Jim, thanks for the link to that article on Ladinsky. An interesting and thought-provoking read. The same author had an interesting bit in another article at the site about poetry being the most "eastern" and "sufi" of America's arts, so I don't think that his is just a knee-jerk "fundamentalist" response to perceived "new-age" translation.

So yeah, I'm aware of some of the complaints against both Ladinsky and Barks, and the accusation of "new-ageism." I don't have any volume of Ladinsky's versions of Hafiz, as I do a copy of Barks' "Essential Rumi." So with Barks, I at least know his method. He makes no claims to being a translator. He works from the translations of others, most notably Arberry, and tries to cast them in a poetical form that makes sense in a modern mystical context.

On the whole, Barks works for me. It helps that Barks is himself a decent poet. And short of learning to read Persian, I'd be left only with the option of Arberry's original translations in order to experience in some way the true light that shone in Mevlana's original ghazals. Now, I know that Rumi's originals had definite, sometimes prescribed rhyme and meter, and thus sounded little like Barks' free verse in that regard. But Arberry's insistence on keeping with rhyme and meter led to ham-handed, sing-songy, forced, pedestrian poetry that makes me frickin' cringe, as to fingernails on a chalkboard. I recognize the immense value of Arberry, but God bless Coleman Barks for wading through the man's turgid translations so I don't have to. If only Arberry had the poetical sensitivity of Edward Fitzgerald's luminous work translating the Rubaiyyat of Omar Khayyam....

Now, with Ladinsky, I know much less about how he approaches it all, but I have noticed that with Barks, the attribution is always "version by Coleman Barks," whereas with Ladinsky it's "tr. by Daniel Ladinsky." I didn't trust that that's very true even before reading that article, Jim, so I always say "version by D.L." when I'm quoting him. And it sounds from that article that Ladinsky's process may be rather less reliable than Barks'.

That said, I do still think it's safe to say that Ladinsky's take on that poem (if in fact it comes from a Hafez poem at all, which is an open question after that article) is in keeping with known Sufi precedent. It dovetails with the Barks/Rumi poem, and it's worth noting that Rumi was known to be very ecumenical: he was known to have a great love and respect for Christians, Jews, Hindus, and those of other Middle-Eastern faiths; his funeral was attended by many representatives of all regional faiths, in a returned show of respect; and there are Christian churches to this day in Iran that have quotes from Rumi over their front doors. And if anything, Hafez was even more of an outlandish fool for the Friend than Mevlana, if less profound, so it does fit.

So, I do find much spiritual food in these versions of Rumi and Hafez, but I don't see them as scripture--and I'm not necessarily completely happy with any English translations of the Bible, either!--and I do know to take Barks' versions with a grain of salt, and Ladinsky's with at least two or three....

Thread drift? What's that?

Chris