Reasons for Retranslation

The Breach and the Observance - Jan Willem Mathijssen

1 Reasons for retranslation

16 The Breach and the Observance - Jan Willem Mathijssen

1.1 Previous theories on retranslation: ageing texts and perfect translation

This dissertation is concerned with the question of ‘retranslation’, a phenomenon that still lacks a detailed or systematic study, as Susam-Sarajeva (2003) has pointed out. Why are texts translated again? In answering this question, it will be assumed that retranslation is a means of artistic differentiation, originating in the target culture as a result of conflicts between the norms of different people. The term ‘retranslation’ refers to “subsequent translations of a text or part of a text, carried out after the initial translation that introduced this text to the ‘same’ target language” (Susam-Sarajeva, 2003: 2). Generally, retranslations are associated with the ‘ageing’ of translated texts. The Dutch publisher Mark Pieters (2004) claims that after fifty years a translation can be considered obsolete. Bassnett (2000) argues that the period for the ‘ageing’ of texts expires sooner in drama translation than in any other type of text:

It is commonly held that plays require retranslating at regular intervals, usually every 20 years or so. There is no adequate explanation of this assumption, but it does seem that spoken language ages at a faster rate than written language, and since a play is essentially a transcript to be spoken, it follows that the ageing process will be more marked in a play translation than in other types of written text. (2000: 99)

Retranslation is usually related to canonical literary texts. Retranslations are said to exist because ‘great translations’ of these texts are so few. Although translation is usually characterised by an ‘essential lack of accomplishment,’ one can occasion- ally succeed in creating a definitive translation by translating the text again. In this line of thought the retranslation will be an improvement on the previous translations. Critics differ, however, in explaining the nature of such an improvement. For those who believe that initial translations tend to reduce the ‘otherness’ of the source text (e.g. Bensimon, 1990; Berman, 1990), a retranslation is considered to be more efficient in conveying the previously assimilated ‘otherness’ of the foreign material, because the target audience will have become acquainted with the text through the ‘introduction-translation.’ Others will note, however, how retranslations render the source text more accessible to the reader of the day (Rodriguez, 1990; Gambier, 1994). Hence an emphasis on the time factor: there is a continuous necessity for retranslation because earlier translations need to be updated. At first sight, the latter hypothesis – closely connected to Bassnett’s hypothesis on the ageing of texts – seems to be better suited to explain the repeated creation of retranslations, as they would follow the market of a changing target culture.

1.2 Retranslation as a norm conflict

Both these notions are refuted, however, by Susam-Sarajeva (2003, who points out that retranslations may come about within a very short time span. She argues that retranslation is not necessarily connected to the canonical status of the text, nor to the ageing of a translation, or to the adaptive or literal nature of the translation. Rather, the reasons for retranslation must be sought in the target culture: “Retranslations may have

17 The Breach and the Observance - Jan Willem Mathijssen more to do with the needs and attitudes within the receiving system than any inherent characteristics of the source text which make it ‘prone to’ retranslations. After all, to grant a multiple entry visa to a foreigner is totally at the discretion of the receiving authorities.” (2003: 5) Susam-Sarajeva shares this focus on the target culture with Gideon Toury (1995), a translation scholar who maintains that translations are “a fact of the culture which hosts them” (1995: 24) and proposes therefore to leave it up to the target culture to determine what are (so-called ‘assumed’) translations. According to Toury, a translation is a text in a certain language; it occupies a position, or fills “a slot, in the appropri- ate culture, or in a certain section thereof” (1995: 56). He argues that the introduction of a translation into a target culture always entails some change of the latter, and he claims that “alternative translations are not even likely to occupy the exact same position in the culture which hosts them even if they all came into being at the same point in time” (1995: 27). Susam-Sarajeva observes that retranslation “may also emerge as a result of a synchronous struggle in the receiving system” in the case of her study of philosophical texts, “to create the target discourse into which these translations will be incorporated” (2003: 5). The idea of a ‘struggle’ being the cause of a retranslation is also embraced by Pym (1998), who introduced the concept of active retranslation. Pym argues that a more likely reason for retranslation is in “disagreements over translation strategies.” In other words, the cause for retranslation is related to the norms for translation. This is especially valid “when the text is complex enough to admit widely divergent versions.” Pym excludes, however, certain retranslations from this hypothesis, such as periodi- cal retranslations (again the ‘ageing of translations’), or those retranslations separated by synchronic boundaries (geopolitical or dialectological), that constitute no conflict. These so-called “passive retranslations” reflect the changing attitude of (a large part of) the target culture and may confront the beliefs of two cultures set apart in time or geographical space, whereas “active retranslation” is a symptom of conflicts between people or groups within the target culture:

