During my University days two of the most influential books I had read were “Leviathan” by Thomas Hobbes and “Discourse on Inequality” by Jean Jacques Rousseau”. These two writers represent two completely opposite theories regarding the nature of man.

According to Hobbes, man’s nature is evil and his natural condition is one of constant war. The only way out of this condition is the forming of society, where man surrenders all his rights to a sovereign, in order to maintain peace and thus give man the opportunity to progress.

“For the laws of nature (as justice, equity, modesty, mercy, and, in sum, doing to others as we would be done to) of themselves, without the terror of some power, to cause them to be observed, are contrary to our natural passions, that carry us to partiality, pride, revenge and the like.”

“...in the first place, I put for a general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death.”

“To this war of every man against every man, this also in consequent; that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law, where no law, no injustice. Force, and fraud, is in war the cardinal virtues.”

“No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death: and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”
                                                                                    "Leviathan"​
                                
According to Rousseau, on the other hand, man’s nature is kind until the moment that he is tricked into forming a society. The interaction with other people and the appearance of civilization​ is what turns man into evil.

The following is a quote from the “Discourse on Inequality”

“The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine," and found people naive enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.”
                                                                                   “Discourse on Inequality”

Myself I tend to agree partly with Rousseau’s theory. Man is indeed kind by nature and civilization​ tends to corrupt him, but not civilization​ as a concept but rather as a way of living and thinking. After all civilization​ is not something that dropped out of the sky on our heads. It’s our own creation and it reflects our own needs. So, maybe it’s not civilization​ that corrupts man, but instead man that has corrupted civilization​?

Any comments on that?

As you might have noticed in my profile I am very fond of debating on anything that might strike me as interesting.​ Myself I am not a big fan of poetry; I have just read various works by Surrealist and Dadaist writers. I like the feeling of absurdity and freedom that can be found within these movements.
Anyway, most of their works are in French, so I had to read them in their Greek translation Τhat’s when the question arose. A translated poem is still the same poem? Or has it become something entirely different? I mean you might have read “The Flowers of Evil” or «Τα Άνθη του Κακού», but have you indeed read “Les Fleurs du Mal”?

For example, the following is from the book “Ralentir Travaux” by André Breton, René Char and Paul Eluard.

Dècouverte de la terre

La statue d’ écho  crie au secours
On entre dans le feu par une fontaine furieuse
Qui découvre son front pur de toute éclaboussure​

La poussière d’homme se cherche
Une fusée au bout des doigts
Elle regagne son sillon à la nuit tombante
Les taupes sont attelées au traîneau invisible
Qui se dirige souterrainem​ent entre les trésors
La belle inconnue-lim​ite.

As it’s a bilingual edition I have before me the Greek translation – «Ανακάλυψη της Γης» -  but is this translation still the same poem?

I think that when it comes to poetry, words are not just the tools the writer is using in order to pass his message to the public. The words themselves are playing a major part in our aesthetic conception of a poem. It’s not just the message that matters, but the way it is written, as well. Every word is like a note in a musical piece. Tightly paired with one another, they comprise an undivided whole.

In the same way that you can’t change a note and expect to get the same melody, you can’t change a word in a poem and still get the same feeling.

So, when a poem is translated is like separating a work of art from its artistic form. Like e.g. painting Rembrandt’s “Night Watch” using fluorescent colors. This is most evident in the case of surrealist poetry, which before all else is a picture painted with words.

Well, this is at least what I think. Now, what do you think?

P.S. Careful, I am not asking whether poetry should be translated. The answer to that is obvious.