The Challenges of German-English Literary Translation: an Exploration of Franz Kafka's Das Urteil (The Judgment) and Die Verwandlung (The Metamorphosis)

Home , German studies, Joachim Neugroschel, Prague German, Technical translation

View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE

provided by South East Academic Libraries System (SEALS)

THE CHALLENGES OF GERMAN-ENGLISH LITERARY TRANSLATION: AN EXPLORATION OF FRANZ KAFKA'S DAS URTEIL (THE JUDGMENT) AND DIE VERWANDLUNG (THE METAMORPHOSIS)

A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

RHODES UNIVERSITY

MATHAABE THABANE

June 2015

PLAGIARISM DECLARATION

I hereby state that this thesis is my own work and that I did not lend it to, or borrow it from any person. All texts that are quoted have been duly referenced according to departmental convention.

………………………………………. Mathaabe Thabane

ABSTRACT

This thesis conducts a study of literary translation using selected texts by Franz Kafka as translated from German into English in the mid-twentieth century and in the early twenty- first century. This study entails a three-fold orientation, namely: to show the extent of the impact of socio-historical, political and cultural factors on both the translation process and translation product; secondly, it demonstrates the fact that a merging of theoretical principles and practical methods is necessary and possible for the study of literary translations; thirdly, it answers the questions of why the same literary works continue to be retranslated and why every generation of Kafka scholars and readers will need their own translations of his works. This research, furthermore, proposes that the position of literary translation should be elevated since this kind of translation can reveal more about the cultural and linguistic intricacies of the translation process. Seeking to contribute to the broader framework of the translation studies discipline, this thesis also makes a case for translators to reveal their translation process, in the form of notes or prefaces, in order to allow for informed studies of translations. Finally, the research at hand proposes some considerations for further study into literary translations and shows new trends in the sub-field of literary translation which will undoubtedly shift its current nature and call for theoretical and practical applications for more classes of languages.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I must begin by giving thanks and praise to the Lord God Almighty who has sustained me through this process.

Words seem insufficient to express my gratitude to my Supervisors, Rebecca Domingo and Undine Weber. I am thankful for their expertise and unique supervisory skills, but more so for their support, patience and wisdom during this entire process. I am ever indebted to them for all they have been in my life as a student and even beyond the bounds of that professional relationship. Ich bin aus tiefstem Herzen dankbar.

I’ve had the privilege of working in the postgraduate office of the German Studies section and would like to give thanks for this and other resources that I have had at my disposal. The time and contributions of colleagues in the School of Languages who read through my research proposal and provided other support is also hereby acknowledged. For the sharing of ideas; for words, laughs and so much overall support I would like to thank my fellow students Marina van der Merwe, Gwyndolen Ortner and Kelsey Thompson.

I acknowledge the support of my friends and family; specifically for their patience with my long student career and standing in the gap with financial assistance whenever necessary. I am thankful to each one and for the many types of contributions, big and small. The love and support of my partner, Carlo Schick, especially in these last few months of writing up, has been invaluable to me.

The financial assistance from the Rhodes University Postgraduate Prestigious Scholarship, and the DAAD In-Country Scholarship towards this research is also hereby acknowledged. Opinions expressed and conclusions arrived at, are those of the author and are not necessarily to be attributed to Rhodes University, or the donors.

Lastly, in the most challenging of moments I have often remembered my mom. Where she rests in peace, I am thankful to her for the strength she has given me and I hope to preserve and honour all that she invested in me. To borrow the words of Abraham Lincoln: “All that I am, or hope to be, I owe to my angel mother”.

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...... 6

CHAPTER 1: CONTEXT OF THE RESEARCH AND SITUATIONAL OVERVIEW ...... 11

1.1 LITERARY INTERPRETATION AND TRANSLATION ...... 11

1.2 THE STATE OF LITERARY TRANSLATION STUDIES: CONTEXT ...... 22

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGICAL AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ...... 32

2.1 EQUIVALENCE IN TRANSLATION ...... 32

2.2 POSSIBLE PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS TO THEORY ...... 37

CHAPTER 3: KAFKA IN TRANSLATION...... 42

3.1 BACKGROUND TO THE EDITING AND TRANSLATING OF KAFKA’S WORK ...... 42

3.2 SELECTED TRANSLATOR CONTEXTS...... 48

3.3 THE RECEPTION OF KAFKA’S WORKS AND THE RECEPTION OF TRANSLATED WORKS ...... 52

CHAPTER 4: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SELECTED TRANSLATIONS ...... 58

4.1 DAS URTEIL IN CONTEXT...... 58

4.2 DIE VERWANDLUNG IN CONTEXT ...... 61

4.3 A COMPARISON OF SELECTED TARGET TEXT EXAMPLES ...... 64

4.3.1 THE JUDGMENT: A COMPARISON OF SELECTED TARGET TEXT EXTRACTS ...... 64

4.3.2 THE METAMORPHOSIS: A COMPARISON OF SELECTED TARGET TEXT EXTRACTS ...... 71

CHAPTER 5: LITERARY TRANSLATION: AN HISTORICAL VIEW ...... 77

5.1 TRANSLATIONS AS SOCIAL HISTORY AND THE REASONS FOR EVER-EMERGING (KAFKA) TRANSLATIONS ...... 77

5.2 A LOOK TO THE FUTURE OF LITERARY TRANSLATION STUDIES ...... 90

CONCLUSION ...... 95

APPENDIX A: E-MAIL CORRESPONDENCE WITH NEUGROSCHEL EDITOR, ERIKA GOLDMAN ...... 98

REFERENCES ...... 100

INTRODUCTION

This thesis is situated partly in the field of literary studies and German literature, and more broadly in the discipline of translation studies. Specifically, it seeks to discuss the position of literary translation in the discipline, and address this through three main focal points. Firstly, it proposes that literary concepts, which are applied to the analyses of literary works, can be applied to their translations. Secondly, it provides evidence of the fact that the translation process is largely a socio-historical enterprise, and that translations form a part of social history. More than that, translations extend authors and works beyond the social, historical, political and cultural bounds of their source text context. Thirdly, it addresses the phenomenon of the retranslation of the same literary works generally, and that of the same Kafka works – offering answers for why these continue to re-emerge.

A principal motivation for viewing translations on par with the literary works from which they originate – i.e. approaching them with the same attitude and granting them their own authority – is that this will elevate their position. From this understanding, we can then more comprehensively discuss and critique literary translations and apply theories of literary interpretation and reception aesthetics – among others. Elevating their position will also allow us to have a more fruitful critique from a translation studies point of view. It enables us to move away from discussions which are solely about the extent to which a translation is ‘inferior’ in comparison to the original work.

Bassnett corroborates this view, stating that “the growth of the translation studies discipline should go some way toward raising the level of discussion about translations” (Bassnett, 2014: 22). A primary reason for study into literary translations is that “[…] the focus on literary translation provides the discipline with high-quality evidence about ‘interfaces’ between cultures and about the linguistic challenges of translating. Hence it can inform theories, models of practice and research methodologies relevant to other genres, and vice versa.” (Jones, 2009: 153)

From this point of departure, the research at hand also proposes that any discussion of prose translations must include a bigger focus on the comparison of target texts (TT) to each other, rather than to the source text (ST). TT to TT assessment allows for a comparison of like items which can be perceived on the same level, as opposed to a comparison to the ST which will

6 always result in the TT falling short. Furthermore, elucidating the historical character of translations means that we acknowledge the direct impact of socio-historical circumstances and events on the production of the TT. Having done so, we can then more broadly apply and discuss theories of translation in relation to prose translations.

This study, furthermore, seeks to make a case for an amalgamation of translation theories, aspects of professional translation practice and historical contexts in the analysis of literary translations more generally, and specifically that of prose translations. A merging of all these aspects is necessary because of the complex nature of translation and because until now, discussions about literary translations have been based purely on subjective value judgement and a narrow view of theoretical models which have been used in a manner that always results in a bias in favour of the ST. An important question is: how can we discuss literary translations in ways that make a useable contribution to the discipline, as opposed to this current practice, and how can existing theories of translation play a role in this?

Seeking to place the focus more on the target setting, I have narrowed my analysis down to the translation theories of equivalence – specifically dynamic equivalence – skopos theory, and briefly comment on issues of foreignization and domestication. This kind of analysis places emphasis on the whole target context (target language, audience, culture, etc.) and already shows that changing target circumstances are one reason for the retranslation of the same works.

In order to conduct this study, I have selected two of Franz Kafka’s most widely-read works of fiction – Die Verwandlung and Das Urteil – taking into account their source context and analysing them as produced and read in English translation. I focus on two translations of each work, produced in the 1930s and 1940s (by Willa and Edwin Muir) and the 2000s (by Joachim Neugroschel) respectively. The reasons for this selection of translators are that the introduction of Kafka’s work in English translation is owed to the Muirs, and Neugroschel is a widely-read contemporary translator.

Moreover, the translations are selected because of their different times of production and this will aid in addressing the questions of the changing dimensions of translation as well as the reasons for the re-translation of Kafka’s work in different decades. Through the TT analyses I also comment on the complex nature of German-English prose translation and that

7 of Kafka studies and translation. Finally, I aim to verify the hypothesis that every generation of Kafka scholars will need their own translations of his works.

Literary translation previously had no ‘fitting’ place, always on the periphery of either studies in comparative literature or translation studies. Commenting on the state of translation studies as a whole, Bassnett states: “[o]nce seen as a sub-branch of linguistics, translation today is perceived as an interdisciplinary field of study and the indissoluble connection between language and way of life has become the focal point of scholarly attention.” (2014: 3).

Having found its position as a sub-discipline of translation studies, literary translation has seen many strides in the latter decades of the twentieth century. Literary products have become accessible, at a much higher rate, to readers outside of the culture and language in which they were produced. Any discussion of literary translation poses a number of challenges due to the subjective nature of reading and understanding any prose, and translating it. Furthermore, such discussion necessitates an understanding of the translator’s interpretation of the author and the source text, their translation methods, and any other influences on their process. Adding to the challenges is the fact that this information is rarely available.

While the parameters of this research are within the translation of German literary works into English and that of the selected Kafka works, I hope to contribute to more comprehensive studies of literary translations and to thoughts around how to raise the standing of literary translations in other contexts and languages.

Franz Kafka holds a well-established place in the canon of Modern German Literature, and is, according to Rolleston (2002:1), the most widely-read German-language author of the twentieth century. By day, Kafka was a lawyer at a workmen’s compensation insurance agency – a job which he loathed and did not consider work, but rather a waste of time which interfered with his writing. He considered himself a victim of his legal work (Jagow & Jahraus, 2008: 109f.).

Kafka is renowned for his three novels (Das Schloß (1926), Der Proceß (1925) and Der Verschollene/ Amerika (1927)), and a large number of novellas and short stories. For the purposes of this research project, I will concentrate on two of Kafka’s most widely-read short works and compare two different English translations of each. Das Urteil, first published in

1913, and Die Verwandlung (1915) have been translated both by Edwin and Willa Muir and by Joachim Neugroschel as The Judgment1 and The Metamorphosis respectively.

A key factor to note about the two selected texts is that they have a common theme, broadly stated: a troubled relationship between the protagonist and his father. Kafka’s difficult relationship with his own father is a widely researched2 theme which had great influence on his work. Due to this thematic parallel, both source texts have similar emotive, morbid language and include descriptions of the difficult relationship between the protagonist and his family. Focussing on this theme allows me to compare similar textual components (i.e. words, expressions and emotive language) in analysing aspects of the various translations, thus making it easier to assess the level of (dynamic) equivalence in each of the works, as they are held against each other.

A significant motivation for this research is that it seems such a comparative study has not been undertaken; that is, one that specifically contrasts the semantic and syntactic aspects of Kafka’s writing in English translation, while placing translations in their translator’s context, and including this in the study of the target texts. What is also of importance is the translators’ own interpretation of Kafka’s works and its influence on their reading and the final translation product.

According to Neugroschel, in his earliest works Kafka tested certain expressionist and surrealist innovations; “shredding syntax [and] short-circuiting imagery” (Neugroschel, 2000: xii). It can thus be said that from his first writings he challenged contemporary literary norms. This then new, surreal and unusual writing is what has made Kafka a subject of interest, not only in the literary context, but also in the contexts of linguistic and translation analysis. Furthermore, Kafka’s work endures, despite (and no doubt due to) the fact that there is “no grand vision and no narrative culminating in [a definitive interpretation]” (Rolleston, 2002: 1); it thus remains elusive and continues to invite close reading and study.

1 The translated title “The Judg[e]ment” has been published both with and without the “e”; the Muir and Neugroschel versions I have used are without the ‘e’. 2See: De Albuquerque, J.D.C. 2011. "On Kafka’s ‘Letter to my father’.” International Forum of Psychoanalysis, 20:4, 229-232 and Müller, M. 2008. “Kafka und sein Vater: Der Brief an den Vater“, in: Von Jagow, B. & Jahraus, O. (Eds). 2008. Kafka-Handbuch: Leben-Werk-Wirkung. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht. Pp.37-44.

In Chapter 1, I provide background to literary interpretation and translation, as well as the current challenges to the study of literary translations.

In outlining my methodology in Chapter 2, my point of departure is that we, as translation scholars, need to acknowledge the more elevated place of literary translations in the wider framework of the discipline. This may include engaging with all the complexities of literary translation and discussing translations more broadly, and in line with translation principles. In preparation for my TT discussion in Chapter 4, I outline my theoretical basis and raise a few considerations for comprehensive discussion of TTs and their overall setting.

Chapter 3 discusses the translation of Kafka’s work into English, which spans approximately seven decades, and gives an historical insight into the editing and translating of the original works. This leads into a socio-historic contextualisation of the selected translations: the translators’ own interpretations of Kafka, their commissions, publications and response to their translations, where possible. Furthermore, I provide context on the selected source texts – briefly discussing their interpretations and later merging this with the comparison of the target texts. I also briefly examine the reception of Kafka’s work within the various eras of the selected translations, and their reception within the target readership of the Muir and Neugroschel texts.

In Chapter 4, I place each of the original works in their context so as to provide background for the comparative study. I then use the selected translations to demonstrate the possibility of a study which merges theoretical, practical and historical elements.

In Chapter 5, I seek to verify my two hypotheses, namely: i. Translations, like original literary works, can be considered social history, and ii. Every generation of Kafka readers will need their own translations of his work(s).

In conclusion, I show the evidence for the historical nature of translation and bring together the reasons for the necessary higher standing of translations. I also briefly comment on developing trends in the discipline, how these may be applicable to non-Indo-European languages and what they potentially mean for existing theories in translation.

CHAPTER 1: CONTEXT OF THE RESEARCH AND SITUATIONAL OVERVIEW

1.1 LITERARY INTERPRETATION AND TRANSLATION

Below I conduct a brief exploration of literary interpretation, viewing interpretation partly through the lens of textual criticism and partly as an extension of literature. The purpose of this brief outline is to show that literary interpretation is an important part of the translation process and that translation is (arguably) the most useful and influential result or ‘by-product’ of interpretation.

By placing the study of literary translation at the centre of this thesis, I aim to answer some of the questions that still exist around literary interpretation: how do we interpret (Kafka’s) writing? If translation is deemed a rewriting and thereby a manipulation of the original work: who translates Kafka; under what circumstances (influences; ideological ‘constraints’), and for whom? I address these questions in Chapter 3. My own questions, in addition, are: Why do new translations of the same works keep appearing, and how can literary, socio-historical and translation theories help us provide answers to this? These are addressed in Chapters 4 and 5.

A primary challenge is that it is difficult to speak of a definition of literature itself, and that what is defined as literature is based on subjective value judgment. A work or a tradition which is considered literary is therefore not ‘valuable’ in itself, but is ascribed value by those who receive it. Furthermore, this value is transient because it is ascribed by particular people, for particular reasons, at a certain time (Eagleton, 1996: 11). Interpretation is therefore complex and largely dependent on individual or group understandings. What is important, however, is not so much the process of interpreting, but the resultant product(s).

Lefevere (1992) calls extensions and interpretations of literature, such as editing, anthologizing, historiography, criticism and translating, “rewritings” (Lefevere, 1992: vii) of literature and suggests that these rewritings are responsible for the general reception and survival of literary works among ‘non-professional’ readers - the majority of readers in contemporary societies. These rewritings no longer function as ‘low-level’ activities in the broad framework of interaction between literary products, their readers and society at large (Lefevere, 1992: 4). Non-professional readers, furthermore, have increasing access to works

11 because of their rewritings – as is shown by the increasing reach of Kafka’s works through translation.

Rewritings of literary works thus create images of a writer, a work or even an entire literature and the study of rewritings should therefore not be neglected, given their impact (Lefevere, 1992: 5ff.). These created images exist(ed) parallel to the realities of their time and we should consider that they are produced in service or under the constraints of certain ideological and poetological currents.

The important questions about the study of literary rewritings are therefore: who rewrites; under what circumstances; and for which audience? Rewritings moreover manipulate original works - to some extent - to suit the dominant currents of their time (Lefevere, 1992: 7f.). Translation is potentially the most influential of rewritings due to its ability to project an image of the author and their work into another culture (Lefevere, 1992: 9). As shown in Chapter 3, in the very early era of Kafka scholarship and translation, translator interpretations had a significant influence on the public perception of Kafka and his work.

Literary interpretation has been greatly influenced by the more philosophical concept of hermeneutics, which was originally confined to the interpretations of sacred scriptures. During the nineteenth century, however, hermeneutics broadened its scope to include the problem of textual interpretation as a whole (Eagleton, 1996: 66). Maintaining the idea that interpretation is a search for meaning, twentieth century literary scholarship viewed the question of meaning as a central challenge to interpretation due to the fact that meaning can be expressed in a number of different ways, yet remains the same.

Moreover, meaning is arguably fixed because it is identical to what the author had in mind or intended at the time of writing. Literary meaning, even when seen as what the author intended, is thus static and resistant to historical change – although its interpretations may vastly vary (Eagleton, 1996: 67). Discussing meaning as the intrinsic value of a text, Lefevere (1992) similarly holds that the intrinsic value of literary works stays the same despite what meanings may become attached to them over time.

[…] the poetry of John Donne remained relatively unknown and unread from a few decades after his death until his rediscovery by T.S. Eliot and other modernists. Yet it is safe to assume that the “intrinsic value” of his poems must have been the same all along. Similarly, many “forgotten” feminist classics originally published in the

twenties, thirties, and forties of our century have been republished in the late seventies and eighties. The actual content of the novels was, presumably, no less feminist then than it is now, since we are dealing with exactly the same texts. The reason why the republished feminist classics are not forgotten all over again lies not in the intrinsic value of the texts themselves, or even the (possible) lack thereof, but in the fact that they are now being published against the background of an impressive array of feminist criticism, which advertises, incorporates, and supports them. (Lefevere, 1992: 1f.) Lefevere raises an important point which is not only applicable to literary works, but also to translations. As theories of literature and interpretation develop, newer schools of thought can indeed be applied, retrospectively, to older works. Furthermore, the same literary and interpretative analyses can be applied to translations. Since the development of Kafka translation and scholarship, Kafka’s works have been read (both in the original and in translation) through a vast range of interpretative lenses – from viewing them as religious allegories (e.g. Muir 1933), as expressionist literature (e.g. Stern 1972), to naming him a classical modernist (e.g. Harman 1996), and many more. These ‘shifts’ of understanding are especially important in the translation context because completely different audiences and cultures receive Kafka (in translation) and I expand on this in Chapter 3.

Eagleton similarly holds that as a literary work moves from one cultural or historical context to another, new meanings can be derived from it and these may have never been anticipated by the author or the contemporary audience for which the work was produced. Interpretation is therefore situational – moulded and constrained by the historically qualified criteria of a particular culture (Eagleton, 1996: 71).

Not all works are, however, produced ‘for’ a particular audience or culture. For Kafka, writing was much more than an expression of literary creativity. It was an outward manifestation of a hidden and powerful inner world, which existed independent of his social existence (Sokel, 1978: 42). Writing was also a place for him to express his grief in longing for a loving and supportive father; a way to communicate this grief, since communication was impossible in real life (Sokel, 1978: 44). “It was the region to which the son could flee and which he cultivated because it was the one area in the world where his father’s powerful influence did not extend.” (Sokel, 1978: 44). Furthermore, in various diary entries and letters Kafka expresses his dissatisfaction with his work, and we know of his direct orders left to Max Brod, that his unpublished works be burned (Butler, 2011: 1).

Petr (1992) similarly expresses that “texts acquire meaning and value only through the process of their reception by socialized readers whose input comprises varied degrees of ability, emotion, interest and need.” (Petr, 1992: 45). As an important part of the construction of meaning, reception is also an activity contained by the conventions and limitations of a given social, cultural, individual and situational context. The literariness of a text, therefore, is determined in the process of literary communication and the attention changes from the text itself to its interactions with individuals (Petr, 1992: 45f.).

A significant development of hermeneutics has been that of reception aesthetics or reception theory because it examines the role of the reader in literature. One can categorise the shifts of literary theory into three parts. First, there was a focus of theory and interpretation on the author in Romanticism and the nineteenth century. In the age of New Criticism this shifted to interpretation of the text; and thirdly, there has been a discernible shift of attention to the reader’s interaction with and interpretation of the work (Eagleton, 1996: 74). The significance of literary texts is, indeed, materialised in the act of reading. “For literature to happen, the reader is quite as vital as the author.” (Eagleton, 1996: 74).

The genesis and applications of reception theory will be expanded on in greater detail in Chapter 5 as this speaks more directly to the socio-historical nature of literature and translated literary works.

Interpretation can, in addition, be viewed as an act of translation because “each interpretation transposes something into something else” (Iser, 2000a: 5). This process of transposition creates a difference between the original subject matter and the new register into which it was transposed, and this difference which is opened up by interpretation is called a liminal space. This liminal space, furthermore, most possibly contains a resistance to translation, yet also drives interpretation to overcome this resistance. Thus, interpretation is an attempt to narrow the same space it has produced (Iser, 2000a: 6).

Interpretation has, therefore, always been an act of translation. It always changes whatever is being interpreted into a different register – a different code. This code is made up of viewpoints and assumptions that offer an angle from which the subject matter is to be approached; yet simultaneously, it outlines the parameters into which the subject matter is

14 to be translated for the purpose of understanding. This displays the fact that interpretation takes place within historical situations that are beyond our direct control (Iser, 2000a: 6).

Whenever we interpret a work, the register into which we ‘translate’ it serves as a stepping stone to deeper comprehension. Moreover, if interpretation must cope with the resultant liminal space of transposition, then interpretation is principally a performative act as opposed to an explanatory one (although performance is mostly mistaken for explanation). Viewed as a performative act rather than explanatory one, interpretation does not need a frame of reference in order to be valid. “[F]or an explanation to be valid, one must presuppose a frame of reference, whereas performance has to bring its own criteria” (Iser, 2000a: 7).

Iser raises a number of interesting considerations. In the context of prose translation, it is inevitable that each translator will bring their own reading and interpretation (which can be valid) to the text. On the other hand, how much of the interpretation they impose onto the text is, or should be, limited by considerations of the context of the source text’s production and the target audience and culture for which they are translating. This is corroborated by Iser’s above statement that interpretation offers an angle to understanding a work, while it prescribes its parameters at the same time. The importance of this cannot be underpinned enough, since there are many more varying interpretations for a literary text than for any other translatable subject matter.

Furthermore, it may be fruitful for a translator to view some existing translations of a work– especially if it has been retranslated multiple times, as this may give valuable insights, and aid them in avoiding translation mistakes. This is especially important in the translation of Kafka’s work because, as will be seen in Chapter 3, Kafka translation is wrought with a complex history of not only vastly varying interpretations of Kafka’s work, but also concerns of the publication and editing of his original manuscripts.

