Translation, History and

Culture

Edited by
Susan Bassnett and André Lejevere

v
CASSELL
Cassell
Wellington House. 125 Strand, London W C 2R OBB
215 Park Avenue South. N ew York, N ew York 10003. U SA

First published in Great Britain in 1990 by Pinter Publishers

Paperback edition 1995

S Susan Bassnett and André Lefevere 1990

Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes o f research or private study,
or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright. D esigns and Patents
Act 1988. this publication may not be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any
form or by any means or process, without the prior permission in w riting o f the
copyright holders or their agents. Except for reproduction in accordance with
the terms o f licences issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, photocopying
o f w hole or part o f this publication without the prior permission o f the
copyright holders or their agents in single or multiple copies whether for gain or
not is illegal and expressly forbidden. Please direct all enquiries concerning
copyright to the publishers at the address above.

Susan Bassnett and André Lefevere are hereby identified as authors o f this work
as prov ided under Section 77 o f the Copyright. D esigns and Patents Act 1988.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
ISBN 0 - 8 6 1 8 7 - 1 0 0 - 6 (hardback)
ISB N 0 - 3 0 4 - 3 3 6 2 2 -X (paperback)

Library o f Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Translation, history, and cu ltu re/ed ited by Susan Bassnett and André Lefevere.
p. cm.
ISBN 0 -3 0 4 - 3 3 6 2 2 - X
1. Translating and interpreting. 2. Language and culture.
I. Bassnett, Susan. II. Lefevere, André.
P 306.T 735 1990
4 18'.02- dc20

Typeset by Acorn Bookwork, Salisbury, Wiltshire

Printed and bound in Great Britain by Biddles Limited, Guildford and King's Lynn
Contents

List of c o n trib u to rs vu
Preface ix

I n tro d u c tio n : P r o u s t ’s G r a n d m o t h e r a n d the T h o u s a n d a n d

O n e N ig h ts. T h e ‘C u l tu r a l T u r n ’ in T r a n s la tio n Studies 1
André Lefevere and Susan Bassnett
1 T r a n s la tio n : Its G ene alo g y in the W est 14
André Lefevere
2 T r a n s la tio n : T e x t a n d P re -T e x t. ‘A d e q u a c y ’ an d
‘A c c e p ta b ility ’ in C r o ssc u ltu r a l C o m m u n ic a tio n 29
Palma Zlateva
3 T r a n s la tio n a n d the C o n s e q u e n c e s of S cepticism 38
Anne Mette Hjort
4 T r a n s la tio n in O r a l T r a d iti o n as a T o u c h s t o n e for
T r a n s la tio n T h e o r y a n d Practice 46
M aria Tym.ocz.ko
5 T r a n s la tio n , C o lo n ialism a n d Poetics:
R a b i n d r a n a t h T a g o r e in T w o W o rld s 56
Mahasweta Sengupta
6 C u l tu r e as T r a n s la tio n 64
Vladimir Macura
7 L inguistic P o ly p h o n y as a P rob le m in T ra n s la tio n 71
Elz.bie.ta Tabakowska
8 L in g u istic T r a n s c o d i n g or C u l tu ra l T ra n sfe r? A
C r iti q u e o f T r a n s l a t i o n T h e o r y in G e r m a n y 79
M ary Snell-Hornby
9 T h e o r iz in g F e m in is t D is c o u rs e /T r a n s la tio n 87
Barbara Godard
10 T r a n s la tio n a n d the M a s s M e d ia 97
D irk Delabastita
11 T r a n s l a t i n g the Will to K n o w ledge : Prefaces a n d
C a n a d i a n L ite ra ry Politics 110
Sherry Simon
12 T r a n s la tio n as A p p ro p r ia tio n : T h e C a se of M ila n
K u n d e r a ’s The Joke 118
Piotr Kuhiwozak

Index 131
1. Translation: Its
Genealogy in the West
André Lefevere

T h e history o f t r a n s la tio n in the W e st m a y be said to begin w ith the

p ro d u c tio n o f the S e p tu a g in t. Like all early ‘historical facts’, this one,
too, is con ven ie n tly sh r o u d e d in legend. C o n v e n ie n tly , because the
legend will allow us to isolate the basic c o n s tra in ts th a t have in ­
fluenced, a n d c o n tin u e to influence the history o f tr a n s la tio n in the
W e st a n d the o th e r p a r ts o f the w orld it c a m e into c o n ta c t with.
T h e S e p tu a g in t is th e first tra n sla tio n o f the H e b r e w O ld T e s t a ­
m e n t i n to G reek. It w as m a d e by seventy (or seventy-tw o) tran slato rs,
all w orking in s e p a r a te cells. T h e y all tra n sla te d the w hole text, a n d
all tra n sla tio n s tu r n e d o ut to be identical. T h e tr a n s la to r s w ere sent to
A le x a n d r ia by E le aza r, H ig h Priest of J e r u s a l e m , at the re q u e st of
P tolem y I I, P h ila d e lp h u s , r u le r o f E gypt. T h e tra n s la tio n w as m a d e
for the benefit o f those J e w i s h c o m m u n itie s in E g y p t w ho could no
lon ger rea d the original. It b e c a m e the basis for la te r tran slatio n s into
O ld L atin , C o p tic, A r m e n ia n , G e o rg ia n a n d Slavonic.
So far the story. N o w for the m oral. T r a n s la tio n involves expertise:
the seventy tr a n s la to r s all p r o d u c e the sa m e version. T h e y m ust
know their trad e . T h e i r know ledge is g u a r a n te e d a n d p ro b a b ly
checked by so m e eve nt beyond their group. A s u p e r n a tu r a l event
m ost likely, in legend —a n all too n a t u r a l even t m o st likely, in ac tu a l
fact. T r a n s la tio n also involves com m ission: a perso n in a u th o rity
orders the tra n s la tio n to be m ade. T h e r e are, o f course, m a n y inst­
ances in w h ich the tr a n s la to r ‘a u to -c o m m is s io n s ’ his o r h er ow n
tran slatio n , sim ply b ec au se s /h e ‘falls’ for a text. I n this case the
p ro b le m o f ‘c o m m is s io n ’ or a t least ‘a c c e p ta n c e ’ o f the tran slatio n by
a p u b lis h e r is only deferred to the next stage in the process. T r a n s l a ­
tion fills a need: the a u d ie n c e will now be ab le to re a d the text again,
an d the p erso n in a u t h o rity will have en a b le d the a u d ie n c e to do so.
T r a n s la tio n involves trust: the a u d ien c e, w hich does n o t know the
original, trusts th a t the tra n sla tio n is a fair re p r e s e n ta tio n o f it. T h e
 Translation: Its Genealogy in the West !5

au d ie n c e trusts th e experts, a n d , by im plica tio n , those w ho check on

