If the “shortlist” in the category “poetry” of state awards disappointed due to the small number of works offered, as Maria Topali recently argued, then the corresponding “list” in the category “literary translation of a work of foreign literature into Greek” is at least amazing and equally serious questions.

Before developing our views, we would like to clarify that the following thoughts come from people who have been awarded and have been members of said committee for a number of years, and therefore are not the result of bitterness or envy.

Perhaps, of course, the crooked result, in our opinion, is primarily due to the composition of the commission itself, which began to draw up a “short list” of seven people instead of nine, as provided by law, as it has lost since then in the summer of its president and one member resigned but was not replaced. Is this composition correct? The law provides that “a committee of nine members, consisting of two members of the DEP, shall be established to award the Literary Translation Prize. A.E.1. an object of knowledge connected with Greek history, society or politics, two critics, two neo-Hellenists and three translators. In addition to non-compliance with the letter of the law in terms of the number and composition of the commission, the ratio of the four categories of participants was clearly violated. This seven-person committee consisted of only one translator, two critics and four university professors who, according to an outdated law – the need for change is now imperative – are not required to have anything to do with translation! But apart from these formal errors, the downsizing of the committee seems to have put more pressure on the remaining members and limited their orientation to those languages ​​and literatures that they may know, judging by their final proposal.

Looking at the shortlist, the following paradoxes can easily be seen with the naked eye:

• An extremely dynamic presence of Italian literature (three books out of eight), which raises questions, given that Italian literature has historically had a relatively small proportion of literature translated into our language. On the contrary, literatures such as French or Russian are conspicuous by their absence, and literatures such as English or Spanish, which traditionally occupy a significant proportion of translated literature, are poorly represented.

The “list” in the category “artistic translation of a work of foreign literature into Greek” is surprising to say the least.

• The Committee clearly favors retranslations (three books out of eight). The re-translation of a work, and even when it is done for the hundredth time, requires praise, which should lead to a clearly new and innovative translation meeting with the original work and be absolutely justified. Did the members of the committee have the time, the necessary tools and knowledge to compare the old translations of Solomos, Trakl and Pavese with the translations proposed for the award? Or did they follow suit, believing that if a work is translated many times, then only this makes its last translation significant?

• An unprecedented offer to reward the same translator with two out of eight books in a country where translations average 30% of publishing output (about 700 titles per year) and where many deserving and systematic translators expect minimal credit. they deserve, offers them the only state award for translation.

• A new proposal for an award for the literary translation of an interesting but university/encyclopedic book (obviously falls into a different category) called “History and Anthology of Modern Spanish Literature”, where it cannot exist, in the context of literary history and a bilingual anthology, translation competition with the main works, which implies a prize, since they are selected in excerpts in order to familiarize themselves with Spanish, in this case, literature. However, in the same year, important Spanish-language authors were translated, such as Julio Cortazar, Javier Marias, Miguel Delibes (author of the anthology), José Eustasio Rivera, Alejandra Pisarnik, Cesar Aira, Brenda Navarro, Fernanda Melchor, Sergio del Molino, Pedro Lemebel, etc. . etc. etc.

• An interesting Greek originality is that four of the eight papers to be awarded are those of university professors.

Does this last conclusion lead to the conclusion that the work of a translator in our country, despite its minimal recognition and modest remuneration – in the last positions of the EU countries – is an enviable task, collecting the preferences of university teachers? Research…

Ms. Maria Papadima is a professor at EKPA with a specialization in Theory and Practice of Translation.

Ms. Athena Dimitriadou – translator.