A comparison between two or more passive retranslations (…) would tend to provide information about historical changes in the target culture (…). Quite apart from being often redundant (the information thus revealed could have been obtained without doing translation history), such a procedure can only affirm the general hypothesis that target-culture norms determine translation strategies. The comparative analysis of active retranslations, however, tends to locate causes far closer to the translator, especially in the entourage of patrons, publishers, readers and intercultural politics (although clearly not ex- cluding monocultural influences from any side). The study of active retranslations would thus seem better positioned to yield insights into the nature and workings of translation itself, into its own special range of disturbances, without blindly surrendering causality to target-culture norms. (Pym, 1998: 82-84)

Many translation scholars have argued that the causes for translation should be sought in the cultural group the translator belongs to. Even-Zohar (1990) offers a vision of culture as a dynamic and heterogeneous structure, in which seemingly irrec- oncilable elements constitute alternative systems of concurrent options. The systems in such a “polysystem” are not equal, but in a permanent struggle for dominance.

18 The Breach and the Observance - Jan Willem Mathijssen

Lefevere (1992) claims that the ‘poetics’ of a translation (i.e. its translational norms) are socially or culturally constituted, and hence subject to change. According to Hermans (1996: 36) a cultural product is embedded in different systems and involves different groups of people, each with different interests. Agreement on the nature of a ‘good’ translation is therefore rather unlikely. The fact of simultaneous retranslations proves that the target culture is not homogeneous, for, as Toury argued, if a translation is made to fill merely one single slot in the target culture, any other translation would be superfluous,. With the concept of group conflicts, Susam-Sarajeva, Pym, Even-Zohar and Hermans all suggest a context in which a retranslation is by necessity an act of defiance against a previous translation, containing some form of aggression. The question is whether this is necessarily the case. If there are indeed different groups within the target culture, they just as well might live in peaceful coexistence. Brownlie (2003: 137), for instance, particularizes Hermans’ theory in such a way that the groups of ‘publishing’ and ‘academia’ constitute two separate but not conflicting worlds, which still explains the differences in translation. The conflict that Susam-Sarajeva mentions, however, takes place within a single discipline (in her case philosophy). This means that even within a discipline we can distinguish between groups.

1.3 Agents in (re)translation: commissioner, audience and translator

In order to understand group conflicts, one should know about the nature of the groups involved. Within the target culture and the subset of the subculture, translation scholars have distinguished three types of agents that constitute a potential group. Lefevere stresses the influence of external factors on the translator, most im- portantly of patronage. Patronage is understood as “the powers (persons, institutions) that can further or hinder the reading, writing, and rewriting of literature” (1992: 15). As a regulatory body, such as individuals, groups, institutions, a social class, a political party, publishers, the media, etc., patronage sees to it that the literary system does not fall out of step with the rest of society. Patronage is predominantly related to ideology, described by Lefevere as the dominant concept of what society should “be allowed to be” (1992: 14), and as “the conceptual grid that consists of opinions and attitudes deemed acceptable in a certain society at a certain time, and through which readers and translators approach texts” (1998: 48). The patron ensures the translator’s liveli- hood, as long as he or she agrees to remain within certain ideological limits (1983: 22). The translation strategy then is not solely determined by the ideology of the translator, but by the patron’s imposed ideology as well (1992: 41). A potential group therefore includes, for Lefevere, at least both the translator and the person(s) he depends on for a living. These include, in the first place, the translator’s commissioner(s) – publisher or theatre company – but also authorities providing subsidy for the translation, and the audience paying for a book or production. A distinction between professional norms and expectancy norms is made by Chesterman (1993). The first emerge from competent professional behaviour and govern the accepted methods and strategies of the translation process. Expectancy norms “are established by the receivers of the translation, by their expectations of what a translation (of a given type) should be like, and what a native text (of a given type) in the target language should be like” (1993: 9). According to Chesterman, a translator will at-