the experts. As it h a p p e n e d in the case of the S e p tu a g in t, this trust
w as m isplaced. V a r io u s versions w ere found to differ g rea tly a m o n g
themselves, a n d la te r versions b ec am e so ‘C h r is t ia n i z e d ’ th a t the
J e w i s h c o m m u n itie s s to p p e d using the tran slatio n altogether. T exts
t h a t s ta r t th e ir c a r e e r as tra n sla tio n s do not alw ays r e m a in so, in o th e r
w ords, b u t they ca n r e m a in a central text in the history o f a culture.
T h e K in g J a m e s Bible com es to m ind. B ut the fact th a t the S e p tu a g in t
w as, in reality, a ‘b a d ’ tra n sla tio n did n o th in g to u n d e r m in e its im age
- o n the c o n tra ry , it still is the tran slatio n used by the G re ek C h u r c h
to this d ay, a n d it served as the basis for tra n sla tio n into m a n y o th e r
la n g u a g e s o f the A n c ie n t M e d ite r r a n e a n w orld.
T h e le gend o f the S e p tu a g in t h as given us the basic categories of the
history o f tra n sla tio n . T h e s e categories are: a u t h o rity (the a u th o rity of
the person or in s titu tio n com m issio n in g or, later, pu b lish in g the
tran slatio n : the p a tro n ; the a u t h o rity o f the text to be tra n sla te d , in
this case a c e n tra l text in the source culture; the a u th o rity o f the w riter
o f the original, in this case the m ost ab s o lu te a u th o rity one can
im agine, a n d the a u t h o r i ty of the cu ltu re th a t receives the tr a n s l a ­
tion), expertise, w hich is g u a r a n te e d a n d checked, trust, w hich s u r ­
vives bad tra n sla tio n s, a n d im age, the im a g e a tran slatio n creates of
an original, its a u t h o r , its literatu re , its culture.
N ow take the o th e r possibility: a case in w h ich tra n sla tio n is n either
c om m issio ned n o r e n c o u r a g e d , b u t resisted a n d even forbidden. T h e
c e n tr a l text in this case is the K o ra n . No tran slatio n s o f it w ere allowed
to be m a d e by the faithful. Yet, the original can be said to hav e h ad a
perv asive influence on w orld history, a n d not j u s t in the are a o f its
ow n historical d o m in a n c e . I f the central text is n o t tran slate d , the
faithful sim ply hav e to learn the la n g u a g e o f the ce ntral text. I f they
do not, there will alw ays be experts telling th e m w h a t is in it,
p a r a p h r a s i n g o r in te r p re tin g it w ith o u t ac tu a lly tra n s la tin g it - but
still cre a tin g an im a g e o f it. T r a n s la tio n s , then, are only on e type of
text th a t m akes an ‘i m a g e ’ o f a n o t h e r text. O t h e r types w ould be criti­
cism, h isto rio g ra p h y , c o m m e n t a r y a n d anth ologizin g. T h e y will be
left o u t of co n s id e ra tio n here. T h e y sho u ld not be left out of c o n s id e ra ­
tion in stu dies o f tra n sla tio n . T h e tru st re a d e rs will have to give to
those experts will h a v e to be g r e a te r th a n the tru st they will have to
give to tran slato rs, since the possibilities for checking are more
lim ited.
A n d then th e re a r e the in -betw een situation s. As we know from
history, the R o m a n s tr a n sla te d , b u t they d id not really have to.
E d u c a te d R o m a n s c ould j u s t ao well h av e gone on re a d in g Greek
lite r a tu r e a n d p h ilo s o p h y in the original, since they w ere bilingual
an y w a y . M o reo v e r, th e p erc e n ta g e of e d u c a te d R o m a n s was relatively
sm all w h en c o m p a r e d to the total p o p u la tio n of the em pire, or even
16 André Lefevere

the city o f R om e. A sim ila r s itu atio n prevailed in the M id d le Ages: the
le a rn e d did n o t need tra n sla tio n , a n d they did relatively little o f it. In
fact, they often did not w rite in their own la n g u ag e , b u t tr a n sla te d
th e ir th o u g h ts directly into L a tin , sim ply b ec au se the conve n tio n s o f
the tim e d e m a n d e d this ‘reverse tr a n s l a ti o n ’: one could not be taken
seriously as a s c h o la r if o n e did not w rite in L atin.
T r a n s la tio n , th e n , is en c o u ra g e d a n d c o m m issioned, resisted a n d
rejected. O b v io u sly the reasons b e h in d these two p o la r a t titu d e s have
little to d o w ith expertise. T h e r e m u s t hav e been M u s lim s perfectly
c a p a b le o f tr a n s la tin g the K o r a n in to o th e r lan g au g e s. T r u s t is a
factor, obviously: the ce n tral text o f a c u ltu re s h o u ld n o t be ta m p e r e d
w ith - no g ra v e n im a g e s h o u ld be m a d e o f it - precisely bec au se the
text g u a r a n te e s , to a g r e a t extent, the very a u t h o rity o f those in
a u th o rity . L inguistics, therefore, is by no m e a n s the o v errid in g con­
sid e ra tio n in tr a n s l a ti o n history. T r a n s la to r s do no t get b u r n t a t the
stake because they do n ot know G reek w h en tr a n s l a ti n g the Bible.
T h e y got b u r n t a t th e sta k e b ecause the w ay they tr a n s la te d the Bible
could be said to be a t h r e a t to those in au th o rity .
Before we go on, let us call to m in d —a n d firmly a n c h o r there — the
fact th a t E u r o p e a n c u ltu re from, say, A D 500 to, say, 1800, w as in
essence b ilingu al, or even m u ltilingua l. T h e r e w as a g ene rally re­
spected ‘la n g u a g e o f a u t h o r i t y ’, first L atin , th e n F re n c h , w h ich w o uld
be kno w n by all those professing to be scholars, ecclesiastics or
literati. T h e y w o u ld k now their m o th e r to ngues as well, o f course,
a n d , in m a n y cases, o ne or two a d d itio n a l la n guag es. A g ain , as w ith
the R o m a n s , they w o uld not be all th a t la rge in n u m b e r . E u r o p e a n
literate c u ltu re b etw een 500 a n d 1800 can therefore be said to have
been a b i(m u lti)lin g u a l coterie c u ltu re - a fact so b rilliantly repressed
by R o m a n ti c h istoria ns w h o h a d to stress the i m p o r ta n c e o f n a tio n a l
la n g u ag e s a n d cu ltu res t h a t ' i t is only now b eg in n in g to re-establish
itself in the g en eral consciousness o f the W est.
O b viously, in su ch a culture, tra n sla tio n s w ere n o t p r im a rily rea d
for info rm atio n o r the m e d ia tio n o f the foreign text. T h e y w ere
p ro d u c e d a n d re a d as exercises, first ped agogical exercises, a n d , later
on, as exercises in c u ltu ra l a p p r o p r ia t io n - in the conscious a n d
controlled u s u r p a ti o n o f a u th o rity . T h a t this u s u r p a ti o n w as rese n ted
a n d resisted by those in a u t h o rity is obvious from r e m a rk s like the
following, found in the in tr o d u c tio n to a tr a n s la tio n o f H i p p o c r a t e s ’
Aphorisms: ‘even th o u g h he foresees th a t his la b o u r m a y in c u r the
a n g e r a n d the m oc kery o f m a n y w ho seem to be e a g er to keep the
sciences h id d e n from the p e o p le ’ (Jea n B rèche de T o u rs , in H o r-
guelin, 1981). M e m b e r s of the coteries w ho b e tra y th e coterie by
m a k in g its know ledg e a v a ila b le to those outsid e m u s t be p r e p a r e d to
take the c o n seq u e n ces o f th e ir actions. J e a n B rèche d e T o u r s ’ o b s e r v a ­
tion alre a d y p o ints forw ard to the b r e a k -u p o f the coterie c ulture.
 Translation: Its Genealog)' in the West 17

