Skin” of our century in order the poem to contribute to the world culture and be granted the deserved recognition at international level.

Bibliography

1. Andronikashvili N., English Translations of the Man in the Panther’s Skin, Tb., 1984.
2. Bible, Tb.,2013.
3. Gamsakhurdia Z., “The Man in the Panther’s Skin” in English,Tb., 1984.
4. Merabishvili I., Linguistics of Poetic Translation, Tb., 2002.
5. Nutsubidze K., Shalva Nutsubidze (Episodes from Life).Tb., 1982
6. Rustaveli Sh., Vepkhistkaosani (Editorial Board:  Al. Baramidze, K. Kekelidze, A. Shanidze), Tb., 1957.
7. Rustaveli Sh., Vepkhistkaosani (Editor: Al. Chincharauli, text prepared for publishing, preface, clarifications, comments and afterward enclosed by N. Natadze), Tb., 1974.
8. 8.    Khintibidze E.,The world view of Rustaveli's Vepkhistqaosani (The Man in a Panther-Skin),  Tb., 2009.
9. Khintibidze E., “The Man in a Panther-Skin” in the English Dramaturgy of Shakespeare and his Contemporaries, Tb., 2017.
10. Руставели Ш.,Витязь в Тигровой Шкуре. Перевод с грузинского Шалва Нуцубидзе. Тб.1957.
11. Нуцубидзе Ш.,Собрание Сочинеиий, Том V. Тб. 1988.
12. Rust’haveli Sh., The Man in the Panther’s Skin, a close rendering from the Georgian, attempted by Marjory Scott Wardrop. Tb. 1966.
13. Rustaveli Sh.,The Lord of the Panther Skin. Translated by R. H. Stevenson. Alb. 1977.
14. Rustaveli Sh., The Knight in the Panther’s Skin.  Translated by V. Urushadze, Tb.1986.
15. Rustaveli Sh., The Knight in the Panther Skin. New Translation by Lyn Coffin. Tb. 2015.