19 The Breach and the Observance - Jan Willem Mathijssen tempt to conform to the expectancy norms of a particular community as well as to the professional norms of that community at one and the same time. Expectancy norms appear to rank higher for Chesterman, as it is the reader’s (or audience’s) expectations that govern the translators’ norms: “A professional translator (…) seeks to design a target text in such a way that it will meet the expectancy norms pertaining to it” (1993: 10). The target audience of the translation must therefore be included in the definition of ‘group.’ Retranslation as the result of group conflict then is due to the audience’s changed expectations. Pym, however, calls for more differentiation in the various causes for a translation and emphasises the role of the translator himself. In mentioning conflicts “between people or groups within the target culture,” he suggests that the individual translator is not accountable for a norm conflict alone, as more agents may be involved in determining the outcome of the translation process. The fact that he mentions “the entourage of patrons, publishers, readers and politics” suggests that Pym, like Lefe- vere, believes that a translation comes into being possibly because of the network rela- tions of the translator to other social agents, although he does not appear to adhere to Lefevere’s claim that “rewriting is manipulation, undertaken in the service of power” (Lefevere, 1992: xi). Pym is in fact critical of translation scholars such as Even-Zohar (1990), for whom the reason for a new translation can be explained only with reference to its position in the target culture: “systemic empiricism tends to place all causes on one level” (Pym, 1998: 146). He finds fault in the systemic approach for neglecting the human dimension of translation and opposes the suggestion that a translation comes about merely to fill in a gap in the target culture: “A certain evasion of hard thought […] leads to idealist assumptions that markets, clients and translators are in some kind of fundamental agreement” (1998: 152-3). Pym asks rhetorically what might happen “when these three factors are in contradiction with each other?” (Pym, 1998: 154). A case of such a conflict that was presented by Richard Todd (1992) may be cited in support of Pym’s objections.14 Further complications for the systemic approach are raised by his observation that causation can also be material (i.e. as a result of developments in the source text material) and formal (i.e. as a result of historical norms allowing a translation to be accepted as such), as well as final (i.e. determined by the purpose of the text). Translation theory has tended to propose the a priori dominance of only one type of cause, i.e. mainly the final cause (1998: 144). A fourth cause for the translation (which he calls ‘efficient’) is therefore proposed by Pym, namely the motives of the translator himself. Causation then may take place on a personal rather than a collective level. For Pym, a group conflict can therefore consist of a conflict between translators alone.

14 Todd (1992) demonstrates that translator (Marnix, Lord of St Aldegonde) and ‘patronage’ (the National Synod of 1586) disagreed about the revision of the former’s translation of a vernacular psalter. Todd locates the cause for the revision in the translator’s desire to create a philologically more accurate version, but the cause for the patron’s wish to have such a revision was in the desire to have a text that was more useful, i.e. easier to chant. The revised psalter did appear in 1591, but the privilege of it was granted – contrary to the 1586 Synod’s stipu- lations – to Vulcanius, who had supported (and inspired) Marnix’s philological approach. Todd’s case not only proves that patronage and translator can have conflicting opinions, but also suggests that the translator needs support to have his translation reach an audience (in this case, to be printed). 20 The Breach and the Observance - Jan Willem Mathijssen

