An Analytical Study of Domestication in Vg Kiernan's Translation Of

AN ANALYTICAL STUDY OF DOMESTICATION IN V. G. KIERNAN’S TRANSLATION OF MUHAMMAD IQBAL’S POETRY INTO ENGLISH

By Jamil Asghar

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF MODERN LANGUAGES ISLAMABAD

January 2014

An Analytical Study of Domestication in V. G. Kiernan’s Translation of Muhammad Iqbal’s Poetry into English

By Jamil Asghar

M.A. English, National University of Modern Languages, 2002 M.A. Political Science, University of the Punjab, 2007 M.A. Philosophy, University of the Punjab, 2010

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

In English

FACULTY OF HIGHER STUDIES

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF MODERN LANGUAGES, ISLAMABAD

January 2014  Jamil Asghar, 2014

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF MODERN LANGUAGES FACULTY OF HIGHER STUDIES

DISSERTATION AND DEFENSE APPROVAL FORM

The undersigned certify that they have read the following thesis, examined the defence, are satisfied with the overall exam performance, and recommend the thesis to the Faculty of Higher Studies for acceptance:

Dissertation Title: An Analytical Study of Domestication in V. G. Kiernan’s Translation of

Muhammad Iqbal’s Poetry into English

Submitted By: Jamil Asghar Registration #: 432-MPhil/Ling/Aug09

Doctor of Philosophy Degree Name in Full Dell (e.g Master of Philosophy, Do

English (Linguistics) Name of Discipline

Dr. Nighat Ahmad ______Name of Research Supervisor Signature of Research Supervisor

Dr. Shazra Munnawer ______Name of Dean (FHS) Signature of Dean (FHS)

Maj. Gen. Masood Hasan (R) ______Name of Rector Signature of Rector

______Date

iii

CANDIDATE DECLARATION FORM

I Jamil Asghar

Son of Muhammad Asghar

Registration # 432-MPhil/Ling/Aug09

Discipline English (Linguistics)

Candidate of Ph.D. at the National University of Modern Languages do hereby declare that the thesis submitted by me in partial fulfillment of Ph.D. degree, is my original work, and has not been submitted or published earlier. I also solemnly declare that it shall not, in future, be submitted by me for obtaining any other degree from this or any other university or institution.

I also understand that if evidence of plagiarism is found in my dissertation at any stage, even after the award of a degree, the work may be cancelled and the degree revoked.

______Signature of Candidate Date

___Jamil Asghar______Name of Candidate

ABSTRACT

Thesis Title: An Analytical Study of Domestication in V. G. Kiernan’s Translation of Muhammad Iqbal’s Poetry into English

The researcher has explored the elements of domestication in Kiernan’s translation of Iqbal. The study has established the presence of highly structured and complex domestication in Kiernan’s translation. Domestication is a translation strategy which seeks to obliterate the linguistic and cultural identity of the source text and re-writes it in line with the norms and canons of the target text. The researcher has also examined the nature and effects of this domestication on the translation. Through a thematic and extended discussion it has been established that there are multiple categories of domestication present in the data such as Anglicization, classificational dislocation, explicitation, omission, ennoblement, qualitative impoverishment, distortion, mistranslation, and prosodic domestication. Moreover, in order to give a wider and deeper reliability to the findings, the researcher has also carried out a comprehensive corpus analysis of the data. For this purpose he has designed an elaborate corpus of eighty five highly domesticated words/phrases. Each of these words/phrases has been subjected to an extensive analysis and the insights emerging thereby have been correlated to the issue of domestication. The study has also demonstrated how this domestication has considerably deprived Iqbal of his ‘voice’ and has affected the linguistic and cultural features of the source text. For the methodology, the researcher has employed the textual analysis which is primarily situated in the domain of qualitative research. Through this analysis, the researcher has critically interpreted and evaluated the data instead of merely describing it. All the conclusions/findings have been consistently correlated with the textual evidence from the data. All these findings and insights have enabled the researcher to problematize Kiernan’s translation and relate it to a larger body of investigation in the discipline of translation studies. As regards the theoretical framework the researcher has used Lawrence Venuti’s model of foreignization and domestication which contends that, rather than being a liability, it is one of the greatest assets of a translation to appear unfamiliar and foreign since that is the only way to register and negotiate the linguistic and cultural features of the source text. Besides, as per this model, the researcher has conceptualized translation in a broader perspective as a site of ideological conflict for power and supremacy which is constantly animated by multiple linguistic and literary factors/variables.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

THESIS AND DEFENCE APPROVAL FORM ...... ii CANDIDATE DECLARATION FORM ...... iii ABSTRACT ...... iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... v ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...... viii DEDICATION ...... ix

1 INTRODUCTION……………………………………………….. 1

1.1 Language, Translation and Society-Some Preliminaries------1 1.2 Lawrence Venuti’s Notion of Domestication------5 1.3 Background of the Study------7 1.4 Statement of the Problem------10 1.5 Objectives of the Study------12 1.6 Research Questions------13 1.7.1 Main Question------13 1.7.2 Subsidiary Question------13 1.8 Significance of the Study------14 1.9 Scope and Delimitation of the Study------16

2 LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………….………..…. 18

2.1 Introduction------18 2.2 Translation: Some Definitional Considerations------19 2.3 The Birth of Translation-Antiquity------20 2.4 The Christian Tradition and the Domesticating Trends------27 2.5 The Middle Ages and the Domestication Tendencies------31 2.6 Domestication during the Renaissance------35 2.7 The Enlightenment-A New Reign of Domestication------38 2.7.1 Denham, Dryden and the Dominant Poetics------42 2.7.2 D’Ablancourt and Pope------47 2.7.3 Arabian Nights-A Redefinition of the Oriental Tales------50 2.7.4 Prévost, Bodmer, Breitinger and Gottsched------57 2.7.5 Tytler and Campbell------59 2.7.6 Voltaire’s Domestication of Hamlet------63 2.7.7 Domestication Going beyond Literature------64 2.8 Colonialism-A Domestication of Text and Territory------67 2.8.1 Colonial Motives and Translation------69 2.8.2 Translation, Subjugation and Stereotyping------71 2.8.3 Translation and the Missionary Programs------72 2.8.4 Domestication and the Quran------74

2.9 The Romantic Age------76 2.9.1 Cary’s Rewriting of Dante and Foscolo------77 2.9.2 Leigh Hunt and the Story of Rimini------80 2.9.3 Schleiermacher’s Valorization of the Foreign------81 2.9.4 Macpherson’s Ossian------85 2.9.5 Fitzgerald’s Domestication of Khayyam------86 2.9.6 Newman’s Foreignization of Homer------91 2.9.7 Arnold versus Newman------93 2.9.8 Lamb, Frere and the Censored Translations------96 2.10 The Twentieth Century------98 2.10.1 Pound’s Experiment with the Foreign------100 2.10.2 Fitts’s Criticism of Pound------106 2.10.3 The Publishing Industry and the Hegemony of English------108 2.10.4 Jones’ Re-Interpretation of Poetics------112 2.10.5 Graves and Weaver------115 2.10.6 The Domestication of the Far Eastern Literature------120 2.10.7 New Trends and New Considerations------123 2.10.8 Venuti’s Problematization of Translation------129 2.10.9 Translation and the Politics of Power------132 2.10.10 Context, Culture and Representation------133 2.10.11 Translation as Rewriting------134 2.11 Iqbal’s Poetics and Translations-Some Considerations------135 2.11.1 Reynold Alleyne Nicholson (1868-1945)------137 2.11.2 Arthur John Arberry (1905-1969)------141 2.12 Difficulty of Translating Iqbal------144 2.13 Conclusion------146

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY………………………………… 147

3.1 Introduction------147 3.2 Conceptual Framework------149 3.3 Theoretical Framework------151 3.4 Research Methodology and its Rationale------152 3.5 Research Design------153 3.6 Collection of Data------155 3.7 Analysis of Data------155 3.8 Results/Finding------157

4 DATA ANALYSIS………………………………………………..... 158

4.1 Introduction------158 4.2 Workings of Domestication------159 4.2.1 Anglicization------159 4.2.2 Classificational Dislocation------191 4.2.3 Distortion------208 4.2.4 Mistranslation------224

vii

4.2.5 Omission------234 4.2.6 Qualitative Impoverishment------244 4.2.7 Prosodic Domestication------258 4.2.8 Expansion/Explicitation------264 4.2.9 Ennoblement------278 4.3 Corpus-Analysis of the Word-Level Equivalents------283 4.4 Conclusion------330

5 CONCLUSION……………………….…………………………… 332

5.1 Findings------334 5.2 Recommendations------339 5.3 Suggestions for Future Researchers------343

REFERENCES…...……………………………………..……………… 347

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMET

First and foremost, I am timelessly grateful to Allah Almighty beyond all possible expressions Who always sustained me during all the bleak and dark hours of my life and Who gave me the strength to believe in my dreams and courage to pursue them against all odds. At this occasion, I feel an overwhelming sense of gratitude to my father who, though could not live to see my dream come true, remained the single most important source of encouragement and hope for me during my research. May Allah bless his noble soul eternally! In writing this thesis I have benefited greatly from the suggestions of my teachers, colleagues, students and friends. I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor Dr. Nighat Ahmad whose guidance, encouragement and support were foundational to the completion of this thesis. I am also grateful to Dr Shazra Munnawer, Dean, FHS, for her cooperation and guidance. Thanks to Dr. Nighat Sultana also for her guidance and precious suggestions. I am immensely thankful to my brother Rahil Asghar whose fatherly role has always been a great source of comfort and assurance. My two sisters have also been a blessing for me. I would like to thank my wife for her love, support and patience during the past three years. She has also been my inspiration and motivation. Special thanks to my daughter Mashal who felt my absence at home most restlessly and vocally. She is indeed the light of my eyes. It gives me great pleasure to thank my dear brother Raja Hassan whose support was also crucial for the accomplishment of this task. I would like to express my thanks to my mentors and colleagues for their unending support. Col. Syed Jawaid Ahmad, Col. Nazir Alam and Qazi Muhammd Iqbal have been affectionate and encouraging far beyond my all expectations. Their mentoring I regard very profoundly. Moreover, Mr. Arshad Mehmood, Mr. Muhammad Uzair, Mr. Habib ur Rehman, Mr. Hazrat Umar, Mr. Khurram Shahzad, Mr. Azhar Habib, Mr. Akhtar Abbas, Mr. Muhammad Bilal, Mr. Muhammad Yousaf and Mr. Aqleem Ijaz were extremely generous with their advice and motivation. They steered me away from errors and oversights. Any that remain are my own responsibility. Above all my gratitude to my mother is too immense to put in words. Without her, nothing would have been possible. What else can I say? Perhaps nothing! It brings me to the verge of the unsayable. So to her I am speechlessly thankful.

DEDICATION

To my wife as an apology for long hours of silence.

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

I. I. Language, Translation and Society — Some Preliminaries

Language is the foremost and remarkable means used by human beings to make all social existence possible. Humans communicate their emotions, discuss their likes, express their fears and share their hopes by, in and through language. Not only do humans talk of that what exists; but they also have the unique capacity to fanaticize what does not exists — the counterfactual states of affairs, events and objects. “We look before and after and pine for what is not”, said Shelley, one of the finest lyric poets of English. In short, it is, indeed, language that makes a shared existence and a common life- experience possible in the first place and then successfully sustains it throw all the vicissitudes of time and chance. This centrality of language and its direct relation with the human social existence is described by the renowned British linguist R. Fowler in the following words:

There is a dialectical interrelationship between language and social structure: the varieties of linguistic usage are both products of socio-economic forces and institutions — reflexes of such factors as power relations, occupational roles, social stratifications, etc. — and practices which are instrumental in forming and legitimating the same social forces and institutions (1981, 21).

True, the potential and capacity granted by the use of language bring about the sociocultural accomplishments of varying degrees and kinds. Nevertheless, language can also obstruct and impede our understanding and, therefore, can affect our communication in some of the most fundamental ways. This danger sounds all the more real given the multilingual and multicultural nature the world we inhabit. The bewildering range of

1 languages and the multiplicity of social patterns to actualize them necessitate the practice of translation. However, the inherently subjective and the culture-specific nature of translation makes its possibility and authenticity a topic of much controversy and debate.

The risk of distortion (in communication in general and in translation in particular) is everywhere ranging from the accidental misidentification of meanings to the systematic propagandas and willful mischaracterization of the cultural and linguistic ‘others’ (De Gramont: 1992, 48). The “mist and veil of words,” as the Anglo-Irish philosopher Bishop Berkeley (d. 1753) put it, is a commonly discussed topic in the discourses centered upon the issues of translation and communication (Daniel: 2007, 67). All the notable philosophers of language and translation theorists have been harboring a deep distrust of language and disputing its viability as a ‘clear windowpane’ through which facts could reveal themselves transparently (Baker: 2006).

There are novelists like George Orwell who questioned the very capacity of language to communicate (Rodden: 2007, 81) as well as the philosophers like Nietzsche who issued this somewhat totalizing statement that all language, at bottom, is metaphorical thus incapable of giving us a realist account of things (Magnus & Higgins, 1996, 152). Incidentally, Nietzsche’s characterization of translation as a form of conquest is also relevant to the point being made here (Barber & Stainton: 2010).

It was not until the first half of the 20th century that translation scholars and theorists became sufficiently aware of the conceptual intricacy and the ethico-political function of translation. At the same time, they began to appreciate that the practice of translation should be problematized not just in the domains of literature and religion but also in the fields of advertisement, media studies, information technology, cultural anthropology, international politics, scientific theory, research publication, area studies, and education. The theoretical intricacy associated with the term “translation” and the complicatedness of any effort to define it necessitate the historicization of the specific ways in which translation has been lately conceptualized (Baker: 2006, 43).

The aforementioned ethico-political function of translation, however, has mostly been complicit with the broader questions of power, control, hegemony and authority. Translation has also been playing a pivotal role in the creation, maintenance, and distribution of differential power relations in the society. It invariably involves the sociocultural and politico-historical imperatives and, therefore, can be considered as a political scheme of social convergence as well as antagonism. Furthermore, the social significations and implications constructed by the practice of translation create the sociopolitical effects which, in turn, function as a medium or mechanism by which people envisage their relation to the society at large (Sakai, 1997).

The range of implications and connotations linked with the term translation brings about such notions as ‘transference’, ‘conveyance’, ‘transportation’, ‘removal’ and ‘dislocation’. These connotations of the words commonly associated with translation are shared across many languages: translation in English, honyaku in Japanese, fanyi in Chinese, traduction in French, Übersetzung in German, tarjama in Urdu, Arabic and Persian, and so forth. The notion of translation varies widely across languages and cultures and within the English language its various definitions have been proposed. However, the researcher has taken the following definition which is considerably well worded and comprehensive:

[Translation is] the process or result of turning the expressions of one language (the ‘source language’) into the expressions of another (the ‘target language’), so that the meanings correspond (Crystal, 1999, 344).

The prominent Russian linguistic and literary scholar Roman Jakobson’s well- known classification of translation is an effort to put a ceiling on the instability inbuilt in the symbolic use of translation vis-à-vis language. Jakobson classifies translation into the following three categories (1980, 261):

. Intra-lingual Translation: An elucidation of linguistic signs by means of other linguistic signs of the same language.

. Inter-lingual Translation: An interpretation of linguistic signs and symbols by way of some other language.

. Inter-semiotic Translation: A translation of linguistic signs and symbols by non- verbal signs and symbols.

The more technical definition, however, will appear in the second chapter. In these three categories, only the second category is considered to be ‘translation proper’ by Jakobson. Therefore, in this way, ‘translation proper’ is an inter-lingual (and therefore) inter-cultural phenomenon in which the translator simultaneously deals with two distinct linguistic codes underwritten by two distinct cultural patterns. In this regard, ‘translation proper’ appears to be what some of the discourse analysts have called a “discursive construct” — part of what may be described as “the regime of translation” (see Venuti, 1995, 5). These so-called “regimes of translation” are institutionalized aggregations of conventions, norms of behavior, canons of acceptability, notions of correctness, and modes of perceiving. Furthermore, these regimes seek to foreground those speech acts and communicative events which theorists describe as having the ‘perlocutionary’ effects (Sakai, 1997, 100).

Jokobson’s conceptualization of translation seeks to lay down and demarcate the locus of difference between two discrete national and cultural speech communities because of the fact that translation proper can take place only between two distinct languages. It, consequently, eliminates the variations within a speech community and rigorously situates the ‘foreign’ outside the boundaries of a language. Certainly such a notion of translation is a schematization of a universal and idealized notion of the ‘international’ world of ours. In such a world, nations are situated at various geographical places and enclosed by the territorial borders and invested with nationalist narratives (Sakai, 1997).

1.2. Lawrence Venuti’s Notion of Domestication and Foreignization

The American translation scholar and theorist Lawrence Venuti (1953—), a professor of English at Temple University, broadened and deepened the contemporary problematization of translation by working out his insightful and radical critique of the contemporary translation theory and practice. Venuti not only championed an “ethics of difference” in translation, but also took account of its ideological and political dimensions, thereby providing it with a more plausible theoretical substratum. Describing the scandalous and appropriating nature of translation, Venuti says:

Translation is often regarded with suspicion because it inevitably domesticates foreign texts, inscribing them with linguistic and cultural values that are intelligible to specific domestic constituencies. This process of inscription operates at every stage in the production, circulation, and reception of the translation (1998, 67).

Venuti, therefore, stands for an “ethics of difference” in translation. Instead of leaving “the reader in peace as much as possible” and “moving the author towards him,” a translator should, according to Venuti, “move the reader towards him” (see Munday, 2001, 29). Venuti further postulates that instead of eliminating the linguistic and cultural differences for the sake of fluency, a translation ought to register and communicate them. To him, a translation, in an ethnodeviant manner, should defy and resist the Eurocentric and assimilationist tendencies. Or else it will be considered a domesticated translation which ipso facto seeks to appropriate the linguistic and the cultural identity and uniqueness of the source text (1995, 20). To counteract the practice of domestication in translation, Venuti proposed the strategy of “foreignization” — a technique which has made its way to the translation encyclopedias and dictionaries.

Foreignization can be described as a translation strategy which seeks to send the reader abroad instead of bringing the author home. Unlike domestication, it does not seek to create the illusion in the mind of the reader that whatever he or she is studying is

5 indistinguishable from the original text in an unproblematic way. Nor does it lay any claim to substitute the source text in any absolutist way. It aims at highlighting and communicating the identity of the source text hence precluding any possibility or likelihood of the ideological domination of the target culture.

Foreignization also attempts to privilege and foreground the cultural and linguistic peculiarities of the source text. In this way, it makes a strategic effort to evoke a sense of “otherness” and “foreignness” in order to stressing its “translated” nature of the text it is dealing with.

Therefore, rather than being a liability, it is one of the greatest assets and strengths of a translation to appear “unfamiliar” and “foreign” because that is the only way it could effectively register and negotiate the linguistic and cultural differences between the source text and the target text. Whereas, a domesticated translation is usually deemed to be complicit with power, a foreignized translation is considered to be resistant and subversive to it. In the same way, unlike a domesticated translation, a foreignized translation does not devalue the source text by flattening out its linguistic and cultural uniqueness.