Due to the intricacies of the translation process I therefore believe that, more so than any other ‘result’ of interpretation, translation does need a frame of reference in order for its product to be valid – and this frame of reference may or may not be the translator’s own interpretation. Literary translation is not itself explanation, but needs explanation because of the numerous methods employed, differing vocabulary choices among various translations of the same works, and vastly different interpretations of authors and their works. Translation

15 cannot be viewed as “performance” (Iser 2000a: 7) because it is not creation, but re-creation. That is, the liminal space between the literary ST and the TT is already limited by the fact that the translator is obligated to convey the author’s semantics, and not their own. Thus, the manner in which the Muirs or Neugroschel (or any other translator) recreate Kafka for their audience requires explanation because when we read Kafka in translation, we miss out on the ‘true’ Kafka (or at least on the one we would have created for ourselves) and need – even deserve – explanation of the Kafka we are now reading.

In hermeneutics, the task of the interpretation has been to interrelate what is explicit with what is implicit. More contemporary paradigms of interpretation, however, raise the question of what the limits of interpretation are, and show an attempt to develop mechanisms to cope with the spaces that interpretation opens up (Iser, 2000a: 8). Two important foci of interpretation have been textual interpretation and frames and parameters of interpretation. These two points pose a challenge as they both limit interpretation, yet cannot be dispensed with.

With regard to the interpretation of canonical authors this elucidation means providing access to the canon, and the parameters of this access are provided by the cultural code of the contemporary reader (Iser, 2000a: 31). An interpreter of a work offers what they consider the meaning of a canonical author to be and seeks to make their interpretation as palatable as possible. This method becomes increasingly complex due to the diversified aspects that may be taken into account – which relate not so much to the canonical text, as to the framework into which the interpreter seeks to transpose it (Iser, 2000a: 31f.).

The critique of works must therefore aim to leave canonical works better understood than they were, thereby making the text accessible to the contemporary situation. “[As] situations change, the perception of previous commentators may become irrelevant or may have to be ‘rectified’ in order to make the canonical author fit new needs” (Iser, 2000a: 32). This reality contradicts a traditional notion of literary interpretation which was the belief that an exhaustive understanding of the canonical author will be achieved. As more understanding is offered, more commentary and criticism arise (Iser, 2000a: 32). Critique is therefore no longer an authoritative assembly of literary texts, but can now be considered cultural capital. The main task of interpretation, then, has become making works accessible, including presenting and teaching them (Iser, 2000a: 39).

These more contemporary ideas of literary interpretation (as explicated by Eagleton and Iser) show the importance of interpretation in the process of literary study more broadly, and display the importance of those who ‘mediate’ – editors, historiographers, translators, etc. – between the literary text and the society that receives it.

Before I conduct a detailed exploration of these points at issue in the following chapters, I begin by tracing the twentieth century development of literary translation and giving insight to the current challenges of the study of literary translations, with a view to exposing an area of translation studies that needs to be thoroughly interrogated.

In the early 20th century, Walter Benjamin offered a definition of translation as a mode, explaining that “[t]o comprehend it as mode one must go back to the original, for that contains the law governing the translation: its translatability” (Benjamin, 1923: 16). He viewed it as a transition of subject matter, proposing that a translation is in fact an ‘afterlife’ of the original text (Benjamin, 1923: 16). Theoretical study and the practice of translation were largely based on linguistic approaches to the process, which focussed solely on the source text.

This meant study into, for example, what Jakobson (1959:2) terms “the meaning of words and the interpretation of verbal signs”. A decade later, Nida conversely stated: “In view of the fact that one can translate without knowing anything about linguistics, even as one can speak a language without being a student of the science of language, many persons have concluded that translation is scarcely even an aspect of applied linguistics” (Nida, 1969: 483).

Translation was later newly defined not in terms of the relationship between the source and the target texts, but in terms of the overall textual purpose (Halverson, 2010: 380). This stemmed from the development of the Skopos theory by Katharina Reiss and Hans Vermeer in the late 1970s. Skopos reflects a shift away from a purely linguistic approach to translation to one that is more functionally and socially centred and takes into account the target audience (Schäffner, 2001: 235). Vermeer describes: “To translate means to produce a text in a target setting, for a target purpose and target addressees, in target circumstances” (1987: 29). Skopos theory also allows the translator to explore and express cultural and historical contexts. The task of the literary translator can be seen as “a subjective activity at the centre of a complex network of social and cultural practices” (Bush, 2001: 127).

Arguably more than any other type of translation, literary translation challenges the translator to apply a skopos approach to translating – taking into account the much broader contexts of both the source and target texts. In the context of Kafka translation, beyond having the mammoth task of allowing the target-language reader to understand the context of the author and his work in their own language, the translator has to convey – or attempt to convey – Kafka’s literary stylistics. This raises the central challenge to Kafka translation: interpreting Kafka. There are a number of vastly differing interpretations and therefore very little agreement on how to translate Kafka – varying from different translations of the same source-text title, to different vocabulary, syntactical and semantical choices on the part of different translators. A more in-depth discussion of this central challenge follows in Chapter 3.

Beyond this exploration of context and interpretation it is valuable to explore the extent to which translations, as the medium through which Kafka can be named “the most widely-read German-language author of the twentieth century” (Rolleston, 2002: 1), achieve formal and/ or dynamic equivalence. Such an exploration may help address the question of why new translations of Kafka’s works are still emerging.

The mere fact that anyone would attempt a new translation of a work of fiction implies that they feel that what is already available is lacking in some respects; it could even be argued that each generation may well need its own translation of those works retrospectively referred to as ‘the classics’, thus affording each translator the opportunity to be the representative of their own generation.

According to Lefevere (1978: 7) “translation, as a metaliterary discipline, is better suited to make literary products accessible […] than any other metaliterary activity [or] commentary.” Translation is, after all, the means through which Kafka’s works have come to “live as much abroad as they do in [his] native tongue.” (Corngold, 2004: 178)

Literary translation in general poses a greater challenge than more ‘structural’ forms of translation such as commercial translation. Jones (2009: 152) defines literary texts as fulfilling an aesthetic rather than transactional or informational function, aiming to provoke emotive reaction. As such they contain images and sometimes ambiguous or indeterminable meanings and are characterised by so called ‘poetic’ language (Jones, 2009: 152). These are but a few

18 of the reasons that contribute to the challenge of reading and translating literature, which make it necessary to adopt different methods in the translation process and, as mentioned above, different methods to reading and translating Kafka in particular.

By implication, therefore, in the context of literary translation, how close the meaning of target text is to that of the source text is more important than in any other form of translation – due mainly to the fact that the effect on the target text reader needs to mirror, as closely as possible, the effect on the source text reader3. In the literary translation process, elements such as equivalence, communicative purpose and style come into play. Jones regards the question of equivalence to be whether the translators ever have the ability to replicate “the complex web of stylistic features” (2009: 153) found in numerous literary texts; and asks, if not: what should be prioritised?

He further outlines communicative purpose as the question of how much loyalty to the source writer should be prioritised by the translator, and finally captures style as encompassing two main elements. Firstly, style defines the writer’s “cultural space-time” (2009: 153) and secondly, writers might deliberately use non-standard styles – such as dialect or one idiosyncratic to the writer (Jones, 2009: 153).

While it is important for a translator to be creative in manipulating language for the target reader and overall target context, I am opposed to the idea that a translation should in any way be considered a creation. A translator, while s/ he plays a valuable role in the transfer of literary and other works, is not an author. The reader needs access to Kafka’s work and meaning (in this case) and not to the Muirs’.

Elliot rightfully claims that “the task of the translator is to ‘move’ […] from one semiotic value system […] to another” (2010: 133). Furthermore, in Elliot’s view “[a]dding to that task of the translator’s activity, crucial paralinguistic aspects such as tone, style, and rhythm mean that translators of literary texts, in particular, are always confronted with the impossibility of their

3Conversely, a commercial translation may have the sole aim of attracting buyers in another country/ culture and a given product may be advertised with completely different words from the original, as long as this purpose is achieved – that is, the language is localized for the target audience.

19 work.”(Elliot, 2010: 133). It is the translator’s duty, I believe, to not only identify but also to transfer these paralinguistic aspects.

According to Elliot, translation decisions, major and minor, should not be dismissed and readers need to be aware of these (Elliot, 2010: 133) He names the instance of Crick’s translation of Kafka’s Brief an den Vater, which directly translates as ‘Letter to the father’; Crick opts to title it ‘Letter to his father’ (Elliot, 2010: 133). This subtle difference may already affect how the reader identifies the father, which is all the more reason readers need to be aware of such translation decisions.

Elliot argues that such decisions as changing a title altogether or omitting a definite article reveal some of the significant problems of translation, such as varying translator/ reader imaginations and understandings (Elliot, 2010: 133). Furthermore, choices in titles or words seem to summon up connotations and associations not necessarily connected to the meaning of the original (Elliot, 2010: 134).

Thus the question arises as to why it is necessary for translators to include prefaces, notes, introductions or other methods of explanation to their published translation. The scholar, to understand and/ or critique the work, needs to understand the lens through which the translator reads the author. Elliot suggests that this is even more important to Kafka scholars due to the numerous, competing works of what he refers to as “second generation” translators (Elliot, 2010: 136), i.e. the generation after the Benjamin and Muir eras. The insights into translators’ texts allow us to gain their understanding of the source text, and to agree/ disagree with or at least compare their TT with another.

There are a few instances regarding the translations of Kafka’s contemporaries where this has already been put into practice. In his 1996 collection of translations of selected Thomas Mann works (Thomas Mann: Death in Venice and Other Stories), David Luke provides an extensive introduction. He refers in detail to Mann’s own assertions about his work and briefly traces the production and reception of works over the course of the author’s lifetime. Furthermore, he substantiates his interpretation of Mann’s work by quoting diary entries and other non- fictional works published by or about the author.

He also informs the reader on Mann’s own literary, societal, psychological and spiritual influences and how these shaped the characters of his works. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Luke critiques Lowe-Porter’s translations of the same works, using certain text excerpts as examples, elucidating the problems with Lowe-Porter’s mistakes and explaining the reasons for his own different choices.

This introduction provides answers for any scholar or reader. Whether or not one agrees with Luke’s interpretations, methods and translation choices, there is a full account of the translator’s process and reasoning, which serve as a ‘justification’ for the differences between his and any other translation. This is an immense aid to the fellow scholar in understanding and offering criticism on the translations and gives helpful and interesting insight to the ‘non- professional’ reader. Munday holds the same view and elaborates: “Translator’s prefaces are a source of extensive information on the translation methods adopted in earlier centuries. However, they tend to be rarer in current publications in English and sometimes their function is now justifying the production of a new translation of a classic work.” (Munday, 2012: 51)

It is difficult to pinpoint reasons for the rarer occurrence of prefaces to translations in the current century. It is also unclear whether or not Munday is criticising the function of prefaces as a justification of new translations of old works. I nonetheless believe that this should be viewed as a positive function.

This discussion of introductions or prefaces already displays an historical element to the discipline and products of translation and emphasises their importance. This factor will be addressed in the context of Kafka translation (in Chapter 3) and discussed in more depth when looking at the historical nature of literature and translation in Chapter 5.

1.2 THE STATE OF LITERARY TRANSLATION STUDIES: CONTEXT

Like in many facets of translation studies, strides are yet to be made in the area of literary translation – both in the process of the production of literary translations and in the reception and criticism of its products. What follows is a brief outline of the challenges to the study of literary translations and the solutions that have been proposed in the discipline thus far. For a fruitful discussion of literary translations, as this thesis emphasises, it is important to straddle the line between translation theory and practice, and I am inclined to agree with approaches to literary translation study which encompass a combination of both these facets. Bassnett similarly holds:

The need for systematic study of translation arises directly from the problems encountered during the actual translation process and it is essential for those working in the field to bring their practical experience to theoretical discussion, as it is for increased theoretical perceptiveness to be put to use in the translation of texts. To divorce the theory from the practice, to set the scholar against the practitioner as has happened in other disciplines, would be tragic indeed. (Bassnett, 2014: 19)

The purpose of the following overview is to show existing conceptions regarding literary translations. As will be seen, they primarily speak to notions of judging or assessing the quality of literary translations. Thus far, this assessment or evaluation is largely the manner in which literary translations are critiqued, and this results in a subjective enterprise which further segments this already multi-faceted area of the discipline.

As stated in my introduction above, I propose that study into literary translations needs to involve a broader and more useful interrogation which will have the more useable results of attributing translations their historical character, thereby elevating their standing and acknowledging the significant impact of their socio-historical settings on their production. This will, furthermore, allow for more comprehensive TT to TT comparison and discussion, and contribute to finding the reasons for the retranslation of the same works. As France (2000) points out: “Theorists and scholars have a far more complex agenda than deciding between the good and the bad; they are concerned, for instance, to tease out the different possibilities open to the translator, and the way these change according to the historical, social and cultural context.” (France, 2000: 3).

There is, interestingly, a much more advanced status of poetry translation – as a sub-branch of literary translation – than that of prose translation. Within the field of literary translation, more time has been devoted to investigating the problems of translating poetry than any other literary mode. [Nonetheless], rarely do studies of poetry and translation try to discuss the methodological problems from a non-empirical position, and yet it is precisely that type of study that is most valuable and most needed. (Bassnett 2014: 92).

Existing studies of poetry translation, furthermore, either offer evaluations of different poetry translations or translators’ individual statements on their proposed solutions to the problems that they have identified with a given poem translation (Bassnett, 2014: 92). As is the case with prose translation, this evaluation approach results in subjective statements which do not allow for sound scholarly discussion.

Offering criteria to be used in ‘judging’ translations, Nida (1964) outlines three fundamental measures. Rooted mainly on the principle of equivalence, Nida (1964: 182), refers to (a) the general efficiency of the communication process, (b) the comprehension of intent (by the target recipient), and (c) the equivalence of response as three standards that can be applied to the evaluation of any type of translation. On the note of efficiency he elaborates: “[t]he efficiency of a translation can be judged in terms of maximal reception for minimum effort of decoding” (Nida, 1964: 182). The second criterion, comprehension of intent, can be more clearly defined as the accuracy with which the meaning of the source-language message is represented in translation (Nida, 1964: 182). This can have a twofold orientation.

The third criterion in judging translations, equivalence of response, is oriented toward either the source culture (in which case the receptor must understand the basis of the original response) or the receptor culture (in which case the receptor makes a corresponding response within a different cultural context). The extent to which the responses are similar depends upon the cultural distance between the two communication contexts. (Nida, 1964: 182)

Nida makes a clear distinction between being more source-text orientated (formal equivalence) and being more target-text orientated (dynamic equivalence). Thus, before translation theory as a body of knowledge began to really develop, he offered a choice of two possible approaches to discussing literary translations. In this thesis, I primarily focus on

23 target text analysis. That is, I concentrate on the dynamic aspect of equivalence and briefly comment on differences between the selected target texts. This includes a comparison of word choices that are informed by the era in which each translation was produced.

Nida suggests that the notion of comprehending the original intent is a more fruitful way of ascribing what had traditionally been referred to as “accuracy”, “fidelity”, or “correctness” (Nida, 1964: 182). While comprehension of intent is not intended to sidestep these issues of fidelity, it is aimed at placing them in their “right perspective – in terms of a total theory of communication” (Nida, 1964: 184). Comprehension needs to be analysed in terms of “comprehending the significance of a message as related to its possible settings” (Nida, 1964: 182). How this criterion is used also depends on whether a translation is more on the end of the spectrum of formal or dynamic equivalence (Nida, 1964: 184).

Lauscher (2000) believes that answering the question of translation quality assessment must begin with answering the question of where theory and practice can meet. She narrows down two main branches of translation evaluation: equivalence-based approaches and functional approaches. Referring to Reiss’ (1971) model of a systematic approach to translation quality assessment – which is based on finding target-language equivalents for source-language texts and individual text units – Lauscher determines that “translation evaluation can no longer be a matter of word-for-word comparison of target and source texts” (2000: 152). The challenge, however, remains that equivalence – whether semantic, pragmatic, functional or otherwise – is difficult to determine and does not serve as a clear standard for assessment (Lauscher, 2000: 153f.).

Despite the above criticism, I maintain that equivalence serves as a good theoretical basis for comparison. A translation only exists because the original work exists. As such, the translator is obligated to carry across the semantics of the author. As mentioned above, however, a solely source-text based exercise will always result in the translation falling short. This is not useful and only perpetuates the view of translations as ‘inferior’. I would therefore like to extend Lauscher’s assertion: equivalence cannot be completely disregarded; what makes the difference is the manner in which it is used as a measure. For the purpose of my target-context focus, dynamic equivalence is still useful, and I expand on this in Chapter 2 below.

Various other purely equivalence-based models have their shortfalls, and van Dijk/Kintsch express most clearly the reason for this: “[…] text comprehension is a strategic and interpretative procedure influenced by the knowledge and expectations of readers, and also the situation in which a text is read, the purpose for which it is read, and so on.” (1983).

According to Lauscher (2000: 154), their findings infer that it is not possible for a text to exist outside the reader’s own interpretation and that interpretation can be influenced by cultural, social and individual elements which lie outside of the text. With particular regard to literary translation, van den Broeck’s 1985 model seeks to determine the degree to which source and target texts can be factually equivalent. He suggests that a hypothetical reconstructing of the source text’s textual relations and functions can be used as a yardstick for comparison of source and target texts (van den Broeck, 1985: 57).

This model implies that there is no ‘one best translation’, but rather that “assessing the quality of a translation means comparing different translations […]” (Lauscher, 2000: 156). Functional approaches do not seem to offer tactics that would yield elements any easier to define (than equivalence approaches). They are based on the notion that translation is determined more by factors relating to the target culture than it is determined by the source text. As such, models of this approach which seek to study source and target texts separately by examining how appropriate the text structure and text function are, have their own weaknesses. They allow, for example, for the possibility of a defective source text – that is, the critic may find that the source text structure is not appropriate for the function of the target text. (Lauscher, 2000: 157f.).

I am inclined to differ with this supposed implication of functional models. Even though it can generally be agreed that the possibility of a defective source text is a weakness of functional models, the possibility of a faulty source text is not so rare in the translation of Kafka’s work. The development of Kafka translation is partly based on the discovery and later rectification of errors found in Max Brod’s reconstructions of Kafka’s texts, which were the source texts of the early translators.

Lauscher concludes that the above approaches to translation evaluation are not helpful for the reality of the practical translating process and resultant translations (2000: 158). Through a brief case study, she suggests that scholars be aware of the entire translation and post-

25 translation editing process and how this influences the resolution of problems of untranslatability. These may include idioms and fixed expressions, outdated parts of language, or words and phrases with no equivalent in the target language. Furthermore, what is deemed an ideal translation depends largely on the context of the translation situation; we must be ever mindful of the fact that we do not usually have insight into the translator’s reading, interpretation, practical process, dictionaries used, reason for translating, etc. Scholarly models, while helpful in some regards, need to be more flexible to allow for these varying contexts and need to have a useable yardstick. Given the complexity of the origin of translation strategies, a comprehensive conceptual tool is needed (Lauscher, 2000: 161).

The issue of understanding the entire translation context, while not always possible, is important for the research at hand. In Chapter 3 below, I give a brief outline of the historical context of source text editions, publications and translations of Kafka’s work in order to provide some necessary insights into the complexities around Kafka translation, and the different source texts used by translators. These insights may offer, to some extent, explanations for the lexical and syntactical choices on the part of translators.

In order to improve our knowledge of actual translation processes, their impact on translations and translation quality, the profession should make them more accessible, e.g. in the form of translation comments, forewords, product specifications, etc.; this is something that translation scholars have repeatedly called for […]. As long as our knowledge of actual translation process remains limited, proponents of scholarly models of translation quality assessment must acknowledge the speculative side of those models. (Lauscher, 2000: 161)

Thus, comparing source and target texts, even though a comparison tells us the differences between them, “does not allow us to identify such differences as mistranslations or errors; [it] does allow prescriptive judgement in our own terms, as long as these terms are explained and justified” (Lauscher, 2000: 161f.). Lauscher’s assertion also corroborates Lefevere (1992) and Munday (2012) quoted above in emphasizing the need for translator introductions, prefaces, or commentaries.

In sum, the evaluation of any translation cannot purely depend on a subjective value judgement. Reiss in 1971 had argued that an objective evaluation cannot be, but exists only in the interpretation of the one evaluating; and yet another notion purports that judging a target text depends on the existence of a model target text (Lauscher, 2000: 163). I believe

26 the latter notion would not be helpful either, as it would raise further questions of who created the model target text and who defined it as ‘model’. Finally, she concludes that “[t]ranslation quality assessment and the judgement of translations are a matter of communication, co-operation and consent” (Lauscher, 2000: 164) on the part of those who are involved in translation practice.

According to Hermans (2014: 7), the primary issue in the study of literary translation is that translation studies occupy, at best, only a marginal position in literary studies. Furthermore, “the conventional approach to literary translation […] starts from the assumption that translations are not only second-hand, but also generally second-rate” (Hermans, 2014: 8). This is one important reason for the current study. As long as we continue to view literary translations as ‘second-rate’, we deprive ourselves of the opportunity to fully apply translation theories to translations; to perceive translation as a socio-historical enterprise; to acknowledge and assess their significant role in taking authors and works into other societies, and, potentially, to find ways to assess their quality.

Similar to Hermans, Lefevere expresses: “Translation studies can hardly be said to have occupied a central position in much theoretical thinking about literature. Indeed, the very possibility of their relevance to literary theory has often been denied since the heyday of the first generation of German Romantic theorists and translators” (Lefevere, 1982: 3). He also adds that we must find more constructive ways of using translations than holding them against the original and “spot[ting] the mistakes” (Lefevere, 1982: 4).

I must agree with Lefevere’s statement. Beyond obvious errors of literal or mistranslation, anything else deemed a mistake would be based on the particular subjective view at a particular time. Nida explains this very clearly:

Actually, one cannot speak of "accuracy" apart from comprehension by the receptor, for there is no way of treating accuracy except in terms of the extent to which the message gets across (or should presumably get across) to the intended receptor. "Accuracy" is meaningless, if treated in isolation from actual decoding by individuals for which the message is intended. Accordingly, what may be "accurate" for one set of receptors may be "inaccurate" for another, for the level and manner of comprehension may be different for the two groups. Furthermore, comprehension itself must be analyzed in terms of comprehending the significance of a message as related to its possible settings, i.e. the original setting of the communication and the setting in which the receptors themselves exist.

(Nida, 1964: 183)

Discussions that are solely based on what is accurate or inaccurate will therefore have no fruitful results. A more objective, theory-based, and justifiable approach will aid in moving away from a purely subjective view of any given translation. Any such approach should, in addition, be merged with methods in professional translation practice and include considerations of meta-textual influences such as socio-historical circumstances.

Hermans (2014: 8f.) holds that this convention of spotting the mistakes, to which Lefevere refers, reduces the study of translation to a mere means of displaying the outstanding qualities of the original work by highlighting the inadequacies of various translations of it – resulting in a source-orientated exercise which “becomes repetitive, predictable and prescriptive […]” (Hermans, 2014: 9). This is one reason why the current thesis underscores TT to TT comparisons, rather than TT to ST comparisons.

In a period of over twenty years (Lefevere 1982 – Hermans 2014), there have not been many positive strides toward comparative analyses of translated works and elevating them to a better position – to be seen as an adequate extension of literature and as history in the same vein. As stated above, it is only through translated works that authors such as Kafka, who belong to the canon of a nation’s literature, have become as widely read as they are today (Rolleston, 2002: 1). The continued translation and retranslation of canonical works can only serve as evidence of the fact that translated works are held in a similar regard to their originals and can, like literature, be considered social history. As expressed by Benjamin (1923: 16) a translation always comes later than the original, and any translation of an important work of world literature marks a stage of the original’s continued life.