T h a t b r e a k -u p occurs som e tim e a r o u n d 1800. A fter the b re a k -u p

w riters on the su b je ct begin to identify different p o te n tia l aud ien c es
for tra n sla tio n s, a n d different ways of tr a n s la tin g em erge to m a tc h
different au dienc es. T h o s e w ho do n ot know the la n g u a g e of the
original, a n d w h o a r e increasing ly able to read their ow n la nguage,
will rea d the tr a n s la tio n for info rm atio n a n d m e d ia tio n . T h o s e w ho
still know the la n g u a g e of th e original, a t least in th eory, will read the
tra n s la tio n as a s h o rt-c u t, a crib, or, still, a n in tellectual a n d aesthetic
challenge, or even g am e. By 1900, w ith E nglish in creasingly filling the
position o f ‘la n g u a g e o f a u t h o r i t y ’ re lu c ta n tly given up by F re n ch , the
tre n d tow ards m o n o lin g u a liz a tio n o f the au d ie n c e increases, as does
th e c o r r e s p o n d in g tre n d to w a rd s p r o d u c in g tra n sla tio n s for in f o rm a ­
tion. By 1900 the W e s t has also com e into co n ta c t w ith la n g u ag e s an d
cu ltu res for w h ich it h as very few experts available. T r u s t becom es an
i m p o r t a n t factor aga in, a n d im ages can be p r o d u c e d w ith o u t being
su b je c t to rigo ro us checking. F itz g e r a ld ’s a p p r o p r ia t io n o f O m a r
K h a y y a m com es to m in d .
A fter 1800, G o e th e can w rite in Dichtung und Wahrheit: ‘I f you w a n t
to influence the m asses, a sim ple tra n sla tio n is alw ays best. Critical
tr a n sla tio n s vying w ith the original really are o f use only for c o n v e rsa ­
tions th e le a rn e d c o n d u c t a m o n g th e m se lv es’ (in Lefevere, 1977: 38).
B u t the m asses do n o t alw ays w a n t to be in fluenced. T r a n s la tio n s can
be, a n d are still seen as a t h r e a t to the ide n tity o f a c ulture, as V icto r
H u g o observes in his in tro d u c tio n to the S h a k e s p e a re tran slatio n s
m a d e by his son, F rango is-V ictor:

to translate a foreign poet is to add to o n e ’s ow n poetry; yet this ad d ition does

not p lease those w h o profit from it. At least not in the beginning; the first
reaction is one o f revolt. A lan gu age into w h ich an oth er idiom is transfused
d oes w h at it can to resist. (H u g o , 1865: xv)

N o t alw ays, th o u g h . It does after 1800, a n d if it feels th a t the foreign

text is a th r e a t to its ow n a u th o rity .
Before 1800, la n g u ag e s w ere not su p p o se d to resist, n o r w as t r a n s l a ­
tion felt to be an im possible task. O n the co n tra ry : B a tte u x affirms
th a t ‘a tr a n s l a to r will be forgiven all m e ta m o rp h o s e s , on condition
th a t he m akes su re th a t the th o u g h t em erges w ith th e sa m e body, the
sa m e life’ (B atteu x, 1824: Vol. I I, 242). L a n g u a g e w as considered a
vehicle for the ex c h a n g e o f th o u g h t. O r , in o th e r w ords, the sa m e
th o u g h ts could be con v e n ie n tly ‘d r e s s e d ’ in different languages. T h e
old L a tin w o rd for tr a n sla tin g : translatarecan be taken to m e a n simply:
‘a n e x c h a n g e o f signifieds’ (B e rm a n , 1988: 25), w ith o u t o v e rm u c h
r e g a rd for the c o n n o ta tio n s , cu ltu ral a n d otherw ise, ca rrie d by the
a c tu a l signifiers. Translation then, can be seen as e p ito m iz in g the ideal
o f ‘faithful t r a n s l a ti o n ’, so d e a r to the h e a r t o f those in au th o rity , w ho
18 Andre Lefevere

are in te n t on p u rv e y in g the ‘r ig h t’ im age o f the source text in a

different la n g u ag e . Translatio is vital for the ‘a u t h o ri ta ti v e texts’ of a
culture:
I insist on treating H oly W rit w ith su ch d iligen ce and care becau se I do not
w an t the oracles o f the H oly G h ost to be adu lterated by hu m an and earth-
bou nd elem en ts. For it is not w ith ou t d ivin e cou n sel that they have been
exp ressed in certain selected w ords, selected from a certain sp here and
arranged in a certain order, for there are as m an y m ysteries hid den in them
as there are d ots in the text. A nd did not C hrist h im se lf say that not one dot
sh ould be erased from the Law until heaven and earth are destroyed?
(H u etiu s, 1683: 23)

I But translatio is im possible. A n ex ch an g e o f signifieds in a kind o f

'¡intellectual a n d em o tio n a l v a c u u m , ignoring the c u ltu r a l, ideological
¡and poetological o v erton e s o f the ac tu a l signifiers, is d o o m e d to
¡failure, except in texts in w hich the ‘flavour’ o f the signifiers is n o t all
¡that im p o r ta n t: sc h olarly texts, or n o n -lite ra ry texts in general. T h e
{historical an a lo g y to th e S e p tu a g in t in this case w o uld be the tr a n s ­
la tional activities o f the S p a n ish school o f T o le d o , w h ich tra n sla te d
m a n y A ra b ic scientific a n d scholarly w orks into L a tin after the city
w ith its m ag n ifice n t lib ra ry fell to the C h ristia n s. Translatio tries to
regu larize the linguistic c o m p o n e n ts of the tr a n s la tio n process, w ith ­
o u t giving m u c h th o u g h t to a n y t h in g else. I f it does, it will short-
circuit as a result o f the in b u ilt tension betw e en the linguistic a n d the
cu ltu r a l c o m p o n e n ts o f th a t process.
Its p o la r o pposite ca n be d es ig n ated by a L a t in w o rd th a t never
really existed: traductio. As B e rm a n p o in te d out: ‘L e o n a rd o B runi is
said to hav e tr a n s la te d the p a s t p a rticip le traductum used by a L atin
a u th o r, A ulus G ellius, by the T o s c a n tradotto. B u t for A ulus Gellius
traductum did n ot m e a n “ t r a n s l a te d ” b u t r a th e r “ tr a n s p o r t e d ” ’ (B er­
m a n , 1988: 30). Traductio is the m o re creative c o u n t e r p a r t to the m ore
conservativ e translatio. Traductio is p r e p a r e d a n d allow ed to give at
least equ a l w eight to the linguistic a n d the c u ltu ral/id eo lo g ica l c o m ­
p o n en ts o f the tra n s la tio n process. It will com e to the fore in a cu lture
w hen th a t c u ltu re considers i t s e l f ‘a u t h o r i ta ti v e ’, ce n tra l w ith reg a rd
to o th e r c ultures. B u t precisely bec ause it u s u r p s th a t role, th a t
c u ltu re will tr e a t the c u ltu r a l side o f the tra n s la tio n process in its
traductio the w a y translatio treats the linguistic side o f the tran slatio n
process: it will try to regula rize it. As H e r d e r p u ts it in the Fragmente:
the F rench, w h o are overp rou d o f their natural taste, ad ap t all things to it,
rather than try to ad ap t th em selves to the taste o f an oth er tim e. H om er m ust
enter France a cap tive, and dress according to fash ion , so as not to ofiend
their eyes. H e has to a llow them to take his ven erab le beard and his old
sim p le cloth es aw ay from him . H e has to conform to the French cu stom s, and
w here his p easan t coarsen ess still sh ow s he is ridiculed as a barbarian. But
 Translation: Its Genealogy in the West 19

w e, poor G erm ans, w h o still are alm ost an au d ien ce w ith ou t a fatherland,
w ho are still w ith o u t tyrants in the field o f n ational taste, we w ant to see him
the w ay he is. (in L efevere, 1977: 48)

A lm o st a h u n d r e d years later, F itzge rald w rites to his friend E. B.