Venuti’s indictment of domesticated translations is very compelling. Domesticated translations are usually characterized by “fluency” which creates what Venuti calls “an illusion of originality”. With this fluency, a translation can lay a pseudo claim to be an absolute substitute for the original text which, clearly, is not the case. The practice of domestication has been one of the givens of the Anglo-American translation tradition and the translators from this tradition have been robbing the non-European texts of their cultural identities and making them conform to the dominant Anglophone cultural and linguistic patterns (genres, registers, styles, etc.). To Venuti, this amounts to an act of violence which refuses to take the foreign texts on their own terms and seeks to “conquer” them by seamlessly assimilating them. Therefore, this fluency which is one of the most common characteristics of domesticated translations, though facilitates the reader at home, yet comes with a huge price. It prevents a dialogic engagement with the

6 other cultures and peoples and endorses an Anglophone literary elitism in the world which is at once hegemonic and self-righteous.

This, in turn, brings about a “cultural closure” which entails a lack of openness to the ethnolinguistic multiplicity, especially to the non-European modes of thinking and ultimately results in Eurocentrism and all of its attendant ills (Venuti, 2009, 16). In additions, when a translation reads like the original, the translator imperceptibly wrests the role of authorship from the actual writer. This is also considered to be scandalous by Venuti. Moreover, the prevalence of domestication in the Anglo-American culture positively hinders the enrichment of the Anglophone literary tradition as well.

Finally, as Venuti observes, along with all this, what complicates the situation manifold is the ascendant and hegemonic position of the English language. The existing economic and military influence of the United States coupled with the global weight of the Anglophone culture has placed English in a uniquely privileged position (Munday, 2009, 65). Therefore, the translator working from the epicenter of this tradition feel all the more mandated to domesticated the source texts they take up to translate.

I.3. Background of the Study

The notion of translation and interpretation has always intrigued the scholars and researchers of language. It can be maintained that at the broadest level all human communication hinges on the role of translation and interpretation. However, the immediate background of this study is what has lately been called as the “cultural turn”. The second half of the 20th century witnessed the rising influence of cultural studies on translation. Therefore, the translation scholars sought to move away from such static and conventional notions such equivalence, meaning, and fidelity to a more consequential discussion of cultural considerations.

This novel conceptualization perceived the practice of translation in a broader perspective and found it to be a site of ideological conflict for power and supremacy

7 which is constantly animated by an intricate interplay of various sociocultural and literary factors. Language was seen as “culture” itself and not just a mere part of it. For this reason, meanings are not just “carried” as such by language but are constantly negotiated by the complex linguistic, cultural and social variables. Consequently, translation was also seen as a “form of manipulation” (Hermans, 1985, 41). These steps constituted major benchmarks in the history of translation during the 20th century (Vermeer, 1989).

With such varied developments and with the cultural considerations now playing an ever fuller part, the notion of context acquired unprecedented significance. As this period too was marked by an unparalleled attention to culture, it was hailed by many as the “cultural turn” of the translation studies (Snell-Hornby, 2006, 55, Bassnett & Lefevere, 1990, 83). At this time, neither the word, nor the text, but the culture became the operational ‘unit’ of translation.

Moreover, such issues as gender, identity, ethics, hegemony, power, and cultural relativism were brought into sharp focus by the researchers and students of translation alike. André Lefevere’s work on the ideology-translation nexus and Venuti’s notion of domestication and foreignization helped bring the questions of ideology and identity to the fore and therefore broadened the theoretical base of the discipline. This ingenious and innovative understanding of translation proved to be a paradigm shift, to use Thomas Kuhn’s expression (Kuhn, 1962). This shift increasingly saw translation in paralinguistic terms — an intercultural communication embedded in numerous discursive practices and underwritten by ideological and power considerations.

Translation scholars like Philip Lewis (1985), Antoine Berman (1992) and Lawrence Venuti (2003) challenged the Anglo-American literary traditions of translation and created space for a cultural debate. Lefevere, identifying the prevalent mood in the discipline of translation studies, rightly pointed out that whenever, in the course of translating a text, linguistic considerations clash with ideological/cultural considerations, the latter mostly tend to win out (1992a, 39). Similarly the prominent Indian translation theorist Tejaswini Niranjana likens the practice of translation with an act of containment

8 which by employing specific means of representing the “other”, consolidates the hegemonic practices of the power elite (1992, 3). At the same time, Niranjana makes an extraordinarily brilliant observation when she maintains that translations operate insidiously by constructing transparent and coherent discourses which result in the repression of the cultural and linguistic differences of the source texts. She also maintains that the practice of translation has been enmeshed in a dual idiom of betrayal and fidelity and resultantly has assumed an unproblematic notion of ‘representation’ (Niranjana, 1992, 78).

It is against this politico-cultural and literary background that the present study has been conceptualized and structured. Sir Muhammad Iqbal (1877 — 1938), celebrated Muslim philosopher, poet, and political leader, born in Siālkot, India (now Pakistan), has variously been translated into English by different British translators of note. Among them, Victor Gordon Kiernan’s translation of Iqbal (Poems from Iqbal 1955) enjoys a unique and prestigious status. V. G. Kiernan (1913 — 2009) was a British writer, historian, translator and a scholar of imperialism.

Since its publication, Kiernan’s translation has been received with great acclaim and the translator has rightly been eulogized for his literary merits and aesthetic prowess. However, there has been an acute dearth of criticality which could help evaluate this translation from the sociocultural and ethnolinguistic perspectives. Up to the best of the researcher’s knowledge, no one has, thus far, problematized Kiernan’s translation of Iqbal from the perspectives of critical discourse analysis with reference to Venuti’s model of foreignization and domestication. A large number of allusions, tropes, idioms and metaphors used by Kiernan have led directly to a wholesale domestication of the intents and purposes of Iqbal. The researcher is of the view that the fluent and transparent translation discourse of Iqbal constructed by Kiernan stands in dire need of deconstruction in order to bring to the fore the elements of appropriation and domestication present therein.

I.4. Statement of the Problem

Translations are often problematic for those who consume them because they have little direct access to the meaning of the original texts. The practice of translation is intricate and is usually defined with relation to the target language culture rather than the source language culture. Moreover, in the process of translation, cultural and linguistic norms of the source text are steadily redefined, re-presented and, at times obliterated — in short domesticated. The issues of power and appropriation come into play very actively. Translations are not between two texts but rather between cultures; and this cross-cultural process is determined by the amount of relative prestige the source and target cultures enjoy. The bilateral relations between the two cultures also have a direct bearing on the practice of translation. Hence translation is not merely between two set of words; rather, it is between two set of worlds which, more often than not, are very distinct from each other.

The present study examines the highly domesticated translation of Iqbal by V. G. Kiernan. The researcher contends that this highly domesticated translation has deprived the poet of his voice and authorial presence to a considerable extent. The researcher is of the view that Kiernan’s translation of Iqbal has led to a wholesale appropriation of the intents and meanings of the poet to such an extent that, in certain cases, it appears to be a rewriting of the source text.

In examining Kiernan’s translation of Iqbal, the researcher has found a great deal of highly structured, complex and hitherto unnoticed presence of the elements of domestication. The fact that Kieran’s translation has received such great acclamation and uncritical acceptance is the sign of the general level of insensitivity toward the power politics of translation and its complicity with the dominant discourses. Therefore the researcher is aimed to de-construct and dismantle Kiernan’s translation of Iqbal using Venuti’s model of domestication and foreignization. By this dismantling, the researcher also intends to show deeply embedded lines of tension, and imprecisions on the one hand and outright departures and distortions on the other.

While translating Iqbal, Kiernan appear to have applied what David Katan has termed as “cultural filter” whose clear aim is communicate the meanings to the target text reader in accordance with the canons of target culture only (2004, 78). Kiernan’s translation, on occasion, seem to be marked by distortions, lacunae, misidentification of meanings and employment of false equivalents resulting largely from the translator inability (unwillingness?) to communicate the complex cultural and linguistic aspects which underwrite the source text. Most of the existing research on Iqbal’s translation into English is largely based on the literary and aesthetic analyses. There is, however, an acute scarcity of research on the specific issues such as domestication and the Eurocentric appropriation of the source text mostly done by the European translators. These translators, including Kiernan, have routinely sought to adapt the source text to the poetics and politics of the target text in order to make it more acceptable at home. For this reason, these translations continue to enjoy uncritical acceptance in the Anglophone world and have not been sufficiently problematized and deconstructed.

Coincidently, the Urdu language happens to be a subordinate partner in the cultural power relationship with English and this very asymmetrical power relations between the two languages have impacted negatively upon and Kiernan’s translation. Stark power differentials between these two languages are a historical and social fact. The status and character of Urdu and English differ so widely that they are entirely two different and distinct languages unlike Spanish and Portuguese or, for that matter, Italian and French which are sister/cognate languages (Campbell, 2004, 128).

Lastly, the renowned translation theorist André Lefevere justifiably observes that the European and non-European cultural and literary traditions are so different that the translators dealing with these traditions have been historically engaged in a process of “cultural mapping”. More often than not, the non-European cultures have been conceived, constructed and situated within the European categories (Lefevere, 1992, 45). To a considerable extent it is true of Kiernan’s translation of Iqbal also as the translator has negotiated the meanings of the source texts and the proposed equivalents within the

11 categories borrowed from the European (more specifically Anglophone) thought and culture.

I.5. Objectives of the Study

Today when the questions of the cultural and linguistic identities are increasingly coming into play, the practice of translations can hardly be effectively theorized merely by resorting to the conventional paradigms and theories of translation. The present research, by employing Lawrence Venuti’s model of domestication and foreignization, seeks to trace the elements of domestication present in V. G. Kiernan’s translation of Iqbal. More precisely, the study attempts to lay bare the deeper questions of power, ideology, hegemony, control, culture which underpin the domestication of Iqbal by Kiernan. For that reason, the study dismantles the tropes, metaphors, idioms, value systems, epistemological canons and literary schemes used by the translator, and intends to show their Eurocentric and Anglophone nature. The study also examines how, as a result of an extensive domestication of Iqbal, the overall semantic and syntactic scheme of the target text has been compromised. The researcher also demonstrates that, at times, Kiernan’s transparent and fluent translation of Iqbal reads more like a rewriting of the source text which has led to a radical appropriation of the intents and purposes of the poet.

In fact, it is pertinent to mention here in passing that most of the existing research on Iqbal’s English translations has not usually gone beyond such commonplace issues as comparisons, contrasts, thematic analysis, stylistics, textual criticism, aesthetic, literary analyses, etc. However, the present research avowedly aims at investigating Kiernan's translation from a politico-cultural and ideological perspective. Moreover, instead of judging the translation for its relative merits or demerits, the researcher goes on to prolematize Kiernan’s translation for its ethnocentric violence and for its Anglophone appropriation of the source text.

Another lacuna which the present study hopes to bridge is the persisting split between the practice and theory of translation with specific reference to Iqbal’s translation into English. The researcher is of the view that Venuti’s championing of foreignization and his denunciation of domestication can serve as a viable theoretical paradigm for the English translators of Iqbal as it accords full recognition to the cultural and linguistic features of the source text. In this way, Venuti’s model can broaden the theoretical base of Iqbal’s translations into English and can adequately sensitize the translators culturally and ideologically.

Finally, at a broader level the study hopes to provide insights into the practice of translation and the question as to how best a translation can be cured of the problem of domestication. Such domesticated introductions of Iqbal to the English speaking world has received very little attention from the researchers so far and remain one of the most essential areas of inquiry in translation studies. In the end, it remains part of the responsibility of the researcher to show that a judicious and perceptive use of foreignization can be a valuable tool in registering and communicating the “voice” of the source text.

1.6. Research Questions

1.6.1. Main Question

What are the elements of domestication in V. G. Kiernan’s translation of Muhammad Iqbal into English?

1.6.2. Subsidiary Questions

I. What are the major categories in which the domestication of Iqbal’s poetry by Kiernan operates?

II. What are some of the culturally specific features of Iqbal’s poetry which make its translation into English difficult, thereby resulting in imprecisions, misunderstandings and, at times, outright distortions?

Primarily, the study is grounded in and guided by these questions. With an urgent sense of all these questions and the rigors and demands they entail, the researcher has taken translation studies as his main theoretical framework which is an interdisciplinary subject comprising elements from humanities and social sciences. Given this interdisciplinary nature of the discipline of translation studies, these questions are dealt with in a diverse and cross-disciplinary way. The research brings to light the elements of domestication present in Iqbal’s translation by Kiernan with reference to the aforementioned questions.

In seeking viable answers to these research questions the researcher addresses the problem of domestication in the light of broader issues of power and ideology. Iqbal wrote in a distinctly Islamic (Arabo-Persian) idiom and all this poetic thought is underwritten by the Islamic religious themes, references to the Muslim history, Quranic citations, historico-political allusions and literary expressions. Not only did Iqbal write in a distinctly Islamic idiom but he also added an altogether original and unconventional dimension to it. Therefore, translating him considerably compounds the task of a translator and with reference to the present research this aspect will be explored across a variety of perspectives and variables.

1.7. Significance of the Study

We are living in troubled times when the question of intercultural dialogue and negotiation has assumed unprecedented proportions. The world in which we are living, individual nation-states are increasingly embroiled in socioeconomic and information networks. The competing national and linguistic identities are compounding the inter/trans-cultural relations. Of late, the global reach of the sociopolitical institutions and technological gadgets has just added to value and relevance of translation. Today when

14 we are confronted with rapid and radical changes all around us and the modern technologies are just precipitating this process of social and cultural transformations. In the transnational relations and in the intricately structured and inter-dependent economic and military affairs, translation is operating at every level (Berman and Wood, 2005). Indeed in a turbulent and increasingly polarized world, the role of translation is so fundamental that Ilan Stravans rightly said, “modernity…is not lived through nationality but through translationality (quoted in Sokol, 2002, 138). Moreover, globalization with all its violent discontents coupled with rampant terrorism and genocidal wars calls for a much more nuanced and intimate understanding of all the cultural others.

In the development of such self-critical understanding, translation plays essentially a crucial, if often unappreciated, role (Berman and Wood, 2005). By negotiating meanings, translation has the potential to create a meditational zone of intercultural conciliation which is of key importance in a global and transnational world. Without such meditational zones, different peoples are likely to remain partitioned in their own cultural cocoons. Such distancing among different cultures will cause misunderstandings at best and ethnic cleansings at worst. The only antidote to these problems is a deeper and broader understanding of other peoples and nations.

However, translation has the immense potential to do more harm than good if it domesticates the source text by submerging all its cultural and linguistic identities. This recognition of the problem of domestication in connection with the practice of translation is identified with the works of Lawrence Venuti (1992, 1995, 1998). Venuti is right in cautioning the translators that domesticated translations will only create what he varyingly calls “Eurocentrism”, “ethnocentrism”, “narcissism”, “isolationism”, etc. Viewing from this perspective, domesticated translations are very likely to be partial and partisan. As a result, the entire business of translation is imprudently reduced to an act of making selections (inclusions as well as exclusions), and the representations of the source text happen to be little more than a sum total of all these selections. It is this partiality of perspective associated with domesticated translations which has them play a complicitous

15 role in the politics of power, hegemony and control. This, in turn, leads to a perpetuation of the dominant power structures in the society (Tymoczko, 2010).

In the light of these apprehensions the significance of the present study can easily be appreciated.

I.8. Scope and Delimitation of the Study

Although the researcher has dealt intensively with the question of domestication of Iqbal’s poetry by Kiernan, there are several theoretical and methodological issues which delimit the present inquiry in more than one way. All of these issues define the scope of this research and delimit the application of its findings. The following three considerations must be kept in mind as the delimitations of the present study:

. The study deals with a total number of one hundred Urdu poems of Iqbal and their translation by Kiernan. More specifically, the researcher, in order to give rigor to his investigation, has limited himself to those poems/extracts/verses which bear directly on such issues as otherness, appropriation, domestication, power, hegemony, manipulation, etc. Coincidently, these are the poems in which the themes of imperialism, liberty, resistance, culture, identity, theology, etc. have been foregrounded by Iqbal. That constitutes the actual sample for the present research. Besides this, no attempt has been made to include the Persian poetry of Iqbal for the simple reason that the number of Persian poems translated by Kiernan is too small to enable us to draw viable generalizations (just eight out of a total number of one hundred and eighteen). However, a similar analysis of the English translation of Iqbal’s Persian poetry is definitely a distinct topic of research in its own right and an interesting direction in which the future research can proceed.

. It must also be made clear at the outset that domestication of a translation does not affect its aesthetic appeal in any real sense. The researcher’s claim that Kiernan’s translation is a domesticated one does not subtract from the aesthetic or literary

import of the translation. In fact, the purely aesthetic and literary features of Kiernan’s translation remain outside the purview of this research as such. A translation may be extremely pleasing aesthetically and with incredible literary value, yet domesticated to its core (Venuti: 2013, 48). Similarly, the fact that Kiernan’s translation is immensely popular also does not invalidate the central premise of this research since to be popular is not a proof that a translation has done real justice with the source text also.

. The fact that the study deals with a translator who belongs to the Anglophone literary tradition should not lead to the conclusion that all the Anglophone translators of Iqbal produced domesticated translations. In addition, there is a sizable collection of translations done by the Pakistani, Indian and Persian translators also which must be taken in a completely different light and with an entirely different set of epistemological and methodological assumptions (Ghani: 2004). Furthermore, the fact that Kiernan’s translation is domesticated does not necessarily imply that he did it on purpose or anything of that sort. Rather one of the most intriguing features of domestication is that it can imperceptibly permeate translation which is very likely to go unnoticed because of the “pious ignorance” of the translator.

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Introduction

In this chapter, besides enlarging the knowledge of the topic and putting it in proper historical/chronological perspective, the researcher also aims at furnishing a critical appraisal of the subject at hand. The literature review is strictly organized around and centered upon the issue of domestication in translation throughout the European literary tradition of translation with special emphasis on the Anglophone literary tradition of translation. All the insights emerging from this historical survey have also been analyzed as well as synthesized and the areas of controversy have been carefully identified and discussed. Moreover, the review comprises both methodological and theoretical issues whereby the researcher seeks to define and explicate the controversial character of translation, its tendency to domesticate the foreign texts, and its politics of interpretation.

As regards the scope of this review it must be said that it includes the published sources of literature on translation including books, journals, academic documents, book reviews, etc. Furthermore, the researcher has made extensive use of indexing and abstracting and has attempted to reach as many sources as possible in order to enlarge the horizon of this review. Within this broad framework, the relevant literature has been carefully surveyed and a viable research design has been worked out which has been discussed in Chapter 3. In this way, the literature review has enabled the researcher to collect and critique data with greater meaningfulness and relevance.

Instead of just listing and abstracting major works on translation chronologically, the researcher has critically analyzed them weighing their implications for the present

18 research topic. Salient translation trends and dominant moods of each epoch have been duly taken into account. Major debates on the thorny issues of translation have been given special place here as they distinctly mark the intellectual progression of the age they belong to. Throughout the review a sustained effort has been made to relate each source to the central thesis of this inquiry — domestication.

One of the declared objectives of this chapter is to find gaps in the research literature on translation with special reference to the issue of domestication. Yet another objective is to put the present research in an evolving historical perspective by contextualizing it and situating it in relation to other studies in this domain. The researcher, by making use of various theoretical and epistemological insights, has surveyed the strengths as well as the weaknesses of numerous translation trends stretching back to antiquity. The strengths of these translations have been capitalized upon; while their weaknesses have served as valuable cautions for the overall theoretical and methodological trajectory of the present research.