Concluding that a source-text orientated approach is not fruitful for translation analysis, Hermans (2014: 10f.) suggests a descriptive, target-orientated approach which is functional and systematic and which includes an interest in the norms and constraints that govern production and reception of translations – similar to Lauscher above. He further argues that “[i]nstead of providing guidelines for the next translation to be made and passing judgement on any number of existing ones, the descriptive method takes the text as it is and tries to determine the various factors that may account for its particular nature” (Hermans, 2014: 13). This will challenge the researcher to work without preconceived notions of what makes up

28 translation and where to draw the line between translation and non-translation. Such notions would only be normative and restrictive (Hermans, 2014: 13).

It is ever evident that a target-orientated approach is necessary and that “the investigation of translational phenomena should start from the empirical fact, i.e. from the translated text itself” (Hermans, 2014: 13). Furthermore:

In consequence, much of the practical work done in this descriptive and target- oriented context is also of an historical nature, because it deals with existing texts which, to all intents and purposes, are (or were, at the time) regarded as translations by the cultural community concerned. That being the case, the old essentialist questions about prototypical essence of translation are simply dissolved, and the way is open for a functional view. (Hermans, 2014: 13)

According to Schweissinger, the idea of analysing translated literature is not well-established in the research community (2014: 1). That is, the analysis and/ or comparison of different translations of well-known works is not a widespread practice in translation studies. In outlining the difficulties, and boundaries to translating German literature, he notes the primary challenge: “Translation is always interpretation, especially if one has to translate literature. Literature is often ambiguous in its message and often much-loved because it remains open to interpretation. While dealing with the source text, the translator him- or herself becomes […] a creative force.” (Schweissinger, 2014: 2).

Benjamin similarly expressed that there is an essential part of a literary work which may be seen as unfathomable, mysterious or “poetic” – something that perhaps the translator can only reproduce if they too are a poet (Benjamin, 1923: 15). Furthermore, “[t]he fact that translation is always interpretation, and therefore needs explanation, has not found its way into the consciousness of a broad public.” (Schweissinger, 2014: 5). This lack of awareness of the fact that translations need explanation poses a great challenge to analysing translations, and Schweissinger’s statement echoes Lauscher’s assertion that such information has been “repeatedly called for” (Lauscher, 2000: 161).

It can be concluded that a focus on the target-text situation is a more fruitful endeavour. However, it is clear that sound, applicable strategies must be developed to make analysis go beyond what it has currently been offered. Schweissinger asks the valid question: “[b]ut how to do this in a fair and consistent way, without simply referring to obvious translation

29 mistakes, or simply presenting the main part of a translation with some marginal comments?” (Schweissinger, 2014: 17). In answer to this, he proposes an analysis of the characters in canonical works and how these are (re)created in the target text. “Any translation has a certain effect on the perception of the character and on the interpretation of his value, inner- worth or specific qualities. Every translation will unavoidably create a shift in meaning and perception” (Schweissinger, 2014: 19).

Schweissinger (2014: 19f.) further suggests that the manner in which the translator depicts character development and complexity, and how these fit into the plot of a text is important. By implication, then, meaning is also tied up in the characters of fictions and how the translator projects images of these for the target audience is equally important for their transfer of meaning. Finally, he expresses that despite ground-breaking work, “[…] translation studies is still not well enough established as a discipline. We struggle to find a book that simply informs the reader about the value of a specific translation.” (Schweissinger, 2014: 24).

Although I am inclined to agree with Schweissinger, I believe the idea of ascribing ‘value’ must be approached with caution. The very notion of value indicates a subjective judgement on the part of the person assessing a translation. If this aspect of translation studies is to develop, we need to move away, as much as is possible, from value- or opinion-based strategies to methods which are widely applicable to various target text contexts and include both established theoretical and practical considerations.

Bassnett similarly states that there is a growing body of research into translation which involves a more complex agenda than has been seen so far in the translation studies field. As research into the field expands and historical data become more accessible, important questions begin to surface about the role that translation plays in making authors part of literary canons outside their own culture, about strategies translators employ and the norms and discourse of translation at a given time. Furthermore, new developments include studying the problems of measuring the impact of translations and, more recently, the problems of identifying an ethics of translation (Bassnett, 2014: 4).

Two significant objectives of this thesis are indeed to show the historical nature of translation, as I discuss in Chapter 5, and to argue that their status needs to be elevated given their impact on the societies that receive them – as I also show in discussing the applicability of reception

30 aesthetics to the reading of translated literature and the emerging re-translations as a response to changing societal needs. As indicated by Eagleton (1996) and Iser (2000a) above, translations make canonical works accessible outside their own culture. Furthermore, following from Lefevere’s (1992) notion that rewriters – including translators – have the significant responsibility of projecting an image or perception of a writer and their works into another culture, it is important to keep record of the methodologies used in the process of their production and to bear these in mind for any nature of critique.

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGICAL AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 EQUIVALENCE IN TRANSLATION

As outlined above, a primary focus of this thesis is to contribute to finding useable ways of critiquing literary translations within the framework of translation studies. My intention in conducting a brief comparison of the selected TTs (in Chapter 4) is to suggest that this is one way of looking at prose translations which is more systematic. Furthermore, this approach necessitates a merging of theory and practice as well as an inclusion of some socio-historical analysis of the target text setting – which are also called for by France (2000) and Bassnett (2014).

Within this three-fold approach, I have selected the translation theory of equivalence, showing how dynamic equivalence – as defined and discussed below – is one useable theoretical tool for TT analyses. As is shown, the current notion of dynamic equivalence is based on the potential that the TT has to have the same impact on its target audience as the ST had on the source audience. I am advocating for an extension of this notion: dynamic equivalence should also aim to observe the impact of TTs on their respective target audiences. This will be of even more interest when the same ST has been translated by two or more translators into the same target language but for different audiences – as is often the case with Kafka’s works, and many literary works which form the part of a foreign canon. I maintain that existing theory can and should play a role in the contemporary study of literary translations because it forms a valid basis for comparative studies, such as TT to TT analyses, and takes a step in moving away from purely subjective discussions. In order to offer a holistic view of the concept of equivalence, I discuss its various facets.

If target texts are to be discussed in relation to each other, some tools are needed for this process. While the principle of equivalence goes some way in making a contribution to valuable discussion about literary translation, it does still have the drawback of allowing inevitable subjectivity when used in TT comparison. Nonetheless, as there is currently no systematic discussion about literary translations, it can help us in striving towards this. Jones highlights the fact that principles such as equivalence are useful in the study of literary translations: “[…] the interminable debates over equivalence, whether framed as word-for-

32 word or sense-for-sense or as a literal-communicative-elegant triangle, are relevant to literary translation but much less to scientific and technical translation, say.” (Jones, 2009: 153).

Identifying equivalence is a central (and not uncontroversial) concept in translation theory, Kenny defines equivalence as “the relationship between a source text (ST) and a target text (TT) that allows the TT to be considered as a translation of the ST in the first place” (Kenny, 2001: 97). It is established on the basis of words – in both the source and target texts – supposedly referring to the same thing in the ‘real’ world. This concept can be further defined through pragmatic/ dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence. The former denotes the potential of target-language words to have the same effect on their readers that the source- language words had on the source audience; the latter refers to source- and target-language words having the same orthographic or phonological features (Kenny, 2009: 97).

An earlier, and perhaps simpler, explanation is provided by Venuti:

[Early theory of translation] distinguishes between “dynamic” and “formal” varieties of “correspondence,” later replacing the term “dynamic” with “functional” (Nida and Taber 1969). […] Varying sets of terms derive from traditional dichotomies between “sense-for-sense” and “word-for-word” translating which date back to antiquity, to Horace, Jerome, [and] Augustine. (Venuti, 2004: 122)

Scholars of the late 1970s to 1980s (such as Koller and Snell-Hornby) differentiated between four types of equivalence. Initially, equivalence was universally established on the notion of source- and target-language words referring to the same thing in the ‘real world’ – that is, their referential or denotative equivalence (Kenny, 2009: 97).

The second type is the idea that source-language (SL) and target-language (TL) words would trigger identical or similar associations in the minds of the native speakers of the two languages, which is connotative equivalence (Kenny, 2009: 97). My view is that this is an improbable notion. Language is directly linked to, if it is not also a product of, the social environment in which the readers find themselves. Even among speakers of the same language – say an English-speaking South African reader and an English-speaking Japanese reader – associations and connotations to any ordinary word (‘rice’ for instance) can differ. A third idea, which can be called text-normative equivalence, suggests the SL and TL words can be used in the same or similar contexts in the respective languages; where the fourth

33 type, pragmatic or dynamic equivalence, has its basis on the notion that SL and TL words would have the same effect on their respective readers. Perhaps this can be further defined as emotive response (Kenny, 2009: 97f.).

Baker (2001:230) offered an extension to the four existing typologies, referring to textual equivalence. This speaks to the similarity in the flow of information in both source text (ST) and target text (TT) and the cohesive roles that ST and TT devices play in their texts. Newman (1994) emphasises that not all translation variables are relevant in each situation; thus, translators must select which elements are to be given priority over others – establishing a sort of functional equivalence (Baker, 2001:231). This notion of functional equivalence is also akin to skopos theory. Skopos is concerned with the function and purpose of translating. The function of a TT is determined by the initiator, and constrained by the situational and cultural background of the TT user (Schäffner, 2001: 235f.). The elements the translator opts to prioritise therefore need to be informed by the manner in which they seek the text to function in its target setting. The various facets of theories of equivalence raise crucial and helpful questions about any resultant translation.

Baker (2011) narrows down three main types of equivalence. Equivalence at a word level, above a word level, and at a grammatical level. She further notes the challenge of equivalence “above a word level” in, for example, finding suitable equivalents for words with certain collocational meaning(s) in one language, or idioms and fixed expressions –“frozen patterns of language which allow little or no variation in form and carry meanings which cannot be deduced from their individual components” (Baker 2011: 9ff., 52, 67). Regarding grammatical equivalence, a language’s lexical structure and grammatical system influence the manner in which we analyse and report experience (Baker 2011: 68f.).

The two main dimensions of grammar – morphology and syntax – determine what information is to be expressed and impose restrictions on how messages can be formulated. Thus, in translation, grammatical choices are largely obligatory, while lexical ones are largely optional (Baker, 2011: 67). Bassnett, in a similar vein, advocates for a broader understanding and application of equivalence, stating that any notion of “sameness” (Bassnett, 2014: 128) between the source language and target language should be discounted. “What the translator must do, therefore, is to first determine the function of [a given part of] the source language

34 and then to find a target language [counterpart] that will adequately render that function.” (Bassnett, 2014: 128).

In the context of Kafka translation, I would agree that most of the choices in both morphological and syntactical elements are obligatory. German syntax allows for a potentially unending number of sub-clauses to exist within a main sentence, enabling a sentence to span an entire paragraph or even page – a characteristic feature in Kafka stories. The English translator therefore has the challenge of capturing the meaning and flow – what Newman and Baker respectively refer to as functional and textual equivalence – of any given work, or part of a work.

The conceptual differences between formal and dynamic equivalence may be summarised as follows:

Dynamic Equivalence Formal Equivalence . Semantic fidelity. . Spelling, syntax and The extent to which the target punctuation texts, in comparison to each other, . Lexis found only in have reconstituted the meaning of the source the source text. This will highlight language and other their different translator choices challenging textual and address issues of translatability elements such as or untranslatability. fixed expressions . Target orientation and idioms. The manner in which the target text is situated in the target context. That is, what elements of the text the translator chooses to focus on, based on their desired purpose and function of the text in its target setting. . Stylistic quality. The clarity of the lexis, which partly depends on the style of the source language and on the peculiarities of the target idiolect.

This is the guiding lens for my comparison in Chapter 4 and I also bear the following considerations in mind as I discuss the (four) translations: What is the target text situation? Is

35 there any information regarding the translator’s reading, interpretation of author and source text, process or methods of translation and materials (texts, dictionaries, computer software, etc.) used? Are there prefaces or introductory notes that express the reasons for translating and any other influences outside of the text that may have affected or shaped the translation process? Who was/ is the desired target audience of the work?

As I have shown, equivalence is a well-established, multifaceted principle of translation studies, which also relates to concerns of translator fidelity as well as skopos. Beyond this theoretical focus, due to various interpretations, my study is partly centred on the father-son complex in Kafka’s work. This is an area of Kafka scholarship that has received considerable attention and is easily accessible (see: Müller, 2008). Remaining within this parameter also allows for a more focussed study, and avoids positivist approaches to understanding the author’s ‘meaning’.

Duttlinger expresses that the varying and often conflicting responses to the author’s work reflect shifting theoretical paradigms, meaning that “Kafka scholarship reflects the more general developments within literary criticism over the last century” (2013: 125).

In order to conduct a broader comparative study, which includes consideration of the translator’s context, I situate each target text in its own context, and discuss aspects beyond textual elements in Chapter 3. I therefore compare the overall translation situation, including commissions, source texts used by translators, publications, and the reception of the target texts in their time and setting, and other relevant, available historical information. With this broader comparison, I acknowledge the fact that translation is becoming an ever more complex enterprise and give possible answers for the question of why there are increasingly more translations and re-translations of the same (Kafka) texts.

In her discussion on translating prose, Bassnett (2014: 119) reiterates the concern of lacking translator statements regarding their methodology, and states that, conversely, there are a number of detailed explanations by poet-translators regarding their method. Furthermore, there are numerous challenges to translation of narrative texts and varying responses to the translation of even individual sentences. In pointing out the ‘failures’ of a prose translation, she acknowledges that the view of any failure is “first and foremost a deficiency in reading”

(Bassnett, 2014: 125). Secondly, she views identifying failure not as a passing of judgement, but “as pointing towards a whole area of translation that needs to be looked at more closely” (Bassnett, 2014: 125).

This indicates that even the most current work on translation studies acknowledges the lack of information on the translation process and still cannot provide any criteria for evaluating literary translations which are not purely based on individual value judgement.

2.2 POSSIBLE PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS TO THEORY

The second of the three approaches I am using to conduct this study involves looking at what professional practice may be able to bring to the discussion. As Bassnett expresses, in establishing systematic study into translation, we should not “divorce” (Bassnett, 2014: 19) the theory from the practice. It is the responsibility of both the scholar and the practitioner to mould their crafts together for the development of the discipline.

One premise of this research is that translation studies, at least in the last five decades of its development, has addressed concerns of defining and theorising translation; developing models on how to translate, how to apply theory to translating, and advancing other forms of translation such as dubbing, subtitling and interpreting. There have also been major developments in machine translation and translation of cinematic texts (Bassnett, 2014: 141). What the translation scholar community has failed to do up to this point is to find methodical ways of viewing and critiquing the translation of prose.

This lack of systematic study can be attributed to the fact that literary translation poses a greater challenge than more ‘structural’ forms of translation such as commercial or machine translation. It fulfils a more aesthetic rather than transactional or informative function (Jones, 2009: 152). Nonetheless, I believe that given the many strides that have been made in the various sub-disciplines and the opportunity that translation studies has had to define, develop, change and compare various facets of translation, broader discussion of prose translation and its methods is needed.

In the brief overview below, I begin by surveying practice in the South African context and broadening this to selected international practices, then briefly commenting on the connections that can be made between theory and practice. Having shown the current

37 theoretical discussion around prose translation, the purpose of this outline is to demonstrate how practitioners understand and approach the process of literary translation and its resultant product(s). This will highlight theoretical influences on practice and offer useful devices which can contribute to the extension of theoretical principles.

In South Africa the field of language practice, which includes translation and interpreting among others, is not regulated – that is, anyone with a knowledge of two or more languages can offer translation services. According to the South African Translator’s Institute (SATI), a good translator must have sound theoretical knowledge of their field and a natural ability to understand, interpret and transfer the underlying meanings of any given text. The skill of translation is to produce a text in a manner that remains faithful to the original, yet sounds as though it were produced in the target language. The literary translation field is considered highly demanding as the translator is also expected to have an artistic touch (2015: online).

SATI furthermore outlines assessment criteria (which are used in assessing the accreditation examinations of prospective members). Examinations are assessed on the basis of a system of major and minor errors originally drawn up by the American Translators Association. Major errors are defined as gross mistranslations, omissions of words or inclusions of information not found in the original, or important failures of the target language grammar. Minor errors refer to mistranslations that do not completely distort the intent of the original and an omission of words that results in only slight mistakes in the grammar of the target language (SATI, 2015: online).

Beyond the South African context, the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) has standards for translation, which are mainly concerned with the documentation and presentation of translations. This standard takes two aspects into account, namely, the extent to which a translation can be considered a substitute for the original document, and to what measure it must be possible to identify the original document (ISO, 2015: online). These standards are therefore generally more concerned with aspects such as bibliographical details and there are no established standards concerning the content of translated texts. Other standards, in Europe, focus on defining translation services, translation contracts, and developing translation terminology for specialised fields (ISO, 2015: online).

Providing insights into translation assessment in the United Kingdom, Munday (2012: 49f.) discusses the criteria for initial qualification of translators. Four categories are examined: accuracy, which is deemed as a correct transfer of information and evidence of complete comprehension; appropriate choice of vocabulary, idiom, terminology and register; cohesion, coherence and organization; and accuracy in technical aspects of punctuation, etc. Similar criteria are found in UNESCO’s Guidelines for Translators, with accuracy still as the first requirement.

The notion of ‘accuracy’ can be seen as the modern linguistic equivalent of older translation studies terms such as ‘faithfulness’. Although there is an attempt at a specific definition of accuracy, there is an evident influence on these terms from terminology introduced by Nida in the 1960s (Munday, 2012: 49). Even though the criteria are an attempt to formalize clear rules for translations, evaluator reports are still detailed with examples of errors, ideas of ‘good’ translation, and the vague, controversial vocabulary of early translation theory. These include criticisms such as ‘awkwardness’ and translations that are considered ‘unnatural’, or ‘literal’. The praises of the translated texts are equally vague and subjective (Munday, 2012: 50). There is therefore an extent to which “old metaphors of translation persist even in contemporary writings” (Munday, 2012: 51).

This reveals the fact that the notion of evaluation of any kind is problematic for both theory and practice. Munday, I believe, is emphasising the point that the discipline needs to go further in establishing systematic theoretical and practical approaches to translating and to the reading and criticism of translations. This supports a primary objective of this thesis which is to amalgamate models of both theory and professional practice, as well as contextualising the translated text and acknowledging the extent and effects of its meta-textual, socio- historical influences.

The German Bundesverband der Dolmetscher und Übersetzer (BDÜ) sets out general requirements for their professional translators. Among other stipulations, they require a general higher education qualification, advanced skills in the native and foreign language, sound practical expertise, knowledge and mastery of professional translation tools, and methodological skills in handling issues typical to translating and interpreting(BDÜ, 2015: online).

The above offers insight into what is expected of translating professionals. Munday (2012) shows the UK context as one example where there has been an influence of theoretical models such as skopos – which is seen in the requirement of a knowledge of cultural contexts of other countries. From a professional standpoint, there is thus a general sense of good approaches and techniques that will ideally result in sound translations which fulfil the purpose of their commission and are (hopefully) acceptable to the recipient. What is still lacking is consideration regarding the translation product, rather than the process.

The Modern Language Association (MLA) offers guidelines to translation reviewers:

All reviewers can to some extent assess the translation’s readability, stylistic qualities, scholarly value, and overall interest to its target audience. In principle (the qualifier is necessary because editors sometimes intervene), every sentence, every word, every punctuation mark represents a deliberate choice by the translator in the attempt to capture not only meaning but also structure, idiom, diction, rhythm, tone, voice, and nuance. A translation must occasionally violate the norms of Standard English in order to convey the characteristics and idiosyncrasies of the source text. (MLA, 2015: online) The aspects which the MLA draws attention to provide for a good discussion of any target text in its target setting. The different (lexical and stylistic) choices that translators of the same work make are indeed another reason why TT to TT comparison can provide a deeper discussion about translations by looking at the cultural influences that result in varied choices and aspects of the target setting which may have made certain choices obligatory (such as finding an idiom suitable to the target culture). Understanding these choices and how they are informed by the manner in which the translator envisages the translation functioning in the target setting allows for an informed study of the interfaces that have merged in the process of the TTs production. Furthermore, it allows for informed and useable review of (literary) translations – as the MLA suggests.

The Association then proposes questions that are important points of consideration in reviewing: do any supporting materials shed light on the translation challenges and solutions adopted? In a fictional work, does the discursive register correspond to the context? Other considerations include whether the translator offers new insights and emphases if they are translating a work that has been translated before, and the purpose and audience for which the translation has been produced (MLA, 2015: online).

Although we can conclude that the MLA is primarily referring to reviewers in the professional or scholarly sense, some criticism has been made of translation reviewing in general. Reviews of translations may be seen to represent ‘reactions’ to the text and the author – thus providing information concerning the recipient culture’s view of the translation itself. A notion influenced by reception theory is that reviewing examines the manner in which a work either challenges or disappoints the reader’s general expectations of the work (Munday, 2012: 232). There are, however, two drawbacks to the review of translated works. Firstly, reviews do not focus on the translation process and, secondly, many reviewers are unable to compare the target text to the source text (because they are only readers of the target language). Currently, there are no set models for the analysis and review of translations, merely numerous ‘paratexts’ (Munday, 2012: 233).

The MLA provides what are perhaps the broadest conceptions about the translation process and the reading and reviewing of translations. These are also potentially applicable to literary translation. As can be seen, there is emphasis on both the target context (the dynamic equivalence lens) and (to a lesser extent) the source context (the formal equivalence lens). I believe it is fair to conclude that due to the subjective reading and interpreting stages that go along with translating – especially the translation of literary works – there may well never be completely objective way of studying translations. That said, in order to remain as neutral as possible in comparison or study of any kind, we as translation scholars should aim to be guided by existing theory and, where possible, practice. Within my study, I keep dynamic equivalence as one measure for the TT to TT comparison.

CHAPTER 3: KAFKA IN TRANSLATION

3.1 BACKGROUND TO THE EDITING AND TRANSLATING OF KAFKA’S WORK

In the translation process, a reliable and comprehensible source text is evidently needed in order for the translator to convert language and meaning for a target audience. In Kafka translation and text editing this has been a controversial and complex matter. It is thus important to address the editions that led to the compilation of Kafka translations as its own branch, because “any survey of Kafka scholarship is tied up with the complex history of Kafka editions, for the question of what does or does not constitute the ‘original’ Kafka text remains a thorny one, both for the readers of German and, even more so, for those relying on translations” (Duttlinger, 2013: 122).

Max Brod, personal friend and executor of Kafka’s literary estate4, began to arrange and edit Kafka’s work in 1924. Closer study of the original manuscripts and Brod’s editions later revealed numerous errors in Brod’s attempts. Fortunately, Brod’s editions of the original works have been superseded by new German editions scrupulously edited by leading Kafka scholars; thus the errors in the first translations, for example, can be attributed to the fact that the translators only had Max Brod’s “deeply flawed” (Harman, 1996: 295) editions to depend on.

According to Elliot (2010: 135) translators such as Anthea Bell and Breon Mitchell have produced reliable translations, based on the fact that they used Malcolm Pasley’s critical editions5 as source texts. Furthermore “their era relieves them of any obligation to ‘harmonize’ or ‘smooth out’ Kafka’s sometimes allegedly ‘rough’ syntax or semantics” (Elliot, 2010: 135). The engagement with the translation of Kafka’s texts therefore constantly evolves, and access to his world through translation has become easier for the non-German- speaking world (Elliot, 2010: 135).

Malcolm Pasley dedicated his time and expertise to editing the original manuscripts and producing a well-regarded 1982 German edition of Das Schloß. Editing a large number of the source texts, he points out a number of mistakes in Brod’s editions, as Brod misread many

4Brod published a posthumous edition of Kafka’s works – ignoring Kafka’s explicit instruction that all unpublished manuscripts should be destroyed after his death (Butler, 2011: 1). 5 Compiled together with Hans-Gerd Koch and Michael Müller.