Cowell: ‘I t is an a m u s e m e n t for me to take w h a t L iberties I like with
these P ersians w h o (as I think) are not Poets en o u g h to frighten one
from such excursions, a n d w ho really do w a n t a little A rt to sha pe
t h e m ’ (F itzg erald, 1972, V I : xvi). Traductio is a m a tte r o f the relative
w eight two cu ltu res ca rry in the m in d o f the tran slato r: obviously,
F itzge rald w o u ld n ev e r h a v e taken the sa m e liberties w ith a G reek or
R o m a n a u th o r, also b ec a u s e there w ere too m a n y experts a r o u n d . But
since V ic to ria n E n g la n d considers itself ce ntral, a n d since he h ap p e n s
to be tra n s la tin g from a c u ltu re th a t is by no m e a n s ce ntral to it, he
takes w h a t liberties he pleases. As we shall see later, traductio can also
be used by tra n s la to r s as in d ividual m e m b e rs of a culture,, w ho are
dissatisfied w ith c e rta in features o f it, a n d w a n t to u s u r p the a u th o rity
o f texts belonging to a n o th e r , ‘a u t h o r i ta ti v e ’ cu ltu re, to a ttac k those
features, defying b oth e xp e rts a n d those in a u th o rity w ith a certain
d eg ree o f im p u n ity . In fact, traductio, as d escribed by N icholas P errot
d ’A b la n c o u r t in 1709, s o u n d s suspiciously like E ug ene A. N i d a ’s
‘equivalence o f effect’: ‘I d o not alw ays stick to the a u t h o r ’s w ords, nor
even to his tho u g h ts. I keep the effect he w a n te d to reach in m in d , a n d
th e n I a r r a n g e m a tte rs a c c o rd in g to the fashion o f o u r tim e .’ (Perrot
d ’A b la n c o u rt, 1709: 23).
A view o f la n g u a g e , like S c h le ie r m a c h e r ’s, w h ich no longer sees the
signifiers as essentially n e u t r a l vehicles for conveying signifieds, b u t
r a t h e r as in e xtrica bly b o u n d u p w ith different la n g u ag e s, will have to
raise the p r o b le m o f the very possibility o f tran slatio n . If, as Schleier-
m a c h e r holds, ‘every m a n is in the pow er of the la n g u a g e he speaks
a n d all his th in k in g is a p r o d u c t th e r e o f (in Lefevere, 1977: 71),
tra n sla tio n a p p e a r s to be a n im possible task. O r r a th e r, w h a t a p p e a rs
to be im possible is translatio, a n d all tra n sla tio n will have to be
tran sp o sitio n , traductio. In his p erso n a o f tra n sla to r, S ch le ierm a ch e r
h im s e lf shied aw a y from the co nseque nces o f this insight, w hich
m a kes the secon d p a r t o f his fam ous m a x im , ‘m ove the a u t h o r
to w a r d s the r e a d e r ’ the only viable one. B ut if tra n sla tio n was to
re m a in possible after 1800, it w ould have to be traductio. Possible or
not, though, tr a n sla tio n s c o n tin u e d to be p ro d u c e d , a n d their p r o d u c ­
tion w as to keep increasing.
Both translatio and traductio involve a u th o rity , expertise a n d trust.
A u th o r ity d ra w s th e ideological p a r a m e te r s o f the acceptable. It
influences the selection o f texts for tran slatin g , as well as the ways in
w h ich texts are tra n sla te d . In J o h n o f T r e v i s a ’s ‘D ialogu e between a
L o rd a n d a C lerk u p o n T r a n s l a t i o n ’ (1903: 23) the L o rd m akes it
20 A ndré Lefevere

q u ite clear th a t he is p a y in g the pip er, a n d therefore expects to call the

tune. T h e L ord says: ‘I desire not tran slatio n o f these the best th a t
m ig h t be, for th a t w ere an idle desire for a n y m a n th a t is now alive,
b u t I w ould hav e a skillful translation,- th a t m ig h t be know n an d
u n d e r s to o d . ’ In o th e r w ords, so m e th in g th a t w orks - a n d , in later
w ords: s o m e th in g th a t sells. T h e Clerk j u s t w a n ts to m a k e sure:
‘W h e th e r is you liefer have, a tra n sla tio n o f these chronicles in rh y m e
o r in prose?’ A gain, the a n s w e r is refreshingly blu n t: ‘In prose, for
c o m m o n ly prose is m o re clear th a n rh y m e, m o re easy a n d m ore plain
to know a n d u n d e r s t a n d . ’ T r a n s la to r s know w h o p a y s the piper, a n d
give advice to o th e r tr a n sla to rs accordingly. I n a little q u o te d p assage
from his best-k n o w n work, D u Bellay ends his a d m o n itio n s to tr a n s ­
lato rs with: ‘w h a t I say is n ot m e a n t for those w ho, at the c o m m a n d o f
princes a n d g r e a t lords, tra n sla te the m ost fam o u s G re ek a n d L a tin
w riters, since the obedienc e one owes to those p erso n s a d m its of no
excuse in these m a t t e r s ’ (1948: 52). A gain a b o u t a h u n d r e d years
later, the E arl o f R o s c o m m o n refers to those in a u th o rity , b u t they are
now of a different kind:
I pity from m y Soul un hap py M en
C om p elled by W an t to prostitute their Pen
W h o m ust, like L aw yers, either starve or plead
A nd follow , right or w rong, w h ere G u in eas lead.
(in Steiner, 1975: 82)

A r o u n d 1700, w ith the inc re asing speed o f literacy a n d the g r a d u a l

s p r e a d o f a m o re o p en type o f society, the a u th o ritie s are no longer
j u s t ‘princes a n d g re a t lo r d s ’; they are jo in e d by p u b lish ers. I f the role
o f the p u b lis h e r as the a u t h o r i ty w h o decides w h a t is going to be
tra n s la te d increases, the ideological p a r a m e te r s w id en, since the
u ltim a te criterion for dec id in g is, prim a rily , m oney. T h e p u blishers of
R o s c o m m o n ’s tim e w ould p u b lish only a traductio of H o m e r , w hich
w ou ld be a c c e p ta b le /s a le a b le to their readers. R o s c o m m o n advises
t ra n sla to rs to leave o u t w h a t they d ee m u n a c c e p ta b le :
For w h o, w ith o u t a Q u a lm , hath ever lookt
O n H o ly G arb age, tho by H o m er cookt?
(in Steiner, 1975: 78)

Similarly, the A b b é Prévost w rites in the in tr o d u c tio n to his t r a n s l a ­

tion o f R i c h a r d s o n ’s Pamela:
I have su p p ressed E nglish cu stom s w here they m ay ap p ear sh ock in g to other
n ations, or else m ad e them conform to custom s prevalen t in the rest o f
E urope. It seem ed to m e that those rem ainders o f the old and un cou th
British w ays, w h ich on ly hab it preven ts the British th em selves from n oticin g,
w ou ld d ish on or a book in w h ich m ann ers sh ould be nob le and virtuous. T o
give the reader an accu rate idea o f m y work, let m e ju s t say, in co n clu sion ,
 Translation: Its Genealogy in the West 21

that the seven volu m es o f the E nglish edition , w h ich w ou ld am oun t to

fourteen volu m es in m y ow n , have been reduced to four, (in H orgu elin , 19 8 1).