2.2. Translation: Some Definitional Considerations

It is the origin of language itself, or more specifically the origin of writing, which forms the bases and origins of translation. At the broadest level, translation implies communicating the meaning of a source-language text by means of an equivalent target- language text. Etymologically the word “translation” has a Latin origin (translātiōnem) and dates back to the 14th century with such meanings as “to carry across”, “to bring across” “to remove to heaven”, and “to carry a saint's relics to a new place.” The ancient Greek word for translation is μετάφρασις which means “speaking across” thus giving the term a more oral and rhetorical turn (Partridge, 1958, 349).

Perhaps the most useful definition, particularly useful for the present study at hand, is that of Lawrence Venuti. He defines translation in the following words:

Translation is a process by which the chain of signifiers that constitutes the source-language text is replaced by a chain of signifiers in the target language which the translator provides on the strength of an interpretation (1995, 17).

This definition is remarkable for more than one reason and especially pertinent to the study at hand due to the following strengths:

. It reiterates the basic Derridean assertion that meanings are unstable effects unleashed by the relations and differences among the signifiers along with an endless continuum. Similarly Venuti also, in the aforementioned definition, has postulated the temporality of meanings as they hinges upon “the strength of an interpretation”.

. It brings out the polysemic and inter-textual nature of language which is foundational to the theory and practice of translation. What is more, it disputes any attempt of making translation an unmediated and purely lexico-grammatical process through which meanings are supposed to be communicated unproblematically.

. It affirms the derivative character not only of translation but also of the target text, thereby destabilizing the very notion of pseudo ascendancy claimed by the target language culture.

. It calls into question, by reinforcing the centrality of “interpretation” to the overall practice of translation, the Saussurean confidence in the efficacy of “signification”. It gives it a post-structuralist coloration and transposes it from an utterly positivistic paradigm to a subjective and constructionist framework.

For such reasons the researcher has selected this definition which will underpin and inform all the explorative and analytical aspects of this study.

2.3. The Birth of Translation — Antiquity

Translation has been playing a crucial role throughout the human history whenever there has been an intersection of two cultures and/or languages. However, for a large part of the human history, the practice of translation has always been a deemed as subversive, controversial and a perilous business — an act of betrayal looked at with suspicion and distrust (Hermans: 1985, 56). However, it is also true that, in the human history, translation has been around since time immemorial as one of the constants of our sociocultural existence. Bilingual inscriptions from Mesopotamia and Assyria are a testament to this reality. It is because of this constant presence of translation that there have been numerous discussions about its theory and practice stretching back to antiquity. The subject of translation has fascinated not only the linguists but such diverse professionals as anthropologists, historians, archaeologists, cultural studies experts, theologians, philosophers, historiographers, etc (Venuti: 2013, 89).

Since the earliest known civilizations, the practices and trends of translation have exhibited extraordinary continuities throughout history. The traces of translation are found in all the ancient civilizations dating back to the advent of writing. The first significant instance of translation in the West was that of the Septuagint — a translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek made between the 3rd and the 1st centuries BCE. The legend has it that seventy translation scholars from various places were commissioned to translate the Testament and for this purpose they were confined separately for seventy days and all the translations produced by them (in isolation of one another) were identical which, according to them, vindicated the divine origin of the Testament (Baker: 2001, 67).

Later, the Septuagint became the officially canonized source text for the subsequent translations of the Testament into various languages and acquired an authoritative status — a virtual standard against which the subsequent translations were to be judged and seen. However, a full-fledged discussion regarding the Bible translations will feature later in this literature review (Venuti: 2013, 194).

If the Hebrew translation scholars set the benchmarks of the theory and practice of translation, a more systematic account of translation had to wait the advent of the Greek tradition of translation. The Greek translation scholars were the first to found the vernacular practice of translation on more formal and theoretical grounds by drawing a distinction in translation which was destined to stay for all time to come: (1) “metaphrase” (literal rendition of the source text) and (2) “paraphrase” (non-literal rewording of the source text). To this day, this distinction introduced by the Greek remains relevant to the theory and practice of translation. At about the same time another center of translation emerged in Alexandria which was the most important of the cities of in the Mediterranean and a home to Jewish translators of the Testament who dared not tamper with the Word of God. However, in order to cater for the theological needs of their non-Hebrew co-religionists, they agreed on a strictly word-for-word translation of the Old Testament (Baker: 2001, 97).

At around this time, the Buddhist, the Indian and the Chinese translation traditions also experienced a lively flourishing. One of the prominent features of the practices of translation during this period was an unconcealed bias towards the target languages and the target language cultures. As a result, a large number of translators began to theorize about translation in terms of target language. The Buddhist monks, for example, tilted their translations of the Indian Sutras in favour of Chinese in order to make them more comprehensible to the Chinese readers. For this purpose, the Chinese culture was fully foregrounded in the translation with its typical family values of filial piety and parental sacrifices (see Baker: 2006, 78-81). A domesticated and ideologically assimilationist approach to translation can be seen at work in the translations made during this entire period.

The renowned German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, whose diverse interests also included the subject of translation, slated the Greek as well as the Roman translators for their extensive domestication of the texts they translated (Magnus & Higgins, 1996 108). It is largely because of these deeply seated domesticating tendencies of translation

22 in general that Nietzsche termed an act of translation as “a form of conquest”. To him, the leading Roman lyric poet Horace and the Latin elegiac poet Propertius translated the classical Greek works into contemporary Latin with an utter disregard for the cultural and linguistic features of the original texts. Thus whatever Horace and Propertius translated seemed Nietzsche to be a “form of conquest” (Frenzel, 1967, 93).

However, in domesticating the foreign texts, the Roman translator left their Greek predecessors far behind and it can be maintained that the practice of domestication proper began with the Romans who appropriated the foreign texts they translated. The Romans while translating these foreign texts made extensive use of additions and deletions. This led to an appropriation and domestication of the texts thus translated. It was because of this widespread domestication that even the general Roman readers consumed these translations as texts actually written in the Latin language (Baker, 1998, 241).

In fact the Romans were rhetoricians par excellence and they conceived of translation too as a rhetorical task. Most of the translations during the Roman Period (27 BC — 393AD) were done from the Greek language. The notable Roman figures such as Cicero, Horace, Quintilian, etc. saw translation as a kind of rivalry and ideological conflict between the translator and the actual author. To Cicero, translation is essential in order to get rid of the misunderstandings and inter-communal confusions arising from an increasing linguistic and cultural split between the Greek and Roman worlds. Horace particularly cautioned against the literal translation — verbum pro verbo. To him, literal translation amounted to an outright slavish imitation of the source text which just added to the difficulty of the task (Kasparek, 1983, 84.). Seneca, the celebrated stoic philosopher and a contemporary of Horace, on the other hand advocated a strictly literal translation in order to preserve what he termed as the “truth” of the source texts.

At about the same time many distinguished translation scholars and practitioners flourished who produced several noteworthy translations but most of them domesticated the original texts they undertook to translate one way or the other. A large number of these translations were, in fact, not translations as such. Instead these were more like

23 adaptations from the earlier Greek playwrights and distinguished poets. Even if some of them were translations, they were mere instances of loose paraphrasing (Baker: 2001, 67). Among these translators two names specially merit mention: the Greco-Roman playwright Livius Andronicus (280 BC — 200 BC) and the Roman playwright Titus Maccius Plautus (254 BC — 184 BC).

Andronicus translated Homer’s Odyssey in Saturnian verse. This translation which is of great historical import is a blend of literal and free translation. It was the first literary translation of note as before this most of the translated works were either political or religious. Besides a large number of these works were also juridical. Andronicus’ translation introduced the Roman readers to Homer. It also ushered in a new era of the cultural and artistic development in the ancient Rome which was to have its impact on all the subsequent periods of literary activities in Europe (Conte & Solodow, 1994).

Nevertheless, Andronicus’ translation of Homer also contained certain unmistakable elements of domestication. In fact, Andronicus was faced with a tricky problem. Latin did not have a literary tradition of epic as a literary genre; therefore, he resorted to archaized forms with the intention of adding some solemnity and intensity to his translation (Venuti: 2013). For instance, the phrase “equal to the gods” was rendered as “summus adprimus” which could be translated in English as “of first rank”. The rationale operating behind this domestication is not difficult to discover. In fact, for the Romans it was an act of extreme blasphemy and sacrilege to claim equality with gods in any sense. Furthermore, Andronicus gratuitously endowed Homer with dramatic tension, expressive force, theatrical situations and pathos just because in the Roman poetry these literary characteristics were in vogue at that time (Conte & Solodow, 1994, 37). This amounted to a clear instance of domestication.

This prolific and productive period of translation in Rome, however, came to an end with the 6th century philosopher and translator Anicius Boëthius (480 — 524). Boëthius was, indeed, last of the great Roman translators and, as a translator, he had an exceedingly ambitious plan and was intended to translate the complete works of Plato

24 and Aristotle into Latin in order to counteract what he perceived to be the “effects of barbarism” which at that time were infiltrating into the Roman culture just before the eventual fall of the Empire. His translations of Aristotle’s treatises on philosophy were the only noteworthy philosophical texts of Aristotle available in the Roman Empire from the 6th century to the 12th century (Baker: 2001, 84-90).

However, most of his translations of Aristotle were loosely mixed with his own commentaries and remarks. He also made strict literal translations along the lines of the Judeo-Christian literary traditions and abhorred any amount of elegance or embellishment in translation. To him such elegances and embellishments exacted a price and were, in the final analysis “inimical to truth” (Marenbon, 2002). Nonetheless, Boëthius considerably Latinized Plato and Aristotle and made them speak in a recognizably Roman idiom. However, by and large, Boëthius, considerably foreignized his translations and tried to register and communicate the features of the source text to a very large extent.

Rigorous in syntax and weighty in diction, his translations exhibited all the major traits which had been the characteristics of the Romance languages and which were foreign to the Greek language per se. Given the real or perceived inability of the Latin language to express the abstract ideas, at times, he remained unable to do justice with the nuanced and subtle nature of the linguistic and philosophical conceptions enshrined in the original texts. He also loosely translated the notable Greek mathematician Nicomachus’s treatise on arithmetic. But this was also an extremely domesticated translation. His translations of Euclid’s treatise on geometry and Ptolemy’s treatise on astronomy were also marked by the same kind of domestication and appropriation of the original texts. Consider, for example, the following instance. In the preface to Nicomachus’s treatise on arithmetic, Boëthius makes the following remarks, “I am not tied by another way of thinking, and I do not force myself to a strict translation. Wandering with some freedom, I follow another’s road, not his footprints” (Moatti, 2006, 113).

This example illustrates the overall domesticating attitude of Boethius towards his translations (see Marenbon: 2002). However, in spite of the extensive amount of

25 domestication, these translations were extensively used/consumed by a vast readership during the Middle Ages and Boëthius greatly influenced the terminology not only of translations but also of logic, law, philosophy and theology.

Another contemporary figure who left lasting traces on the theory and practice of translation was the Roman historian, statesman and translator Aurelius Cassiodorus (490 — 585). He founded a monastery in Bruttium for the purpose of translating and preserving both ancient and Christian manuscripts. His declared aim was to safeguard the classical culture at a time of what he perceived to be the “impending barbarism” (Schulman: 2002).

Cassiodorus undertook the ambitious task of translating the entire corpus of the Greek theology and philosophy into the Latin language. Although he could not realize his grand dream in its entirety, he did succeed in setting up certain important cultural and linguistic guidelines for the theory and practice of translation. He translated Antiquities of the Jews (a twenty-volume historiographical work) into Latin. This work was authored by the prominent Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (Schulman: 2002, 185). Besides, this voluminous translation, Cassiodorus also translated the ecclesiastical histories authored by Theodoret of Cyrus (the influential theologian and bishop), Socrates (a historian of the early Church and not to be confused them with Socrates, the well-known Greek philosopher) and Sozomen (another famous historian of the early Church). He selected extracts from these three historians, translated them into Latin and hastily compiled them in his book Historia Tripartita (Davis: 2006)

However this translation is replete with obvious errors and inconsistencies but, in spite of all these faults, his translation was extensively drawn upon by other translators and scholars during the Middle Ages as a handy manual of history. His translations were also used by the Christian Church during the Middle Ages. Throughout his translations of the earlier historians, Cassiodorus liberally and extensively domesticated the original/source texts rewriting them in the “transparent” and the “fluent” discourse that prevailed in the Latin language at that time (Venuti: 1995).

During the following centuries, translation remained in the forefront of almost all the literary activities yet the domesticating trends reigned supreme. Emperor Augustus (63 BC — 14 AD) established a translation bureau in order to assist and facilitate the communicative and administrative affairs of the Empire. This was perhaps the first formal and officially patronized venture into the practice of translation with unmistakable imperialistic persuasions. Its most significant contribution to translation was the Monumentum ancyranum which was the Emperor’s account of his own administrative attainments cast in a blatantly propagandist mould. This translation bureau outlived the fall of the Empire and remained functional even after its demise (Baker: 2001, 57).

What is common to all these translations is the fact that all of them, one way or the other, served to sustain Roman imperialism. Undoubtedly, these translations also had apolitical aims but the real impetus behind their creation was the imperialistic power consideration and the grandiose dreams of the Emperors to ensure the supremacy and survival the Roman Empire. For all intents and purposes translatio studii (“transfer of knowledge”) was above all linked to translatio imperii (“transfer of rule”) — a concept for describing history as a linear succession of transfers of an imperium that invests supreme power in a singular Emperor (see Venuti: 2013).

The real motive behind all these translation was not just the enrichment of Latin literature but, more accurately, to make Rome the intellectual centre of the world and thereby to reinforce its centrality in the transnational affairs. St. Jerome articulated the spirit of the age when he said (Moatti, 2006, 115): “The point is not to translate literally, but, I would say, to capture ideas and to translate them in Latin with the right of the conqueror” (italics mine). Or when Boethius made it explicit: “I did not offer you vain goods . . , but goods I have removed from the copiousness of Greek culture so as to bring them to the Roman treasury” (Moatti, 2006, 115).

The Romans domesticated all the notable Greek writers ranging from Plato and Aristotle to such literary figures as Homer and Xenophon. By domesticating these Greek

27 writers, the Romans were aimed to construct their own distinct and highly nationalistic identity and it was this nationalistic identity which was destined to become the basis of the Roman civilization in the days ahead. Moreover, it was through domestication that the Roman translators appropriated the Greek texts and made them their own. It was also through domestication that the Roman convinced themselves that the Greek works did not belong exclusively to the Greeks and they too had an equal claim over them. This is how, through intensive and continuous domestication, the Romans made the Greek works their own cultural patrimony (Baker: 2001, 86).

2.4. The Christian Tradition and the Domesticating Trends

With the Christian tradition of translation, a new burgeoning of translation ushered in which was to leave its imprints on the discipline for all times to come. With the advent of the Shepherd of Hermas in the 2nd century A.D., the Christian tradition of translation came into existence and it reached its zenith in the work of St Saint Jerome (347?—419 or 420) who translated the Bible into the Latin language. He still enjoys immense reputation and for his sterling contributions to the theory and practice of translation and is hailed as the Patron Saint of Translation. His translation, known as the Vulgate has been used by the Roman Catholic Church for a considerable period of time and it played a key role in the formation and establishment of the Christian canon (Baker: 2002).

However, the politics of power and control came into play here as well. Saint Augustine (354 — 430), for example, censured Saint Jerome for translating the Old Testament directly from the Hebrew language because the latter feared that such a translation will seriously undermine the ecclesiastical uniformity and institutional authority of the Catholic Church (Davis: 2006, 94). As a consequence, in Saint Augustine’s opinion, any slackening of the ecclesiastical authority will eventually alienate the believers. Therefore, Saint Augustine found Saint Jerome’s translation potentially subversive. This warning he sounded in a letter which he wrote to Saint Jerome in which it was clearly enunciated that the Christian identity had its roots in the

Latin translations and a direct translation from the Hebrew language would throw this identity into crisis. Ultimately this will be detrimental for the organization of the Church (Baker: 2001, 198).

In the same vein, the domesticating trends and appropriating strategies of translation were further reinforced and popularized when the number of Latin translations of the Bible went up. Most of these translations dew heavily upon Jerome’s scholarship of translation. Language was “tidied” and remarkably “embellished”. Such “improved” (a euphemism for “domesticated”) translations of the Bible in themselves amounted to a considerable domestication of the scriptural text.

Subsequently, in the 16th century, it was the Reformation Movement which played a very crucial role in the vernacularization of the Bible translations and therefore also had far-reaching implications for the practice as well as the theory of translation in general. The number of the Bible translations into the vernaculars went up dramatically in spite of the consistent hostility from the Church. The most remarkable of these translations were Martin Luther’s translation which was published in 1530 and in which Luther plainly departed from the contemporary elitist and official canons of translation. Luther, instead of translating the Bible in any conventional and formalized way and preferring any stylized fashion, opted for the everyday German language (Munday, 2009: 3).

He made a case that the Bible should be translated into the day-to-day German language in order that it could be understood by the laity with as much ease of reading as possible. For this purpose He deemed it necessary that the translation should be in the vernacular German and not in an overly sophisticated and elitist German. Shedding light on the dialectical and vernacular nature of his translation, Luther wrote in his “Circular Letter on Translation” (1530):

We are aware of the scribbler in Dresden who stole my New Testament (I shall not mention his name as has gone to meet his maker). He admitted that my German is good and sweet and he realized that he could not do better and yet he

wanted to discredit it. So he took my New Testament as I wrote it, almost word for word, and he took my preface, my glosses, and my name away and wrote his name, his preface, and his glosses in their place. He is now selling my New Testament under his name. Oh, dear children, how hurt I was when his prince, in a terrible preface, forbade the reading of Luther’s New Testament but ordered the scribbler’s New Testament read, which is exactly the same as the one Luther wrote. (Lefevere, 1992, 7)

If Martin Luther sought to emancipate the Bible from the stronghold of the Church and endeavored to bring it into the domain of the laity, King James I undertook to “standardize” it by founding it on new canons and principles. In 1604, he commissioned a new revision of the English Bible and it was completed in 1611. This Authorized Version (AV), as it was called, was widely applauded for its simplicity, ease of reading and beauty of style. It is arguably the most influential work of translation in any language.

However, even an apparently apolitical practice of translating the Bible was not wholly void of the power implications. The Bible translations did have intriguing ideological undertones and the questions of the access to the scriptural knowledge coupled with the lay movements of piety were deemed to be direct challenges to the power politics of the ecclesiastical authorities. While working on the Authorized Version (AV), the translators naturally made many decisions as to the inclusions and exclusions and the eventual publication of the Authorized Version made the historians overlook the existence of the scores of translations made before 1611. Many of those translations have been lost to historical sight. The same could have been the fate of the Authorized Version too, had it not been patronized by the official power elite.

Seen from this viewpoint, the translations of the Bible also seem to have been encumbered by the power considerations like the sociopolitical dynamics of every era. Today it has become customary, albeit subconsciously, to take the Bible for granted as an English text and take ownership of it as such (Metzger, 2001). This conceptualization is

30 so deeply ingrained in the Christian world of today that the cotemporary English Bible does not seem to have had any other textual/linguistic identity than the present one.