42 words and phrases which he changed and distorted the meaning of parts of Kafka’s works and titles of stories. Thus in 1992, for example, he found that the title of the well-known parable Eine alltägiche Verwirrung (1917) had been completely misread, and ought to be Ein alltäglicher Heroismus. According to Greiner (1992: 2), the discovery of this particular mistake affected numerous dissertations: on the one hand, existing studies on the story would now have been based on faulty texts; conversely, this new discovery of errors would incite further study. Various mistakes can moreover be found within other stories such as Die Brücke (1916) (Greiner, 1992: 2).

Litowitz asserts that Pasley is perhaps the leading English-language authority on Kafka, and provides insightful commentary on his editions:

Pasley's reconstruction of the original German texts corrects Max Brod's ill-advised alterations, such as inserting punctuation where Kafka never intended and overriding Kafka's midsentence ending to The Castle (Harmon [sic], p. xi). The Pasley editions do a nice job of reconstructing Kafka's original texts, and for this reason they have been generally well received (Smith 1998; Alter 1998), although some critics have argued that the translations are insufficiently "Kafkaesque" owing to the use of informal phrases and colloquialisms (Ozick 1999; Adler 1998). (Litowitz, 2002: 116)

Corngold, in a preface to a 2007 edition of selected stories, acknowledges Pasley’s editions, naming these new and reliable (Corngold, 2007: viii). Pasley’s 1982 edition of The Castle was “hailed” (Harman 1996: 295) by scholars such as Ritchie Robertson as “decisively alter[ing] our understanding of Kafka” (1996: 295). Harman is also critical of the Brod editions, using Pasley’s edition for his own translation of Das Schloß and commenting on Brod’s annotated German edition and the Muirs’ translation, pointing out the differences between these and his own rendition in a comparative analysis (Harman 1996: 299).

Brod took many liberties in his editions, such as changing the orders of chapters of novels and giving titles to unnamed stories (Duttlinger, 2013: 123). While he achieved his aim of presenting Kafka to the world in a reader-friendly format, the flaws of his approach soon became obvious. A comparison between Brod’s first and second editions of the novel Der Proceß (1925 and 1935 respectively) revealed an astounding 1,778 unexplained discrepancies between both of his own editions (Duttlinger, 2013: 123).

Kafka’s work in English translation was introduced to the English-speaking public when Willa and Edwin Muir published their translation of Das Schloß (The Castle) in 1930. After the commercial failure of this translation, the Muirs followed their publishers’ suggestion to focus on Kafka’s shorter works and published the translations The Great Wall of China in 1933 and The Trial in 1937 (Robertson 1984: 639). Die Verwandlung (The Metamorphosis) – possibly Kafka’s most well-known story – was first translated by A.L. Lloyd in 1937; however, this work was surpassed by the Muirs’ 1966 version. The shorter story Das Urteil was first translated into English by the Muirs as The Judgment in 1946.

Beyond translating, Edwin Muir also compiled a large body of criticism in presenting Kafka’s work to the British and North American public – introductory notes to translations, essays, and reviews. These have subsequently been either dismissed or misrepresented (Robertson, 1984: 638). According to Robertson, Edwin Muir, in collaboration with his wife Willa, did more than anyone to introduce Kafka to the English-speaking world – translating the three novels and the bulk of the short fiction (Robertson, 1984: 638).

Following this early era of translations of Kafka’s work, Ernst Kaiser and Eithne Wilkins translated sections of The Castle in 1954 and later some biographical material such as The Blue Octavo Notebooks and The Diaries of Franz Kafka. This team was also the first to translate Kafka’s Brief an den Vater into English in 1966. Perhaps due to the fact that other translations were overshadowed by the Muirs’ (France, 2000: 333) there is no literature, scholarly commentary or review on the work of Kaiser and Wilkins. A further reason for the absence of criticism may be that they did not translate any of Kafka’s popular works (barring excerpts of The Castle) and focused more on autobiographical texts such as the notebooks and diaries.

Durrani (2002: 214) argues that the early translators had little option but to work from Max Brod’s editions as best they could and to look to Brod whenever they encountered challenges. Furthermore, whenever Brod released new material, this was appended in the translations by Kaiser/ Wilkins (Durrani, 2002: 214). According to Corngold, Kaiser/ Wilkins succeeded the Muirs as the foremost translators of Kafka’s work in America (2004: 186), yet he criticises their translation of the Letter to His Father as an “unwitting rectification […] [which] aims to cover up moments that jolt and shock” (Corngold, 2004: 186).

Corngold offers a very subjective view of the Kaiser/ Wilkins translation and identifies some translation mistakes as these instances that conceal ‘shocking’ parts of the source text. These can, conversely be perceived to be plain linguistic mistakes where the translators had no intent of covering up the supposed jolts and shocks of Kafka’s text – which themselves are Corngold’s own interpretation. Any number of views can be derived from the Kaiser/ Wilkins text and this is precisely the reason for a call for translation analyses of any kind which are not based purely on subjective value judgement.

It is apparent that the early translators encountered the same challenges – having no other editions and interpretations but Max Brod’s. Corngold’s critique of Kaiser/ Wilkins may therefore be severe if one considers the context within which they worked, while Corngold himself had the advantage of drawing on the development of Kafka scholarship and translation. Furthermore, through the work of Kaiser/ Wilkins, other translators such as Hannah Stokes/ Richard Stokes were able to translate the Brief an den Vater – titling their 2008 edition Dearest Father.6

Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, both the Muir and Kaiser/ Wilkins translations remained widely recognised. We then encounter a gap in the English translation of Kafka’s works during the mid-to-late 1970s and early 1980s. It was not until 1986 that a new translation of Die Verwandlung by Stanley Corngold appeared (following the overlooked 1937 Lloyd, and the more recognised 1966 versions by the Muirs), titled The Metamorphosis. As yet, there is little commentary or critique of his work.

Breon Mitchell, with his 1988 version of The Trial, was one of the first to compete with the Muirs’ translations which were still popular at the time (Elliot, 2010: 135). Mitchell and other translators of his time (like Anthea Bell and Joyce Crick), “effected a transfer of Kafka texts from their own time to twenty-first-century conditions of reception” (Elliot, 2010: 135).

Breon Mitchell’s version renders the novel in language which suggests new subtleties in the character behind the narrative voice, limning the spectral geometry of a

6Interestingly, from the earliest decade of translation to the twenty-first century, a number of Kafka’s works have been translated by pairs of translators. This may have had some effect on the final product of the work. Aspects like consistency and various stylistic nuances which would not necessarily come up for the work of a single translator would come into play.

haunted mind. Working with more of Kafka’s texts than previously had been available, he adds twists absent from the 19277 English version by Willa and Edwin Muir. (Pinker 1999: 137) Reviews such as this refer to the ‘quality’ of a new translation in so far as an older one can be drawn on as a base for comparison. This raises the question of whether a translation can only be considered ‘good’ if it is ‘better’ than an existing one. That is, by implication, the Muirs’ translation was ‘good’, until Mitchell’s text enlightened readers to new ‘twists’. Furthermore, Pinker raises a very important point for the present research, which echoes Elliot’s assertion of an “historical dimension” to Kafka translation: we must recognise that Mitchell’s 1988 version, for example, is enhanced by the very fact that he worked with “more of Kafka’s texts than had previously been available” (Pinker, 1999: 137).

A more contemporary era of Kafka translation then begins with translator Joachim Neugroschel, who released his first collection The Metamorphosis and Other Stories in 1993. Mark Harman followed in 1996 with The Castle, which was the first English translation of this story since the 1930 version by the Muirs. Harman, in a reflective essay on the above story, names his a “retranslation” of the work, and notes that Kafka translation is a “complex issue” (Harman, 1996: 291). His point of departure is that Kafka is a “conservative modernist” (Harman, 1996: 293), basing this on the fact that the writers in Kafka’s personal pantheon (Goethe, Kleist, Stifter, Hebel, Dickens, Flaubert, Dostoevsky and Walser) reflect his wavering between conservative-classical and modernist styles.

According to Harman, “[a]nother characteristically modern feature of the novel is the absence of a unitary style”. (1996: 293). Translating it, therefore, requires an extensive amount of “digging” (Harman 1996: 293f.). One must recognise that “the tempo of prose reflects K.’s inner state. When he is agitated, it is choppy. When K. loses himself in the labyrinth of his paranoid logic, it is tortuous and wordy” (Harman, 1996: 294). Like every translator, Harman effects an interpretation of Kafka’s meaning, choosing to focus on one aspect rather than another – on the tempo of prose, as opposed to Neugroschel’s focus on syntactical structure

7There are a number of discrepancies with dates of writing and dates of publication with the early translations. Some sources state the date of publication of this work as 1930, where there is nothing to support nor disprove this 1927 claim.

– with the result that reading his version of for example The Castle, is an altogether different experience to reading a translation of the same work by any other translator.

With yet another focus, Neugroschel comments on Kafka’s choice and use of language, stating that “Kafka’s oeuvre is a monument to Prague German” (2000: xi). While this analysis is insightful, and offers a refreshing perspective on Kafka interpretation, it may be limited. Kafka’s use of lexis and syntax is undoubtedly remarkable – complex, yet simple and strategically selected and combined to convey morbid thoughts or intense emotion. Neugroschel’s focus on linguistic aspects may, however be limited, seeing that there is much more to reading and translating Kafka and placing his work in the target context.

Corngold criticises Neugroschel’s statement, which is made in the introduction to his 1993 edition, claiming that Max Brod, as a “more trustworthy authority” (Corngold, 1994: 90), insisted that Kafka did not speak Prague German. Despite the criticism by Corngold in his 1994 commentary, Neugroschel (2000, pp. xi) maintains that Kafka used Prague German8. This misalignment of views is not only interesting, but also pertinent to the current research. Neugroschel’s choices in translating would most certainly have been influenced by his view that Kafka’s language is Prague German; however, it is not clear what source texts Neugroschel used9 for his own translations and no commentary of his on Brod or Pasley, for example, is available.

The need for a thorough introduction or commentary on translation choices is invaluable to the reader, researcher and fellow translator. One may disagree with a translation choice – be it for a single word, phrase or sentence – until one reads the translator’s explanation. In the context of this research, prefaces, introductions and/ or notes and explanations are also important due to differing opinions on the meaning of Kafka’s texts. Beyond the current focus on Kafka translation in particular it is useful for the development of methods for the translation process as we can build on and re-align (where necessary) theory and practice. Commentary and explanation also provide a good basis for literary critique.

8This was a form of German spoken in Prague in the 1930s and 1940s, differing only slightly from standard German and with little influence of the Czech language. See: Bachmann, A.R., 2013. “Das gesprochene Prager Deutsch in seiner letzten Phase”. Frankfurt: Germanistenverband der Tschechischen Republik 9This has been confirmed by my e-mail correspondence with Erica Goldman, who edited his 2003 edition. See appendix A.

Hannah and Richard Stokes contribute to this era of translation – releasing The Metamorphosis and Other Stories (excluding The Judgment) in 2002, The Trial in 2005 and (as mentioned above) the only other English translation of Brief an den Vater, published as Dearest Father in 2008. Michael Hofmann offered his translations of Amerika in 2002, A Country Doctor in 2006, and The Metamorphosis and Other Stories (including his translation of The Judgement) in 2007 and 2010 editions.

While some of the above-mentioned are less prominent translators of Kafka’s work and no scholarly review or commentary on their work is available, it is important not only to recognise their work, but also to view it as a testament to the fact that the translation of Kafka’s works has acquired an “historical dimension” (Elliot, 2010: 132); furthermore, that it is an ongoing enterprise reflects a range of attempts to offer new interpretations of Kafka. Both the Stokes and Hofmann works, for example, have received numerous popular reviews on the web – attesting to the fact that engagement with Kafka’s work and with translations of his work endures even beyond the academic sphere.

3.2 SELECTED TRANSLATOR CONTEXTS

Edwin and Willa Muir, translating Kafka in the 1930s and 1940s, held that the problem with which all of Kafka’s work is concerned is a moral and spiritual one; that it was about finding one’s true place in the community and acting in accordance with the will of heavenly powers (E. Muir, 1933: vii). It is thus clear that E. Muir is acting not only as the facilitator/ mediator of an exchange between two languages, but as an interpreter of Kafka’s meaning. According to Mellown (1964: 314), Edwin Muir’s own opinion differed from Kafka’s in that rather than looking at man and the powers that exist above him, he saw man and the world around him. He did, however, give much consideration to the idea of man’s quest for his ‘true place’ in the world (Mellown, 1964: 315).

The Muirs were faced with the challenge of finding him a place in the eye of the public. Mellown explains:

From the early 1930s [E.] Muir became increasingly aware of the individual's difficulty in finding a place in the disintegrating society of modern civilization; and his awareness of the problem may have been responsible for his finding it in Kafka. In 1933 the English public was not prepared to accept Kafka; four years passed before The Trial was published by Gollancz, followed in 1938 by America, published by Routledge.

(Mellown, 1964: 315) Providing more evidence of their reliance on Max Brod, at the beginning of this first translation of The Trial there were no introductory notes by E. Muir, but rather an epilogue by Brod. Subsequent publications do, however, include introductory notes and E. Muir’s own opinion of Kafka differed slightly after having read Brod’s biography on Kafka (Mellown, 1964: 315f.). E. Muir became more aware of the relationship between the author’s work and life, and held that a critic’s use of biographical material is justified because “[n]o imaginative writer chooses his theme; it is chosen for him by the experience which has most deeply affected him” (E. Muir, 1938: v). Kafka’s works were therefore considered as allegories or semi-allegories, with his main characters possessing the quality that they are not mere individuals, but images of man in conflict with fate. Furthermore, numerous points or stations exist in that conflict (Mellown, 1964: 316).

Woods (2014: 45) notes that despite the ban on Kafka’s works by the Nazis, his work became famous in English translation and the Muirs worked continuously, translating between 1930 and 1948. Moreover, much criticism is available on the Muirs. Due to the discovery of Brod’s errors by Pasley throughout the 1980s, the Muirs’ translations seem outdated – being based on Brod’s flawed versions. More contemporary translators (such as Joyce Crick, Richard Gray and Mark Harman) – basing their criticism on E. Muir’s forewords to translations and paratextual writing – claim that the Muirs made simple mistakes due to the fact that they were not fluent German speakers; they had no understanding of Kafka’s aesthetics because they were anti-modernists; they over-domesticated the texts, and saw Kafka through a theologically simplistic lens (Woods, 2014: 45).

While some of this criticism of the Muirs’ work may be warranted, I am inclined to view it as too severe. Even though they were not fluent German speakers, their contemporary publishers blindly trusted their work and they had much influence with regard to what was to be released next (Mellown, 1964: 314). Furthermore, Kafka was not the only German- language author they translated; their translations of Feuchtwanger, Hauptmann, Ludwig Renn, and Ernst Glaeser were published through various German publishing houses (Mellown, 1964: 312). The Muirs also felt the need to domesticate the German-language texts they were commissioned to translate as their audience was the British public and noted that it may not

49 have always been the way they wished to translate, yet they depended on translations for an income (Woods, 2014: 56).

I believe that the current state of Kafka scholarship and of Kafka in English translation is owed in part to the Muirs (and of course their publishers). Their contribution remains important and an understanding of the translators’ cultural history, their interpretations and criticism of Kafka, their limitations with regard to the German language, having Brod’s editions as their sole source and challenges with regard to the outbreak of war aid in reading their work and gaining insight into some of their translation choices. Words, phrases, idiomatic expressions, register, tone, omission of words or inclusion of words not found in the source text, breaking up or lengthening of sentences will all have been influenced by their translation context and I bear this in mind as I compare excerpts from the selected target texts in Chapter 4.

In a completely different view and context to that of the Muirs’, Joachim Neugroschel’s preface highlights Kafka’s use of Prague German, which, “was liquidated along with the Fascist era.” (Neugroschel, 2000: xi). His view is that much of Kafka’s writing was influenced by the historical, political, and social circumstances which shaped language in Jewish communities in Europe throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Neugroschel, 2000: iff.). Furthermore, he states that Kafka “satirized the [Eastern and Central] European attitude toward language10 yet employed language as his foremost instrument” (Neugroschel, 2000: x) and asserts that “[f]or Kafka, language is […] viewed – sardonically – as the hallmark of being ‘human’” (Neugroschel, 2000: x). Similar to the Muirs (and arguably every translator of a work of fiction), Neugroschel effects an interpretation of Kafka’s meaning by choosing to focus on one aspect rather than another.

Unlike the Scottish-born Muirs, Neugroschel was Austrian-born and was a fluent German speaker. Having lived in numerous places in his lifetime, he settled in New York in 1964 and became a literary translator after studying comparative literature at Columbia University six years before. He is renowned for translating over 200 books from French, Italian, Russian, Yiddish and German, by various authors including Chekhov, Dumas, Th. Mann, and of course Kafka (Gottesman, 2011:1).

10German was viewed as the language of civilisation, modernity and enlightenment by a large number of Jewish intellectuals in Eastern and Central Europe (Neugroschel 2000: x).

It is important to understand different contexts of the selected translators. The Muirs produced their translations in an era where literary and translation studies were far less developed than in Neugroschel’s time. In essence, they will forever be fixed in their era, and possibly ever more criticised as Kafka scholarship and translation evolve. This is also highlighted in the comparison of the various target texts.

Some insight is provided by the Translator’s Note at the end of Neugroschel’s 2000 edition of selected Kafka stories:

The selection of stories in this collection has been dictated by copyright constraints on the original German material. The contents follow the chronological order of Kafka’s publications and their integral structures. (Neugroschel, 2000: 318)

Apart from this brief excerpt, there is no accessible translator commentary – barring his introduction to the 2000 edition (The Metamorphosis, In The Penal Colony, and Other Stories) which I am using for the current research. In a 2006 magazine interview he stated: “I never read a book before translating it. No reason to. I do not translate the words literally. Only a bad translator would translate literally” (Neugroschel, 2006). In my view, this approach implies that this translator was more concerned about dynamic than formal equivalence.

It can then be supposed that this was also his approach to translating Kafka. Unlike the Muirs, he was not faced with the challenge of building the author’s reputation (which initially remained in the philosophical and religious spheres due to Max Brod and Edwin Muir) and this difference is also shown by his selective focus on the social, political and cultural influences on Kafka’s texts. This also offers an explanation for his unchanged view between his 1993 and 2000 editions. The knowledge of these differences between the translators and their contexts enables me to conduct a fair comparative study when holding the translations against the source texts and against each other. The context further allows me to justify instances where a text may be neither formally nor dynamically equivalent.

3.3 THE RECEPTION OF KAFKA’S WORKS AND THE RECEPTION OF TRANSLATED WORKS

According to Ackermann (1950: 105) during Kafka’s lifetime, Max Brod made many strides to acquaint the public with Kafka. Despite this, at the time of his death Kafka’s work was known only to a small circle of German and Czech writers. In 1907, two years before Kafka had ever published anything, Brod had already drawn attention to the unusual style of Kafka’s writing, and this was the first published reference to Kafka’s work. After 1909, there was no public reference to Kafka and the next article on the writer appeared in 1921. After Kafka’s death in 1924 the only references to the writer were obituaries and biographical essays by his contemporaries (Ackermann, 1950: 106).

Between 1925 and 1930, following the publication of Das Schloß (1926) and Amerika (1927), and the publication of the 1930 English translation of Das Schloß, fifty-five articles appeared on Kafka in Germany alone (Ackermann, 1950: 106). The Castle, translated by the Muirs, received six American reviews which were the first recognition of Kafka by English-speaking critics. The reception of the novel varied greatly and in Germany critics particularly made efforts to approach Kafka from various fields of inquiry. In 1932, due possibly to the changes of the political climate, only one article on Kafka appeared in Germany (Ackermann, 1950: 108).

The rise of the National Socialists to power in 1932 [sic] and a revaluation [sic] of literature according to a strong anti-Semitic bias caused a sharp decline of German references to Franz Kafka in the following years. Between 1933 and 1939 only eleven articles dealing with Kafka were published. […] After 1937, there is no more mention of Kafka in German periodicals during the Nazi regime. (Ackermann, 1950: 108)

In 1933 a publication of Beim Bau der Chinesischen Mauer in London effected no comment (Ackermann, 1950: 108). Outside of Germany, there was equally poor response to that of Kafka’s work in English translation. The Muirs’ translation of The Trial published in both London and New York received twelve reviews. Kafka was also translated in France and Brazil and twelve articles in four languages appeared in 1937 (Ackermann, 1950: 108). Following that response, the largest number of articles to appear in a single year was in 1946. Much like The Castle, critics disagreed on the merits of The Trial, some expressing that Kafka’s meaning escapes them. Amerika, translated by the Muirs and published in 1938 by Routledge in London and two years later, by New Directions, in the United States, drew little response. In

England, the translation elicited four reviews and only two responses from American critics. One American reviewer, Stonier, emphasised psychological elements of Kafka’s work and criticised many Kafka interpreters, claiming that they were responsible for a fossilized opinion of Kafka’s works (Ackermann, 1950: 109).

In the United States, interest in Kafka diminished during the first years of World War II, and only two articles referred to Kafka – one of which criticised the writer as symbol of the social decadence that was responsible for the fall of the Weimar republic (Ackermann, 1950: 110). Post-war interest in Kafka and his elusive art grew. In 1945, after World War II, there were sixteen published references to Kafka in various countries and several studies into psycho- analytical lenses to Kafka’s work and his relation to existentialism. Moreover, much of the available criticism at the time was in response to the three novels, as the shorter stories were still difficult to obtain in translation (Ackermann, 1950: 111).

Neumeyer (1967: 632) similarly notes that from the time of Kafka’s death through the decade of the major translations, the writer’s reputation in England grew slowly, reached an apex in the 1940s, and has maintained a relatively high level since then. In some countries, Kafka was translated before the 1930 Muir translations in England. The Metamorphosis appeared in Spanish in 1925 and in French in 1928. Eugene Jola translated Das Urteil, published as The Judgment, in New York in 1929 and by 1962 Angel Flores recorded 129 separate Kafka works in English translation (Neumeyer, 1967: 632).

In England, the tone for virtually all Kafka criticism was set in Edwin Muir’s 1930 preface to The Castle, wherein he expressed that the best way to read the work may be to regard it as a sort of modern ‘Pilgrim’s Progress’, bearing in mind, however, that the pilgrim’s progress constantly remains in question and will be the essential problem to the story. Furthermore, that The Castle is a religious allegory in which the hero’s desire is to resolve his salvation (Neumeyer, 1967: 632) – much like Bunyan’s The Pilgrim’s Progress of 1678. Since Muir held that Kafka’s work addresses moral and spiritual concerns and finding one’s true place in accordance with the will of heavenly powers, it is not surprising that he should see the journey of the protagonist of The Castle as a sort of pilgrim’s progress.

There is a lack of information on the response of (British and American) readers to the Muir and Neugroschel texts. Although there is some insight into Edwin and Willa Muir creating a spiritual view of Kafka and his work and setting the tone for early Kafka readership in England, it is difficult to determine what the readers themselves held; how they reacted to Kafka’s texts. Such information would have provided a more holistic socio-historical view and would have enabled this research to present a more in-depth understanding of how Kafka’s texts have been shaped and reshaped by the various societies who have received them over the decades – particularly in the 1930s to 1940s eras and in the 2000s.

Some commentary on Neugroschel’s work is provided on the cover of his 2000 edition of The Metamorphosis, In the Penal Colony, and other Stories. According to Bloom (2000) “Joachim Neugroschel’s version is an advance over previous translations of Kafka into English.” (Bloom, 2000). Hayman similarly expresses that “[…] Neugroschel has provided something that was badly needed – an accurate translation of Kafka’s stories into English. Kafka is difficult to translate, and the versions we all know – by Willa and Edwin Muir – are full of mistakes. Neugroschel’s translation is much closer to Kafka’s German.” (Hayman, 2000). This is similar to Pinker (1999) commending Breon Mitchell’s translations as offering “new subtleties behind the character of the narrative voice” (1999: 137). Popular commentaries and reviews on new translations do deem these to be offering fresh perspectives on Kafka, and evincing aspects like humour in the text which were formerly not brought to light. Worth reiterating is Pinker’s assertion that Mitchell (and we can assume other contemporary translators) are “working with more of Kafka’s texts than previously had been available” (Pinker, 1999: 137).