It w o uld a p p e a r th a t the F re n c h r e a d e r will be given a r a th e r different

‘im a g e ’ of P a m e la th a n his English c o u n te r p a r t.
As we m ove closer to the p resent, the excesses o f traductio are m ore
lim ited. B ut th e case o f the tra n sla tio n s into English o f the Irish
n a tio n a l epic, the T ain, are a good e x a m p le o f the influence of
a u t h o rity on tr a n s la tio n . A sch olarly tra n sla tio n o f the Tain existed in
G e r m a n as early as 1905 ( E r n s t W i n d is c h ’s D ie altirische Heldensage
‘Tain Bo Ciiailnge\ p u b lis h e d in Leipzig). T h e first c o m p a r a b le t r a n s l a ­
tion in English w as p u b lis h e d only in 1967: Cecile O ’R a h illy ’s Tain Bo
Cuailnge, Recension /, p u b lis h e d in D u b lin . T h e first E n glish traductio of
the c o m p lete Tain, by the p o et T h o m a s K insella, w a s p u b lish ed in
D u b lin in 1969. It h a d been prec ed ed by m a n y p a r tia l traductiones,
a m o n g th e m L a d y G r e g o r y ’s 1902 version Cuchulain o f Muirthemne.
T h e r e w ere obviously m o re th a n e n o u g h qualified tr a n sla to rs a r o u n d ,
b u t the in tellectual a n d , prim a rily , em otio n a l c lim a te in Ire la n d
b e tw e en 1905 a n d 1969 w as such th a t n o b o d y w ould tr a n s la te in its
e n tirety a n a tio n a l epic th a t a lte rn a te s descrip tio n s of noble beh a v io r
w ith d es crip tio n s o f the Irish as a m e rrily b a r b a r ic b u n c h , killing,
looting, r a p in g a n d defe catin g all over the place - precisely the im age
the in tellectuals associa te d w ith the ‘Irish R e n a i s s a n c e ’ tried to
c o u n te r a c t w ith all th e ir m ight.
T h e e x pe rts are e m p lo y e d by those in a u th o rity to check each
o t h e r ’s expertise. T h is checking process takes place m o st obviously in
the p ed agogical situ a tio n . As late as the m id -se v e n te e n th century,
G o tts c h e d states in his Ausführliche Redekunst th a t tra n sla tio n is ‘p r e ­
cisely w h a t the c opy in g o f a given m odel is to a b e g in n e r in the a r t of
p a in tin g . W e k now t h a t the works o f g re a t m a ste rs are copied w ith
p le a s u r e a n d diligence by m e d io c re artists or by b eg in n ers w ho w ould
like to m a k e th e ir w a y ’ (in Lefevere, 1977: 44). T h e experts also
d e lim it the poetological p a r a m e te r s of tran slatio n : will the finished
p r o d u c t be a c c e p ta b le as lite r a tu r e in the ta rg e t culture? Will it
co nfirm to the poetics c u r r e n tly d o m in a tin g th a t culture? A gain,
traductio a p p e a r s to be th e an sw e r, a n d som e tr a n s la to r s go to grea t
le n g th s to m a k e the so u rce text fit the ta rg e t c u ltu r e poetics. D e la
M o tte , for ex a m ple , sta te s in the in tr o d u c tio n to his tra n s la tio n o f the
Iliad:
I have reduced the tw enty four books o f the Iliad to tw elve, w h ich are even
shorter than H o m er ’s. A t first sig h t you m igh t think that this could on ly be
d o n e at the exp en se o f m an y im p ortan t features. But if you pau se to reflect
that rep etition s m ake up m ore than on e sixth o f the Iliad, and that the
a n a tom ical details o f w ou n d s and the long sp eech es o f the fighters m ake up a
lot m ore, you w ill be right in think ing that it has been easy for me to shorten
22 Andre Lefevere

the poem w ith ou t losin g any im portant features o f the plot. I flatter m y self
w ith the thou ght that I have d on e ju st that, and I even think I have brought
togeth er the essen tial parts o f the action in su ch a w ay that they are shaped
into a w h ole better proportioned and m ore sen sib le in m y abbreviated
version than in the original. (1714: 17)
Sm all w o n d e r th a t P e rro t d ’A b la n c o u rt, faced w ith the twin c o n ­
str a in ts o f a u t h o rity a n d expertise, b egan his apology for his tr a n s l a ­
tion o f L u c ia n w ith the d ip lo m a tic sta te m e n t:
T w o things can be held again st me w here this translation is concerncd. O n e
has to do w ith the selection o f the work, the other w ith the w ay in w h ich I
translated it. O n e group o f people w ill say that I sh ou ld not have translated
this particu lar auth or, and an oth er group that I sh ou ld h ave translated him
differently. (1709: 24)

W ith th e split in th e a u d ie n c e a fter 1800, a n d the rise o f philology as

a university discipline, the w orst excesses o f traductio c a m e to an end.
T h e exp e rts could reserve a p a r t o f the m a r k e t for themselves, a n d
p r o d u c e tr a n s la tio n s a im e d p r im a rily a t o th e r experts, in effect rec­
r e a tin g the coterie cu ltu re, b u t this tim e in isolation from the gen eral
cu ltu r e they w ere p a r t of, even if they w o uld p r o d u c e the odd traductio
for its benefit.
T h e experts are s u p p o se d to g u a r a n te e th a t the tr u s t the a u d ien c e
places in vario u s tra n sla tio n s is not m isplac ed. B'U they are not
alw ays successful. T h e p ro b le m is th a t the a u d ie n c e places less tru st
in the e x p e r ts ’ s t a m p o f a p p r o v a l o f a Jida interpretatio th a n in the
r e p u ta tio n of a t r a n s l a to r as a fidus interpres. G lyn P. N o rto n has show n
th a t the w ell-know n H o r a t i a n p h r a s e was used earlier by S allust in
the I u g u r th a , a n d th a t th e ‘q ualifier fidus . . . ch a racterize s the
p erso n a l reliability o f the g o-betw e en - his m u tu a l tr u stw o rth in e ss in
the eyes o f b o th p arties - r a th e r th a n a q u a lity in h e re n t in his
tr a n s l a ti o n ’ ( N o rto n , 1981: 184). T h is explains w h y ‘b a d ’ tran slatio n s
c o n tin u e to enjoy g r e a t p o p u la rity a m o n g th e g en e ral public, even
w h en technically s u p e rs e d e d by tra n sla tio n s of b e tte r q u a lity - a state
o f affairs w h ich m o st definitely p r e d a te s the in tr o d u c tio n o f copyright.
A ce rtain tr a n s la tio n achieves a s o m e w h a t ‘ca n o n iz e d s ta tu s ’ a n d ca n
h a r d ly be dislodged from it. M a y b e one o f the earliest exa m ple s o f this
sta te o f affairs can be found in St A u g u s tin e ’s seventy-first letter,
a d d re sse d to S a in t J e r o m e . In the letter, A u g u stin e tells the story o f a
bishop w h o in tr o d u c e d the use o f J e r o m e ’s tr a n s la tio n ‘in the c h u rc h
o f w hich he is the p asto r. T h e y hit u p o n a p as sa g e in the p ro p h e t
J o n a h w hich you tr a n s la te d very differently from the w ay in w hich it
has es tab lish ed itself in the m in d a n d m e m o r y o f all, a n d the w ay it
h ad been s u n g for su c h a long tim e .’ T h e result is u nrest, foul play is
suspected, a n d after c o n s u lta tio n w ith the local Je w s , w ho are no help
either, the b ish o p ‘w as forced to correct himself, as if he h a d m a d e a
 Translation: Its Genealogy in the West 23

m istake, since he d i d n ’t w a n t to lose all the people in his c h u r c h ’