However what, on occasion, is ignored is the fact that the language and idiom in which the Bible is found to be today and which give it a formal homogeneity and syntactic coherence did not exists in the original texts of which it actually comprised. It is also little noticed today that the Bible was originally scripted in a culture and at a time far different from ours. The original Greek versions of the Old Testament did not have chapters and verses as we see them today. In the Hebrew versions, the vowels were usually omitted as the text was so familiar to the readers that they hardly needed the vowels. In the same way, most of the other textual and linguistic features and properties which appear to be so familiar today have been added to it subsequently in the course of its long and eventful history of translation (Metzger, 2001, 76).

Nevertheless, in a certain sense the Bible translations at different times in history proved to be a significant example of the rapport between translation and resistance to oppressive hegemonic structures. The relentless opposition by the ecclesiastical authorities to the early vernacular/popular translations of the Bible was as much prompted by these power considerations as by doctrinal reasons (Tymoczko & Gentzler, 2002). This papal resistance to the translation and the mass circulation of the Bible brings to mind the Foucauldian notion of “appropriation as control over knowledge” — a form of exclusion and a discursive enclosure aims at restricting the access to knowledge with the intention of placing it firmly under the control of the elect few.

Besides other issues, this segment of discussion also makes this point abundantly clear that the practice of translating the Bible was not chiefly a matter of grammars and dictionaries. The questions of power, control, authority, betrayal, sacrilege and resistance work together in this complex mix of canonization and the fears of subversion.

2.5. The Middle Ages and the Domestication Tendencies

The domesticating trends and attitudes previously triggered by the Bible translations had a decisive and formative influence on the theory and practice of translation all through the Middle Ages. Furthermore, a considerable part of the Middle Ages too remained marked by the religious/theological translations. The notable English abbot Ælfric of Eynsham (955 — 1010) epitomized these domesticating trends when he wrote to the effect that in his translation of the “Lives of the Saints”, he deliberately attempted widespread abridgments in order to spare the reader of the boredom and though he abbreviated the words, yet retained the sense (Metzger, 2001).

But in doing so he was, in effect, domesticating the source text and, instead of, respecting the original text, he was adapting and embellishing it in order to bring it in line with the expectations and the “cultivated” taste of the bourgeois segment of the society. Such domesticating trends came into further prominence during the Middle Ages as Latin was looked at as the norm and the vernaculars were seen as the repositories of the barbaric and corrupt expressions. It was largely for this reason that, for most part, translations from vernaculars into Latin did not have the same acceptability and prestige as the ones from Latin into these vernaculars. In this canonization of Latin as a dominant social discourse, the Roman Catholic Church played an extremely important role (Venuti: 1995).

The year 1066 proved to be a turning point in the history of England and also influenced the practice as well as the theory of translation in the European tradition profoundly. With the Norman Conquest, the French language rose to prominence and rapidly achieved an indisputable social ascendency. The English language as well Latin was steadily pushed to the peripheries and the translation trends also changed for that reason — working in the service of the dominant discourse of the day. At this time, a growing number of translators looked at Saint Jerome as a model for all translation activities whether religious or secular (Baker: 2001).

The Middle Ages also witnessed many a heated controversy about the subject of translation and it was during the Middle Ages that the University of Paris became an

32 important center of discussions about the theory of translation mainly because of the translations of the Greek philosophers from the Arabic language. At this time, many indirect translations of the works of Plato and Aristotle appeared. Instead of being directly from the original treatises written by Plato and Aristotle, these translations were made from their Arabic translations. There is a near consensus of the translation scholars that an indirect translation (a translation based upon earlier translations) is more prone to domestication and appropriation. An indirect translation is twice removed from its source and is destined to carry all the burden put on it since its creation by all the intermediate translators (Baker: 2001).

The Arabic translations of the Greek works also came under fire for their domestication of the original texts. The English scholastic philosopher and scientist Roger Bacon (1214? — 1294) in his Opus tertium fiercely condemned these Arabic translations. To Roger Bacon these Arabic versions of the Greek works were awash with the Arab elements and accretions which had no mention in the original texts and were alien to their spirit. His arguments were based upon terminological and lexical grounds. To him, the Arabs widely domesticated the original Greek texts in order to cater for the domestic tastes and intelligibilities of the readership (Schulman: 2002, 93).

On the other hand, Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225 — 1274) presented a somewhat different view and called translation a necessary barter transaction and a reciprocal bargain between two texts in which it is useless to look for the original and in which some loss has to be tolerated. However, by and large, the condemnation of the domesticated translation continued (Schulman: 2002). Aristotle, emanating from the Arabic translation of his works, was censured as “corrupt” and his influence was deemed as “corrupting”. Therefore, at this time, many a translator, sensing the popularity of the Greek thought, translated Aristotle directly from the Greek language. They took special care to rid Aristotle’s translation of all the Arab accretions which they found unwarranted and, at times, grievous errors of judgment (Baker: 2001, 265). The notable translators in this period were Robert Grosseteste (1175 — 1253), Bishop of Lincoln (1168 — 1253) and William of Moerbeke (1215 — 1286).

Towards the later part of the Middle Ages, the French Bishop and the scholastic philosopher Nicole Oresme (1320 — 1382) translated Aristotle into French and marked a major milestone in the vernacularization of the Aristotelian translational discourse. Oresme, in fact, undertook and accomplished a series of translations of Aristotle’s works at the request of Charles V and for this purpose he was also granted a pension from the national exchequer (Baker: 2001). However, most of the translations made by Oresme dislocated Aristotle’s works from their indigenous Greek idiom and reformulated them in accordance with the 14th century literary canons defined by the Parisian high culture. However, in spite of this domestication, Oresme’s translations played a major role in reinforcing the importance of Paris as an emerging center of translation activities (Venuti: 1995).

As Paris was vindicating its status as a hub of translation activities, London steadily began to rival it. It was exactly at this time that London was also coming out as an important center of translation activities. This proliferation of translations was, along with certain other factors, due largely to the introduction of the printing press in England in 1472 by William Caxton, himself a translator of no mean importance. It was also during this period that the translations from the classical languages into the vernaculars flourished exponentially. A large number of the translators considered translation as a means to bring a language to maturity and a way to enlarge its communicative reach (Schulman: 198, 59).

Most of the translations at this time were done by the troubadours who would translate loosely and often extempore. During the same period a large number of translations of the Greek works were made in England also. However, these translations were considerably domesticated as they too were not directly made from the original Greek texts; rather, they were largely based upon their Latin adaptations and some of them were just back translations (Venuti, 1995).

Although such activities (indirect translations, back translations, adaptations, etc) continued apace, the first systematic and noteworthy instance of committing linguistics to delineate the theory of translation came about in the 15th century when the Lollard Movement (1382 — 1450) faced the brunt of the ecclesiastical authorities for making vernacular translations of the Bible. The Lollard Movement was a religious movement (a precursor to the Protestant Reformation) largely comprising the followers of the English scholastic philosopher, theologian and translator John Wycliffe (1328 — 1384). The members of this movement were called “Lollards” — a derogatory and abusive name given to those who did not have any academic background or professional credentials to speak about the matters ecclesiastical (Davis: 2006, 56-60).

The Lollards believed that the Roman Catholic Church because of its rampant moral decadence and corruption had forfeited its ecclesiastical authority and priestly privileges. Taking the Scripture as the authoritative and sole guide for themselves, they began its translations into the vernaculars in order to extend its reach to the literate English masses who were capable of understanding the word of God in their own language (Schulman: 2002, 34).

Such vernacular translations of the Bible came to be known as the “Lollard Bibles” or the “Wycliffite Bibles” which soon after their publication came under relentless attacks by the Roman Catholic orthodoxy. It was argued by the mainstream orthodox circles that translating the Bible into the vernaculars was impossible because there existed no formal identity between such “corrupt and degenerate dialects” and the canonical Latin (Metzger, 2001, 78-80). In 1407, the Lollard Bible was ultimately banned and a large number of the major Lollards was officially persecuted. However, the impetus given by them was to have long-term effects on the overall theory as well as practice of translation.

The Wycliffite Bible (the chief inspiration and chief cause of the Lollard Movement) marks a critical phase not only in the development of translation but also of English prose. Some of the theorists have termed it as “the greatest monument

35 of English prose before the Renaissance”. According to Ralph Hanna, a distinguished scholar of English literature, the translation activities set off by the Lollards were foundational in “Englishing history, philosophy, and theology in the fourteenth century” (Scanlon, 2009, 115). By the same token, it can also be maintained that the Wycliffite Bible played an important role in Englishing the Bible as well. Moreover, the entire literary thrust of the movement went on to set forth a historicizing perspective on the biblical translation discourse. Therefore, it is obvious that because of the Lollard Movement, the Bible, through its translations, entered into the popular sphere of readership. Furthermore, Wycliffe’s advocacy of the vernacular and the lay access to the Bible ushered in a new era of the theological discourse and a proliferation of its translations (Baker: 2001).

2.6. Domestication during the Renaissance

The Renaissance period was characterized by its renewed and increased interest in the ancient texts and classical documents which led to an upsurge in the translation activities. This profound interest in the classics coupled with the developments in the printing technology led to a mass publication and a greater circulation of ancient texts as well as their translations. During the Renaissance, because of an unprecedented amount of curiosity about the classics, it was the classic Latin canon which governed and defined much of the translation practice.

It was during this time, that major centers of translation were established in Florence and Venice. In the setting up of these centers of translation, the influence of the Italian humanist philosopher Marsilio Ficino (1433 — 1499) and the Italian literary scholar Silvius Piccolomini (1405 — 1464) was crucial. These centers situated the phenomenon of translation at the heart of pedagogy and culture and, consequently, an educated and sophisticated person was expected to be good at and interested in the translations of the Greek classics (Munday, 2009). Translating a literary work of note from a major language into a vernacular was largely considered to be a laudable

36 challenge worth undertaking and a valuable addition to the development of the patriotic literature underwritten by a nationalistic canon.

Sir Thomas Elyot (1490 — 1546), an English diplomat, scholar, and a prolific translator is arguably one of the most prominent translators of this period. Both as a translator and a as a lexicographer, he sought to “augment our Englysshe tongue” as a vehicle of expression and a means of communication (Venuti, 1995 68). By his translations, he acquainted the general public with the classic Greek writers of note. At the same time, Elyot sought to enrich the English language and enhance what he perceived to be the prestige of the national literature. He translated Isocrates’ Doctrinall of princes (1533) in English as The Doctrinal of Princes. For this, he was assailed by the English scholar William Wotton (1666 — 1727) and the English theologian Humphrey Hody (1659 — 1707) for departing from the original text and domesticating the source texts. They dismissed most of Elyot’s translations, including his translation of Isocrates, by terming them as mere pseudo-translations.

In fact, much of Elyot’s translations were simplifications and loose adaptations of the original classical texts as he was also concerned with the literary taste of his contemporary aristocratic readership. It is also evident from his translations that, at times, in order to make things easier for his readers, he disregarded the subtleties of expression found in the original texts and resorted to the discursive and linguistic exigencies.

More generally, during the Renaissance, there was no dearth of the translated works which were either indirect translations or back translations. Therefore, these translations ipso facto resulted in an all-encompassing domestication and consumption of the source texts and some of them were light years from the source texts. Take, for example, the case of the English translator Thomas North (1535 — 1601), perhaps the most famous of the Elizabethan translators. In 1557, he translated Antonio de Guevara's Reloj de príncipes o libro aureo del emperador Marco Aurelio as The Dial of Princes. In 1679, he brought out his The Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romanes based upon Jacques Amyot's French version of Plutarch's Parallel Lives. All of these works were the

37 indirect translations. However, North’s elegant prose deeply impressed upon the style of many of his contemporaries and followers (Venuti, 1995, 127).

In the midst of these translation trends, another translation technique set in, namely “free translation”. A free translation can be defined as a translation made on a level higher than is necessary to convey the content unchanged while observing target language norms (Munday, 2009, 92). A free translation has built-in tendency towards domesticating the source text as such what matters for it is the naturalness and fluency of the target text. It candidly condones a translator’s doing away with the linguistic and circumstantial features of the source text.

The famous English compiler and translator Thomas Malory (? — 1471?) is particularly noted for his free translations. Malory signaled a new beginning in the English prose by his Le morte d'Arthur (trans: “The Death of Arthur”). This work was a translation from the old French sources. This was in fact an adaptation of the Arthurian romances and this translation was so free that it is even difficult to take it as a translation. The English dramatist and translator George Chapman (1559 — 1634) was yet another Renaissance figure who translated Homer in a domesticating way and presented the Greek poet with the energy and liveliness characteristic of the age. Chapman often expanded and elaborated on the original text in order to include the descriptive details and philosophical/moral interpretations. In spite of these additions/inclusions made by the translator, George Chapman’s translation of Homer was much admired by such literary and intellectual giants as John Keats, Samuel Taylor Coleridge and T. S. Eliot which just goes on to show the general level of acceptability of the domesticating trends in the main stream the Anglophone translation theory.

In sum, a large number of normative models and principles of translation devised and followed during the Renaissance worked in the service of domestication. Most of the free translations and adaptations carried out during this period were rationalized in terms of the demands and dictates of the target language culture. It is also noteworthy that the domestic intelligibilities and preferences of the middle-class readership took precedence

38 over the actualities and the linguistic characteristics of the source texts. All these appropriating practices and paradigms served to embed the phenomenon of domestication even more firmly in the European literary canon and the tradition of translation.

2.7. The Enlightenment — A New Reign of Domestication

The Age of Enlightenment, especially the 17th and the 18th centuries witnessed the rise of an unprecedented amount of domestication in the practice of translation. It was during the 17th century that the domesticating trends and fluent translation discourses emerged most decisively in the Anglophone tradition of translation and this signaled the formal and institutionalized beginning of the practice of domestication underwritten by the Eurocentric cultural elitism and the powerful hegemonies of the publishing industries. However, that does not mean that these trends just popped up into existence during the 17th century or anything like that; rather, the practice of domestication has been one of the abiding features of the European literary tradition of translation since time immemorial.

In fact, this was the period when many factors worked together to institutionally formalize and popularize the practice of domestication within the European literary tradition of translation. It was also at about the same time that the theory and the practice translation was taken over by the French model — belles infide`les — which clearly sought to subjugate the source texts to the norms and canons of the target language culture.

Another development or factor which precipitated the practice of domestication in translation during this period was the emergence of the nation-states and the advent of distinctly nationalistic cultures in Europe. The notion of a nation-state as an enclosed territory populated by a distinct cultural community and governed by a single sovereign government was a relatively modern development. A social organization with a well demarcated and stable territory underpinned by rigorous ideological particularization and an ethical egalitarianism was a novel conception in the geo-historical consciousness of

Europe. For the existence and viability of a nation state, there were two essential conditions: social solidarity and cultural homogeneity (Hutchinson & Anthony, 2010).

As with all the ideological narratives and discourses, nationalism also hinges on highly abstract notions of affiliation, education, legislation, territory, etc. Nationalism also rests on a politicized culture which seeks to forge a linguistic and cultural similarity among the masses to the maximum possible extent (Nairn, 2009).

The nexus between domestication and nationalism is well-known and many celebrated translators (Schleiermacher is a case in point) envisioned a distinctly nationalist role for translation. It was considered to be the patriotic duty of a translator to add to the prestige of his or her national culture by means of translations. Thus the definition and the construction of nationalist culture became a progressively pertinent preoccupation with translators and scholars. Even the notion of Empire which was to characterize the practice of translation significantly deeply for a considerably long period of time had clearly nationalist underpinnings (Munday, 2009). It was exactly in the wake of these developments in Europe that a new and vast Empire was being founded in India which henceforth was to feature very prominently in the Anglo-American literary discourse.

At this point in time, new trends emerged which were destined to play an important role for the subsequent practices/conceptualizations of translation. The translation projects were initiated by the very choice of a foreign text to translate. This brought in the politics of inclusion and exclusion at the very outset. Only those foreign works/texts were selected for translation which could be readily appropriated and subjugated to the national cultural canon. The translator carefully weighed the themes, genres and the authors before finally deciding to translate a work and if everything was found to be in line with the nationalist culture at home, the translator would set about his or her business instantly (Venuti, 1995). In spite of this preliminary care, even during the process of translation, the foreign texts were painstakingly inscribed with the domestic values and discursive attributes.

In this way, the whole process was governed by a selectivity which promoted dominant domestic values to the exclusion of indigenous features of the source text. And these trends were further complicated by the diverse forms in which the translations were published, reviewed, read, and taught In turn, these trends produced cultural and political effects that kept changing with reference to different institutional contexts and social positions (Venuti, 1998, 67).

For example consider the case of the European colonizers and how they appropriated and domesticated the languages of the nations they colonized. This appropriation of the languages of the colonized lands was largely made possible by the practice of domestication. Thus the colonies were not just the source of raw material for the European industries but also a rich and untapped source of linguistic enrichment. According to the prominent English author and researcher Nigel Leask (b. 1958) it was largely because of the acquisition of the colonies in India that “the signs of the East” were to be foregrounded in the dominant British discourses largely through translations. To him, the Orient functioned as a romantic image in the European consciousness — a sign of distinction, a device to be incorporated into the British coat of arms. The domestication of the Oriental literatures was just an evidence of the infinite capacity of the Imperial culture to accommodate the alien and the different in its vast fold (Leask, 1992, 8).

By a vast majority of the European scholars it was taken as truism that the Oriental tropes, idioms, images, allusions was too alien and too coarse to be comprehended by the white middle-class readership at home. Therefore it was ipso facto a duty of the translator to recast them in familiar and recognizable moulds before they could be imported into the European culture and eventually made a part of it. Not only that the Orient was considered to be a geographical and historical an appendage to Europe but also its literatures and languages were taken as the natural adjuncts to the dominant European discourses. In the realization of the majestic imperial dreams and the grandiose colonial schemes, the European translators felt it absolutely necessary to

41 redefine and reformulate the Orient in accordance with a highly romanticized and constructed view of it (Hassan, 2011, 27).

This domesticated inclusion of the Oriental elements into the European translation discourses paralleled with a large-scale incorporation of the Continental European culture into the British tradition by means of translations. The medieval European poetry ranging from Castilian romances to Norse Eddas was translated and included into the English literary tradition. Classical texts were discovered, edited and translated for the contemporary readers and, thus, the ancient cultures were revived and integrated into the English literary tradition. In the course of these translations all the foreign texts went through a thorough process of domestication before they were allowed to be accommodated into the Anglophone literary tradition of translation.

Today there is a near consensus of the translation theorists and scholars that the practice of domestication works more insidiously in terms of the translation of poetry than prose. A large number of translation theorists regard poetry to be the most difficult genre to translate. Some of them even went so far as to assert the impossibility of translating poetry. The main difficulty in translating poetry springs from the dual challenge of rendering both the content and the form into the target language text.

In 1959, the Russian linguist and leading literary theorist Roman Jakobson (1896 — 1982) presented a paper titled, “On Linguistic Aspect of Translation”. In this paper, he went so far as to assert that poetry by definition is untranslatable because in poetry form itself contributes to the production of the textual meaning (Hatim & Munday, 2004, 10). No matter how common this view today happens to be; however, it was during the Enlightenment that this was, first of all, formally recognized by the translators. Therefore, we find an earlier echo of the concern in the works of the French translator, writer and philologist Anne Dacier (1647 — 1720) who illustrated this difficulty in the following words while talking about her translation of Iliad:

A translator can say in prose whatever Homer did say, but he can never do so in verse, certainly not in our language in which he must of necessity change, add, and cut. And what Homer thought and said is certainly of more value than all you are forced to put into his mouth if you translate him into verse, even if it comes out more simply and less poetic in prose (quoted in Lefevere, 1992, 12).