As stated in Chapter 2, what would be desirable are explanations by translators themselves. An exemplary case is that of Mark Harman. Harman (quoted on page 46 above) explains his own view of Kafka as a conservative modernist – claiming that Kafka sometimes wavers between classical and modernist styles. This offers us an understanding of how Harman reads and translates Kafka and may give a justification for Harman’s vocabulary choices in translating. Thus, even if we could perceive the style of Harman’s own target texts as conservative or rigid, we would have some understanding of his process and see his reasons for translating Kafka in his particular manner. Given that very few translators provide such insight, critiquing their text remains limited. There is, furthermore, no access to the

54 understandings and meanings that readers attach to translated texts. Reader reception has played a role in literary study and, as expanded upon in Chapter 5, the research at hand suggests that it can play a more significant role in the study of prose translation. A work’s reception in the target culture will undoubtedly differ from its reception by its source audience.

Apart from E. Muir’s view, which significantly influenced reception in England, criticism on Kafka’s works was also published by other English scholars: The first translations of Kafka being issued when they were, it is not surprising that his work should have been read with a political bias by Stephen Spender, who contrasted Kafka with the at that time most polemical Edward Upward. Jethro Bithell, in 1939, saw The Trial as "a Bolshevist satire on the machinery of law," though by 1959 he had decided that the book was, after all, the story of "the Jew in a Christian bureaucracy." The publication in Focus One of a symposium comparison of Rex Warner and Kafka may well have marked the high-tide of English concern with the latter. Since Warner has been cast, in the minds of some, as a political polemicist, again the political emphasis held sway in several of the comparisons. (Neumeyer, 1967: 632)

By the mid-1930s Kafka was also deemed “as a chronicler of solitary man pitted against a difficult, indifferent, or even malevolent universe” (Neumeyer, 1967: 633). Interest in Kafka in England was indeed on the rise; yet this must be cited with caution due to the fact that a large portion of what was written about the author in England was still written by Germans or other Central Europeans. Even among knowledgeable general readers there was no thorough knowledge of Kafka’s writings (Neumeyer, 1967: 633).

It can additionally be pointed out that review of Kafka’s work in England was flawed by the reviewers’ failure to realise that Amerika was the first of Kafka’s three novels to be written, although it was the last to be translated. Without an understanding of this fact, thorough appraisal of the author’s spiritual or artistic evolution was therefore not likely. Some English criticism was thus incomplete and occasionally superficial (Neumeyer, 1967: 633).

Neumeyer raises the important point of (English) reviewers and critics being unable to provide comprehensive commentary on Kafka’s work due to their lack of knowledge or understanding of the ‘history’ of the novels’ translations. His above statement reinforces the fact that review of any kind must involve an historical study of the (original or translated) work in question, as

55 this thesis underpins. Furthermore, as Munday (2012) points out, there are no set guidelines for translation reviewers.

It is clear from the above that the Muirs, working in this early era of Kafka reception and criticism, had the task of not only translating and publishing the works, but presenting Kafka to their target readers in a way that they would understand his meaning. Their interpretation of Kafka, particularly Edwin Muir’s view that the writer’s work is deeply imbibed with moral and spiritual concerns, would have influenced translation decisions, notes which accompanied translations and the lens through which their target audience received Kafka.

According to Robertson (1994: 112f.), the criticism of Kafka’s work in the 1980s focussed on drawing parallels between Kafka and his literary contemporaries. Scholars of this era investigated Kafka’s relations to Kleist, Grillparzer, Flaubert and Dostoyevsky, and pointed out similarities between Kafka’s Das Urteil and Shakespeare’s Hamlet – although Shakespeare supposedly had no great influence on Kafka’s imaginative life (Robertson, 1994: 113). Corngold (1988) offers the following commentary on the reception and impact of Das Urteil in translation:

“The Judgment” is the only prose work of ten pages in world literature which, though not belonging to a sacred or classical canon, has inspired in the West alone nearly two hundred visible commentaries. […] Doubling, in ten years, my 1977 account, this statistic is in line with the claim that more critical literature is published on Kafka each year than on any other writer except Shakespeare. (Corngold, 1988: 24) Beyond drawing these parallels, psychological and philosophical contexts appeared, apparently justified by the knowledge that Kafka had lessons on philosophical psychology in his final year at school. Robertson further notes that “[the] philosophical and sociological contexts are far less familiar in the English-speaking world than Freudian psychoanalysis. So it is understandable that […] Kafka should often have been associated with Freud.” (Robertson, 1994: 118).

It is evident that at the outset of Kafka criticism and interpretation (in the 1930s and 1940s), and even five decades later, there was little agreement on how to read Kafka. As stated above, one of the motivations for this research is indeed the fact that Kafka’s work remains

56 ambiguous and continues to invite close reading and study. This is also a plausible explanation for the numerous new translations that continue appear.

Giving a comprehensive account of the Kafka’s true impact on the twenty-first century literary and translation climate is more of a challenge since Kafka’s reach seems to be growing exponentially. In his chapter on Kafka reception in German literary scholarship, Fromm (2008) explains at the outset: “Angesichts der fünfstelligen Zahl an Publikationen zu Kafka, die von den Redaktionen germanistischer Fachbibliographien erfasst worden sind, kann eine Darstellung der Rezeption auf dem zur Verfügung stehenden Platz nicht umfassend sein.“ (Fromm, 2008: 250)

Furthermore, Kafka’s current influence also goes beyond the literary sphere.

We read Kafka in translation. Not only, as we might imagine, in a linguistic form of translation, but also in a network of translation: translation of the man, Franz Kafka, into an icon, a critical translation of his works into various schools of theory, a commercial translation of the man and his work, and popular – screen translations – of his work and himself. (Woods, 2014: 3)

To some extent, the various versions work together to build a sense of Kafka and his work even before we might have read him. In addition, new re-translations of Kafka’s work bring stylistics of his work to the fore because they can. Kafka is now – unlike in the time the Muirs translated him – an iconic writer, having had a significant influence on modern, postmodern, and contemporary literature (Woods, 2014: 3f.).

CHAPTER 4: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SELECTED TRANSLATIONS

Before undertaking a comparative study of the two (Muir and Neugroschel) translations, I briefly discuss some views on the original works Das Urteil and Die Verwandlung. While the meta-textual analysis is important and helpful for our understanding of aspects such as discrepancies between any given translated work and the original, in my attempt at an unbiased analysis, I am faced with the challenge of drawing a fine but necessary line in outlining translator decisions on the one hand, and possibly challenging existing views on the other. The background given below is furthermore drawn to two main foci: the ‘father complex’ in the stories and whether the translations are formally or dynamically equivalent – especially to elements of the stories that contain manifestations this complex.

4.1 DAS URTEIL IN CONTEXT

Das Urteil (1913) is commonly perceived as a breakthrough for Kafka (Duttlinger, 2013: 28f.) and the unfolding of his “mature” (Duttlinger, 2013: 29) writings. Naming Das Urteil as one of Kafka’s more unsettling stories, Duttlinger offers a concise description of the work: “It tells the story of a father who suddenly accuses his adult son of disloyalty and betrayal and then sentences him to death by drowning – a verdict which the son submits to without hesitation” (Duttlinger, 2013: 29). While family dynamics had been a more latent theme within Kafka’s earlier works, they begin to take the foreground in this particular text. This conflict between father and son is a major leitmotif in modernist literature, particularly in German Expressionism, thus Kafka is not alone in this; furthermore, the plot of Das Urteil reflects the influence of Freud’s theory of the ‘Oedipus complex’ on Kafka’s work (Duttlinger, 2013: 29).

According to Stern (1972: 114) there is a creativity with which Kafka brings autobiographical details into his fictions: “The fact that all Kafka’s important works are marked by strong autobiographical elements is one among several reasons why any interpretation of them should proceed with particular caution” (Stern, 1972: 114). Furthermore, it is necessary to take note of Kafka’s preoccupations with guilt, punishment and the law. As echoed by later scholars, such as Duttlinger, Stern notes that the father-son conflict is nothing remarkable – as many Expressionist writers (such as Friedrich Sorge’s Der Bettler and Frank Wedekind’s Die Büchse der Pandora) employ(ed) this theme – yet with Kafka, the significant element is that

58 of the “heightening” (Stern, 1972: 114) of the father – making him stand as though he were more a giant than a human being (both literally and figuratively) (Stern, 1972: 114).

Das Urteil shows a kinship with the Expressionist movement which represented inner, psychological struggles through exaggerated verbal and gestural effects (Ryan, 2004: 693f.). Akin to Expressionist works, the work is also a struggle between father and son “that threatens to constrain the freedom and extinguish the higher aspirations of the younger generation.” (Ryan, 2004: 694). The narrative should, furthermore, be seen against the backdrop of an era fraught with tensions among several European nations – to which Kafka was not blind. Contemporary readers of the work would have been aware of the political problems of the day and the motifs of betrayal, writing of false letters, the protagonist of Das Urteil, Georg, encrypting the news of his engagement as satirical adaptations of the difficult political climate of 1912 (Ryan, 2004: 694).

This historical view of the work should inform our current reading and translation. Although the realities of the reader have significantly changed compared to those of the text’s contemporary audience, this understanding can aid in making better sense of some of the metaphors and ambiguities of the text. This knowledge might also influence a translator’s choice of vocabulary or use of metaphors that may stem from similar contexts in the target setting.

Stern (1972: 120) comments further on the ambiguities within the story. The first of these is Georg’s feeling of guilt which seems to be in contrast to the fact that he appears to be a model son. Secondly, ambiguity is found throughout the text in, for example, Georg’s feelings towards his friend (Stern, 1972: 120). Perhaps most importantly, as Duttlinger points out: “[…] the father is an ambiguous figure, combining strength and weakness” (2013: 30). Throughout the text there are numerous descriptions of the father’s physical (in)disposition. The words used in the narration of the story and in the dialogue allow the reader to pick out, even in the cases where it is subtle, the juxtaposing of various aspects and the depictions of the father’s enlarging and decreasing – both physically and figuratively.

According to Duttlinger, “[t]he father uses organic metaphors of growth and decay to describe human life” (2013: 31). Georg, however, does not experience a natural life-cycle as he has grown up to take his designated role in his family and in society. This may mean that he is, in

59 a sense, already fulfilling the roles of bread-winner and caretaker, although he does not have his own household and is not a parent yet; that is, he has jumped a stage between his youth and being a mature adult. He cannot mature and grow old, but will be “harvested” in his prime (Duttlinger, 2013: 31).

Adding to the perceived ‘weakness’ of the father, the son has taken on the role of the breadwinner in this (now incomplete) family – raising (again) the question of whether we can understand any feeling of guilt in Georg considering that he has exceeded his role of being a good son. This element does, however, offer an explanation for the father’s apparent feelings of insignificance. This aspect of the son’s role is also pertinent for an understanding and analysis of Die Verwandlung which will be explored later in the chapter.

Jahraus (2008: 413f.) observes that the father only uses his doubting of the existence of Georg’s friend, and allows the conversation to escalate, as a tool to accuse Georg of wanting to ‘squeeze’ him out of the business. This is also true for the accusation that Georg only has erotic reasons for wanting getting to get married. The father then uses the mother’s death, the friend’s circumstances, and his own position of paternal power as a general reproach against Georg – thereby combining the three dimensions of the ‘bürgerliche’ existence, namely the economic, the social and the erotic (Jahraus, 2008: 414). Furthermore, the conversation (which has become an attack) then only begins to subside when Georg imagines the father falling (in a sense, dying) on the bed (Jahraus, 2008: 414).

The importance of these and other elements will become apparent within the comparison of the target texts.

4.2 DIE VERWANDLUNG IN CONTEXT

Die Verwandlung is possibly Kafka’s most famous text (Duttlinger, 2013: 33) and has drawn numerous interpretations since its first publication in 1915. A host of explanations can be offered for the mysterious change in Gregor’s state of being, the awkward family dynamics, and all of the various other changes that take place in the Samsa household. Gray, Gross, Goebel & Koelb (2005: 285) point out that many of the events that take place in the narrative are limited to the perspective of the protagonist. Given that Gregor spends much of his time behind the door of his darkened room, our perspective is sometimes restricted to what Gregor hears in the neighbouring rooms – leaving actual actions up to interpretation. Moreover, our experience is constantly influenced by the protagonist’s complex and conflicted psychology (Gray et al., 2005: 285).

The story follows a specific cyclical course, and contains three sections, each beginning with Gregor awakening, and ending in his attempt to connect with the family by leaving his own space and emerging into the shared family space (Gray et al., 2005: 285). This cyclical nature of the story also serves to reinforce the futile attempt to be integrated into the broader human community. Gregor is trapped between a state of feeling alienated – which he already felt in his human existence as a travelling salesman – and this strange transformation. On the one hand it is a signal of the urge to overcome this alienation and on the other it marks that very alienation in that it has changed him into a repulsive vermin (Gray et al., 2005: 285f.).

The element of time plays a role in the progression of this story. Specifically, the very beginning of the story raises some unanswered questions regarding time. The reader does not know anything about this sudden, phenomenal change nor how long it will last. We, like Gregor himself, already find him in this state. There is no sense of the events that took place in the time before this morning, nor can we decipher from the outset whether this state will reverse – whether Gregor will regain his humanness – with time.

Throughout the first section of the narrative, we wait in anticipation for some explanation of this sudden change. Instead, we are met with descriptions of Gregor getting used to his new body, learning how to move. Sokel (2002) describes his first reading of the narrative:

I could not cease to be perplexed, to wonder, and to speculate on the possible causes of Gregor’s miraculous transformation, and I never, while reading, gave up entirely

the hope that an explanation might be forthcoming. Whatever it might be, enlightenment would bring consolation and, in a sense, redemption. But enlightenment, of course, never came. (Sokel, 2002: 11f.)

The second part of the narrative begins with Gregor awakening from sleep again. Unlike before, he awakes at dusk, and has no responsibilities and no sense of urgency concerning anything. Throughout part two, we observe how his body heals from injury and how his sister takes care of him by leaving him food and cleaning his room. Furthermore, it is in this section that the family begins to transform in their own ways. The family has accepted Gregor’s disposition and begins to plan a way forward for their lives without him, and without his income. Gregor can only keep up with what is taking place in the household through a small crack in his door and what he hears through the walls.

As time passes we see how Gregor weakens as the family becomes stronger. Each member secures employment and goes about their way with the household responsibilities. Gregor on the other hand begins to lose his appetite for food and his body weakens, including a slight loss of sight. Furthermore, he is worn down by the lack of human interaction and longs for someone to speak to him. Gray et al. (2005: 285) note that there has been a reversal in relationship between Gregor and his family. Previously, it was he who gave them support while they enjoyed the luxury of being able to stay at home and avoid the stresses of the working world. Now, it is he who idles his time away at home while the family must work to support him. Furthermore, each member undergoes their own metamorphosis. Herr Samsa is transformed from a weak, tired old man to a strong and important person who now wears an elegant uniform. In the same vein, Grete blossoms into a beautiful and shapely young woman (Gray et al., 2005: 285).

We note that for the mother, this is true to a much lesser extent. Although she herself has taken on work, throughout the text she remains physically weak and even with the passing of time, she still reacts in the same way to Gregor each time she sees him. The moment where she gains the strength to run up and save Gregor is a revelation of the fact that she still accepts that this is indeed her son, and perhaps still has hope that he will return to his human state. This is the single most powerful act on her part, yet even in the midst of it we are reminded of her fainting and the unpresentable state in which it leaves her. Abraham (2008: 424) suggests that although the mother remains passive throughout, she later benefits from her

62 husband’s transformation: “[I]hr Mann, mit dem am Anfang scheinbar nichts mehr anzufangen war, macht ihr erotische Avancen” (Abraham, 2008: 424).

According to Duttlinger (2013: 39) a parallel can also be drawn between the transformations in the father figures of both narratives. Herr Samsa has turned from a decrepit old man into a towering giant – dressed in his uniform, matched by his now upright posture and large boots. Similarly, Herr Bendemann is a decrepit old man who in the end becomes a towering giant with his son gazing up at him (Duttlinger, 2013: 39).

Similar to Georg, Gregor’s end comes quietly and unnoticed (at first). Moreover, it is also caused, although more indirectly, by the actions of the father.

4.3 A COMPARISON OF SELECTED TARGET TEXT EXAMPLES

As outlined within my methodological framework, I believe that when studying translations of prose, the scholar should bear in mind the entire context of the target text. That is, aspects outside of the text that shaped the production of the target text and the translator’s interpretations of and approaches to the source text. Such study should, furthermore, include some theoretical lens. For my purpose, this is the principle of equivalence which can be categorised into dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence. The former is concerned with semantic fidelity, tone, register and the stylistic quality of the text; where the latter focusses on spelling, syntactical structure, punctuation and lexis peculiar to either the German or English language. All of these aspects will inform the text comparison below.

In Chapter 3, I have foregrounded the comparative study by giving an in-depth overview of Kafka translation and its development, as well as the contexts of the translators selected for this research.

4.3.1THE JUDGMENT: A COMPARISON OF SELECTED TARGET TEXT EXTRACTS

Scholars have been perplexed by the content of the Das Urteil for decades, failing to express definitive interpretations and posing questions which have not been and perhaps cannot be answered. Corngold (2004: 24) holds that the scandal of Das Urteil prompts reflection on its distinctive power to compel interpretation. Gray similarly expresses:

[The] strange and unexpected turn of events gives rise to an almost endless series of questions – questions that have shaped the interpretative interaction with this text throughout the history of its reception: Who is and what is the significance of the friend in Petersburg? Is he an independent character or a projection of Georg Bendemann’s alter ego? What is the reason for the extremely harsh sentence to which the father condemns his son? Why does Georg accept this sentence; indeed why does he carry it out himself? Is Georg an innocent victim? If not, what is the basis of his guilt? Kafka himself felt that the riddles raised by this text could not be adequately solved. (Gray et al., 2005: 278)

There are a host of possible answers to these questions and a stream of interpretations that can be offered to the reader of the source and/ or target text(s). Similar to Duttlinger (2013) above, who holds that “[t]he father uses organic metaphors of growth and decay to describe human life” (2013: 31), Corngold notes the father’s use of metaphors throughout the

64 conversation – turning ordinary language into a parricidal weapon (Corngold, 2004: 30). The text may also be perceived as a psycho-narrative which is structured according to the father’s diagnosis of Georg who, while outwardly an innocent child, is inwardly actually an evil human being (Gray et al., 2005: 278).

Example A: “Ein unschuldiges Kind warst du ja eigentlich, aber noch eigentlicher warst du ein teuflischer Mensch! – Und darum wisse: Ich verurteile dich jetzt zum Tode des Ertrinkens!“ Georg fühlte sich aus dem Zimmer gejagt, den Schlag, mit dem der Vater hinter ihm aufs Bett stürzte, trug er noch in den Ohren davon. (Kafka, 1986: 9)

“An innocent child, yes, that you were, truly, but still more truly have you been a devilish human being! -- And therefore note: I sentence you now to death by drowning!” Georg felt himself urged from the room, the crash with which his father fell on the bed behind him was still in his ears as he fled. (Muirs, 1971: 112) “You were truly an innocent child, but you were even more truly a diabolical man! And therefore know: I hereby condemn you to death by drowning!” Georg felt hounded from the room, his ears still rang with the crash of his father behind him, falling on the bed. (Neugroschel, 2000: 71)

Theoretical application: Both translations are largely formally equivalent in the translation of this critical, high point of the text. Even with slightly different tones and word choices, each version is semantically faithful and brings across the substance of this moment and the thrift with which the judgement occurs and Georg reacts, for the target reader – thereby achieving dynamic equivalence.

The target text context: In the above excerpt, we see a difference in the tone of the language used by the Muirs and Neugroschel respectively: “a devilish human being” vs. “a diabolical man”, and “I sentence you now” vs “I hereby condemn you”. This can possibly be attributed to the fact that the translators were writing for two different audiences – the British and North American public respectively. According to Woods (2014: 56), the Muirs held that the authors they translated, especially those who were unknown at the time like Kafka, would have to be domesticated to find an English publisher and audience. This offers a plausible explanation for their more literal, word-for-word approach and often more formal register in comparison

65 to that of Neugroschel – thereby being arguably more faithful to Kafka’s own formal register in the German. These differences are also evident in the second and third excerpts below.

Given the lack of information on Neugroschel’s translation context it is difficult to comment further on influences to his text, barring recognising the fact that he translated in the United States and the influence of this is seen in American spellings of words and differences in his tone and register throughout his text. These differences are also undoubtedly due to the fact that Neugroschel was translating seven decades later than the Muirs, during which time various parts of language had evolved. This is also seen in the different translation choices for the word “Kaufmann” (Kafka, 1986: 1) at the very beginning of the story; the Muirs translate this is as “merchant” (Muirs, 1971: 101), and Neugroschel renders the word as “businessman” (Neugroschel, 2000: 57).

Example B

“Meinem Freunde doch,” sagte Georg und suchte des Vaters Augen. - „Im Geschäft ist er doch ganz anders“, dachte er, „wie er hier breit sitzt und die Arme über der Brust kreuzt.“ „Ja. Deinem Freunde“, sagte der Vater mit Betonung. (Kafka, 1986: 4)

“To my friend there”, said Georg, trying to meet his father’s eye. – In business hours he’s quite different, he was thinking, how solidly he sits here with his arms crossed. “Oh, yes. To your friend,” said his father with peculiar emphasis. (Muirs, 1971: 106) “To my friend, of course,” said Georg, seeking his father’s eyes. “He’s so different at the office,” thought Georg, “sitting here so broadly, with his arms crossed.” “Yes. Your friend,” his father said pointedly. (Neugroschel, 2000: 63) Theoretical application: With regard to formal equivalence, Neugroschel is more faithful to the source text, keeping the structure of the sentence and the punctuation largely the same. The Muir text, while similar, includes a few words which they have added (“Oh” and “peculiar”) which may change the sense of the source – making their version less dynamically equivalent.

Target text comparison: The first notable difference between the two TTs is each translation of “doch” as “there” and “of course” respectively. The Muirs give the words a different meaning and one might even suggest that they confused the word with the German word “dort” as they were non-mother-tongue speakers. The different translator choices for the word “breit” – “solidly” and “broadly” – expose different interpretations of the German word. Neugroschel is literal in his translation of “mit Betonung” as “pointedly” while the Muirs add the adjective “peculiar” which has varying connotations. Another notable difference between the two translations is the different tone, where the Neugroschel translation may be preferable because of its less rigid mood.

Example C “[…] mein Vater ist noch immer ein Riese”, sagte sich Georg. “Hier ist es ja unerträglich dunkel”, sagte er dann. „Ja, dunkel ist es schon“, antwortete der Vater. (Kafka, 1986: 4) “[…] My father is still a giant of a man,” said Georg to himself. “It’s unbearably dark here,” he said aloud. “Yes, it’s dark enough,” answered his father. (Muirs, 1971: 105) “[…] My father is still a giant,” Georg thought to himself. “Why, it’s unbearably dark here,” he then said. “Yes, it is dark,” his father replied. (Neugroschel, 2000: 63)

Theoretical application: The Muirs make two distinct additions in each sentence – describing the father as a “giant of a man”, and adding the word “aloud” to describe Georg’s utterance. Neugroschel’s version, while not entirely different, achieves formal equivalence, largely employing word-for-word equivalents.

Target text comparison: There is a challenge in translating the German word “schon”, which does not have only one or a few equivalents in English, but can have diverse meanings depending on the context of its statement. In this instance, in the source text it is used in an expressive sense, with no denotative meaning. The Muirs add their own word “enough” in trying to address this untranslatability, while Neugroschel omits the word from his sentence and attempts to solve the problem by adding emphasis to the word “is”.