(A u gustin e, 1909: no. 71).
T r a n s la tio n , th e n , is sa n c tio n e d by a u th o rity , b u t it can also try to
su b v e rt a u t h o r i ty by u s u r p in g the a u th o rity of a n a u th o rita tiv e text
alien to the ta rg e t cu ltu re. T h e early tran slatio n s o f the Communist
Manifesto into R u s s ia n com e to m ind, as do the tran slatio n s of the
E nglish p h ilo s o p h e rs into F re n c h in the s e v en te en th a n d eighteenth
centuries. T r a n s l a t i o n can play a n i m p o r ta n t p a r t in the struggle
betw e n rival ideologies, w itness L u t h e r ’s la m e n t in the T isc h g e s­
präche:
W e are aw are o f the scrib b ler in D resd en w h o stole m y N ew T esta m en t. H e
ad m itted that m y G erm an is good and sw eet and he realized that he could
not do better and yet he w an ted to d iscred it it, so he took m y N ew T esta m en t
as I w rote it, a lm ost w ord for w ord, and he took m y preface, my glosses and
my n am e aw ay and w rote his nam e, his preface and his glosses in their place.
H e is n ow sellin g m y N e w T esta m en t under his nam e. O h , dear children,
how hurt I w as w h en his prince, in a terrible preface, forbade the reading o f
L u th er’s N ew T e sta m en t but ordered the scrib b ler’s N ew T esta m en t read,
w h ich is exactly the sam e as the one L uther w rote, (in L efevere, 1977: 22).
T r a n s la tio n s also pla y a n im p o r t a n t p a r t in the struggle betw een rival
poetics. T h e case o f P o u n d ’s Cathay (1915) is too well kno w n to
w a r r a n t extensive discussion here. F ace d w ith V ic t o r i a n /E d w a r d ia n
poetics, P o u n d m a n u f a c tu r e d the C h in e se T ’a n g d y n a s ty poets as an
‘a u t h o r i ta ti v e ’ c o u n te rte x t, one th a t did, as if by m iracle, fit all the
re q u ir e m e n ts o f the new p o e try he, P o u n d , was trying to create. Since
tra n sla tio n a w a rd s so m e k ind o f lim ited im m u n ity to those w h o w rite
it (after all, they are n ot responsib le for w h a t o th e rs w rote), attacks on
the d o m i n a n t poetics o f a lite ra tu re often pass themselves off as
tran slatio n s. H o ra c e W a lp o le ’s Castle o f Otranto (1764), the first o f the
‘G o th ic n o v els’, is a case in point. In the preface to the first edition,
W a lp o le tells the r e a d e r th a t the novel he is a b o u t to rea d is a
tra n sla tio n o f a n I ta l ia n m a n u s c r ip t, a n d prom ises to ‘r e p rin t the
original I t a l i a n ’ if the novel ‘sho u ld m e et w ith success’ (in F airclough,
1964: 43). I n the preface to the second edition, the a u t h o r apologizes:
‘it is fit th a t h e s h o u ld ask p a r d o n o f his rea d ers for hav in g offered his
w o rk to th e m u n d e r th e b o rro w e d p erso n a g e o f a tr a n s la tio n ’ (1964:
48). T h e w hole str a te g e m w as necessary bec ause o f the ‘novelty of the
a t t e m p t . . . to blend tw o kinds o f r o m an c e, the a nc ie nt a n d the
m o d e r n ’ (1964: 48).
T r a n s l a t i o n u su rp s a u th o rity , b u t tra n sla tio n also bestows a u t h o r ­
ity. It bestow s a u t h o rity on a lang uage. In C i c e ro ’s words:
by giv in g a L atin form to the text I had read, I could not only m ake use o f the
best exp ression s in com m on usage w ith us, but I could also coin new
expressions, an alogou s to those used in G reek, and they were no less w ell
24 Andre Lejevere

received by our p eop le, as long as they seem ed app rop riate. (C icero, De
Oratore, book I: 35)
T r a n s la tio n forces a la n g u a g e to ex p a n d , a n d th a t e x p a n sio n m ay be
w elcom e as long as it is checked by the linguistic c o m m u n ity a t large.
T r a n s la tio n c a n also besto w the a u t h o r i ty in h e r e n t in a ‘lan g u ag e of
a u t h o r i t y ’ (L a tin , F re n ch , E n g lis h /R u s s ia n ) on a text originally w rit­
ten in a n o t h e r la n g u ag e , w hich lacks th a t a u th o rity . M a n y works
w ritte n in ‘m i n o r ’ lan g u ag e s, such as S tr i n d b e r g ’s d r a m a s , w ould not
belong to ‘w orld l it e r a tu r e ’ if they h a d not been la u n c h e d in a
la n g u a g e o f a u th o rity , in this case F re n ch . Sim ilarly, I b s e n ’s d r a m a s
w ere in tr o d u c e d to E u ro p e not in his n ative N o rw e g ian , b ut in
G e r m a n by the V o lk s b ü h n e in Berlin. T h e p erv a siv e influence of
tr a n s la tio n is so g re a t th a t these w orks cease, after a while, to be
th o u g h t o f as ‘foreign’ to the ‘la n g u a g e o f a u t h o r i t y ’. E nglish d e p a r t ­
m e n ts n ow routin e ly teach b oth I b se n a n d S trin d b e r g , a n d stu d e n ts
te n d to find the S c a n d in a v ia n n a m e s a bit o f a n u isa n ce , at times. As a
c u m u la tiv e effort, tra n s la tio n ev e n tu a lly builds u p a translinguistic
a n d tr a n s c u ltu r a l c a n o n (the ‘P en g u in C lassics’ in o u r d a y a n d age)
w hich is, in its tu rn , invested w ith au th o rity .
T r a n s la tio n also allows w riters in the ta rg e t c u ltu re to ‘proceed on
the a u t h o r i t y ’ o f w riters alien to the ta rg e t c u ltu re a n d in tr o d u c e d into
it by tr a n sla to rs. In o th e r w ords, tra n sla tio n in tro d u c e s new devices in
the literatu re s by w hich it is received. T h e so n n e t, for exam ple, was
in tr o d u c e d into C h in e se in the 1920s, via F en g C h i ’s tran slatio n s. T h e
ode b e c a m e the m a jo r g en re o f the poets of the Pleiade after it h a d been
tra n s la te d extensively from G re ek a n d L atin . T r a n s la tio n , u n d e r the
m o ralizin g aegis o f the J e s u its , tr a n sfo rm e d the p ic a r e s q u e novel into
the Bildungsroman in G e r m a n y . T h e a lte r n a tio n o f m a scu lin e a n d
fem inine rh y m e s in F re n c h goes back to O c ta v ie n de St G ela is’
tra n sla tio n s o f O v id . T h e h e x a m e te r w as in tr o d u c e d into G e r m a n by
the H o m e r tr a n sla tio n s o f J o h a n n H e in ric h V oss. J o h n H o o k h a m
F r e r e ’s tra n sla tio n s o f Pulci r e in tro d u c e d ottava rima into E nglish,
w h ere it w as soon to be used by Byron in his Don Juan. Yet G o e th e ’s
pious ‘h o p e th a t literary histo ry will plainly sta te w h o w as the first to
take this ro ad in spite o f so m a n y o b s ta c le s ’ (in Lefevere, 1977: 39),
ten ds to r e m a in exactly th a t. L ite ra ry histories, as they have been
w ritte n until recently , have h a d little tim e for tran slatio n s, since for
the literary h isto ria n tra n sla tio n h as h ad to do w ith ‘la n g u a g e ’ only,
not w ith lite r a tu r e - a n o t h e r perniciou s o u tg r o w th o f the ‘monoling-
u a l iz a tio n ’ o f literary history by R o m a n tic h isto rio g ra p h e rs in te n t on
c r e a tin g ‘n a t i o n a l ’ lite ra tu re s p referab ly as u n c o n t a m i n a te d as possi­
ble by foreign influences. Y et on every level of the tra n sla tio n process
it can be sho w n th a t i f linguistic con sid eratio n s conflict w ith co n sid er­
atio ns o f an ideological a n d / o r poetiological n a tu re , the la tte r con­
sid e ra tio n s te n d to win. A. W . Schlegel’s fateful p r o n o u n c e m e n t th a t
 Translation: Its Genealogy in the West 25