Let us proceed to study some of the notable translators and the prominent translation trends prevalent during the Age of Enlightenment.

2.7.1. Denham, Dryden and the Dominant Poetics

During this period, the English translator and courtier John Denham (1614 — 1669) and the English dramatist, poet, and literary critic John Dryden (1631 — 1700) led the dominant trends of translation. Even in this regard, Denham merits a more detailed discussion because of his remarkable influence and his canonization by the later translators. Denham translated parts of Virgil’s Aeneid and, in order to distinguish his translation from the burlesque versions of Aeneid, Denham rationalized his widespread domestication of the legendary Roman poet in the following words:

…if this disguise I have put upon him (I wish I could give it a better name) fit not naturally and easily on so grave a person, yet it may become him better than that Fools—Coat wherein the French and Italian have of late presented him (quoted in Venuti, 1995, 50).

Denham’s translation of Virgil is also deeply dictated by the former’s nationalistic leanings. The translation was extremely selective and it omitted a considerable number of the names of the places, descriptions of the various situations, and also the Latin names of the characters. For example such proper names as “Troiam”, “Pergama”, “Priam”, etc. are all omitted in the translation. It is precisely because of this domesticating attitude of the translator that Priam (The king of Troy during the Trojan War) was rendered as a

43 mere “King”. Furthermore, Denham also modified architectural terms which led to an intensive domestication and appropriation the source text.

However, none of this should surprise anyone as it was the stated aim of Denham to reconstruct a “naturalized English Virgil” through his translation. It can also be clearly seen that Denham went considerably beyond his predecessors in taking liberties with the original text and making some really outlandish additions to it in his translation. For example, look at the following expression which is a curious addition by the translator and of which the original text is completely devoid: “Thus fell the King, who yet survived the State//With such a signal and peculiar Fate.”(Venuti, 1995, 50-52) Now why did Denham make this unwarranted addition? Lawrence Venuti has hinted at some of the possible reasons/factors behind this act of unmistakable domestication. To Venuti, the addition of this expression goes on to reveal the translator’s own unswerving support for the institution of monarchy in England which survived the death of the King (Charles I). Another equally possible reason can be that Denham was, albeit unintentionally, serving the elitist agenda. Whether these reasons are plausible or not, the addition made by Denham amounts to domesticating the Roman poet and presenting him as a “naturalized English Virgil” to the English readers so familiar with the British tradition of monarchy (Venuti, 1995).

Moreover, Denham made conspicuous attempts at domesticating the architectural terms present in the original text as has already been said. He frequently likened the Trojan structures to the royalist buildings of the 17th century England. In his translation, he recurrently used the terms which bring to mind the British architecture such as “chambers”, “rooms of state”, “gates”, “posts”, “pillars”, “secret cabinets”, “arched vaults”, and “inner court”. On the other hand, when we look at the original Latin terms we come across the original Latin terms overtly refer to an altogether different architecture: “domus intus”, “domus interior”, “thalami”, “atria longa”, “penetralia”, “cauae”, etc (Venuti, 1995).

Therefore, here too, the domesticating treatment of the source text, which resulted in the cultural appropriation of Aeneid, can be clearly seen. The cumulative effect of all these domesticating strategies employed by Denham while translating Virgil contributed to the aggrandizement and reinforcement of the British cultural capital. The Roman literary background of Aeneid was transmuted into the 17th century British cultural tradition of Enlightenment.

The kind of domestication practiced by Denham while translating Virgil is one of the most widely used methods of appropriation. This kind of domestication usually takes the lexical heterogeneity and syntactic diversity of the source text as an impediment which a translator has an essential obligation to overcome. Small wonder the text that emerges as a result of such domestication happens to be much more homogenized and uniformed in which the foreign is artistically but strategically rendered as the familiar.

This is exactly what Denham did to Virgil. He defined the Roman in terms of the English and thereby acquired a strategic leverage to reformulate the tropes, idioms and allusions enshrined in the original text. It is exactly for such reasons that we see domestication amounting to a form of “control” as posited by the French philosopher and literary critic Michel Foucault (1926 — 1984). This is what Lawrence Venuti terms as the “cultural politics” in the enactment of which translation plays a key role by appropriating the foreign and the other. This is how Venuti describes the link between translation and what he calls the “cultural politics”:

…translation enlists the foreign text in the maintenance or revision of literary canons in the target-language culture, inscribing poetry and fiction, for example, with the various poetic and narrative discourses that compete for cultural dominance in the target language (Venuti, 1993, 209).

What is more, it is here that domestication seems to correspond to a form of violence unilaterally inflicted by the translator upon the source text—an unfortunate reality bemoaned by Lawrence Venuti. During the execution of this linguistic violence, a

45 thoroughly discursive reconstitution of the source text takes place which operates in ways which are as much textual as ideological (Venuti, 1993, 209). All thinking proceeds in terms of the categories either present in or perceivable by the target language culture. The very act of ideation takes place in the mind of the translation in strict conformity with the thought patterns prescribed by the target language culture (in terms of Denham these thought patterns are prescribed by the 17th century British Enlightenment).

The source text is valuable only in so far as it serves as a textual repository of raw material awaiting the craftsmanship of the translator. All the linguistic and schematic maneuvering is placed at the disposal of the translator which could enable (empower?) him to recast the source text in the domestically identifiable and familiar moulds. The elitist canons, fictional patterns, cultural perspectives, civilizational paradigms and literary dicta of the target language culture imposingly dictate the trajectory of translation at all levels.

Following closely in the footsteps of Denham, John Dryden looked at translation and its role for the rise of the elitist and highbrow cultural discourse in Britain at once nationalistic and patriotic. Dryden took Denham as his literary mentor and lavishly praised his strategies and techniques of translation. In 1697, Dryden brought out his The Works of Virgil — a complete translation of the Roman poet into English. Dryden took his inspiration from Denham and found him to be an outstanding trendsetter in the discipline of translation (Venuti, 1995, 62). Dryden’s translation theory was based upon the twin values of transparency and fluency which seek to make the translation look like the original. Transparency intrigues the readers and artfully hides the fact that what he or she is reading is a translation. Instead, it creates an illusion of originality. Fluency further reinforces this illusion by bringing about facility and effortlessness in the experience of the reader.

Dryden also criticized the “servile” and “too literal” translations of his predecessors and castigated them for being deficient in fluency. In fact, Dryden was so enamoured with this notion of fluency that he made it his cardinal principle in his all

46 translations. The domestication of Virgil in Dryden’s translation is so thorough that that fluency appears to be more like an essential feature of Virgil than a discursive strategy adopted by the translator for the sake of transparency. It is also true that, like Denham, Dryden was also concerned with the promotion of an aristocratic and exclusivist cultural discourse at home which he sought to overwrite with nationalistic pronouncements. Therefore, like his mentor, he, too, was concerned with defining the Roman in terms of the English in order to add to the prestige and honour of his own culture (Venuti, 1995, 64).

It is also worth remarking that Dryden did not just took into account the literary orientations emanating from the Enlightenment but also gave due consideration to the literary tastes and bearings issuing from the Restoration. When Dryden was translating Virgil, it was the time when England was faced with the turbulent circumstances wrought by the Restoration. As a consequence, it is not a coincidence if the Virgil translated by Dryden looked more or less like yet another Restoration figure with an exceptionally great literary prowess of versification (Venuti, 1995).

It is also instructional to note that Dryden took it as his central guiding principle not to ruffle the bourgeois values and the aristocratic sensibilities of his readership by including those passages from Virgil which he deemed to be “immoral” and “corrupting”. The prevailing characteristics of the Restoration literature such as reason, urbanity, moderation, sobriety, deft management and simplicity proved to be instrumental in this “moralization” and “refinement” of Virgil. Therefore whatever Dryden translated from the Greek poet, first he rid it of all such so-called “ignoble” and “lowly” elements. All this was done for the sake of the contemporary` bourgeois morality of the 17th century Britain as prescribed by the Restoration canon (Munday, 2009).

As regard the translation technique, Dryden was specifically inclined towards “paraphrase” — a technique with build-in tendencies towards domestication and appropriation. Dryden was of the view if a translation is not sufficiently fluent, it will be crucially wanting in “perspicuity” and “gracefulness” (Venuti, 1995, 62). Therefore he

47 sought to create this fluency in his translation of Virgil Perhaps he was being influenced, albeit unnoticeably, by one of the chief features of the Restoration literature —“deft management” (Kermode, 2004, 9). However, it resulted in further structural and substantial complications. It further paved the way for the domestication and appropriation of the content as well the structure.

It is also interesting to note that although we are passionately told by Dryden that a “good” translation should not lack in such values as “perspicuity” and “gracefulness”, yet these values are nowhere defined by him with any amount of precision and clarity. There seems to be a taken-for-grantedness as for as the definitions of these values are concerned. What is ignored by Dryden is the fundamental fact that the questions of “grace” as well as “perspicuity” are culturally defined and situationally specific and cannot be decided, once for all, by the authoritarian dictates of a powerful target language culture. Such amorphous notions can neither be generalized nor universalized as is imprudently done by Dryden.

Viewing from this perspective, Dryden’s advocacy for upholding the bourgeois values during his translation of Virgil seems to be a hegemonic imposition of the elitist cultural canons institutionalized by the dominant discourses of the day. Let us see how frank and forthcoming Dryden was about his domestication of Virgil along the elitist cultural lines:

I may presume to say, and I hope with as much reason as the French Translator, that taking all the Materials of this divine Author, I have endeavour’d to make Virgil speak such English, as he wou’d himself have spoken, if he had been born in England, and in this present Age (quoted in Venuti, 1995, 64).

It was perhaps for this reason that Virgil is utterly overhauled by John Dryden and is dislocated from his indigenous identity as an Augustan Latin poet in order to be presented as a Restoration poet. Like Denham, Dryden tried “to make Virgil speak such English as he would himself have spoken, if he had been born in England and in this

48 present age” (Venuti, 1995, 64). It was, more than anything else, the technique of “paraphrasing” which supposedly granted John Dryden greater liberties with the source text than would have been otherwise possible. It was also largely because of the technique of loose paraphrasing that Dryden did not confine himself to the original text of Virgil; rather, in his translation, he extensively borrowed from the previous translations of the Greek poets too and incorporated them in his own translation. This resulted in considerable portions based upon indirect translation. This led him further away from the actualities and unique features of the source text and gave his translation an anachronistic character which is not difficult to detect by a discerning reader. This is how Dryden led the main domesticating trends in the British translation tradition during the 17th century. As a result of Dryden expunged translation, the English readership was acquinted with a virgil who was considerably close to them in time and space.

2.7.2. D’Ablancourt and Pope

Another influential figure and a contemporary of Dryden who made recognizably domesticated translations was the French translator of the Greek and the Latin classics Perrot d’Ablancourt (1606 — 1664). Although, strictly speaking, he did not belong to the Anglo-Saxon literary tradition of translation as such, yet a brief mention of his domesticated translation will serve to illustrate the dominant mood of the period. Besides, he occupies a prominent place in the European literary tradition of translation. Perrot d’Ablancourt’s translations were particularly domesticated given his stated principle: “Remove everything that could wound our sensibilities” (Sawyer & Simpson, 2001, 66) To him, it remains for the translator to decide as to what is likely to hurt the sensibilities of the reader and once it is clearly decided by the translator, he has a moral as well as a literary mandate to eradicate it. Enunciating this principle, he said:

I do not always stick to the author’s words, nor even to his thoughts. I keep the effect he wanted to produce in mind, and then I arrange the material after the fashion of our time. Different times do not just require different words, but also different thoughts, and ambassadors usually dress in the fashion of the country

they are sent to, for fear of appearing ridiculous in the eyes of the people they try to please (quoted in Lefevere, 1992, 6).

This is not just a forthright confession of domestication; rather a bizarre justification and an unpersuasive rationalization for its employment in the practice of translation. To d’Ablancourt, neither the words nor the thoughts of the author matter; rather, it is the “effect” which counts. This way of going about the business of translation is, ipso facto, geared toward domesticating the a source text because the decisions as to what constitutes the “effect” and as to how best to achieve it will be thoroughly governed by the standards, precepts and literary canons of the target language culture. Even the power politics and cultural discourses circulating at that time will play a crucial part in defining this “effect”. In additions, different historical period require different thought patterns created by the contemporary dominant poetics and politics of the day, therefore, every age will set new parameters for translation.

All This, in itself, may not be reproachable as it happens to be the case with all the systems of knowledge that they are governed by the reigning cultural and political discourses. What is problematic, however, is the attitude nurtured by such a conceptualization of translation which tends to disregard the linguistic and cultural terms of the source text in favour of the target text and thereby paving the way for the practice of domestication. Thus paradoxically a translation made in line with such sociocultural considerations is more likely to drift away from the supposed “effect”, instead of coming any closer to it. D’Ablancourt further elaborated this point when he said:

In fact, there are many passages I have translated word for word, at least to the extent to which that is possible in an elegant translation. There are also passages in which I have considered what ought to be said, or what I could say, rather than what he actually said (Lefevere, 1992, 9).

In the wake of Denham and Dryden, numerous domesticated translations of the Greek and Roman texts appeared. During this time, the famous English satirical poet Sir

Alexander Pope (1688 — 1744) also brought out his famous translation of Homer which he composed in the heroic metre and rhyming iambic pentameter couplets. This was also a highly domesticated translation and Alexander Pope clearly sought to impose order and harmony on the Greek poet’s “wild paradise”. To Pope, Homer exhibits an extremely strong tendency to hurt the moral and aesthetic sensibilities of the middle-class English readership by introducing low images, sensual allusions, puerile suggestions and, at time, an infantile sense of humour. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the translator to smooth out all such allusions and images as they constitute “improprieties” (Tytler, 1978, 79).

This translation of the Greek epic was received with enthusiasm and widely admired for its swift pace and fluent readability which the translator achieved through a wholesale and a highly structured domestication of the original text.

On the other hand, everyone was not so ardently enamored by Alexander Pope’s translation of Homer. The extensive amount of domestication practiced by Pope did not go wholly unnoticed. For example, the English theologian, critic and classical scholar Richard Bentley (1662 — 1742) disproved of Pope’s translation of Homer. To Bentley, Pope, while translating Homer, lost his balance and therefore his translation was not altogether based upon the original text. Bentley pungently remarked having gone through the translation: “A fine poem, Mr. Pope, but you must not call it Homer” (Levin, 1991, 20). Pope’s translation also elicited considerable criticism and disapproval from certain other literary quarters because of being “unrepresentative” of the original text. For instance, the renowned English poet and hymnodist William Cowper (1731 — 1800) censured Pope by contending that the demands and constraints of rhyme (a technique adopted by Pope in his translation of Homer) precluded the possibility of proper translation. In the preface to his own translation of Homer, Cowper wrote while elaborating this point:

No human ingenuity [i.e. not even Alexander Pope’s] can be equal to the task of closing every couplet with sounds homotonous, expressing at the same time the full sense, and only the full sense of his original (France, 2000, 90).

For a closer and more faithful approximation to the source text and to do a greater justice with the original text, Cowper proposed the use of Miltonic blank verse which to him would liberate the translator from the tyranny of rhymes and meters. To Cowper, Miltonic blank verse has greater proximity to the prosodic structure employed by Homer (the Greek hexameter). However, this proposal of Cowper just serves to illustrate his own paradoxical position — on the one hand he criticized Pope for domesticating Homer; on the other hand he himself prescribed the use of Miltonic blank verse (the dominant prosodic form at that time) to be used by the translators of Homer (France, 2000, 90). However, what Cowper did not adequately realize was the fact that he, in making such a rigid prescription, himself was subjugating the structural characteristic of the source text (Greek hexameter) to the dominant characteristic of the target text (Miltonic blank verse). This is yet another form of domestication and no less insidious than the one practiced by Pope.

Some other names also merit a brief mention here as they illustrate the widespread popularity of the domesticating strategies of translation during this period. The English author Thomas Phaer (1510 — 1560) is yet another translator of Virgil who translated his Aeneid. Phaer took Homer as his mentor and following in his footsteps he made extensive omissions and alterations just in order to render Virgil more acceptable and readable (Phaer, 1620: V2r). In 1625, Sir Thomas Hawkins, a British poet and translator, dismissed the complaints that he had not been faithful in his translation of Horace’s Odes by saying that he had been concerned with the spirit of the Odes and not with the niceties and technicalities of meter and other textual and prosodic features (1625: Ar—Av; DNB). This clearly illustrates the domesticated nature of his translation of Horace’s Odes.

In 1628, the British translator and writer, W. L. Gent translated Virgil’s Eclogues into English and forced the contemporary courtly aesthetics on the original Latin text in such a way as to utterly domesticate the source text. He justified his free-floating departures from the original text by saying that he “was only carefull to preserve the

Kernell safe and whole, from the violence of a wrong, or wrested Interpretation” (quoted in Venuti, 1995, 47). Certainly this has been the most widely used apology by all the translators who domesticated the source texts.

In the same way, other translators who produced domesticated translations of the Greek works and justified them on such grounds include the clergyman and author, Barten Holyday (1593 — 1661), Sir Thomas Wroth (1516 — 1573) and Sir Robert Stapylton (1547 — 1669). All these translators domesticated the Greek classics in one way or the other through their translations. 2.7.3. Arabian Nights—A Redefinition of the Oriental Tales

At about the same time, The Arabian Nights, or The Thousand and One Nights was widely translated into various European languages — yet another Oriental work which was to be extensively domesticated by the legions of the European translators. The Arabian Nights is an anthology of Oriental tales, anecdotes and fables from the lands as diverse as Egypt, India, Arabia and Persia collected over hundreds of years. French archeologist and Orientalist Antoine Galland (1646 — 1715) was the first European to translate it into French in the early 18th century as Les Mille et Une Nuits, contes arabes traduits en français. Later on it was the British Orientalist, lexicographer and translator Edward William Lane (1801 — 1876) who translated these tales into English in the mid- 19th century. Galland and Lane are the foremost translators of The Arabian Nights and, in this regard, they have the credit to introduce this landmark Oriental work to the European readership (Venuti: 1995).

It should be mentioned here that Antoine Galland’s translation remained the standard one until the mid—19th century and all the subsequent translators took him as their literary mentor in this context. However, from our perspective it is pertinent to note that Galland made daring and extensive additions in his translation and incorporated even those tales which were not present in the original Arabic version. It was in his translation

يلع اباب ) that he included such tales as Aladdin's Lamp and Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves

although neither of them was part of the original version. It is, in fact, a ,(واألروعبن اصل testament to the successful domestication of The Arabian Tales by Galland that today no one thinks of this work without considering these two tales (Dwight: 2006, 55-61).

Moreover, in addition to tempering with the plot, Galland went a step ahead and maneuvered with the characterization too. Therefore, while domesticating the characterization of The Arabian Nights, Galland gave a recognizably Parisian coloration to the Arab characters of the tales in his translation. Galland’s Arabs look more like the middle-class Parisians than the nomadic and pastoral Egyptians or the tribal Syrians. All the suppression or retention of their practices and personality traits is done by the translator in accordance with a full awareness of this cultural dislocation. Thus in his thoroughly appropriated translation, the domesticating canon is so firmly established by Galland that none of his rivals could omit the stories he incorporated in the actual tales. (Venuti: 1995). All these stories were treated by the subsequent translators and readers as the integral parts of the original tale. This was the triumph of domestication and the defeat of the original text.