Example D Georg stand knapp neben seinem Vater, der den Kopf mit dem struppigen weißen Haar auf die Brust hatte sinken lassen. „Georg“, sagte der Vater leise, ohne Bewegung. (Kafka, 1986: 5) Georg stood close beside his father, who had let his head with his unkempt white hair sink on his chest. “Georg,” said his father in a low voice without moving. (Muirs, 1971: 107-8) Georg was standing right next to his father, whose head, with its dishevelled white hair, had dropped to his chest. “Georg,” his father said in a low unemotional voice. (Neugroschel, 2000: 65) Theoretical application: The Muir translation is formally equivalent – almost word-for-word – in the description of the father’s position. Neugroschel is formally non-equivalent in this instance, rearranging the word-order and ignoring the word “lassen”.

Target text comparison: The different interpretations of the description “ohne Bewegung” display the subjective understanding of the translators, and do not allow for a fair evaluation as any other reader or translator cannot speculate as to Kafka’s intent. A case may be made for both sides. On one hand, considering that the conversation is in fact emotionally charged, we could argue that Neugroschel captures this emotion for the target reader. On the other hand, it could be said that since the narration throughout the text describes the father’s physical positions and movements, the Muirs are both formally and dynamically equivalent. With either interpretation, there is certainly no grave distortion of the source text meaning, which would displace the rest of the story for the target reader.

Example E The story ends on the bleak note of Georg being drawn, by some compelling, unknown force, to his death. This final passage poses translation challenges both syntactically and semantically. Aus dem Tor sprang er, über die Fahrbahn zum Wasser trieb es ihn. Schon hielt er das Geländer fest, wie ein Hungriger die Nahrung. Er schwang sich über, als der ausgezeichnete Turner, der er in seinen Jugendjahren zum Stolz seiner Eltern gewesen war.

Noch hielt er sich mit schwächer werdenden Händen fest, erspähte zwischen den Geländerstangen einen Autoomnibus, der mit Leichtigkeit seinen Fall übertönen würde, rief leise: “Liebe Eltern, ich habe euch doch immer geliebt”, und ließ sich hinfallen. In diesem Augenblick ging über die Brücke ein geradezu unendlicher Verkehr. (Kafka, 1986: 9) Out of the front door he rushed, across the roadway, driven toward the water. Already he was grasping at the railings as a starving man clutches food. He swung himself over, like the distinguished gymnast he had once been in his youth, to his parent’s pride. With weakening grip he was still holding on when he spied between the railings a motor-bus coming which would easily cover the noise of his fall, called in a low voice: "Dear parents, I have always loved you, all the same," and let himself drop. At this moment an unending stream of traffic was just going over the bridge. (Muirs, 1971: 113) He leaped from the front door and dashed across the roadway, driven toward the water. He was already clutching the railing the way a hungry man clutches food. He swung himself over, like the outstanding gymnast he had been in his youth, the pride of his parents. He was still clutching tight with weakening handswhen he spied a bus between the railing bars: it would easily drown out the sound of his fall. He softly cried, “Dear parents, I have always loved you,” and let himself drop. At that moment a simply endless stream of traffic was passing across the bridge. (Neugroschel, 2000: 72) Theoretical application: In the first three sentences of this passage, there is a sense of urgency and pain conveyed in the numerous adjectives which follow each other closely and an eeriness around this ‘force’ that draws Georg toward the water. Both translations keep the syntactical structure, thereby remaining formally equivalent. They also remain faithful in employing the many, almost run-on adjectives in the sentences. This sense of unexplained, painful urgency found in the original is preserved – making both target texts dynamically equivalent.

The second notable aspect about the passage are the juxtaposed description of Georg’s actions and state: the grip which is “fest” yet is being held “mit schwächer werdenden Händen”, and his expression to his parents, “leise”, amidst the loud sounds of the traffic. Each translation remains dynamically equivalent, placing contrasting words together in their descriptions.

Target text comparison: A difference in the translations is seen in the structure of the final sentence. The source text reads as one sentence, and German syntax allows for convoluted sentences, with a limitless number of possible sub-clauses. This is not easily transferable in

English. In this case, Neugroschel has opted to break it up, such that it suits English diction. The Muirs, in contrast, replicate the original by keeping the syntactical structure intact, thus achieving a greater degree of formal equivalence.

The speed with which Georg’s end takes place, and the fact that the conversation and entire text is short, albeit so densely packed with grim details, is worth a brief discussion. From start to finish, events escalate quickly, but some information seems to be missing in between. We do not know how Georg’s mother died and why the father seems to attribute blame to the son; we have no sense of what the family life was like before her death. Furthermore, there is no explanation for why Georg had not entered the father’s room for months; the father and the friend remain unnamed throughout the whole story, and at the end, the father’s crashing fall on the bed is open to interpretation. It can be said that Kafka has purposefully left these ‘spaces’ open for the reader to fill. Indeed “[w]hat makes “Das Urteil” into the veritable masterpiece of literary modernism is precisely the fact that it infuses a well-defined, economical textual structure with an interpretative openness that has continually challenged Kafka’s readers” (Gary et al., 2005: 278).

4.3.2 THE METAMORPHOSIS: A COMPARISON OF SELECTED TARGET TEXT EXTRACTS

Within this second comparison, I select passages of text that highlight different word choices on the part of the translators. Beyond identifying fidelity and equivalence, an examination of the different lexical choices also exposes the translators’ interpretation(s) of the work.

Example A The well-known and oft-cited opening sentence of the narrative is constructed so as to create a sense of eeriness from the onset and delay full comprehension by placing the verb at the end. It has been a challenge in translation.

Als Gregor Samsa eines Morgens aus unruhigen Träumen erwachte, fand er sich in seinem Bett zu einem ungeheueren11 Ungeziefer verwandelt. (Kafka, 1986: 1) As Gregor Samsa awoke one morning from uneasy dreams he found himself transformed in his bed to a gigantic insect. (Muirs, 1971: 114) One morning, upon awakening from agitated dreams, Gregor Samsa found himself, in his bed, transformed into a monstrous vermin. (Neugroschel, 2000: 117) Theoretical application: Each translation is dynamically equivalent in creating the sense of suspense around what has happened to Gregor by delaying the verb “transformed” as much as possible. The Muir rendition attains a greater degree of formal equivalence by replicating the syntactical structure of the source text – with the exception of the necessary repositioning of the verb “transformed”. Neugroschel, perhaps noting the emphasis and importance of time throughout the work, begins with the time of day during which the change takes place, thereby altering the sentence structure, with the result that his rendition is formally inequivalent.

Target text comparison: The translation of “Ungeziefer” has caused some disagreement among Kafka scholars and translators. The different translator choices of “insect” and “vermin” reveal their different understandings of the source text and its context, and what they sought to bring across for their target readers. According to Hubel (2012: 17), by

11In some versions of the text, such as the S. Fischer Verlag publication of 1972, the word is spelt “ungeheuren”. In the 1986 Gutenberg Project edition (which I use here) it is spelt “ungeheueren”.

71 rendering the abstract “Ungeziefer” as “insect”, the Muirs over-anticipate Kafka, yielding a specificity that Kafka is yet to denote and narrowing the reader’s expectation more than the source text intended – thereby taming scenes like Gregor’s struggle with his legs.

The matter of keeping Gregor’s shape vague is important. According to Gray et al. (2005: 284), at the time of the re-publication of Die Verwandlung in book form, in 1917, Kafka gave strict instruction to the publisher that the illustrator of the cover should not attempt to portray the creature itself. We therefore know that the author’s intention was to keep the nature of the creature vague, allowing the reader to create an image for themselves. Interpreting Gregor in his new state, whether through a picture or words distorts the sense of the source text and means that we are now seeing or reading the Muirs’ Gregor, not Kafka’s Gregor.

The translator, I believe, has the responsibility to remain faithful to the text – especially in instances like this one, when the author’s view or intention is known. A failure to remain faithful should otherwise be accompanied by a justified explanation of the different choice. In this instance it is unclear whether or not the selected translators were aware of the author’s instruction. That said, the cover of Neugroschel’s publication is partly illustrated with a shadow of the antenna of an insect – arguably even resembling a cockroach.

A number of views can be expressed about either rendition and this only reinforces the fact that the manner in which a translator reads and interprets is an integral part of their production of the target text. Yet again, the views about the translation of this sentence are evidence of the need for prefaces and notes to translations. This would enable fellow scholars and translators to understand the translator’s choice(s) – whether or not they agree with them. The non-German-speaking target reader, fortunately or unfortunately, is limited to the translator’s interpretation and rendition of Kafka’s text.

Example B “Haben Sie auch nur ein Wort verstanden?“, fragte der Prokurist die Eltern, „er macht sich doch wohl nicht einen Narren aus uns?“ „Um Gottes willen,“ rief die Mutter schon unter Weinen, „er ist vielleicht schwer krank, und wir quälen ihn. Grete! Grete!“ schrie sie dann. „Mutter?“ rief die Schwester von der anderen Seite. Sie verständigten sich durch Gregors Zimmer. „Du musst augenblicklich zum Arzt. Gregor ist krank. Rasch um den Arzt. Hast du Gregor jetzt reden hören?“ „Das war eine Tierstimme“, sagte der Prokurist, auffallend leise gegenüber dem Schreien der Mutter.

(Kafka, 1986: 8)

This is the first of many climactic moments within the narrative. In this unconventional dialogue, the mother raises her voice, startled and speculating as to the reasons Gregor’s behaviour. The manager, who had evidently been trying to make out what Gregor’s excuse is, is the first to notice that the voice is not only not Gregor’s conventional voice, but indeed that of an animal. This has to a large degree been rendered faithfully in translation, with a few differences worth noting.

“Did you understand a word of it? The chief clerk was asking; “surely he can’t be trying to make fools of us?” “Oh dear,” cried his mother, in tears, “perhaps he’s terribly ill and we’re tormenting him. Grete! Grete!” she called out then. “Yes Mother?” called his sister from the other side. They were calling each other across Gregor’s room. “You must go this minute for the doctor. Gregor is ill. Go for the doctor, quick. Did you hear how he was speaking?” “That was no human voice,” said the chief clerk in a voice noticeably low beside the shrillness of the mother’s. (Muirs, 1971: 123f.) “Did you understand a single word of that?” the office manager asked the parents. “He’s not trying to make fools of us, is he?!” “For goodness’ sake,” the mother exclaimed, already weeping, “he may be seriously ill and we’re torturing him. Grete! Grete!” she then shouted. “Mother?” the sister called from the other side. They were communicating across Gregor’s room. “You have to go to the doctor immediately. Gregor is sick. Hurry, get the doctor. Did you hear Gregor talking just now?” “That was an animal’s voice,” said the manager, his tone noticeably soft compared with the mother’s shouting. (Neugroschel, 2000: 130)

Theoretical application: Neugroschel makes a few different choices in terms of punctuation and syntactical structure. The Muirs are formally equivalent in keeping punctuation and syntax and, in fact, render a very literal, word-for-word translation. An exception is their choice for the word “Tierstimme”. The Muirs opt to translate this is as “no human voice”. This choice is formally inequivalent; however, it arguably brings across the eerie sense of the unfamiliar, twitching sound that Gregor is making. Neugroschel is more faithful to the source text in saying “an animal’s voice”.

Example C Der Vater ballte mit feindseligem Ausdruck die Faust, als wolle er Gregor in sein Zimmer zurückstoßen, sah sich dann unsicher im Wohnzimmer um, beschattete dann mit den Händen die Augen und weinte, daß sich seine mächtige Brust schüttelte.

(Kafka, 1986: 9)

His father knotted his fist with a fierce expression on his face as if he meant to knock Gregor back into his room, then looked uncertainly around the room, covered his eyes with his hands and wept till his great chest heaved. (Muirs, 1971: 125)

The father clenched his fist, glaring at Gregor as if trying to shove him back into his room, then peered unsteadily around the parlor before covering his eyes with his hands and weeping so that his powerful chest began to quake. (Neugroschel, 2000: 133)

Theoretical application: Each translation is largely formally equivalent, employing the same syntactical structure and similar punctuation. While some word choices in each target text are not direct or literal translations, they do not change the overall sense of the source text and both achieve dynamic equivalence.

Target text comparison: There seems to be no definitive explanation for the difference in the phrases “knotted his fist” and “clenched his fist”. The translations “a fierce expression” and “glaring” do not fully express the connotations of hostility and of viewing Gregor as alien or as an enemy, as the original word “feindselig” implies. Compared to each other, each choice is very similar. The rest of the sentence is also quite similar in both texts, although Neugroschel arguably chooses more emphatic words, showing that ambiguity of strength and weakness that we constantly see in the father.

Example D

[…] – da gab ihm der Vater von hinten einen jetzt wahrhaftig erlösenden starken Stoß, und er flog, heftig blutend, weit in sein Zimmer hinein. Die Tür wurde noch mit dem Stock zugeschlagen, dann war es endlich still. (Kafka, 1986: 13)

[...] – when from behind his father gave him a strong push which was literally a deliverance and he flew far into the room, bleeding freely. The door was slammed behind him with the stick, and then at last there was silence. (Muirs, 1971: 130)

[…] But now the father gave him a powerful shove from behind – a true deliverance. And Gregor, bleeding heavily, flew far into his room. The door was slammed shut with the cane, and then the apartment was still at last. (Neugroschel, 2000: 139)

Theoretical application: Regarding formal equivalence, each translation keeps the sentence similar, although employing different punctuation and changing some word order. Similarly, the overall sense of the source text is maintained resulting in dynamic equivalence.

Target text comparison: Compared to the Neugroschel text, the Muir text largely uses literal translation and in some parts of the sentence seems almost to be explaining the words of the original – for example, “which was literally a deliverance”. The differences of “bleeding freely” and “bleeding heavily” for “heftig blutend” could possibly be attributed to the fact that the Muir text is more dated. For the contemporary reader the Neugroschel text may thus be preferable. The rest of the excerpt is largely the same in each target text with the exception of Neugroschel adding the word “apartment” – showing a lack of faithfulness to the source text.

Example E Es war ein Apfel; gleich flog ihm ein zweiter nach; Gregor blieb vor Schrecken stehen; ein Weiterlaufen war nutzlos, denn der Vater hatte sich entschlossen, ihn zu bombardieren. [...] Ein schwachgeworfener Apfel streifte Gregors Rücken, glitt aber unschädlich ab. Ein ihm sofort nachfliegender drang dagegen förmlich in Gregors Rücken ein [...]. (Kafka, 1986: 26)

It was an apple; a second apple followed immediately; Gregor came to a stop in alarm; there was no point in running on, for his father was determined to bombard him. […]. An apple thrown without much force grazed Gregor’s back and glanced off harmlessly. But another following immediately landed right on his back and sank in […]. (Muirs, 1971: 146)

It was an apple. Instantly a second one flew after the first. Gregor halted, petrified. Any more running would be useless, for the father was dead set on bombarding him. […]. A weakly thrown apple grazed Gregor’s back, sliding off harmlessly. Another one, however, promptly following it, actually dug right into his back. (Neugroschel, 2000: 164)

Theoretical application: The translations maintain the short, run-on sentences that effect the drama of this painful scene, thereby largely achieving formal equivalence.

Target text comparison: The compounded adjective “schwachgeworfen” poses a slight challenge, and each of the translators opts to explain this, rather than forge a single term.

Each may be deemed as dynamically equivalent. In the final sentence both translations exercise a degree of license in reordering the words and each rendering very different version of “drang dagegen förmlich in Gregors Rücken ein”. The different verb choices in the Muirs’ “landed right on his back and sank in”, and Neugroschel’s “actually dug right into his back” result in a different tone in each target text.

Naturally, an assessment can be made of numerous words, punctuation marks, phrases and sentences in each of the target texts. The brief exploration above confirms the notion that a comparative study of TTs can reveal more about translator decisions and the complex nature of the practical process of translating. One limitation remains the lack of information on the translators’ process, resulting in a restricted exploration of the target text context.

CHAPTER 5: LITERARY TRANSLATION: AN HISTORICAL VIEW

5.1 TRANSLATIONS AS SOCIAL HISTORY AND THE REASONS FOR EVER-EMERGING (KAFKA) TRANSLATIONS

To view translations as social history requires a multi-faceted approach and considerations of the purposes and functions of translated literature. Furthermore, it compels us to consider the role of the translator as a reader, how this affects the translations’ process and their target readers, and how the target readers receive the translation. Within this chapter I will briefly discuss the theory of reader reception in order to offer insight into why people read literary products and, in turn, their translations; how or why reading contexts may change and why this may be an explanation for the re-translating of works, reading them and returning to them time and again.

In making a case for translated works, like literature, being viewed as social history, my point of departure is that the same literary theories that are applied to literary works can be (and should be) applied to their translations. Essentially, if we accept a translated work as a ‘replica’ of the original work, then we acknowledge that it too is literature. The difference is the language in which it is written and the audience for which it is written. The literary theory of reception, in particular, allows us to view original and translated works through the same lens in that we can discuss the reception of any number of source or target texts.

The emergence of reception aesthetics in the 1970s signalled a paradigm shift in literary studies, and the starting premise of this new school of thought was that literary works, in order to acquire meaning, need readers. The establishment of reception aesthetics is attributed to German literary scholars Wolfgang Iser and Hans Robert Jauß, and the larger purpose in drawing attention to the role of the reader was to provide an adequate answer for why literature was/ is still important (Fluck, 2002: 254). What was of paramount concern in the development of reception theory was the impact that a literary text has on its readers; not what the text means, but what it does (or can) mean for its potential readers (Iser, 2000b: 311).

Reception aesthetics, furthermore, “emerged in the early 1970s in Germany in response to a predicament of legitimation” (Fluck, 2002: 254). The student movement challenged literary studies to go beyond the formalist idea that literature can be studied ‘for its own sake’ and

77 address the question of what function(s) literature had in society (Fluck, 2002: 254). New Criticism viewed literature as an autonomous, self-referential object, whose study was an end in itself and Marxist approaches to literary study regarded it in the mechanical mirror- reflection theory (Widerspiegelungstheorie) wherein literature was seen as reflecting economic conditions truthfully, or obscuring them. Reception aesthetics thus appeared in response to the shortfalls of the formalist and Marxist accounts of the functions of literature (Fluck, 2002: 254).

Reception aesthetics distinguishes itself from reader-response criticism in that it does not only concern itself with the individual responses of readers, but is a theory of aesthetic experience. This element of aesthetic experience is what constitutes the literary work as an object with a distinctive function of its own (Fluck, 2002: 257). Two poles can be described of the literary work, namely, the artistic and the aesthetic. The artistic refers to the creation of the text by the author, where the aesthetic refers to the realization that is achieved by the reader; and the work lies halfway between the two (Iser, 1972: 279). Reception aesthetics can also be seen as a part of the totality of relations between art and society (Hohendahl & Silberman, 1977: 33).

There is thus a wider focus of reception theory which is not only concerned with the bridge between the text and the reader, but also that between the text’s context and reader’s context. Each work of literature usually comprises a selection from a range of social, historical, cultural and literary systems that exist as referential fields outside the text (Iser, 2000b: 311). There is, furthermore, an overlap of boundaries since the elements selected from these systems are ‘modified’ from their specific functions and incorporated into the literary text in order to suit its structure and semantics (Iser, 2000b: 311f.).

If this is true of literary texts, then I maintain that it is true for their translations. The systems (or parts thereof) which shape the source text have an influence on how the source text is read in the source culture. Fundamentally, the source text thus already excludes those who do not belong to or do not have access to those (social, historical, cultural or literary) systems of the source culture. One task of the translator, then, is to give their target reader access to the source culture systems while also balancing this with the inclusion of parts of the target culture systems – where necessary and possible.

Iser suggested that readers do not read literature primarily for ‘meaning’ (Iser, 1979: 17) and maintained, in answering the question of why literature exists, that part of literature’s function is to fulfil the human need to use fictions as a form of self-extension (Iser, 2000b: 310). The human being as a reader plays an active role in filling in the gaps left in the text (whether left intentionally or not) and these unwritten parts of the text enable the written words to go beyond their literal meaning and undergo the necessary expansion to transform them into a new experience in the mind of the reader (Iser, 1978: 225f.). Thus, the text itself cannot fully determine meaning for the reader although it can frame and constrain the reader’s possible reception (Fluck, 2002: 255). Furthermore:

A literary text and the meaning attributed to it are never identical. They are characterized by non-identity, because, in order to acquire any meaning at all, the text must be actualized by the reader who has to translate the words on the page by means of his or her own imagination. Interpretation of literary texts by different readers, even by the same reader at different times, will therefore always differ. (Fluck, 2002: 255)

If we briefly consider the notion of readers reading literature as a means of self-extension, that is, as a process that happens outside of the usual disposition of the self and if reading is an activity wherein the reader is allowed to employ their own knowledge, experiences and imagination, then it can be said that for the reader of translated work, this is even more true. Reading a text which they are aware was produced entirely outside of their own context means that the target text reader is crossing cultural interfaces. They are also potentially bringing knowledge, experiences and imaginations to the target text which are vastly different from the knowledge, experiences and imaginations that the source-text reader brought to the source text.

While Fluck (2002) refers to original literary works, I believe the same – the notion of the text’s multilateral meaning – is also true for translated works. The significant difference with the translated text is that it has already gone through another reader (the translator) before reaching the intended reader, and that the ‘frames’ and ‘constraints’ of the original text are arguably less rigid because the text has been placed in the target setting. Hubel expresses a similar view:

Every text undergoes a metamorphosis when it enters the reader’s mind. Reader- response criticism [sic], above all that of Wolfgang Iser, avers that every reader, even

though the text somewhat controls her/his response, fills the gaps the text leaves with her/his individual experiences. Therefore, when we say we are reading Kafka, we are in fact creating our own Kafka, and this may today not be the same as it was yesterday or will be tomorrow. But when we read Kafka in translation, whose Kafka is becoming our Kafka? […] The translated text has already gone through a filter, and the gaps we can fill are only those left or opened up by somebody other than the author. (Hubel, 2012: 17) Hubel further notes that we can only hope for an invisible translator who is so distanced from the text that they merely transcribe it, yet such an ideal translator may be a machine – an entity that has complete command of the two languages, yet does not impose emotions or individual experiences on the text (Hubel, 2012: 17).

This idea of a completely invisible translator, I believe, is improbable. If we take into consideration the role of the reader in qualifying and contextualising the text for themselves, then we must concede that there will always be an ‘imposition’ on the text by a reader and translator. Furthermore, if a translation is being produced for a target audience in a target setting – which is completely removed from the source setting – then the notion of an entirely invisible translator is not feasible. Segments of text that are more difficult to translate or even those deemed untranslatable, such as idioms, need to be changed for the target setting. In the case of an idiomatic expression, this may involve using an idiom with completely different words in the target language, yet conveying the same semantic meaning in the target culture as it would in the source culture.

From the above, we can deduce that there are three primary reasons for the continued existence and importance of literary products. Firstly, the author’s artistic expression; secondly, the qualifying role of the reader in attributing meaning to the text and, thirdly, the fact that literature is also intertwined with socio-historical and cultural systems. The function of literature is, however, not entirely covered by its interaction with the reader and its referential realities (Iser, 2000b: 313). There is the concept of “literary anthropology” (Iser, 2000b: 313) which is based on highlighting the fictional aspect of literature and the fact that its fictional nature permeates human life. The emergence of other mediums which fulfil an ever-increasing role in our society, is evidence that literature is no longer the epitome of culture (Iser, 2000b: 313).

What continues to distinguish literature from other mediums, however, is its fictional aspect. “The anthropological significance of fictionalizing becomes unmistakable in relation to the many unknowable realities that underlie our existence.” (Iser, 2000b: 313).This fictional characteristic of literature is thus a further explanation for why literary products are still produced and read. The meta-realistic experience is indeed why they remain elusive, continuing to invite reading, interpretation, study and translation. Literature is a part of our societal and anthropological existence and has been for centuries; it is (social) history.