‘one o f the first p rincip les o f the a r t o f tra n sla tio n is that, for as far as
the n a t u r e of a la n g u a g e allows, a poem sho uld be r ec re ate d in the
sam e m e te r ’ (in Lefevere, 1977: 52), w hich h as been respo nsible for all
kinds o f m e trical co n to rtio n s in tran slatio n s m a d e roughly betw een
1830 a n d 1930, w as obviously not m a d e on linguistic g r o u n d s. B ro w n ­
in g ’s insistence on the ‘use o f c e rtain allow able co n stru c tio n s w hich,
h a p p e n in g to be o u t o f daily favour, are all the m o re a p p r o p r ia t e to
a rc h a ic w o r k m a n s h ip (B ro w ning , 1937: 1095) is responsible for the
fact th a t m ost V ic to ria n tra n sla tio n s o f th e classics read so m o n o to ­
nously alike. It w as n o t in spired by linguistic necessity, b u t by the
desire to a c q u ire the tim eless th r o u g h use o f the arc haic . T h e result
did no t m eet w ith the tr a n s l a to r s ’ expectations.
T h e cre atio n o f the L a tin w o rd sacramentum is also revealing in this
respect. W h e n the early C h r is tia n s n ee d ed to tr a n s la te the G re ek
w o rd musterion, they d id n o t w a n t sim ply to L atin ize it, bec ause it w as
too close to the v o c a b u la ry used by the ‘m y stery c u lts’ w hich w ere
C h r is t ia n i ty ’s m a in c o m p e titio n a t th e tim e. F or the sa m e rea so n they
rejected w o rd s like sacra, arcana, initia, w h ich w o uld hav e been s e m a n ­
tically a c c e p ta b le e q u iv ale n ts. T h e y hit on sacramentum as a te rm b oth
n e u tra l a n d close to th e original. B u t w h en St J e r o m e p r e p a r e d the
V u lg a te , C h r is tia n ity h a d w o n the battle a g a in st the m ystery reli­
gions, a n d he felt free to sim p ly L atinize musterion. (cf. K lo p sc h , 1983:
37—8) S im ilarly, the A r a m a ic J e s u s C h r is t is su p p o se d to have spoken
did n o t hav e a co pula. H e ca n therefore n ev e r h a v e said: ‘T h is is my
b o d y ’ w h en p o in tin g a t a lo a f o f b rea d . T h e c o p u la w as p u t in by
t r a n s la to r s for b o th linguistic a n d ideological reasons.
T h a t different types o f text need to be tr a n s la te d in different stylistic
(not linguistic) w ays, w as recognized by G a s p a r d de T e n d e as early as
1660. ‘I t w ould n ot be a d v isa b le ,’ he says, ‘to tr a n s la te o ratio n s that
need to be tre a te d w ith som e leeway into a precise style, cut a n d dry,
n o r s h o u ld you tr a n s la te p ara b les, th a t need to be sh o rt a n d precise,
into a style th a t w ould allow th e m m ore le ew ay ’ (de T e n d e , 1665: 5).
F inally, u n tr a n s l a ta b ili ty seems to have a lot m o re to do w ith the
ab s e n c e of poetologial eq u iv ale n ts th a n w ith the a b sen c e o f se m a n tic
o r m o r p h o s y n ta c tic equiv ale n ts. T h e qasida, the ca n o n iz ed g e n re of
A ra b ic poetry, h as n ev e r been satisfactorily tra n s la te d in the W est,
b ec au se it has no obviou s generic equ iv ale n t. T h is is h o w I b n
Q u t a i b a , the A r a b p oet a n d critic, d escribes the genre:

the composer . . . began by mentioning the deserted dwelling places and the
relics and traces of habitation. Then he wept and complained and addressed
the desolate encampment and begged his companions to make a halt, in
order that he might have occasion to speak of those who had once lived there
and afterwards departed. . .. Then to this he linked the erotic prelude and
bewailed the violence of his love and the anguish of separation from his
mistress and the extremity of his passion and desire, so as to win the hearts of
 26 Andre Lefevere

his hearers and divert their eyes tow ards him and invite their hearts to listen
to him . . . . H e follow ed up his ad van tage and set forth his claim : thus he
w en t on to com p lain o f fatigue and w ant o f sleep and travellin g by night and
o f the n oon d ay heat, and how his cam el had been reduced to lean ness. And
after rep resenting all the discom fort and dan ger o f his jo u r n e y , he knew that
he had finally ju stified his hope and expectation o f receiving his due m eed
from the person to w h om the poem w as ad d ressed , he entered upon the
pan egyric and incited him to reward, and kindled his gen erosity by exaltin g
him above his peers and pron ou n cin g the greatest d ign ity, in com parison
w ith his, to be little, (in Arberry, 1957: 1 5 -1 6 )

I t is easy to d isco ver b o th ideological a n d poetological elem ents in this

descrip tio n th a t w ou ld be m ost u n fa m ilia r to the W e ste rn reader.
Lyall states th a t the qasida ‘is not epic, n o r even n a r r a tiv e . . . still less
is it d r a m a t i c . . . the G re ek idyll is p e r h a p s the type w hich com es
n ea rest to it in classical p o e try ’ (1930: xviii). N icholson calls it an
‘o d e ’ (1922: 76) a n d J o n e s refers to ‘casseidas or eclogues’ (1807: X:
341).
L a n g u a g e is not the p rob lem . Ideology a n d poetics are, as are
c u ltu ra l elem ents th a t are not im m ed ia te ly clear, or seen as c o m p le ­
tely ‘m is p la c e d ’ in w h a t w ould be the target c u ltu re version o f the text
to be tran slate d . O n e such elem ent is the cam el d u n g m e n tio n e d in
L a b i d ’s qasida, w h ich can h a r d ly be expected to m a k e a ‘p o etic’
im pression on W e s te rn readers. Carlyle, the E n glish V icto rian t r a n s ­
lator, leaves it o u t altogether; to him ‘this w as sim p ly in c o m p r e h e n s i­
ble’ (Polk, 1974: xxviii). G e r m a n tran slato rs, on th e o th e r h a n d , try to
find a c u ltu ra l analogy, b u t w ith little success: the solution is w orse
th a n the pro b lem : ‘G e r m a n scholars, fam iliar w ith the p ea sa n ts of
their ow n land , w h e re the size o f the d u n g h e a p is som e ind ic atio n o f
the pro sp erity o f the farm er, merely tr a n s p o r te d to the d esert the
social values o f B a v a r ia ’ (Polk, 1974: xxviii). M o s t a tte m p ts at
survey ing tra n sla tio n history begin w ith a pious p la titu d e . T h is
a t te m p te d survey ends w ith one, bo rro w ed from M m e de Stael: ‘the
m ost em in e n t service one can r e n d e r to a literatu re , is to t r a n s p o r t the
m asterpieces o f the h u m a n spirit from one la n g u a g e to a n o t h e r ’ (de
Stael: 328) Pious p la titu d e s in v a riab ly surface in discussions o f tr a n s ­
lation, not j u s t because the subject is so com plex, b u t also because it is
p o ten tially d istu rb in g : it keeps q u e s tio n in g expertise a n d it is alw ays
potentially su bversive of a u th o rity . T h is does n o t m a k e it exactly a
p o p u la r topic for research , b u t it does m a k e it a potentially very
r e w a r d in g one.
T r a n s la tio n is one o f the m ost obvious forms o f im ag e m aking, of
m a n ip u la tio n , th a t we have. It m akes its im ages to g e th er w ith o th e r
m edia. For m a n y people in the E n g lish -sp e ak in g w orld, for exam p le,
Crime and Punishment will always be a n a m a lg a m of som e o f the
following: the C o n s ta n c e G a r n e t t or the M a g a r s h a c k tran slatio n ,
 Translation: Its Genealogy in the West 27