Furthermore, Galland rarely inserted annotations in his translation, and, consequently, attempted to explained some of the exoticisms within his translation. This led to what George Steiner has termed as “inflationist translation” in which the translator goes on incorporating the peripheral elements in to translation and resultantly the translation becomes recognizably inflated (Steiner, 1975). Thus all the elucidations and explications incorporated within the text acquire a status of virtual reality within the textual scheme of the translation and it is but natural for a reader to take them as the real part of the tales. This is how, thorough domestication, a reader is lulled into an illusion and a make believe that whatever he or she is reading is a mirror image of the source text.

It should also be mentioned here that Galland’s translation happens to be the least faithful to the original text. Due to a wholesale domestication of the source text, he assumed the status of the virtual author of the tales which he claimed to translate. His translation was so much canonized that most of the ensuing encomiums of Arabian

Nights such as by Newman, Coleridge, Tennyson, Poe, and by Stendhal are based upon his translation. Here is an excerpt from his translation which illustrates the domesticating nature his translation scheme:

Il alla droit à l’appartement de cette princesse, qui, ne s’attendant pas à le revoir, avait reçu dans son lit un des derniers officiers de sa maison

He went directly to the chamber of that princess, who, not expecting to see him again, had received in her bed one of the lowliest servants of his household (Venuti, 2000, 35).

This excerpt shows that Galland’s discretions while translating The Arabian Nights are extremely urbane and inspired less by morality or purely linguistic/textual considerations and more by the contemporary bourgeois decorum—a characteristic feature of the 17th century Parisian culture. He pejoratively renders the neutral word “officier” as “one of the lowliest servants” which is clear instance of the domestication of the source text (Venuti: 1995).

If Galland decisively Francized the Oriental tales, Edward William Lane decisively Arabized them. One expects from Lane, given his studious as well as sympathetic scholarship of the Orientalism and his nuanced understanding of the Semitic literary traditions, to be a more empathic translator of this Eastern work than Galland. However, his intellectual credentials notwithstanding, he does not appear to have disentangled himself from his essential British reticence and his ethnocentric moorings and attitudes. In his translation he meticulously hunted out what he perceives to be “obscenities” and “indelicacies” of the original text and then persecuted them in a way which is both judgmental and polemical (Venuti, 2000). In his notes and annotations he frequently makes such doctrinaire pronouncements: “I must of necessity suppress the other anecdote”; “I shall overlook an episode of the most reprehensible sort”; “Here, the story of the slave Bujait, wholly inappropriate for translation”; “Here, a line far too

55 coarse for translation”; “Hereafter, a series of omissions; I suppress a repugnant explanation” (Venuti, 2000, 36).

On occasion, so passionate did he get in domesticating his translation that he cast aside some of the stories in their entirety because, to him, they just could not be expurgated at all. All this is done in order to make his translation “readable” and “acceptable” at home and the best way to do that was to utterly domesticate it to the dominant norms and canons of the target language culture (Venuti: 1995).

Let us consider yet another example of outright domestication by Lane which completely disregarded the narrative and discursive features of the source text. The tale of night 217 is about a king who used to have two wives. He would sleep one night with the one wife and the subsequent night with the other. This was to ensure parity between the wives and as a result both of them were happy with their husband and were living in peace and content. Lane abridged this entire account and felt content in saying that the king used to treat his wives “with impartiality.” The reason for this obvious domestication of the source text is not difficult to discover. In fact, Lane never wanted to offend the puritanical sensitivities of his urbane bourgeois readership, no matter how much he had to depart from the source text. If it is so then Lane was clearly inheriting the prejudices of his time (Venuti: 2000).

At times, Lane’s translation is marked by discursive anomalies which are also the direct result of the practice of domestication. Lane is quite comfortable in placing the word “romantic” in the mouth of an eleventh century tribal and unlettered Egyptian without considering the temporal and spatial anachronism resulting thereof. Here another domesticating feature of Lane’s translation is also noteworthy. Within The Arabian Nights, as we know, there are hundreds of folk love songs and odes which had an oral temper and are deeply characterized by such characteristics as earthly gusto, parataxis, amplification, rhetorical orality and traditional epithets. However, when Lane translates these songs he brings them strictly in line with prosodic and textual features of English and thereby effects a discursive transformation in his translation (Venuti: 1995).

From this brief analysis of Lane’s translation, it becomes clear that his domestication of Arabian Nights was thorough and widespread and he meticulously did away with a large number of textual, prosodic and discursive features by replacing them with the Eurocentric elements and puritanical values (Venuti: 1995).

After Antoine Galland and Edward William Lane, another prominent translator who made a somewhat less domesticated translation of The Arabian Nights was the English geographer, writer and translator Sir Richard Francis Burton (1821 — 1890). Burton was also a widely travelled explorer and a proficient multilinguist who had journeyed to the places mentioned in The Arabian Nights. He was also well acquainted with the customs and traditions of the lands wherefrom the stories emanated. The most remarkable feature of Burton’s translation was that it was wholly unexpurgated and like his predecessor he did not omit the supposedly “immoral” passages. In fact it was largely due to the unexpurgated nature of his translation that it caused a moral panic in the 19th century English society and his work was widely censured and termed as scandalous (Venuti: 2000).

However, Burton also eventually succumbed to the temptation of domesticating the source text and felt no qualms in tempering with the tales wherever it pleased him. In the preface to his translation he acknowledges his domesticating motives when he announces:

On the other hand when treating the versical portion, which may represent a total of ten thousand lines, I have not always bound myself by the metrical bonds of the Arabic, which are artificial in the extreme, and which in English can be made bearable only by a tour de force. I allude especially to the monorhyme, Rim continuat or tirade monorime, whose monotonous simplicity was preferred by the Troubadours for threnodies (Robinson, 2002, 260).

It is not difficult to recognize the intentions of the translator as revealed here. What is more, the translator’s disparaging attitude towards the source text is also considerably clear here. To him, the metrical bonds of the Arabic are artificial to the extreme and the monorhymes of the source text are also dismissed by him as, according to him, they are only preferred by the troubadours for threnodies. Another domesticating feature of Burton’s translation is his over foregrounding of the sensuality of the tales. It is common knowledge sensuality is an essential part of The Arabian Nights; nevertheless Burton’s translation carries it to new unwarranted heights. Throughout his translation, his fixation on eroticism and sexuality remains constant and at times irritating (Venuti: 2000).

Furthermore, there are instance of the domestication of the content also found in Burton’s translation. For example consider the following translation:

But when the night was half-spent he bethought him that he had forgotten in his palace somewhat which he should have brought with him, so he returned privily and entered his apartments, where he found the Queen, his wife, asleep on his own carpet bed embracing with both arms a black cook of loathsome aspect and foul with kitchen grease and grime (Tymoczko, 2010, 116).

This passage illustrates the liberties taken by Burton while translating The Arabian Nights. For example, look at the italicized part which has no mention in the

-a neutral and non—”اخدم“ original text. What is mentioned in the original text is just judgmental word with such English equivalents as “servant”, “attendant”, “assistant”, etc.

there is no ,”اخدم“ Whichever of these equivalents suites to translate the original word way that the equivalent proposed by Burton could be rationalized—“a black cook of loathsome aspect and foul with kitchen grease and grime”. Thus with all this in mind, it is not difficult to conclude that Burton while translating The Arabian Nights practiced a considerable amount of domestication not only of the form but also of the content. One of his stated objectives in this translation was to preserve not only the spirit but also the

58 manner (mécanique) of the original text. It is here that he failed to live up to his objectives (France, 2000, 91).

2.7.4. Prévost, Bodmer, Breitinger and Gottsched

When Antoine Galland was busy in domesticating the tales from the Orient, another distinguished French author and translator Antoine François Prévost (1697 — 1763) was translating Richardson’s Pamela into French. This was another highly domesticated translation aimed at “refining the barbarities” of the original text. François Prévost revealingly said while commenting on his translation:

I have suppressed English customs where they may appear shocking to other nations, or made them conform to customs prevalent in the rest of Europe. It seemed to me that those remainders of the old and uncouth British ways, which only habit prevents the British themselves from noticing, would dishonor a book in which manners should be noble and virtuous. To give the reader an accurate idea of my work, let me just say, in conclusion, that the seven volumes of the English edition, which would amount to fourteen volumes in my own, have been reduced to four (Lefevere, 1992, 9).

This extract is a premonition which sufficiently proclaims the highly domesticated nature of the Prévost’s translation. In fact, the translator drops all innuendos and comes out into the open and declares his assimilationist and domesticating assumptions. The words like “shocking”, “uncouth”, “noble”, “virtuous”, and “accurate”, are extremely judgmental and clearly show a deeply embedded bias in the mind of the translator towards the source text and the culture. The word “suppress” amounts to what some of the postcolonial theorists have termed as ‘silencing of the voice of the cultural other’ (Porter, 2010, 134).

Another question rises with regards to the ethics of translation when we look at the thorough domestication of Richardson’s Pamela by Prévost: what justifies such an

59 out-and-out domestication of the source text? Certainly there is nothing within the text as such which could warrant such domestication. Therefore the question whether to domesticate or not to domesticate is paralinguistic or extralinguistic. This is what different translation scholars have termed as extra-textual factors which instantly come into play the moment a translator sets about his business. These extra-textual factors can be described as conglomeration of various ideological, cultural and normative considerations (Cheyfitz, 1991, Lefevere, 1992, Venuti, 1998, Bassnett, 2002).

This domesticating impulse born of the extra-textual factors mentioned above also found its champions in Germany as well and there its main proponents were the eminent author, critic and poet Johann Jakob Bodmer (1698 — 1783), the philologist and author Johann Jakob Breitinger (1701 — 1776), and the philosopher Johann Christoph Gottsched (1700 — 1776). The German writer and translator Karl De La Motte (1777 — 1843) translated Homer’s Iliad. But interestingly Motte’s translation is merely half the size of the original. Motte made extensive omissions and abridgements in his translation for which he present an uncanny rationalization which is little more than an apology for domestication:

Would a theatre audience accept having characters come out during the intervals in a tragedy to tell us all that is going to happen next? Would it approve if the actions of the principal characters were interrupted by the business of the confidants? Certainly not (quoted in Lefevere, 1992, 29).

This extract shows not only the presence of domestication in Motte’s translation of Homer’s Iliad but also spells out its schematic contours. All this discussion shows the deep-rootedness of the practice of domestication not just in the British literary tradition but also in the Continental European tradition. Expurgating the source texts with the intention of omitting all that could allegedly arouse moral panic or ruffle the urbane sensibilities of the bourgeois readership is an extremely objectionable ethics of translation — the one which has built-in violence against the foreign texts. All such considerations aim at (overtly or covertly) augmenting the authority of the dominant

60 discourses and buttressing the hegemony and the power base of the exploitative socio- literary orders.

It is here where Lawrence Venuti’s brilliant insightful problematization of the domesticated translations comes in. It is also with reference to this scandalous role of translation that he worked out his “foreignized” approach to translation which actively advocates the retention as well as communication of all the cultural and linguistic charachteristics which could successfully counteract the Anglophone linguistic hegemony and a Eurocentric cultural imperialism. Hence Venuti concludes that a translation which is not adequately “foreignized” is ipso fact complicit with power that seeks to perpetuate hegemony and imperialism. 2.7.5. Tytler and Campbell

One of the most far-reaching translation theorists of the 18th century was the Scottish writer and historian Alexander Fraser Tytler (1747 — 1813) who with his extremely influential Essay on the Principle of Translation (1790) set the new benchmark for the discipline. The practice of domestication which was freely circulating during the entire Romantic Age was an important part of Tytler’s scheme of translation and a crucial component of his conceptualizations of the subject. As Lawrence Venuti has rightly observed that Alexander Tytler understands of translation as an act of cultural and linguistic assimilation is predicated on the idea of the subjugation and a cannibalistic inclusion of the foreign texts (Baker, 2001).

Such an understanding of translation also takes the source text as grist and staple whose ultimate benefit lies in its exploitation for enriching and augmenting the nationalistic culture at home (Venuti, 1993, 211). This notion of translation as “cannibalistic incorporation” has also been worthily explored in De l’esprit des traductions (1816) by the French writer and woman of letters Madame de Staël (1766— 1817). Another figure who also conceptualized translation subjugated incorporation in the service of the dominant culture was the French novelist, playwright and poet Victor Hugo (Venuti, 1993).

Tytler’s landmark treatise on translation in a way formally codified and canonized domestication by upholding the fluency and the transparency as two of the most important qualities of a translation His treatise is an elaborate document of “precepts”, “laws” and “principles” of translation. To him, for a translator the central and the most significant purpose of translation is to communicate an “equivalent effect” and not to be encumbered by cultural and linguistic differences (Venuti, 1995, 68):

I would therefore describe a good translation to be, that, in which the merit of the original work is so completely transfused into another language, as to be as distinctly apprehended, and as strongly felt, by a native of the country to which that language belongs, as it is by those who speak the language of the original work (Italics original).

Tytler is not ready to accept the existence of cultural and linguistic differences at a fundamental level and appeals to a kind of nebulous and quasi real “reason and good sense” which according to him is capable of distinguishing a public sphere of cultural consensus (Venuti, 1995). His commonsensical approach to translation underwritten by “reason and good sense” rests on the tradition of liberal humanism which postulates a universal good sense common to all people.

For all intents and purposes, to Tytler, a translator has the privilege to rectify or omit what he considers to be “inaccurate” and “disingenuous”, especially if the alleged inaccuracy is likely to “impair” the sense of the source text. However, this ideal of Tytler regarding accuracy vis-à-vis inaccuracy is profoundly problematic for more than one reason. Evidently, accuracy is always a domestic value — one thing accurate at home may be barbarous abroad and vice versa. Furthermore the canon of accuracy is deeply affected by the dominant discursive norms prevalent in a society at a given time. Consequently, far from being an empirical and objective reality, accuracy is a culturally defined and temporally specified value. Tytler’s giving it a transcendental and

62 empirically validated coloration is nothing else but an expedient attempt to rationalize and advocate an unqualified domestication of the source text during its translation.

While theorizing about translation, Tytler frequently employs such abstract notions as “correct taste”, “exquisite feeling”, “common sense”, “ultimate appeal”, etc. What, however, he fails to realize is the simple fact that such abstractions are extremely subjective and cultural specific. It is arguably largely due to Tytler’s empiricist convictions that he took his personal and individualistic notion of “taste” as a norm and set about universalizing it for all the translators.

Even at the time when Tytler presented his ideas about translation, the theorists and scholars expressed their serious misgivings about his notion of “taste” and questioned his advice to “improve” the original text during the process of translation. For instance, one of the leading journals of translation, commenting on Tytler’s theory, wrote, “such ornaments appear to us like modern gilding laid upon one of the finest statues of antiquity” (Venuti, 1998). In spite of all the weaknesses of and objections against the Tytler’s views about translation he presented, Tytler has been enormously influential in the Anglophone tradition of translation.

Nevertheless Tytler has to be credited with writing the first notable work on translation. It too has to be mentioned here that, although some of his views did went on to support the practice of domestication, Tytler did foreground the source text in the overall practice of translation. He laid down the following principles for translation:

. The target text should have all the information of the source text. . The style of the target text should be that the source text. . The translation should be as easy to read as the source text.

The foregrounding of the source text in translation is evident from these three principles laid down by Tytler. Another figure who deserves mention with reference to Tytler is the Scottish Enlightenment philosopher and minister George Campbell (1719 —

1796). Campbell adhered very closely to Tytler’s aforementioned three principles of translation in his two-volume translation of the Four Gospels published in 1789. Campbell intended his translation to serve as the ecumenical version. Doubtless Campbell’s was one of the most popular translations of his time. Campbell’s translation was characterized by critical notes and exhaustive introduction dealing with the problems of translation and interpretation of the sacred texts.

Campbell looked at his translation — The Four Gospels — as by far the most remarkable achievement of his life. In fact, Campbell’s translation is, in fact, more than a translation — a magnum opus marked by Campbell’s erudition and his extensive knowledge of Hebrew, Greek, Latin, French, Italian and German. In his translation, Campbell also identified the major challenges which the translators face while dealing with the ancient texts and offers solutions to various philological and hermeneutic problems. The main issues which occupy lion’s share of Campbell’s attention are as follows: how cultural context affect meaning and how the philosophical and moral concepts (such as “kingdom of God”, “hell”, “Messiah”, “Good News”, “devil”, etc.) are to be translated. In spite of all his erudition and dedication of efforts, his translation elicited disapproval from some of the quarters. Here is the judgment of a writer in the Monthly Review:

Colloquial or even vulgar expressions are sometimes substituted for others less dignified yet sufficiently plain; while, on the other hand, many passages are obscured by words derived from the Latin, and unintelligible to a great part of a common congregation: nor can we suppress our opinion that, to readers of learning and taste the general effect of this translation will appear very inferior to that of our common version (quoted in Walzer, 2003, 13).

This quote sums up Campbell’s translation strategy who in turn sums up the 18th century thought on translation.

2.7.6. Voltaire’s Domestication of Hamlet

In the 18th century, Voltaire’s translation of Hamlet’s death soliloquy constitutes one of the most telling examples of domestication and a total departure from the specificities of the source text. Voltaire takes this famous soliloquy of the protagonist of the play not as a philosophical reflection on the subject of death (as in the most impartial way it happens to be) but rather as a polemical diatribe against the institution of religion (Baker, 1998, 109). In fact, had it been purely a matter of interpretation (without any claim to translate something), Voltaire’s might have been one possible interpretation out of many. But here it is not a matter of simple interpretation per se. Instead, it is a question of translation which is an interpretation of the source text in accordance with certain linguistic and contextual factors. Therefore any interpretation which aims at translation cannot be infinitely subjective as to cast hermeneutic aspersions on the meaning of the source text.

This indictment of Voltaire’s translation is further strengthened when we consider yet another example of domestication which is as follows: One of the oft-quoted lines of Hamlet’s soliloquy — “Thus conscience doth make coward of us all” — is translated by Voltaire as “Thus conscience turns a warrior hero into a timid Christian” (Baker, 1998, 109). Now this is nothing less than an ideological incursion into the act of translation which domesticates the source text in toto. Alexander Fraser Tytler caustically points out the deeply embedded elements of domestication at work in Voltaire’s translation of Hamlet:

How wonderfully has he [Voltaire] metamorphosed, how miserably disfigured him [Shakespeare]! In the original we have the perfect picture of a mind deeply agitated, giving vent to its feelings in broken starts of utterance, and in language which plainly indicates that the speaker is reasoning solely with his own mind, not with any auditor. In the translation, we have a formal and connected harangue, in which it would appear, that the author [Voltaire], offended with the abrupt manner of the original…has corrected, as he thought, those defects of the original, and

given union, strength and precision to this philosophical argument (Munday, 2009, 24).