Iser’s concept of literature as the epitome of culture may however be rather narrow. In our current century many forms of media embody a sense of culture and are becoming increasingly important for disciplines such as translation. Furthermore, the fictional character of a work to which he refers, as well as the meta-realistic and elusive nature of literature can also be said of other media such as film.

In the nineteenth century, history was defined as having three modes. Most simply, ‘history’ was seen as a specific mode of existence, having two subcategories of ‘historical consciousness’ and ‘historical knowledge’. ‘Historical consciousness’ may be defined as a distinctive mode of thought and ‘historical knowledge’ an autonomous domain in the spectrum of human and physical sciences (White, 1973: 1).

White draws several parallels between historiography and literature, distinguishing between a number of twentieth-century approaches to conceptualising and modelling history. An historian may be lyrical and poetic in their account, aiming to re-invoke the ‘spirit’ of a past age, or aiming to show the ‘laws’ and ‘principles’ of which a particular age is a manifestation. In a different approach, some historians view their task as a contribution to illuminating the social problems and conflicts of their time while others still seek to supress these or determine the extent to which a given period differs from their own (White, 1973: 4). There are therefore radically different notions of what an historical work should consist of and “the historical work represents an attempt to mediate among […] the ‘historical field’, the unprocessed historical record, other historical accounts, and an audience” (White, 1973: 5).

An analogy can be made, then, between the historical writer and the fiction writer. Both produce stories, with the distinction being that the historian finds his stories where the fiction

81 writer invents his. Arguably, however, an historian must still employ narrative techniques (White, 1973: 6f.).In making this distinction clearer, White states:

Historians are concerned with events which can be assigned to specific time-space locations, events which are (or were) in principle observable or perceivable, whereas imaginative writers – poets, novelists, playwrights – are concerned with both these kind of events and imagined, hypothetical or invented ones. (White, 1978: 121)

We can therefore infer that even at an elementary level, authors of literary works contribute to the production of history in the same manner that historiographers do. A difference that can be noted between historical and fictional writing is that by defining a work as fiction, one already indicates that work is not about ‘real world’ events. Literary fiction is therefore based on a silent agreement between the author and the reader and some visible signs to inform the reader not to take various events of the text at their face value. Assertions in historical writing, conversely, refer to clearly defined singular events outside of the textual sphere itself (Korhonen, 2006: 16).There are, however, some borderline cases such as non-fictional novels and historical essays that have a fictional element.

We must also remember that the use of imagination in fiction does not mean creation ex nihil. All fiction selects and combines elements from the real world, and the reader fills in all the gaps that exist in all literary texts according to his or her own experiences in real life. In the end all literary fiction becomes meaningful only when we read it in relation to our own experiences. (Korhonen, 2006: 17)

It seems, then, that two elements make up the historical character of literature. Firstly, its fictional aspect (as also suggested by Iser) and secondly, its different readers and the varying experiences that they bring to the ‘gaps’ of the work. The same cannot be said for readers of historical texts because such texts convey information (facts; data) which does not always need to be interpreted – and even if so, not in the same sense of interpretation. Following from that, it can then be suggested that as the societies – the recipients of literary works – change over time, the experiences they bring to their reading will change. Furthermore, the record of their reception (reviews and Edwin Muir’s essays for example) leave an historical account to which readers of the current age can refer as a testament to the differing understandings of Kafka’s work or any literary work in a given age.

In the modern period, literature and history have been seen as complements in the processes of identifying and mapping a shared object of interest and a ‘real world’ which presents itself to reflection and which, in order to do justice to its presentation of the ‘real world’, must employ all the resources of language (White, 2006: 25). By implication then, literature and history can be viewed as synonymous with one another in that they both reflect a ‘world’ – whether real or invented, or seen through a particular lens – and both employ various tools of language in order to present their ‘world’.

Literature can thus be deemed a reflection of history. Furthermore, it can be defined as reflecting social history in so far as current literary study (such as reception aesthetics) is partly concerned with its effect(s) on the audience or society that receives it. In addition, literature is both influenced by and has an influence on social and cultural norms.

As stated above, I hold that a translated work should, in the first place, be acknowledged as literature in so far as it is deemed as the same product, only in another language and in a different cultural setting and with an extended authorship. Furthermore, following Corngold’s assertion that it is only through translation that authors such as Kafka who belong to one nation’s canon are able to “live as much abroad as they do in [their] native tongue” (Corngold, 2004: 178), we can conclude that translations themselves are social history. Not only that, but they have also allowed literary works to become social history outside of their original context(s).

This fictional element of literary works also provides a good starting point for the explanation of why new translations of old works – and of Kafka’s works in particular – continue to emerge. The primary reason, as suggested by reception theory, is that reading (fictions) always elicits subjective response, in that it compels the reader to actively participate, in a sense, in the completion of the work by filling the spaces in the text with their own experiences and imaginations. In the same vein translation is a subjective endeavour. As outlined by Schweissinger above: “Translation is always interpretation, especially if one has to translate literature. Literature is often ambiguous in its message and often much-loved because it remains open to interpretation.” (Schweissinger, 2014: 2).

This same element that continues to invite the reading of literature is also one reason, I believe, for the continued (re)translating of literary works. Interpretations of literature

83 change over time – due partly to the ambiguous nature of literary works, as Schweissinger points out. Interpreting Kafka’s fictions is a unique enterprise. According to Woods (2014: 1) the allure of interpreting Kafka’s work is that this interpretation is confounded by the complex matter of what his work means to each individual. The concern, however, is not only the fact that each interpretation will be different, but also that the nature of Kafka’s work does not easily allow for interpretation. Adorno held of reading Kafka’s work: “Each sentence says ‘interpret me’, and none will permit it” (Adorno, 1981: 246).

It is thus plausible to state that if each reading renders a different interpretation, and if by virtue of this, translation is interpretation, then there could possibly be as many translations as there are interpretations. The next thought, perhaps, would be whether this is either desirable or necessary, or both.

A second answer to the question of the reasons for emergence of new translations is also linked to the theory of reception in that it speaks to the audience for which translations are produced. If we work on the premise that with time, society, language use and meaning change, then it can be said that each era or generation of Kafka scholars and readers will need their own translation(s).As mentioned above, the Muirs and Neugroschel wrote for the British and North American public respectively. Furthermore, the Muirs wrote (primarily) for a British audience between the 1930s and 1950s, where Neugroschel translated for an American audience from the mid-1990s to the early 2000s.

We might ask: i. what significant German- and English-language shifts between the 1950s and the 2000s might contribute to the appearance of new translations? ii. Are there differences between pre- and post-war audiences? iii. Who was Kafka to the public in the earlier era of translation and who is he to the contemporary (British, American, or other) public?

A question linked, in a sense, to the language shifts has already been answered – partly in Chapter 1 and more broadly in Chapter 3 above – and centres on debates about Kafka’s handwriting. The production of Pasley’s renowned editions of the original manuscripts in the 1980s (Litowitz, 2002), gave rise to more translations since it was the first time that Kafka scholarship became aware of the extent of Max Brod’s “deeply flawed” (Harman, 1996: 295) editions of the original works. As pointed out above, the vocabulary choices of the early translators (that is, before the 1980s), which are now viewed as flawed or poor choices, can

84 partly be attributed to the fact that translators of that early era only had Brod’s editions to depend on (1996: 295). Elliot refers to those translating from the Pasley editions as “second generation” (2010: 136) translators and suggests that the numerous competing translations are another reason for the need for explanations (prefaces, notes, introductions) to translations (Elliot, 2010: 136).

The third question posed about Kafka’s reception shortly after his death and his current reach can be quite broadly explored. Although Kafka reception is a much-studied area of its own12, I simply use the question to offer a third answer to the re-emergence of translations. The Muirs were challenged not only with introducing Kafka’s work to their public, but also Kafka – hence Edwin Muir’s efforts to provide the (British and American) public with a body of Kafka criticism, in the form of introductory notes to translations, essays and reviews (Robertson, 1984: 638). At the time of his death, Ackermann iterates, Kafka was only known to a small circle of German and Czech writers (Ackermann, 1950: 105). Muir’s criticism, Robertson (1984: 638) points out, was later dismissed or misrepresented.

I do, however, believe some value could have been attributed to such criticism at its time. We must proceed with caution in critique of the early translators or translations. As contemporary scholars, we cannot or should not always base the value of our insights on the ‘flawed’ nature of the early work. We should rather be aware of and accept that the Muirs and other ‘first generation’ translators remain forever embedded in a time of Kafka scholarship which lacked sufficient and correct information. Woods (2014) elucidates:

Kafka is a “world celebrity” (Gross 2010: 411) because of translation, not only because he was discovered for the English-speaking world by two Scots [sic] translators, […] but because the import of his work became translated into the intellectual needs and currents of the times into which his work was translated, specifically in the immediate post-World War II era. The Muirs’s [sic] long-serving translations are now being superseded – they are regarded as being faulty, too domesticated, too in sync with Max Brod’s Messianic vision of the texts (and with his resultant editing practices), and too lacking in humor. It is an exciting moment in Kafka translation in English, as multiple re-translations by different translators and publishers are being made in order to recover what was felt to be lost: pieces of text […], the ambiguity and strangeness of the language and the subsequent humor of it.

12 See for example: Fromm, W. 2008. “Kafka-Rezeption”, in: Von Jagow, B. & Jahraus, O. (Eds). 2008. Kafka- Handbuch: Leben-Werk-Wirkung. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht. Pp. 250-267.

(Woods, 2014: 3)

A few important points can be discussed here. Firstly, as is also alluded to by Rolleston’s assertion that Kafka is the most widely read German-language author of the twentieth century (2002: 1), indeed Kafka’s fame in today’s world can be attributed to translation. I believe we can thus suggest that the more Kafka is translated, the more people know and read him, and the more he will be translated again. Secondly, I find there is a rather subjective lens with which contemporary translations are seen as superseding the early translations where relative to each other: they are viewed as competing (as also held by Elliot 2010) and offering exciting and fresh insight to elements of the works which had previously been deemed ‘lost’.

That said, re-emerging translations can be deemed as positive – even exciting – and given the shape and size of current Kafka scholarship, each translator is arguably at liberty to read and translate Kafka as they wish and to draw on what available insights they agree with to make their translation choices. Two aspects, however, remain important and applicable to any translator. Their choices must, first of all, be made with full cognisance of the (social, historical, cultural, linguistic and literary) context of their target audience – while remaining faithful in presenting the author and original work. Secondly, their choices, if fellow scholars or translators are to read, understand, evaluate and compare their work with others, must be substantiated and shown by way of introductions, annotations or other such appendices.

In sum, then, the answer to question iii is twofold. In the 1930s to 1950s, Kafka was unknown to the public and was read only by his close circle of contemporaries. Following Brod’s initial publications, the English-speaking Muirs took interest and provided the only widely-known published English translations at the time. In this early era, furthermore, Kafka scholarship was not yet developed and criticism and reception were limited to the studies of Brod and Muir, and some minor reviews as Ackermann outlines (in Chapter 3 above). The Muirs therefore made what efforts they could to introduce Kafka’s work, and sought to remain faithful yet place the works in the setting of their target readers and both theses aspects have now been deemed as simplistic and an over-domestication of the texts.

With regard to the second part of who our contemporary Kafka is, scholarship has come a long way in defining and interpreting Kafka and his work, offering insights through

86 publications of diaries and other autobiographical information, and supplying various schools of thoughts to ‘understanding’ Kafka. Nonetheless, there is no one-dimensional answer to who our era’s Kafka is. The answer, I believe, depends on which society is receiving Kafka, how they read him; and this reading, we stipulated, is how they bring the text to completion by adding (or imposing as Hubel (2012) suggests) their own experiences and imaginations. Finally, as a result of the ever-increasing fame of the author and his work, and the ever- increasing interpretations, translations continue to – and we can suspect will continue to – emerge.

A factor that must not be overlooked is that new interpretations and thus new approaches to translations are also made possible and perhaps enhanced by the ones that are already in existence. Gürçağlar (2009: 233) similarly holds that in the literary field, retranslation is viewed as a positive phenomenon because it leads to the broadening of the available interpretations of the source text. New generations of Kafka scholars or translators must, in a sense, stand on the shoulders of their predecessors. Speaking specifically to the work Die Verwandlung, Schweissinger expresses the same view: Countless complicated interpretations have been written […]. A conscientious and accurate translator will study at least some of those interpretations – the more the better – because it might help him or her to evolve a perspective on the content and to influence the decisions made concerning the choice of words and vocabulary. (Schweissinger, 2014: 193)

This can also be said of the works of other modernist writers. Wood (2014: 46) notes twenty- four current English translations of Rilke’s Duino Elegies (1923), and ten new translations of other works by Rilke that have been published since the year 2000. He, furthermore, suggests that two questions can be asked about the reasons for these new translations: “[w]hat drives this activity? What makes new translators so unhappy about their predecessors’ work?” (Wood, 2014: 46). Some translators express a discomfort with existing translations and this discomfort “represents a sense of loss that one would like to repair and can’t. Or can only do partially.” (Wood, 2014: 46).

A final point to make here is that, if Woods’s statement that the “import of [Kafka’s] work became translated into the intellectual needs and currents of the times into which his work was translated” (2014: 3) holds true, then we can deduce that as the intellectual needs of

87 readers and the currents of different eras change, we will continue to need new translations to suit those changes. That said, we must remain cognisant of existing commentaries and translations and use these as resources; as guidelines for deeper comprehension and as clues to avoiding translation ‘mistakes’.

In answering question ii, whether there are differences in pre- and post-war audiences, the short answer is: yes. Due to the fact that Kafka’s works were only famed posthumously, that is, after 1924, our reference is to the effects of the Second World War. For the more elaborate answer, we must briefly return to the reception of original and translated works before, during, and after the years of the war.

As pointed out by Ackermann (1950), we cannot speak of a large audience for either original works or translations in this early period in the first place. Nevertheless, the reception of the initial (1930) translation of the novel Das Schloß and a 1933 publication of the short story Beim Bau der Chinesischen Mauer received poor response both in and outside of Germany as a result of the awareness of and opposition to the rising National Socialist power. From 1937 until 1946, Kafka’s work in translation had no audience (Ackermann, 1950: 108).The war was therefore a determining factor in the failure of this first translation, The Castle, which Robertson (1984: 639) also calls a commercial failure.

“As the war drew to a close, interest in Kafka and in his evasive symbolism grew. In 1945 there were 16 references to Kafka in various countries” (Ackermann, 1950: 111). An increase from only one reference to the author in 1932 and a total of 11 in the years between 1933 and 1939 (Ackerman, 1950: 108). It can be said then, that from the end of the war, a less negative attitude was held to German-language works, and to Kafka in particular. An effect of the war, we can therefore infer, is that it contributed to the slight lull in scholarship and readership in the years between ca. the mid 1930s and the early 1970s. During this time, there was little endeavour to read and understand or translate Kafka. Post the war, the audience for his texts and their translations gradually grew and Kafka scholarship picked up from Brod and Muir criticism. Other scholars emerged, such as Mellown (1964) cited above and the pivotal Pasley studies of the late 1970s and the 1980s. This and other scholarship is evidence of the fact that Kafka was becoming more widely read and his work more critically analysed, resulting in more translations.

In addressing the question of language shifts, I briefly comment not from a linguistic lens, but from a societal and historical view. Eagleton’s statement that language, in a sense, belongs to a society before it belongs to the individual (Eagleton, 1996: 71), also means that the meanings of words, and therefore changes in meaning, are a direct consequence of changes in society – and changes in language have a direct effect on the society that uses (speaks, writes, reads) the language. In similar vein, Eagleton holds that all literary works are, so to speak, re-written, even if unconsciously, by the societies which read them. Moreover, any reading of a work is also a re-writing (1996: 12). This notion is also reinforced by reception aesthetics, which (as discussed above) holds that the reader brings their experiences, imaginations and cultural knowledge to a text.

As societies change, then, their understanding of language – and of other signs between or beyond the language of literary works – changes. Eagleton elaborates: “‘Our’ Homer is not the Homer of the Middle Ages, nor ‘our’ Shakespeare that of his contemporaries […]. Different historical periods have constructed a different Homer and Shakespeare for their own purposes” (Eagleton, 1996: 12).

Although Eagleton refers specifically to the author, and not the work, I hold that the same is true for the work and the language which elucidates its signs.

It is quite possible that given a deep enough transformation of our history, we may in future produce a society which is unable to get anything at all out of Shakespeare. His works might simply seem desperately alien, full of styles of thought and feeling which such a society found limited or irrelevant. (Eagleton, 1996: 11) Although Eagleton paints an extreme or still far-off scenario and refers to English literature, the same can be held possible of German literature and of Kafka’s work. To use Nida’s term of the “cultural distance” (1964: 182) that can be determined between two communicator contexts, I agree with Eagleton and believe that as the cultural distance grows between the context of the source text and the reader’s context, new translations will continually be needed to bridge this divide. As has been shown, Kafka’s works were received in vastly different ways by scholars and translators over the decades – the Muirs (1930s and 1940s), Pasley (1970s and 1980s), Neugroschel (1993/ 2000) and Corngold (2004, 2007) to name only a few. We must accept that every generation will need its own translations (and other forms of rewritings) of Kafka’s works.

5.2 A LOOK TO THE FUTURE OF LITERARY TRANSLATION STUDIES Having shown the impasse that the discipline of translation studies has reached regarding literary translation analysis, it can be seen that there is still a long way to go in the shaping of more useable studies of literary translation. On the basis of the apparent lack of generally- accepted practice, I propose some questions and considerations for further research. In seeking to further address the problem of lacking discussion about translations of prose, the following can be taken into consideration:

. What should prose translation entail? . How do we develop different methods of analyses to suit different language families? . If we view literary translation products in the same light as their original works (considering them social history in their own right), how does this contribute to/ extend our theoretical and practical approaches to translating literature? . What are the uses of discussing and critiquing literary translations and how can these map the way for future theory and practice?

These and other considerations, while complex, need to be interrogated in order to make a meaningful change to the status quo. A factor which must be realistically borne in mind, I believe, is that there will always be a subjective dimension that goes along with the more systematic study of translations. Nonetheless, a useful amalgamation of theory and methodologies can be found, which can also address methodological concerns around the actual process of translating prose. Study into literary translation can, furthermore, open up fruitful discourse around other forms of translation such as commercial translation, document translation, political, cinematic and numerous other areas of translation. Ours is indeed an era in which translation studies is becoming a more fully-fledged discipline.

Commenting on future directions for the discipline, Bassnett (2014: 146) emphasises the importance of emergent models for translation studies in non-European languages. Developed theories within the Western context are not easily applicable to Nguni, Chinese or Indian languages, for instance. Thus, there is also need to study the history of translation in different cultures and approach the expansion of translation theories from a more international collaborative view. If we understand the shifting face of translation studies and

90 the changing position of translated texts, we are in a better position to tackle problems within our own contexts, and recognise that what applies to one, does not apply to all (Bassnett, 2014: 146f.).

Bassnett’s acknowledgement of the changing status of translated works partly corroborates what I have shown in the first section of Chapter 5. The historical nature of the translated text and the continual retranslation of and engagement with translated works only serve as evidence for the fact that translations are indeed as important as the original works they replicate. Furthermore, as this thesis has shown, theories of literature, interpretation, aesthetics and historiography can be applied to translated literature in the same way that they are applied to ‘ordinary’ literature. Literary translation discourse will not only be useful to the translation scholar and reader, but will also go a step further in elevating the status of translated works.

New trends in translation continue to emerge and these reflect both the historical and dynamic nature of the discipline. New trends, furthermore, suggest that there is greater awareness of cultural dimensions of both source and target contexts, yet there is still a need for more acknowledgment of the formal properties of texts and the strategies that translators employ in their practice (Bassnett, 2014: 147). Another interesting emerging area is that of self-translation, where a writer translates their own work into another language (Bassnett, 2014: 147).

Self-translation has received much attention in recent years. Self-translators do not only master, but also choose to create in another language (Grutman, 2009: 257). There are varying reasons why authors may decide to translate their own work(s). Formerly, self- translation was practised more by writers of minority languages, yet there are now a range of reasons for writers choosing this practice – from dissatisfaction with existing translations, to material conditions (exile, financial gain, etc.) (Grutman, 2009: 257f.).

An important question to pose, concerns the manner in which self-translations as texts relate to ‘conventional’ translations. Can they be deemed to possess distinct characteristics? (Grutman, 2009: 258). It has been argued that while translations aim to be ‘hypothetical equivalents’ of the original text, self-translations rather represent an extension or variation

91 of the work. Perhaps the most important aspect which is at stake is the notion of authority, which, traditionally, authors were deemed to have, while translators did not. A self- translation is often well-received; not because its criticism is based on any extensive study of the intrinsic quality of the product, but because the writer is thought to be in a better position (than the translator) to recapture the work (Grutman, 2009: 259).

Grutman further suggests that self-translation, due to the fact that it nullifies the concern of a translated text’s authority, gives less precedence to the original work. Furthermore, because the distinction between them collapses, more flexible terminology can be used and both texts can be seen as ‘variants’ or ‘versions’ of comparable status (2009: 529). This is especially so in the case of simultaneous self-translation as opposed to what may be termed consecutive self-translation which takes place only after completion or even publication of the original work (Grutman, 2009: 259).

In my view, the notion of self-translation poses some threat to existing translation theory and this is perhaps one reason it has not received much attention until now. Both early and contemporary theoretical models of translation concern themselves with issues of fidelity, licence, translator visibility and equivalence. These, among others, have to be carefully re- interrogated in the case of self-translation. What do they mean in this instance? Furthermore, as Grutman points out, self-translations are not (and perhaps should not be) viewed in the same light as translations. Due to the fact that they are produced by the author of the work, they are automatically deemed to be on par with original literary products.

If we agree with this attitude to self-translation, then the questions that are usually posed and theories which are usually applied to translations cannot apply to them in the same way. Hokenson and Munson (2007: 2) similarly argue that due to the text existing in two different language systems simultaneously, the monolingual categories of author and text cannot apply. There are thus two apparent central problems to this new area, namely, the perception of self-translation and the need to develop terminology and theoretically sound models around self-translation.

This notion of self-translation, I believe, will further diversify the dynamic of the translation discipline by demanding study into bilingualism, multilingualism and multiculturalism and by

92 necessitating a crossing of the interfaces between these concepts and translation. Multilingualism and translation are both widespread cultural phenomena, but are rarely considered in relation to each other because multilingualism evokes the co-presence of two or more languages, where translation comprises substitution of one language for another (Grutman, 2009: 182). This corroborates Bassnett’s assertion that the growth of translation studies currently depends on an acceptance of the fact that western models of translation cannot apply to non-European languages and that the discipline currently needs to adopt an internationally collaborative approach to translation studies (2014: 146f.). A multilingual orientation to translation is becoming ever more essential.

South African (bilingual) writer and (self-) translator André Brink is renowned for an extensive oeuvre, spanning over five decades and including various novels, plays, essays, translations and works of non-fiction (De Roubaix, 2012: 2). Brink’s literary breakthrough to international acclaim came when he translated his book Kennis van die Aand (1974), published in English as Looking into the Darkness, after the original was the first Afrikaans novel to banned under Apartheid law (De Roubaix, 2012: 3). After this gained him international acclaim, self- translation became a regular practice for Brink and this developed into simultaneously producing two version of the same work in Afrikaans and English (De Roubaix, 2012: 3f.) Beyond this, he translated numerous works into Afrikaans, including children’s literature and writers such as Shakespeare, Henrik Ibsen, Henry James and Oscar Wilde. He also translated various works of Afrikaans literature into English (De Roubaix, 2012: 4).

Advantages and disadvantages can, of course, be found in the notion of self-translation. For Brink, it posed a great advantage in that he was able to gain international recognition and use his writing as a political tool. In terms of language, it became an enlightening process and began to require components such as self-editing and recognising what ‘works’ in one language and does not work in the other (De Roubaix, 2012: 4f.).