histories o f R u s sia n lite ra tu re , articles in m ass circulation m agazines,

television classical d r a m a series. T r a n s la tio n is responsible to a large
ex tent for the im a g e o f a work, a w riter, a culture. T o g e th e r w ith
h isto rio g ra p h y , a n th o lo g iz in g a n d criticism it p r e p a re s w orks for
inclusion in the c a n o n o f w orld literature . I t in tro d u c es in no va tions
into a literatu re . I t is th e m a in m e d iu m th r o u g h w hich one literatu re
influences a n o th e r . I t c a n be p o te ntia lly subversive a n d it can be
po tentially co n servative. I t c a n tell us a b o u t the self-im age o f a culture
at a given tim e, a n d the cha n g es th a t self-im age undergoes. I t can tell
us a b o u t the s tr e n g th o f a poetics a n d / o r a n ideology at a certain time,
sim ply by sh o w in g us the ex tent to w hich they w ere interiorized by
people w ritin g tra n s la tio n s a t th a t tim e (p oor vilified D e la M o tte was
not trying to d e m o lish H o m e r ; he was sim ply trying to be a ‘g o o d ’
w riter as best he k new how ). T r a n s la tio n ca n tell us a lot a b o u t the
p ow er o f im ag es a n d th e w ays in w hich im ages are m a d e, a b o u t the
ways in w h ic h a u t h o r i ty m a n ip u la te s im ages a n d em ploys experts to
san ctio n th a t m a n ip u la tio n a n d to justify th e tru st o f a n audien c e -
w hich is w h y the stu d y o f tra n sla tio n can teach us a few things not j u s t
a b o u t the w orld o f lite ra tu re , b u t also a b o u t the w orld we live in.

References
A rberry, A r th u r J . (1 9 5 7 ) The Seven Odes. L o n d o n a nd N e w York: A llen and U n w in
and M a c m illa n .
A u g u s tin e , (1 9 0 9 ) ‘L ette r t o j e r o m e ’, in The Letters o f S t Augustine, ed. W .J . S p arrow -
S im p so n . L o n d o n : S o c ie ty for P r o m o tin g C h r istia n K n o w le d g e .
B a tte u x , C h a r le s (1 8 2 4 ) Principes de littérature, 5 v o ls. P aris.
B erm a n , A n to in e (1 9 8 8 ) ‘D e la tr a n sla tio n à la tr a d u c tio n ’, Etudes sur le texte et ses
transformations 1: 2 3 —4 0 .
B ro w n in g , R o b e r t (1 9 3 7 ) ‘T h e A g a m e m n o n o f A e s c h y lu s ’ (1 8 7 7 ), The Poetical Works o f
Robert Brow ning. N e w Y ork: M a c m illa n .
D e la M o tte , H o u d a r (1 7 1 4 ) L ’Iliade. A m ste rd a m .
D e T e n d e , G a sp a r d (1 6 6 5 ) Règles de la traduction. P aris.
D u B ella y , J o a c h im (1 9 4 8 ) D éfense et illustration de la langue française. Paris: D id ier.
F a irc lo u g h , W illia m (é d .) (1 9 6 4 ) Three Gothic Novels. H a r m o n d sw o r th : P en gu in
B ook s.
F itz g er a ld , E d w a rd (1 9 7 2 ) The Variorum and D efinitive Edition o f the Poetical and Prose
W ritings, 7 v o ls. N e w Y ork: D o u b le d a y .
H o r g u e lin , A n to in e (e d .) (1 9 8 1 ) Anthologie de la manière de traduire. M on treal: L ing-
u a tec h .
H u e tiu s, P etru s D a n ie lu s (1 6 8 3 ) De optimo genere interpretandi libri duo. T h e H a g u e .
H u g o , V ic to r (1 8 6 5 ) ‘P réfa ce d e la n o u v e lle tr a d u ctio n d e S h a k e sp e a r e ’, in Oeuvres
complètes de W illiam Shakespeare, trans. F ra n ço is V ic to r H u g o , 15 vo ls. Paris: Pag-
nerre.
J o n e s , W illia m (1 9 8 0 ) The Works o f S ir W illiam Jones. L o n d o n , 1807, 13 vols; repr.
D e lh i: A g a m P r a k a sh a n R e p r in t.
28 A ndré L t f evert

K lo p sc h , P au l (1 9 8 3 ) ‘D ie m ite lla te in is c h e L y rik ’, in Lyrik des M iltelallers, ed. H e in z

B er g n e r , 2 v o ls. S tu ttg a rt: R e cla m .
L efev ere, A n d r é (e d . a n d tr a n s.) (1 9 7 7 ) Translating Literature: The German Tradition.
A sse n : V a n G o rcu m .
L y a ll, C h a r le s J . (e d . a n d tr a n s.) (1 9 3 0 ) Translations o f Ancient A rabian Poetry. N ew
Y ork: C o lu m b ia U n iv e r s ity Press.
N ic h o ls o n , R e y n o ld A . (ed. a n d tra n s.) (1 9 2 2 ) Translations o f Eastern Poetry and Prose.
C a m b r id g e: C a m b r id g e U n iv e r sity P ress.
N o r to n , G ly n n P. (1 9 8 1 ) ‘H u m a n is t F o u n d a tio n s o f T r a n sla tio n T h e o r y ’, Canadian
Review o f Comparative Literature 8: I 7 3 - 9 1 .
Perrot d ’A b la n c o u r t, N ic h o la s (1 7 0 9 ) Lucien. D e la traduction, A m ste rd a m .
Polk, W illia m R. (e d . an d tr a n s.) (1 9 7 4 ) The Golden Ode by L a b id I bn R abiah. C h icago:
U n iv e r s ity o f C h ic a g o P ress,
d e S ta ël, M m e . (1 8 2 1 ) M elange, O e u v r e s c o m p lè te s , P aris.
S tein er , T . R . (e d .) (1 9 7 5 ) E nglish Translation Theory 1650-1800. A ssen : V a n G o rcu m .
T r e v is a .J o h n o f (1 9 0 3 ) ‘D ia lo g u e b e tw e e n a L ord a n d a C lerk u p o n T r a n s la tio n ’, in
Fifteenth Century Prose and Verse, ed. A . W . P o lla rd . W e stm in ste r : C o n sta b le .