Voltaire, in his translation, recasts Hamlets in an entirely unconventional mould giving him an avowedly anti-theistic coloration to the play written by Shakespeare. This presentation of the destiny-driven and despondent hero does not sit well with the broader scheme of the play in which such theistic statements are made by Hamlet as “There is a destiny that shapes our ends” and “There is special providence in the fall of a sparrow”. As Voltaire translates Hamlet, the melancholic hero becomes a “thorough skeptic and a freethinker” of the Enlightenment who frequently articulates his deep-seated doubts about the “authenticity of the institutionalized religion”, and considers priests as “pretenders and hypocrites”, and terms Christianity as “debasing of human spirit” (Baker, 1998). At times, Voltaire makes abrupt abridgements in his translation. Consider for example the following instance. The line: “When he himself might his quietus make//With a bare bodkin?” is translated by Voltaire as: “Death would be too sweet in these extremities” (Halsall, 1998, 12). In this way, from all these instances it is not difficult to recognize the domesticated nature of Voltaire’s translation of Shakespeare. In Voltaire’s case, his implacable hatred of the institution of religion played a central role in prejudicing his interpretation of the play.

2.7.7. Domestication Going beyond Literature

During the 17th and 18th centuries, along with the literary texts, many works of history, economics, philosophy and education were translated into different European languages in a highly domesticated way. Such figures as the Czech-speaking writer Jan Amos Comenius (1592 — 1670) and the English philosopher and political theorist John Locke (1632 — 1704) were translated into most European languages. However, most of these translations were considerably domesticated. The Scottish moral philosopher Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations (1776) which was translated into Spanish for the obvious purpose of the financial management and guidance of the government (Venuti, 2013).

Much translation of the educational and historical works was done for the political purposes.

In the 18th century England, education and scholarship was largely linked with a knowledge of Greek and Latin classics. Therefore, a large number of these classics from antiquity were translated into various European languages. But most of these translations were based upon the earlier translations and therefore were just indirect translations. Quite a few translators did not even know the source text languages at all and, consequently, all of them based their translations on other translations. Small wonder these translations were made just in order to meet the requirements of the target language readers and with inadequate regard for the actualities and the cultural specificities of the source texts (Baker, 2001).

It is worth mentioning here in this context that it was not before the 19th century that Plato’s complete works were directly translated from the original sources. The first of these translations were made by the English translator and Neoplatonist Thomas Taylor (1758 — 1835). Therefore before Taylor, all the translations of Plato into English were, in effect, indirect translations and none of them was based upon the original text itself. Given their indirect nature, these translations were considerably loose and imprecise.

As the domesticating trends gained ground, translators arrogated more and more authority to themselves, sometimes reducing the actual writer to the level of a titular author of the text. Translations were deemed to have an autonomy of their own which should not be encumbered, in any serious way, by the specificities of the source texts. Instead of being derivative from and contingent upon the original text, translations were seen as contributing to it and, at times, redefining it in radically different ways (Tymczko, 2010). Translators would add to the texts they undertook to translate. It was customary for translators to ‘Germanize’, ‘Frenchize’, ‘Victorianize’, or to ‘Christianize’ a foreign text.

In violation to Schleiermacher’s principle it was the author who was moved to the reader and not the vice versa. Translators assumed the role of the ultimate arbiter of textual truths and took it upon themselves to speak on behest of the author. In this self- assumed spokesmanship, the translators while suppressing the voice of the author decided what to communicate and what not to communicate. Thus translation became a discursive business of inclusions, exclusions, eliminations and reductions in which each move was rigorously presided over by the dictates of the dominant cultural discourses (Venuti, 2013).

This largely happened because the translators domesticated the source texts to such an unwarranted extent that the translations wrested most of the authorial prerogatives from the actual writers or, at least, considerably undermined them. To the English philosopher and political economist John Stuart Mills, for instance, Goethe as well as his English translators S. T. Coleridge and Thomas Carlyle constituted “a single cultural phenomenon”. Therefore, to Mills, whatever Coleridge and Carlyle said with reference to Goethe was at par with that what Goethe himself said (Ashton 1980, 5). This attitude contained in itself the seeds of domestication. This is how the authority of the actual author was diluted by putting the other figures at par with him or her. It is because of this domesticating attitude that when Arthur Duke Coleridge brought out his version of Goethe’s Egmont, it contained piano transcriptions of Beethoven music which were not part of the original text at all.

During the same period, numerous translators translated Goethe’s Faust. But most of these translations were highly domesticated and many of them omitted what was perceived to be the “heterodox religious material.” Most translations of The Decameron — a 14th-century medieval allegory by the Italian author and poet Giovanni Boccaccio (1313 — 1375) — replaced and omitted those elements which the translators deemed “bawdy” and and therefore unworthy of translation (McWilliam, 1972, 25). In 1843, Francis William Newman, the younger brother of Cardinal Newman, translated Victor Huber’s English Universities. Huber criticized Newman’s translation of his work because

68 according to him Newman had largely based it upon an unpublished translation by the Victorian playwright Palgrave Simpson (1807—1887).

With this we come the end of this section. In this segment of the discussion we looked at different currents and strands of domestication which worked during the Enlightenment. All these trends and developments describe the dominant mood of the day and show how translators increasingly imposed their own interpretations on the original authors and presented them in such an authoritative and commanding way as to shut out all the alternative readings. The additions made by the translators became integral parts of the source texts over the years. This is how accretions found their way to different works of literature, history, politics and philosophy. It is also clear that the Enlightenment proved to be a crucial period in the canonization and codification of domestication in the Anglophone tradition of translation. So significant were the domesticating trends ushered in by the Enlightenment that they were to affect all the subsequent history of translation as will be seen in the next section of the literature review.

2.8. Colonialism—A Domestication of Text and Territory

With the colonial expansion of the European nations during the 18th and 19th century, a new period of domestication set in. It is also now a well documented historico- political fact that the practice of translation was deeply implicated in the colonial schemes and in the colonial context translators shouldered a wide range of responsibilities which extended far beyond linguistic mediations of two different texts. As a result, translations functioned as indispensible and extremely valuable tools for the colonizing schemes along with the more concrete factors such as superior technologies and elaborate administrative apparatuses of the European colonizers.

It is fruitful to recall some etymology here with reference to colonialism. Etymologically, the word “translation” is closely linked with the metaphor of “transfer” and “dislocation”. To Aristotle, translation represents an “aberrant” and “alien” speech

69 which dislocates the familiarity of language (Munday, 2009, 102). Postcolonial translation discourse uniquely highlights this metaphorical meaning of the term by showing the power play inherent in the business of translation.

Besides, the intimate relation between the practice of translation and the European imperialism has been widely acknowledged. The notable writer Eric Cheyfitz (1991) says that translation can be seen as the central act of European imperialism and colonialism. This view is also seconded by the Indian postcolonial writer Tejaswini Niranjana (1992, 67). Different researchers have explored the issue of translation across a variety of perspectives in order to explore how the European settlers inscribed their imperialistic values in the local patterns of behaviors and attitudes.

Once these values were successfully inscribed, the colonizers made the native people cling to such abidingly (Cheyfitz, 1991) and all of their ensuing intellectual enterprises were governed by such stereotypical and formulaic images of the colonials. Translations of the foreign texts were inscribed by the ethnocentric values and norms in order to make them more palatable for consumption at home. During this period, the translations from other languages into English were marked by Eurocentric and assimilationist reduction of the source text to the norms and canons of the target culture.

During the colonial period when the European imperial functionaries connivingly joined hands with the local feudal lords to enact new modes of confrontation and identity formation, enlisting translations in the service of the power politics of imperial expeditions was more of a rule than exception. The bilingual colonial administrators immensely benefited from the translation profession which became a very rewarding career.

Many of the scholars who worked in the colonized were also skilled translators. For example, the English philologist, scholar and writer Sir William Jones (1746 — 1794) was also an assiduous translator. The native languages of colonized lands were deemed to be “unsophisticated” “barbaric” and “under-developed”. The colonizers and

70 colonial administrators pejoratively termed these local languages as “vernaculars” and considered them to be too “vulgar” to be a vehicle for refined speech. In the case of India, all the major languages (such as Hindi, Urdu, Punjabi, Sindhi, Pashtu, etc.) were all categorized under vernaculars.

Sir William Jones translated Mānava-Dharmaśāstra (a collection of Hindu laws based upon the classic Indic jurisprudence) as Institutes of Hindu Law (1799) in order to strengthen the British colonial administration in India and to better subjugate the Indians. To Jones and the colonial administrators, a first-hand understanding of the Hindu jurisprudential system will help the British to govern the Indians in a more efficient way. Jones was deeply suspicious of the Indian translators and doubted their reliability as interpreters and translators.

In fact, Jones was purportedly aimed to reinstate the ancient purity of the Indian laws enshrined in the classical texts. It was also hoped by him that his translation of the legal texts of India will be taken as a standard one and this would help the Indians too in appreciating their own classical legal tradition. Consequently, the law-governed and patient diligence of millions of Indians would make them the loyal subject of the Crown (see Venuti, 1998, 199). Such an obedience of the Indians to the Crown will be exponentially valuable for the fortification of the British Empire as well. However, as a translator, Jones could not liberate himself from his Eurocentrism and presented a racist and xenophobic image of the Indians and considered them naïve to their own culture (Niranjana 1992).

2.8.1. Colonial Motives and Translation

Tejaswini Niranjana (1958 —) is an Indian translation scholar who has contributed extensively and insightfully to the subject of translation and its role during the European colonialism. To her the practice of translation is more of a political act than a purely linguistic undertaking. Drawing on such diverse figures as the German literary critic Walter Benjamin (1892 — 1940), the Belgian-born literary critic Paul de Man

(1919 — 1983) and the French philosopher Jacques Derrida (1930 — 2004), Niranjana maintains that translation has always been a site for perpetuating the asymmetrical power relations. The conventional perceptions of translation underpinned the Western imperial thought and helped the colonizers construct the cultural others as pseudo empirical realities transfixed in time and space and incapable of change. Niranjana emphasizes that administrators and missionaries in India translated and interpreted the native texts in order to extend and fortify the intellectual as well as managerial frontiers of the British Empire (Niranjana, 1992).

Niranjana, in fact, maintains that Sir William Jones, through his domesticated and appropriated translations contributed to a “historicist and teleological model of civilization that, together with an idea of transparency of representation, constructed an influential account of ‘Hindu’”. This ‘constructed’ image became so powerful that the succeeding writers of various philosophical and political persuasions integrated into their understanding in a seamless way (1992, 13). Jones had this belief that such translations would serve to “domesticate the Orient and thereby would turn it into a province of European learning” (Said, 1978, 78). According to Niranjana, as an Orientalist and translator, it was Jones who presented a textualized India to Europe. So immense and far- reaching was his influence that it became impossible for anyone to be considered well- versed about the Orient without being deeply acquainted his works (Arberry, 1953).

As a result of all this, a comprehensive domestication of the native Indian works brought about what can be termed as the Eurocentric distortion and mischaracterization of the cultural realities of the colonized. It was also in this spirit that a large number of scholars and orientalists evinced extreme interest in Sanskrit and undertook many translations of different Sanskrit works in English. In this way the idea of European colonialism was underwritten by a profoundly worked over and modulated body of texts, pedagogic practices, carefully formulated systems of knowledge, and an exclusively textual understanding which was largely based upon translations. Translation practices founded a hierarchy of relationship between English and the native languages and the practice of translation always enacted a process of identity construction in which the

72 colonizers and colonized were located very unevenly (Venuti, 198, 165). The colonial governments made extensive use of translations in order to rationalize and justify their domination and redeem its culpable excesses in all the domains of their imperial adventuring.

Indeed, William Jones left a formidable legacy and a large number of the subsequent British translators followed him religiously and rigorously. With a stereotypically imperialist system of education in place, the Indians came to accord even greater respect and acceptability to such domesticated translations and thereby they themselves strengthened the cultural and linguistic authority of those translations. Niranjana describes this attitude of the colonized Indians in the following words:

Even when the anglicized Indian spoke a language other than English, “he” would have preferred, because of the symbolic power conveyed by English, to gain access to his own past through the translations and histories circulating through colonial discourse (Niranjana, 1992, 31).

It is noteworthy here that in the formally colonized lands, this subserviently reverential attitude towards the English language and culture persists and what Niranjana observed is still relevant. Now we will delve deeper in some of the more specific questions pertaining to the nexus between translation and colonialism.

2.8.2. Translation, Subjugation and Stereotyping

It has been consistently noted that the huge power differentials between the colonizers and the colonized seriously impacted upon the practice of translation during the European colonial period. For Asad (1989) the entire landscape of anthropological representation of non-European cultures amounted to an act of “translation”. To Niranjana (1992), the subjugation of the Africans and the Indians into the colonial subjects by the colonizers is itself an act of “translation”. This subjugation was achieved as much by the practice of domestication as by the direct use of the imperialistic might. It

73 was this practice of domestication which led to a territorial dislocation and a political disenfranchisement of the native colonized people.

The assiduous labor of hundreds of European translators, historical scholars, anthropologist and humanistic intellectuals was rigorously focused on “translating” the Oriental and African cultures into Europe’s servile subjects and in this task they were seen as performing a patriotic duty to the Crown and upholding the cause of civilization (Said, 1978, 214). To Eric Cheyfitz, professor of American Studies at Cornell University, “from its beginnings the imperialist mission is…one of translation: the translation of the “other” into the terms of the empire” (1991, 112).

Most of these domesticated translational discourses constructed painstakingly by the Orientalists uncritically embraced the innumerable shades of meanings which were characteristic of stereotypical depiction of the Orient. Such stereotypical notions associated with the Orient as “sensuality, promise, terror, sublimity, idyllic pleasure, intense energy” were foregrounded in these imperial discourses (Said, 1978, 118). Towards the end the 20th century, thanks to the advent of the vigorously critical postcolonial studies, the European clichéd notions of the East was re-assessed and found seriously wanting on more than one count. There was a growing realization that early Western scholarship of the East projected an exotic, stereotyped, less-than-accurate and overly simplified image of the Orient based upon and negotiated by the large body of domesticated translations (Said, 1978, 120).

2.8.3. Translation and the Missionary Programs

It was at this time that most of the translations of the Bible were made and the practice of translation was actively enlisted in the service of the evangelical missionary programs in the European colonies. The Christian missionary activities and the colonial practices worked in such a close collaboration that it became well neigh impossible to appreciate one without taking a proper account of the other. The Christian missionaries and the colonial administrators alike set about translating religious and legal texts and

74 thereby placing colonialism and conversion in close tandem—both underwritten by an intensive activity of translation. Here we will sketch out various missionary activities undertaken in the European colonies and in which transition played the central role.

In 1701, an Anglican missionary organization, Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts was founded and in 1820 it started dispatching missionaries to various part of India. In 1866, the Society set up Ladies Association for Promoting the Education of Females in India. The goal of this organization, apart from proselytizing the female population of India, was to extend its message to other ‘pagan’ countries too. The first organized effort to give a proper direction to the missionary translations made during this period was the founding of the Congregation pro Propaganda Fide in Rome (trans. Sacred Congregation of Propaganda) in 1662. In this regard, perhaps the most significant development was the establishment of the British and Foreign Bible Society (commonly known as The Bible Society) in 1804. Its basic aim was the publishing and distribution of vernacular versions of the Bible the world over. The missionaries in India set up schools for the native people and used to routinely mediate as linguists and translators between the colonized and the colonizers (Munday, 2001, 132).

The French writer and statesman François-René de Chateaubriand (1768 — 1848), another ardent supporter of colonialism with strong missionary leanings, presents another significant strand of the nexus between colonialism and conversion. He repeatedly castigated the Asians and the Africans on account of what he perceived to be their imbecility and essential intellectual dilapidation and moral dissolution. His pejorative views about the Indians were hidden from none and once he famously said about the Indians: “Of liberty, they know nothing; of propriety, they have none: force is their God” (quoted in Said, 1978, 173).

It is interesting to note that Chateaubriand put his entire account of the colonials in terms of a Christian redemptive mission whose affirmed aim was to breathe life into a dead heathen world and to awaken in it a sense of its own theological salvation. To him, the best guides for the colonizers on this mission civilizatrice in the Muslim lands were

75 the Old Testament and the Gospels because the Quran is unable to acquaint the Muslim with decency as it “preaches neither hatred of tyranny nor love of liberty” (Said, 1978, 171). The notable literary theorist, critic, and post-colonial writer Edward W. Said (1935 — 2003) sums up the dilemma of Chateaubriand in the following words:

…Chateaubriand attempts to consume the Orient. He not only appropriates it, he represents and speaks for it, not in history but beyond history, in the timeless dimension of a completely healed world, where men and lands, God and men, are as one. In Jerusalem, therefore, at the center of his vision and at the ultimate end of his pilgrimage, he grants himself a sort of total reconciliation with the Orient, the Orient as Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Greek, Persian, Roman, and finally French. He is moved by the plight of the Jews, but he judges that they too serve to illuminate his general vision, and as a further benefit, they give the necessary poignance to his Christian vindictiveness. God, he says, has chosen a new people, and it is not the Jews (Said, 1978, 174).

2.8.4. Domestication and the Quran

Along with the Bible translations, the missionaries were also deeply interested in the translations of the Quran in order to win converts by making a better sense of “the enemy’s religion” (Mohammad, 2005). The early translations of the Quran into most of the European languages constituted an interesting example of the domestication of a sacred text by the Orientalists. Most of these translations were done from an inimical perspective and a considerable number of them were not even translations. Instead they were little more than polemical paraphrasings. The first Latin translation of the Quran was done by the 11th century English theologian Robert of Ketton. It was, in fact, more like a loose and domesticated paraphrasing. Four centuries after its first publication, this very translation of the Quran was reprinted in Basel on the behest of Martin Luther, the renowned German theologian and reformer. The interesting feature of this translation is that it also included a refutation of the Quran in itself.

From this onwards the Quran was further translated into other European languages. The earliest known translation of the Quran into English is from the Scottish writer Alexander Ross (1590 — 1954) which he completed in 1649. Interestingly Ross had no knowledge of the Arabic language and he translated the Quran indirectly from a French version, although he was not well-schooled even in French. In the preface he made his intentions clear as he said: “I thought good to bring it to their colours, that so viewing thine enemies in their full body, thou must the better prepare to encounter … his Alcoran” (p.A3).

However, it was not until George Sale (1697 — 1736), a British Orientalist and a practicing solicitor, that a translation of the Quran based upon the original Arabic sources came out. Sale’s was the least domesticated translation and therefore it heralded a change of attitude among the Orientalists. One notable feature of Sale’s translation was the impartiality of its tone. Besides, Sale consistently let the Muslim scholars speak for themselves. He challenged the clichéd understanding of Muhammad in the West:

As Mohammed gave his Arabs the best religion he could, preferable, at least, to those of the ancient pagan lawgivers, I confess I cannot see why he deserves not equal respect, though not with Moses or Jesus Christ, whose laws came really from heaven, yet with Minos or Numa, notwithstanding the distinction of a learned writer, who…founded on the acknowledgment of one true God, and to destroy idolatry, than to use the same means to gain reception to rules and regulations for the more orderly practice of heathenism already established (quoted in Heffernan & O’ Quinn, 2013, 308).

