4 ms·

I was thinking about translating 'mal' to 'evil', as a non-native speaker for both languages. For me, 'evil' seems to have a source and religious undertones.

I was thinking about translating 'mal' to 'evil', as a non-native speaker for both languages. For me, 'evil' seems to have a source and religious undertones. Evil can be stopped by adressing that source. People can avoid it. 'Flowers of evil' are probably given to you by the devil, and you've made a bad choice. 'Mal' is much more passive. It seeps into the world, slowly. It can't be avoided or adressed, only be felt, experienced. I'd translate it closer to 'badness'. The 'flowers of bad' are something you find in your room, and they'll stay there, with you, forever. I don't even know if this is right, but funny how an attempt to translate shifts the meaning so much for me.

soufron 1y ago
Right or not, it is indeed part of the just debate :)
pavlov 1y ago
« Rrose Sélavy demande si les Fleurs du Mal ont modifié les mœurs du phalle : qu’en pense Omphale ? » The next-level interpretation by Surrealist poet Robert Desnos.
moritzwarhier 1y ago
This is the same with "schlecht" in German, but the common translation of the title is still "Die Blumen des Bösen" So "schlecht" also means both things. I think it's probably common for languages to have a word that covers both. But it seems the "evil" connotation is common or maybe even canonical in translations. So Baudelaire certainly knew the meanings of the words he was using, enjoying the ambiguity. Maybe it's even intended for the translation to remain ambiguous? Just speculation here though.