1.4 Retranslation in the context of the theatre

The starting point for this dissertation is formed by two basic assumptions inferred from the theories mentioned above. Firstly, retranslations will be considered as expres- sions of (translational) norms. Secondly, it will be assumed that the translator does not operate in a vacuum; his work can be related to the values of other people. These two assumptions will serve to assess whether the metaphor of a struggle between conflicting groups actually is applicable to the phenomenon of retranslation. In order to understand the nature of the group, it is necessary to determine the context of the translation in the target culture. In the case of the present dissertation, the context for translations is formed by the Dutch theatre. As such, the theatre constitutes a special category within the literary field, because of the role and nature of different communities such as theatre companies, dramatic schools, and so on. These communities, rather than mere ‘literary’ texts, will provide the focal point for this thesis. The theatre translation is a translation made to be performed on stage. Thus it is dependent on people who desire to stage it in order to reach an audience. This is unlike the case of literary texts (novels, poems) where both the person of the translator and the primary customer, the publishing house, usually act as the ‘invisible’ interme- diaries so as to create the impression that the author is communicating directly to the reader (Venuti, 1995). In the theatre, the customer of the translation, i.e. the theatre company, tends to make itself very visible. Whereas in the publishing world the author’s name and reputation is an important factor in sales, it is, in the world of the theatre, also the quality of the theatre company that attracts audiences. Susam-Sarajeva spoke about retranslation as instruments in a struggle to create a target language discourse. She showed how retranslations proposed alternative versions for the same philosophical concepts. The aim of the performing artists is quite different, however. There is no real need to achieve consensus or to argue cases in the theatre. What matters is interpretation. A performance is a showcase of several artistic intentions, where the original author’s play, the director’s vision, and the actor’s approach to the role meet. The visibility of the commissioners, in the case of the theatre, is likely to have an effect on the relation between translator, commissioner and audience. We may therefore as- sume that in any conflict the theatre makers will play a visible part. The visibility of commissioners complicates Chesterman’s notion of expectancy norms. Chesterman implies that the readers (or audience) of the translation have expressed expectancy norms that in turn shape the form of the translation. The changing market calls for a new translation and the translator caters for this new audience. If a retranslation clashes with a previous retranslation, this must be seen as the expression of conflicts between groups in the audience. In the case of the theatre, it is the question whether these expectancy norms still are dominant when the intermediate party positions itself as an active determining factor in the interpretation of the text. The cre- ators of a performance are indeed the first audience of the translation, with expectancy norms of their own. Do not they, rather than the spectators in the theatre, establish the norms for the translation? Both the theatre maker and the translator then are likely to be involved in the norm conflicts expressed by the retranslation. The relation between these two people and their relation with the audience will be the starting point of this thesis. This gives ample space to discover the personal motivations of both, before tying their fates to

21 The Breach and the Observance - Jan Willem Mathijssen the destiny of a ‘target culture’. I venture the hypothesis that in retranslating for the theatre, the translator teams up with the theatre maker(s) to distinguish themselves from their mutual predecessor(s). Assuming that a theatre translation is made on the basis of norms, I suppose that retranslation is an indication of a conflict of norms between those responsible for the earlier translation and those responsible for the consecutive translation. I will argue that a new translation always strategically expresses a norm conflict, based on the hypothesis that a theatre retranslation always expresses a fundamental norm that represents a breach with at least one of the norms of the previous theatre translation. On the basis of the context of the theatre translation, I further hypothesise that the director’s interpretation and the translator’s text share at least one norm which is an alternative to a norm of the previous translation. The retranslation forms an intrin- sic part of the director’s interpretation. If the director has commissioned the translation, the main characteristics of the translator’s strategy will concur with his interpretation of the play. In other words, the director supports the norm change that is fundamental to the retranslation. The paradox of theatre translation is that the intended target audience of the theatre translation is, in the first place, the director (rather than the spectators). This is only the case if the director of a play (or more in general the theatre makers) is involved with the interpretation of the play (and it should be stressed that this is a fairly mod- ern convention). Thus I question Chesterman’s assumption that professional norms are governed by expectancy norms in general, for I will argue that the retranslation does not aim to comply to all norms of an audience at a certain point of time, but rather appears to go against the grain of some of them. The director uses the retranslation as a means to position his interpretation of a play vis-à-vis the interpretations of other directors. The more important the role of the director in creating the concept of a new play, the greater the need to emphasise its novelty or uniqueness. Retranslation is one of the means to create this effect. Moreover, a retranslation will have to deal with the fact that each text creates its own tradition. A view Eiselt (1995) shares with Haag (1984) is that each new translation adds new levels of (metaphoric) meaning to the text. Previous translations have al- ready generated new meanings, and the new translation refers to both the source text and to earlier translations. Thus retranslation is not merely a conflict between people or groups, but a conflict within the context of the text’s tradition. The impact of retranslation as a statement is concomitant to the tradition of the theatre text. The intimate connection between the poetics of the translator and the director’s vision of the play could be a major explanation for the tremendous number of Hamlet (re)translations. The use of retranslation as a means of differentiation for a director, especially after the canonisation of this particular play, could also explain the very visible role the translator has in the production of the play. First, however, the question of how a retranslation might take up arms against the force of tradition should be addressed. This involves a study of the kind of poetics a translator can adopt, and of the part played by theatre makers and the audience with regard to these norms.

22 The Breach and the Observance - Jan Willem Mathijssen