This is what the process of self-translation meant for Brink, which will not always hold true for all self-translators. The terminologies of multilingualism, multiculturalism and self- translation which have not yet been fully defined and interrogated pose a number of challenges moving forward – and this lack of defined terms seems to be a recurring theme of the translation studies discipline. Moreover, we can presuppose that there would be a

93 significant difference between translating across two languages of even a vague similarity of origin (such as Afrikaans and English in the case of Brink) and two historically, culturally and linguistically vastly distinct languages (German and Sesotho, for instance). Therefore, what does self-translation mean within the bounds of the same group of languages; across related European languages, and what does it mean beyond those bounds – across a European and a (South African) Nguni language?

Accordingly, more questions can be posed. Does the bilingual writer or (potentially multilingual) self-translator have an equal knowledge of not only the languages, but also the socio-historical, political and cultural idiosyncrasies involved in their process? When we assume a self-translation to be of better quality than a translation, do we or should we consider these idiosyncrasies? How will the evolving of this trend affect translators, editors, publishers and the roles that they currently fulfil?

This new trend exposes not only a change in translation, but also in literature – in its understanding and in writer and public attitude towards it13. It shows the evolution of both literary and translation theories and techniques, as well as the ever-growing impact of socio- historical, political and cultural influences on the production and reproduction of texts.

13 Another interesting consideration may be: why did twentieth-century writers not consider this option? Kafka was a multilingual and (arguably) multicultural writer and Thomas Mann famously expressed his dissatisfaction with the work of his translator, Helen Tracy Lowe-Porter. Multi-cultural poet Rainer Maria Rilke wrote in German and French, but did not translate any of his work across the two or languages or into English.

CONCLUSION

It can be seen that acknowledging the impact of the translator’s context and other meta- textual influences on the target text is a useful way of contributing to literary translation studies and the discipline of translation studies as a whole. Viewed through this lens, study into literary translations can include broader, intercultural and interdisciplinary facets which will result in positive extensions to current theoretical models and methodological practices. Given the dynamic and intricate nature of translation studies, it follows that its growth should require a multilateral orientation.

The study of prose translations challenges the discipline to go much further than current discussions which are based on the ‘evaluation’ or ‘quality assessment’ of translations. As has been shown, this kind of exercise has resulted in various subjective judgements which have only perpetuated notions of the ‘inferior’ quality of prose translations relative to their source texts, and caused an impasse in the discussion about literary translations. The area of assessing translation quality is one that needs to be interrogated and this can certainly be identified as a current gap in the discipline. That said, there are still many strides to be made in this regard and careful consideration needs to be made of how to undertake such evaluation and what the reasons for it are.

A more comprehensive approach to viewing literary translations, for which this thesis has argued, entails greater study into the translator’s context – given the significant impact that this has on the production of the target text. Furthermore, such an approach necessitates a larger focus on the entire target context. Indeed “[t]o translate means to produce a text in a target setting, for a target purpose and target addressees, in target circumstances.” (Vermeer, 1987: 29). With this borne in mind, we can gain a deeper understanding of not only lexis, syntax, punctuation, style, tone and other such components of the text, but also meta-textual factors that influence the production of the target text. These influences also provide reasons for various choices made on the part of the translator and may reveal challenges and constraints faced by translators.

The explication of the dense history of the publication, editing, translation and retranslation of Kafka’s works has served as evidence of the fact that the literary translation process is tied

95 up with socio-historical, political and cultural complexities that are beyond the control of translators, readers and scholars alike. Furthermore, it has been shown that any target-text study must include a consideration of all of these factors in order for any given target text to be discussed in relation to another. It would not have been possible to speak in any depth about the selected translations without an understanding of their different contexts. This thesis has also highlighted the importance of translator prefaces and notes in order for the scholarly reader to have more insight into the interpretations and methods of the translator and reduce the potentially speculative and subjective aspects of any analysis.

It has also been shown that, beyond the significant aspect of the historical view, in order to conduct any analysis of translations, theory and practice have to be merged. As has been seen, existing theories of translation (such as equivalence and skopos) can provide a good basis for speaking to the linguistic components of translations and can go some way in helping the scholar understand the differences in the various nuances of any number of translations. For further engagement, however, existing theories should be extended or reshaped to suit the newer currents of the discipline.

Through the comparison of selected TT excerpts and through the discussion and application of literary interpretation and reception aesthetics this thesis has proven that more than any other form of translation, translations of literary texts require more substantial discussion. Such discussion must engage with how all of these facets (of interpretation and reception) affect both the process of translation production in the source context and more so in the target context. Furthermore, literary translation has to be concerned with the manner in which language is used and shaped by different societies and cultures and what purpose(s) is/ are to be fulfilled when a text is moved from one culture to another.

This is also supported by Jones’ assertion that “[…] the focus on literary translation provides the discipline with high-quality evidence about ‘interfaces’ between cultures and about the linguistic challenges of translating. Hence it can inform theories, models of practice and research methodologies relevant to other genres, and vice versa.” (Jones, 2009: 153)

The research at hand has also verified the two hypotheses set out at the beginning of the study. Firstly, the understanding of literature as a part of history, outlined in Chapter 5, has

96 enabled us to extend this to translations. Translations do indeed form part of social history. Furthermore, the continually changing currents in language and in societies mean that language and translation are always linked with a given society at a given time. A translation has, so to speak, a finite existence which ends when there have been significant enough changes in a given language or society. Thus, as Woods (2014: 3) points out: Kafka’s works become translated into the intellectual needs and currents of their time.

This also serves as a verification for the second hypothesis. Certainly every generation of Kafka scholars will require their own translations of his works – as readers and scholars alike become more removed from the author’s context and the context of the source text. This is also supported by Eagleton’s (1996: 11) statement that with a profound enough transformation of history, society, thought and feeling, older works (such as those of Shakespeare) may well completely lose their meaning for some future society.

The phenomenon of the retranslation of literary works is not the only trend which is contributing to and challenging the current face of the discipline. The emerging branch of self- translation will require the discipline to encompass other facets of language study such as bilingualism and multilingualism. Furthermore, the discipline is currently at a point where potentially all of its existing components need to be re-interrogated to make way for theorising translation for languages which are outside the current scope of theory. As aptly expressed by Bassnett,“[b]y understanding the changing face of Translation Studies and the changing status of the translated text, we are better equipped to tackle problems as they arise within our own contexts, and recognize that one size does not fit all” (Bassnett, 2014: 147).

APPENDIX A: E-MAIL CORRESPONDENCE WITH NEUGROSCHEL EDITOR, ERIKA GOLDMAN

From: [email protected] To: [email protected] CC: [email protected] Subject: Re: Thesis in Translation of Kafka's Work Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 13:09:38 +0000

Dear Mathaabe Thabane,

I'm afraid I can't be of any help here. I was not privy to the details of Joachim's research, and therefore knew nothing about what editions of the original text he relied on. Nor am I aware of his having produced any commentary beyond his own introduction to the book. Scribners, the publishing house for which I worked and edited the translation, was (and is) a trade-book publisher, not an academic house, so we editors didn't subject our proposals to the process of academic peer review where this sort of information might have come out. I'm sorry.

Good luck with your research.

With best wishes, Erika Goldman

Erika Goldman Publisher and Editorial Director Bellevue Literary Press Dept of Medicine, New York University School of Medicine 550 First Avenue, OBV A 612 New York, NY 10011 www.blpbooks.org 212-263-7802

On 3/13/14 6:00 AM, "Mathaabe Thabane" wrote:

Dear Ms Goldman

I am a German Studies Masters student at Rhodes University in Grahamstown, South Africa.

I am currently conducting my research, (broadly stated) in the field> of Translation Studies (German-English translation) and Literary Translation and have chosen two of Kafka's works - Die Verwandlung (The Metamorphosis) and Das Urteil (The Judgment) - as my focus.

I am using translations by Willa and Edwin Muir and by Joachim Neugroschel.

An important aspect I have decided to focus on is the editing of the original German works and the problems that have previously occurred pertaining to this. I am addressing the

98 concerns over Brod's editions versus Malcolm Pasley's.

It is unclear to me, whether Neugroschel, in his 2000 (Scribner Paperback Fiction) edition of "The Metamorphosis, In the Penal Colony, and Other Stories" translated from the Brod or Pasley editions.

As you were Neugroschel's editor, I wonder if you could perhaps provide me with this information (i.e. which German originals/ whose editions the translator worked with - particularly for the two above-mentioned stories).

If there is also any commentary of his on any German editions or the work of any other translators, that would be very helpful as well.

Any information that you are able to give me would be greatly appreciated.

(Just a note: I have cc'd my Principal Supervisor here)

Many thanks and I look forward to your correspondence at your soonest convenience.

Kind Regards,

Mathaabe Thabane

Mathaabe Thabane (Temporary) Lecturer

German Studies, School of Languages Rhodes University P.O. Box 94 Grahamstown 6140 SOUTH AFRICA Tel: +27-046-603-8328 Fax: +27-046-603-8960

REFERENCES

PRIMARY MATERIAL

KAFKA, FRANZ 1986 [1913]. „Das Urteil“. In: RAABE, PAUL (ed.) 1986 Franz Kafka: Sämtliche Erzählungen, Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag. Pp. 23-31.

KAFKA, FRANZ 1986 [1915]. “Die Verwandlung”. In: RAABE, PAUL (ed.) 1986 Franz Kafka: Sämtliche Erzählungen. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag. Pp. 56-99.

TRANSLATIONS OF THE PRIMARY MATERIAL

MUIR, EDWIN & WILLA, 1971. “The Metamorphosis”. In: [editor unknown] 1971 Franz Kafka: The Complete Stories. New York: Schocken Books. Pp. 114-164.

MUIR, EDWIN & WILLA, 1971. “The Judgment”. In: [editor unknown] 1971 Franz Kafka: The Complete Stories. New York: Schocken Books. Pp. 101-112.

NEUGROSCHEL, JOACHIM, 2000. “The Metamorphosis”. In: NEUGROSCHEL, JOACHIM, 2000. Franz Kafka: The Metamorphosis, In the Penal Colony, and Other Stories. United States: Scribner Paperback Fiction. Pp. 117-188.

NEUGROSCHEL, JOACHIM, 2000. “The Judgment”. In: NEUGROSCHEL, JOACHIM, 2000. Franz Kafka: The Metamorphosis, In the Penal Colony, and Other Stories. United States: Scribner Paperback Fiction. Pp. 57-72.

SECONDARY MATERIAL

ABRAHAM, ULF, 2008. “Die Verwandlung”. In: VON JAGOW, und JAHRAUS, OLIVER (Eds). 2008. Kafka-Handbuch: Leben-Werk-Wirkung. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht. Pp. 421- 436.

ACKERMAN, PAUL KURT, 1950. “A History of Critical Writing on Franz Kafka”. American Association of Teachers of German: Wiley. Volume 23, no. 2. Pp 105-113.

ADORNO, THEODOR W., 1981. Noten zur Literatur. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

BAKER, MONA, 2011. In Other Words: A coursebook on translation. (2nd Edition). New York: Routledge.

BAKER, MONA (ed.) 2001. The Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. New York: Routledge.

BAKER, MONA, and SALDANHA, GABRIELA (eds.) 2009. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. (2nd Edition). New York: Routledge.

BASSNETT, SUSAN, 2014. Translation Studies. (4th Edition). New York: Routledge.

100

BENJAMIN, WALTER, 1923. “The Task of the Translator” (translated by Harry Zorn). In: VENUTI, LAWRENCE, (ed.) 2004. The Translation Studies Reader. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group e-Library. Pp. 15-25.

BUSH, PETER, 2001. “Literary Translation: Practices”. In: BAKER, MONA (ed.) 2001. The Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. New York: Routledge. Pp. 127-130

BUTLER, JUDITH, 2011. “Who Owns Kafka?” London Review of Books. Volume 33, no. 5. Pp. 3-8.

CORNGOLD, STANLEY, 1988. “The Hermeneutic of “The Judgment” ”. In: CORNGOLD, STANLEY, 1988. Franz Kafka: The Necessity of Form. Cornell: Cornell University Press. Pp. 24- 46.

CORNGOLD, STANLEY, 2004. Lambent Traces: Franz Kafka. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

CORNGOLD, STANLEY, 2007. Kafka’s Selected Stories. New York: W. W. Norton & Company

DE ROUBAIX, LELANIE. 2012. “Where boundaries blur: André Brink as writer, bilingual writer, translator and self-translator”. In: HERRERO, ISIS and KLAIMAN, TODD (eds.) 2012. Versatility in Translation Studies: Selected Papers of the CETRA Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2011. Pp. 1-17.

DURRANI, OSMAN, 2002. “Editions, translations, adaptations”. In: PREECE, JULIAN (ed.) 2002. The Cambridge Companion to Franz Kafka. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 206-225.

DUTTLINGER, CAROLIN, 2013. The Cambridge Introduction to Franz Kafka. New York: Cambridge University Press.

EAGLETON, TERRY, 1996. Literary Theory: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

ELLIOT, ALISTAIR, 2010. “Reviews”. Translation and Literature. Volume 19. Pp. 132-136.

FLUCK, WINFRIED, 2002. “The Role of the Reader and the Changing Functions of Literature: Reception Aesthetics, Literary Anthropology, Funktionsgeschichte”. European Journal of English Studies: Routledge. Volume 6, no. 3. Pp. 253-271.

FRANCE, PETER, (ed.) 2000. The Oxford Guide to Literature in English Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

FROMM, WALDEMAR, 2008. “Kafka-Rezeption”. In: VON JAGOW, BETTINA und JAHRAUS, OLIVER (eds.) 2008. Kafka-Handbuch: Leben-Werk-Wirkung. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht. Pp. 250-269.

GAMBIER, YVES, and VAN DOOSLAER, LUC, (eds.) 2010. Handbook of Translation Studies. Vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.

101

GOTTESMAN, ITZIK, 2011. “Joachim Neugroschel, Prolific Multilingual Translator is Dead at 73”. The Forward. [Online]. Available: http://forward.com/news/138213/joachim- neugroschel-prolific-multilingual-translat/ [Accessed: 10 February 2015].

GRAY, RICHARD T., GROSS, RUTH V., GOEBEL, ROLF J., and KOELB, CLAYTON. 2005. A Franz Kafka Encyclopedia. Westport: Greenwood Press.

GREINER, ULRICH, 1992. “Kafka’s Halbbruder”.Die Zeit Online.No 41. [Online]. Available: http://www.zeit.de/1992/41/kafkas-halbbruder/komplettansicht [Accessed: 15 April 2013].

GRUTMAN, RAINIER, 2009. “Multilingualism”. In: BAKER, MONA, and SALDANHA, GABRIELA (eds.) 2009. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. (2nd Edition). New York: Routledge. Pp. 182-185.

GRUTMAN, RAINIER, 2009. “Self-translation”. In: BAKER, MONA, and SALDANHA, GABRIELA (eds.) 2009. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. (2nd Edition). New York: Routledge. Pp. 257-260.

GÜRÇAĞLAR, ŞEHNAZ TAHIR, 2009. “Retranslation”. In: BAKER, MONA, and SALDANHA, GABRIELA (eds.) 2009. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. (2nd Edition). New York: Routledge. Pp. 233-236.

HALVERSON, SANDRA, 2010. “Translation”. In: GAMBIER, YVES, and VAN DOOSLAER, LUC, (eds.) 2010. Handbook of Translation Studies. Vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co. Pp. 378-384.

HARMAN, MARK, 1996. “’Digging in the Pit of Babel’: Retranslating Kafka’s ‘Castle’”. New Literary History: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Volume 27, no. 2. Pp. 291-311.

HERMANS, THEO, (ed.) 2014. The Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary Translation. New York: Routledge.

HOHENDAHL, PETER UWE and SILBERMAN MARC, 1977. “Introduction to Reception Aesthetics“. New German Critique. No. 10. Pp. 29-63.

HOKENSON, JAN W., and MUNSON, MARCELLA, 2007. The Bilingual Text: History and Theory of Literary Self-Translation. Manchester: St. Jerome.

HUBEL, MONIKA, 2012 [2005]. “The Implications of Translations: Franz Kafka’s Voice and Its English Echo”. Translation Review. Volume 69, no. 1. Pp. 17-25.

ISER, WOLFGANG, 1972. “The Reading Process: A Phenomenological Approach”. New Literary History: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Volume 3, no. 2. Pp. 279-299.

ISER, WOLFGANG, 1978. The Act of Reading. Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

ISER, WOLFGANG, 2000a. The Range of Interpretation. New York: Columbia University Press.

ISER, WOLFGANG, 2000b. “Do I Write for an Audience?” Modern Language Association. Volume 115, no. 3. Pp. 310-314.

102

JAHRAUS, OLIVER, 2008. “Das Urteil”. In: VON JAGOW, BETTINA und JAHRAUS, OLIVER (eds.) 2008. Kafka-Handbuch: Leben-Werk-Wirkung. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht. Pp. 408- 420.

JONES, FRANCIS R., 2009. “Literary Translation”. In: BAKER, MONA, and SALDANHA GABRIELA (eds.) 2009. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. (2nd Edition). New York: Routledge. Pp. 152-157.

KENNY, DOROTHY, 2009. “Equivalence”. In: BAKER, MONA, and SALDANHA GABRIELA (eds.) 2009. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. (2nd Edition). New York: Routledge. Pp. 96-99.

KORHONEN, KUISMA, (ed.) 2006. Tropes for the Past: Hayden White and the History/ Literature Debate. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

KORHONEN, KUISMA, 2006. “General Introduction: The History/ Literature Debate. In: KORHONEN, KUISMA, (ed.) 2006. Tropes for the Past: Hayden White and the History/ Literature Debate. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Pp. 9-20.

LAUSCHER, SUSANNE, 2000. “Translation Quality Assessment”. The Translator. Volume 6, no. 2. Pp. 149-168.

LEFEVERE, ANDRÉ, 1978. “Translation: The focus of the growth of literary knowledge”. In: HOLMES, JAMES, LAMBERT, JOSE and VANDEN BROECK, RAYMOND (eds.) 1978. Literature and Translation: new perspectives in literary studies. Leuven, Belgium: Acco. Pp. 7-28.

LEFEVERE, ANDRÉ, 1982. “Mother Courage’s Cucumbers: Text, System and Refraction in a Theory of Literature”. Modern Language Studies. Volume 12, no. 4. Pp. 3-20.

LEFEVERE, ANDRÉ, 1992. Translation, Rewriting & the Manipulation of Literary Fame. London: Routledge.

LITOWITZ, DOUGLAS E., 2002. “Franz Kafka’s Outsider Jurisprudence”. Law and Social Inquiry: Wiley. Volume 27, no. 1. Pp. 103-137.

LUKE, DAVID, 1996. “Introduction”. In: LUKE, DAVID, 1996. Thomas Mann: Death in Venice and Other Stories. London: Minerva. Pp. vii-lii.

McGANN, JEROME J., (ed.) 1985. Textual Criticism and Literary Interpretation. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

MELLOWN, ELGIN W., 1964. “The Development of a Criticism: Edwin Muir and Franz Kafka”. Comparative Literature: Duke University Press. Volume 16, no. 4. Pp. 310-321.

MUIR, EDWIN, 1938. "Introductory Note". In: America. London: Martin Secker. Pp. v-xii.

MÜLLER, MICHAEL, 2008. “Kafka und sein Vater: Der Brief an den Vater“. In: VON JAGOW, BETTINA, und JAHRAUS, OLIVER (eds.) 2008. Kafka-Handbuch: Leben-Werk-Wirkung. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht. Pp.37-44.

MUNDAY, JEREMY, 2012. Introducing Translation Studies. Theories and Applications. (3rd Edition). New York: Routledge.

103

NEUGROSCHEL, JOACHIM, 2006. In: GLIXMAN, ELIZABETH, 2006. An Interview with Joachim Neugroschel, Translator and Editor of "The Shadows of Berlin", Eclectica Magazine, Jan/Feb 2006.

NEUMEYER, PETER F., 1967. “Franz Kafka and England”. American Association of Teachers of German: Wiley. Volume 40, no. 4. Pp. 630-642.

NIDA, EUGENE, 1964. Toward a Science of Translating: with special reference to principles and procedures involved in Bible translating. (2nd Edition). Netherlands: E. J. Brill.

PETR, PAVEL, 1992. “Kafka Criticism and Empirical Studies of Literature”. Poetics. Volume 21, no. 1. Pp. 45-56.

PINKER, MICHAEL, 1999. “The Trial: Review”. The Free Library. [Online]. Available: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+Trial.-a057513373 [Accessed: 15 April 2013].

ROBERTSON, RITCHIE, 1984. “Edwin Muir as a Critic of Kafka”. The Modern Language Review: Modern Humanities Research Association. Volume 79, no. 3. Pp. 638-652.

ROBERTSON, RITCHIE, 1994. “In Search of the Historical Kafka: A Selective Review of Research, 1980-92”. The Modern Language Review: Modern Humanities Research Association. Volume 89, no. 1. Pp. 107-137.

ROLLESTON, JAMES, (ed.) 2002. A Companion to the Works of Franz Kafka. New York: Camden House.

RYAN, JUDITH, 2004. “Kafka’s Narrative Breakthrough”. In: WELLBERY, DAVID E., and RYAN, JUDITH (eds.) 2004. A New History of German Literature. London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Pp. 693-698.

SCHÄFFNER, CHRISTINA, 2001. “Skopos Theory”. In: BAKER, MONA (ed.) 2001. The Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. New York: Routledge. Pp. 235-238.

SCHWEISSINGER, MARC J., 2014. Translating German Novellas into English: A Comparative Study. Bern: Peter Lang AG.

SOKEL, WALTER H., 1978. “Kafka’s Poetics of the Inner Self”. Modern Austrian Literature. Volume 11, no. 3/4. Pp. 37-58.

SOKEL, WALTER H., 2002. The Myth of Power and the Self: Essays on Franz Kafka. Michigan: Wayne State University Press.

SOLBACH, ANDREAS, 1987. „Pikarische Elemente in Kafkas ‚Amerika‘“. Neophilologus 71 (1987). Pp. 413-422.

STERN, J.P., 1972. “Franz Kafka’s “Das Urteil”: An Interpretation”. The German Quarterly. Volume 45, no. 1. Pp.114-129.

VAN DEN BROEK, RAYMOND, 1985. “Second Thoughts on Translation Criticism. A model of its Analytic Function”. In: HERMANS, THEO (ed.) 1985. The Manipulation of Literature. Studies in Literary Translation. London and Sydney: Croom Helm. Pp. 56-62.

104

VENUTI, LAWRENCE, (ed.) 2004. The Translation Studies Reader. London: Routledge.

WELLBERY, DAVID E., and RYAN, JUDITH (eds.) 2004. A New History of German Literature. London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

WHITE, HAYDEN, 1973. Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe. Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

WHITE, HAYDEN, 2006. “Historical Discourse and Literary Writing”. In: KORHONEN, KUISMA, (ed.) 2006. Tropes for the Past: Hayden White and the History/ Literature Debate. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Pp. 25-33.

WOOD, MICHAEL, 2014. “Translating Rilke”. Translations and World Literature. Volume 88, no. 3-4. Pp. 46-51.

WOODS, MICHELLE, 2014. Kafka Translated: How Translators have Shaped our Reading of Kafka. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing Inc.

WEBSITE REFERENCES

BUNDEVERBANDDER DOLMETSCHER UND ÜBERSETZER e.V./ FEDERAL ASSOCIATION OF INTERPRETERS AND TRANSLATORS. 2015.http://www.bdue.de/our- profession/?L=1[Accessed 8 February 2015].

MODERN LANGUAGE ASSOCIATION. 2015.http://www.mla.org/ec_guidelines_translation [Accessed 8 February 2015].

SOUTH AFRICAN TRANSLATORS’ INSTITUTE. 2015. http://translators.org.za/sati_cms/index.php?frontend_action=display_text_content&conte nt_id=1 [Accessed 8 February 2015].

105