In the wake of George Sale’s translation, many other British and European translators approached the Quran with a somewhat sympathetic attitude. Among these translators was included the British linguist and Orientalist Sir Edward Ross (1871 — 1940) who also recognized the domesticated nature of the translations of the Quran made in the European tradition of translation (Sale, 2006, ii):

What was good in Muhammadanism was entirely ignored, and what was not good, in the eyes of Europe, was exaggerated or misinterpreted. The central doctrine preached by Muhammad to his contemporaries in Arabia, who worshipped the Stars, and the Turks, who had no particular worship, was the unity of God, and that the simplicity of his creed was probably a more potent factor in the spread of Islam than the sword of the Ghazis. Through all the vicissitudes of thirteen hundred years the Koran has remained the sacred book of all the Turks and Persians and of nearly a quarter of the population of India. Surely such a book as this deserves to be widely read in the West, more especially in these days when space and time have been almost annihilated by modern invention, and when public interest embraces the whole world. This brief analysis illustrates the implications of translation in the colonial and cultural politics of the 18th and the 19th centuries which had a revealingly theological dimension to it as well. The orientalists simultaneously worked on three fronts: (a) translating the native texts into European languages for colonial purposes, (b) translating the Bible into the vernaculars of the colonized land for the missionary purposes, and (c) translating the Quran into European languages in order to understand “enemy’s religion” in a better way. All these apparently distinct three strands were woven together by the colonial considerations. Moreover, these three tasks undertaken by the colonizers and orientalists alike had unmistakably political connotations and, in the final analysis, were aimed to augment the power of the British Empire.

2.9. The Romantic Age

If Enlightenment was known for its canonization and codification of domestication, the Romanticism is known for institutionalizing techniques to overthrow it. Romanticism was, in effect, an all-out revolt against the rationalism and the formal harmony of which the Enlightenment bespoke so forcefully. With a total affirmation of individualism and an unprecedented interest in the foreign and the exotic came the notion of freedom and a creative and vitalistic imagination. Along with the reassessment of the role of literature, translation was also seen in a new and altogether different light. It is

78 also to the credit of the Romantics (especially the German Romantics) that an assimilationist practice of domestication was challenged most systematically and most vigorously (Venuti: 2000).

As an alternative to domestication, the practice of “foreignization” was proposed by the translation theorists and practitioners. Although the alternative of foreignization had already been hinted at by some of the preceding translators, it was during the Romanticism that its contours were worked out in a better way. Besides, these were also the Romantics who, because of their love for the foreign and the exotic, recognized the need for foreignizing a translation instead of domesticating it (Venuti: 1995).

In this way, the Romantics were the first to advance a formal and well-articulated plea for preserving the distinct and indigenous features of the source texts and the source cultures, even if they were readily assimilable to the target text.

2.9.1. Cary’s Rewriting of Dante and Foscolo

One of the literary giants who was translated profusely into English during this period was the Italian legendary poet Dante Alighieri (1265 — 1321). Most of Dante’s translations were, in general, faithful to the source text and the textual and literary features of the original text (metical complexities of terza rima, directness of imagery, quotidian diction etc.) were duly acknowledged and communicated in the translations. The translators presented these literary features by giving them a distinctly Dantesque coloration. For example when the American poet H. W. Longfellow (1807 — 18082) brought out his translation of Dante’s Divine Comedy, he stated clearly:

The only merit my book has is that it is exactly what Dante says, and not what the translator imagines he might have said if he had been an Englishman. In other words, while making it rhythmic, I have endeavoured to make it also as literal as a prose translation […]The business of a translator is to report what the author says, not to explain what he means; that is the work of the commentator. What an

author says, and how he says it, that is the problem of the translator (Ray, 2008, 187).

This is a very shrewd and insightful observation by Longfellow and the one which clearly reflect the spirit of foreignization in the most characteristic fashion. Here Longfellow can be clearly seen as advocating a non-domesticated approach to translation which seeks to negotiate a source text on its own linguistic and cultural terms without subsuming them under the regimes of appropriations and assimilations. It is also pertinent to mention here that Longfellow was the first American poet to translate Dante.

Even slightly before Longfellow, an earlier echo of non-domesticated translation was heard in Germany. The German romantic poet, critic and translator August Wilhelm Schlegel (1767 — 1845) presented a somewhat more inclusive view of translation when he maintained that all acts of writing and speaking are translation in one way or the other. This is not important for our purpose at hand. However, what is really important for us is his view that it is the duty of a translation to retain all the features of the source text as much as possible. He was also a prolific translator and he practiced what he preached when he himself translated Dante into the German language. Schlegel’s translation of Dante is marked by a close structural (prosodic) proximity to the original text. Thus in his translation he retained Dante’s terza rima (a rhyming verse stanza form that consists of an interlocking three-line rhyme scheme when he translated the Italian poet (Bassnett, 1980).

However, everybody did not go about the business of translating Dante with that much faithfulness and prudence. The number of the translators who domesticated Dante and re-moulded him in accordance with the literary and cultural thought patterns of the target language is incredibly high (Bassnett, 1985). The British author, translator and critic Henry Francis Cary (1772 — 1844) made a considerably domesticated translation of Dante’s Divine Comedy. Cary’s was a blank-verse translation in which he adapted Dante’s poetics and diction in line with the 18th century ideal of “sympathy” (Cunningham, 1965).

It is precisely because of the free floating linguistic re-formulations and other liberties which he took with the source text (in the three cantiche) that Cary elicited stern criticism from the literary quarters of his day. The Italian revolutionary writer and poet Ugo Foscolo (1778 — 1827) submitted Cary’s translation to a very searching scrutiny for the latter’s treatment of Inferno V, paying minute attention to Francesca da Rimini’s description. To Foscolo, Cary’s depiction of Francesca is not based upon or derived from the original poem; rather it is a loose account of the translator’s own imagination (De Sua, 1964). Then Foscolo becomes more forthcoming and specific and critically analyzes the following line of Canto V: “che, come vedi, ancor non m”abbandona” (105). It is translated by Cary as: “That, as thou seest, he yet deserts me not” (1908, 21).

Foscolo devotes considerable discussion to this instance of translation and develops many critical insights from it. To him, Dante is known for uniting conciseness and perspicuity in seamless ways and creating a synthesis between the profoundest of observations and the starkest of simplicities (De Sua, 1964). And according to Foscolo, regrettably, Cary’s translation seems to be lacking most visibly on these counts. This constitutes the major failing of the translator. Two more features of Cary’s translation of the above-mentioned line contribute to the domestication of Dante: (i) an uncalled-for syntactic interruption, “as thou seest” (ii) an overelaborate negative structure, “he yet deserts me not” (De Sua, 1964). In fact, a leading concern in Cary’s translation was to adapt Dante to English context and the dominant literary canons. Cary’s domestication and appropriation was so outrageous that the influential British Dantean scholar Paget Toynbee (1855 — 1932) claimed that Cary had made Dante an English literary possession once and for all (Delisle & Woodsworth, 1995).

These are some of the ways in which Dante was domesticated under the ideological and cultural imperatives of the Romantic Age. The Divine Comedy was approached through such contemporary Romantic categories as “the sublime” and “the pathetic” (Baker, 1998). One obvious example of this is the question of deciding the genre of the poem. The notable English Romantic poet Anna Seward (1747 — 1809) and

81 the English art historian and novelist Horace Walpole (1717 — 1797) took The Divine Comedy as an epic (a household genre in British literary tradition). On the other hand, the English literary historian and poet Thomas Warton (1728 — 1790) and the Scottish poet and philosopher James Beattie (1735 — 1808) saw it as a historical satire censuring the ills of the Italian society of the day (Tinkler-Villani, 2005, 38-46).

It is also pertinent to mention that the strong nationalist leanings of Anna Seward expressly shaped his literary judgment about The Divine Comedy. More than anything it was arguably a strong sense of nationalism which made her prefer Paradise Lost to The Divine Comedy in these words, “O! how the hell of Dante sinks before the infernal regions of our one Milton!” (Delisle & Woodsworth, 1995).

2.9.2. Leigh Hunt and the Story of Rimini

The next translator who domesticated Dante was the English poet, critic and political dissident Leigh Hunt (1784 — 1859). In 1816, Hunt published a version of “Paola and Francesca da Rimini” as The Story of Rimini — a form of re-writing and/or adaptation of the original. This version is marked by a vast expansion of the original as Dante’s cursory narrative was developed into four cantos of rhymed couplets by the translator. Hunt showed an utter disregard for the source text. It was due to the extensive domestication, that Hunt’s translation received serious criticism from of the critics who accused Hunt of being subversive, crass, immoral and the least faithful to the source text. In his translation/rewriting/adaptation (as it has the potential to become any of these three), Hunt recurrently turned the original first person to a third person, thereby transforming Dante’s confessional technique into the Romantic metrical-tale mode (Cunningham, 1965). What is more, Hunt accepts his domesticating approach in the following words, “[I] took leave in toto of the brevity, as well as the force of Dante” (Hunt, 1948, 258).

Similarly Hunt’s translation of Dante does not have the Dantean directness and is anachronistically marked by the Romantic erudition. Written in prison, The Story of

Rimini reads like a radical political invective and this comes as no surprise because Hunt himself was a staunch critic of the contemporary British political system and the status quo which appeared to him despotic and fraudulent (Hunt, 1948). This personal dissidence of the translator influenced his translation deeply and unusually striking parallels had been drawn by some of the critics between the pitiful lot of Paolo and Francesca in hell and Hunt’s own desolate detention. Reflecting on his own detained condition, he says:

…while rains autumnal, as I sing, Wash the dull bars, chilling my sicklied wing, And all the climate presses on my sense; But thoughts it furnishes of things far hence, And leafy dreams affords me, and a feeling Which I should else disdain, tear-dipped and healing (III.5-10, Hunt, 1948, 13)

To sum up, it can be maintained that most of Dante’s translations which appeared during this period were thoroughly domesticated. This domestication of Dante was so wide-spread that he, for the time being, appeared to have become everything to everybody. Most of the translations of The Divine Comedy were total rewritings or mere adaptations. Different people saw him with mutually exclusive sets of interpretations. If S. T. Coleridge found him to be a metaphysical bard protesting against the tyranny of Church and State, William Blake took him as a religious poet who was dealing with the theme of the Fall of Man and the subsequent Christian Redemption (Hunt, 1948).

2.9.3. Schleiermacher’s Valorization of the Foreign

The German theologian, preacher, and classical philologist Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768 — 1834) can be credited with the first systematic elucidation of the notion of “foreignization” of translation. With him starts what Jeremy Munday calls a “valorization of the foreign” — a plea for foregrounding of essential linguistic and

83 cultural features of the source text (Munday, 2001). In one of his landmark lecturers in 1813, Schleiermacher presented his most decisive and far-reaching conceptualization of translation and postulated only two options available to a translator:

Either the translator leaves the author in peace, as much as possible, and moves the reader towards him; or he leaves the reader in peace, as much as possible, and moves the author towards him. The two roads are so completely separate from each other that one or the other must be followed as closely as possible, and that a highly unreliable result would proceed from any mixture, so that it is to be feared that author and reader would not meet at all” (1813, 49).

Subsequently in his lecture, Schleiermacher clearly evinced his support for the former approach which is about leaving the author in peace as much as possible and moving the reader toward him. To him, this approach makes the reader journey abroad and thereby moves the reader towards the writer. This moving of the reader towards the writer is as much temporal as spatial since the movement is not just across languages at a given period of time but also across time. In order to accomplish this goal, Schleiermacher proposes the creation of a language “bent towards a foreign likeness” (Lefevere, 1977, 78—79). Accordingly, translation will be based upon this contrived language which will bring about the element of foreignness in translation, especially through the employment of archaicisms, neologisms and the retention of indigenous peculiarities and idiomatic uniqueness of the source text. Schleiermacher, no mean translator himself, used this contrived language in his translations of Plato and translated him in a foreignized way.

This avant-garde experiment was also repeated by the German lyric poet, author and critic Friedrich Hölderlin (1770 — 1843) in his translation of the Greek tragedies in an accomplished manner. This notion of a contrived and distinct language for the purpose of translation was to find its place in England also where it remained firmly grounded for the following two hundred years (Bassnett, 2003, 72).

Nevertheless, Schleiermacher must be taken with a pinch of salt as his translation theory, although immensely open to and tolerant of the foreign textual difference, hinges on a chauvinistic condescension toward the foreign cultures and texts. It is for this reason that some of the critics accuse Schleiermacher of valorizing an elitist cultural discourse at the cost of a more heterogeneous culture of the bourgeois working classes (Bassnett, 2003 79). Although it was he who made a reasonable and well-articulated case for non- transparent and non-domesticated translation discourses with regard to the foreignness of the original text, yet it must be mentioned that his preference owed less to a desire to embrace the foreign and more to a nationalist impulse to resist the French cultural ascendancy and literary elitism. He said while revealing his nationalist agenda, “Our language can thrive in all its freshness and completely develop its own power only by means of the most many-sided contacts with what is foreign [in other languages]” (Lefevere 1977, 88).

Nonetheless, Schleiermacher remains extremely important and relevant to the modern day translation theory and such influential translation scholars and theorists as Philip Lewis, Antoine Berman and Lawrence Venuti drew their inspirations and insights for the most part from him. Kittel and Polterman maintain that every modern translation theory has been, in one way or the other, a response to Schleiermacher’s conceptualizations of translation to the extent that all the subsequent theories are different variations on the position taken by him (Venuti, 1995).

For his far-reaching and continuing influence, he merits a somewhat detailed discussion here. It is to be noted that many of the present day terms used in the discipline of Translation Studies have their origin in Schleiermacher’s formulations on the subject. Even the dichotomy of foreignization (verfremdende Übersetzung) and domestication (einbürgernde Übersetzung) was introduced by him for the first time in its most characteristic form and which was to remain germane to the entire discourse of the discipline.

With considerable clarity and consistency in the face of strong opposition, Schleiermacher contended that translation ought to appear “foreign” enough to the reader so that he or she could recognize the workings and the indigenous cultural patterns of the source text. In order to achieve this goal, he presented an ingenious technique: “the more closely the translation follows the turns taken by the original, the more foreign it will seem to the reader” (Lefevere, 1992a, 155). Still it is considered to be one of the most viable ways to foreignize a translation in order to register the distinctive features of a source text.

It is also worth mentioning here that Schleiermacher considered translation as a creative force in the operations of which various specific strategies might perform a range of socio-cultural and literary functions. Among these various functions may include the construction of new literary genres, the introduction of new idioms, the enrichment of languages, the formation of the nationalist impulse, the institution of new literary canons and the expansion of the communicative range of languages. Like Schleiermacher, many other contemporary translation theorists, prompted by the German Romantic tradition, advocated a non-transparent and foreignized approach to translations.

In spite of the sterling and groundbreaking efforts by Schleiermacher and others to support foreignizing approaches to translation, the domesticating strategies of translation did not die down overnight and most of the translators kept producing domesticated translations all through the 18th and the 19th centuries. When confronted with the linguistic and/or cultural difficulties (intricate expressions, alien modes of sociopolitical existence, convoluted syntax etc.) the translators resorted to the ready option of smoothing out all such differences and thereby creating an illusion of discursive fluency and textual transparency.

A large number of these translators felt no qualms in impressing the dominant values and elitist canons on the foreign text. In this act of domestication they usually tried to make sense of the foreign in terms of the domestic and forced the peculiarities and particularities of the foreign into the textual pigeonholes of the domestic. What appeared

“strange” to them was instantly “familiarized”; what sounded “barbaric” was “refined” and in this business of inclusions and exclusion a rigid logic of necessarily governed the whole operation. They also omitted those expressions/excerpts which, to them, were likely to bore the reader or hurt his or her urbane sensibilities and thereby cause a moral panic. It is in this way that these translators became the virtual authors of the texts they purportedly translated. Obviously, all the decisions as to what is acceptable and what is not, were solely made by the translators and were underpinned by the ideological and literary norms of the dominant power discourses of the day.

Nevertheless, Schleiermacher’s powerful indictment of domestication did played a crucial role in problematizing the contemporary conceptualizations of translation and pointed to an important and viable alternative. Many subsequent translation theorists upheld his legacy and made valuable contribution to it and thereby gave the foreignizing approaches to translation a recognition and legitimacy of its own. The landmark works of such translation theorists and practitioners as Philip Lewis, Antoine Berman and Lawrence Venuti owed heavily to Schleiermacher’s theoretical insights on the subject.

2.9.4. Macpherson’s Ossian

The same period also saw a remarkable rise in the production of the indirect translations as well as back translations (a translation of a translated text back into the language of the original text made without reference to the original text). In the same way the questions of the authenticity of the source also rose frequently and many of the translations were doubted to be spuriously founded.

The Scottish writer, poet, critic and politician James Macpherson (1736 — 1796)’s translation (writing/adaption/creation?) of Ossian is just a case in point. Macpherson announced in 1761 that he had discovered a Gaelic epic which as per his claim was written by Ossian (a classic narrative based on Fionn’s son Oisín). He brought out a prose translation of the epic in 1765 as The Works of Ossian. However, the critics and scholars seriously doubted this claim and thought that Macpherson might have been

87 inspired by the Gaelic folk tales yet he wrote this epic himself instead of translating them at all (Thomson, 1952).

The Irish antiquarian and renowned Gaelic scholar, Charles O’Conor (1804 — 1884) was one of those intellectuals who rejected the claim made by Macpherson. In an extremely ingenious way, he highlighted technical problems in the chronological order of the tales and the Gaelic names presented by Macpherson. He also demonstrated the implausibility of many of the claims made by Macpherson. O’Conor presented his criticism in his book Dissertation on the Origin and Antiquities of the Antient Scots (1775). Interestingly Macpherson never sought to refute O’Connor’s claims (Magnusson, 2006, 58).

Subsequently The eminent British writer, critic and lexicographer Samuel Johnson (1709 — 1789) maintained also criticized Macpherson’s claim and maintained that Macpherson had just woven the fragments of poems and oral tales into a Romantic epic of his own imagination. To Johnson, Macpherson was “a mountebank, a liar, and a fraud, and that the poems were forgeries” (Gaskill, 2002). It is also to be noted that Macpherson remained unable to produce the original texts and therefore could not mute the criticism directed at him. However, the work was an immense success and influenced many notable literary figures (Gaskill: 98). In 1952, Scottish poet, publisher and lexicographer Derick S. Thomson (1921 — 2012) asserted that Macpherson gathered Gaelic folk tales, commissioned scribes to take down oral ballads, collated the manuscripts but finally adapted them by employing a great deal of additions and deletions (Thomson, 1952). The English classicist, author and critic Bernard Knox (1914—2010) refers to the work of Macpherson as forged or fake and dismissed it by calling it a “collective bardic epic” (Gaskill, 2002).

Furthermore, this period was characterized by a diversity of practices in the domain of translation ranging from the faithful renderings to loose adaptations. Even the reconstructions of the original works without resorting to the source text were also categorized under the genre of translation. Enormous popularity of adaptations or adapted

88 translations was a particularly noticeable feature of this period. Adaptations ipso facto had a far greater propensity towards domestication given their candidly assimilationist and revisionist nature. Themes taken from such literary giants as Ovid, Horace, Petrarch, Virgil, Lucretius, etc. were routinely adapted and developed into independent works to be earnestly consumed by the contemporary readers.

However, most of these translations were complete rewritings of the original works clothed into a contemporary English idiom in order to gain acceptability by the contemporary Romantic readers who could satisfy their yearning for the distant and the foreign. These adaptations were, in fact, catering for the taste of an emerging middle- class readership which was coming into existence because of the technological advancements in printing on the one hand and theatre and drama on the other. 2.9.5. Fitzgerald’s Domestication of Khayyam

During the Romantic period, the European translators also developed a keen interest in the Eastern literatures. In France Emile-Louis Burnouf (1821 — 1907) and in Germany Wilhelm von Humboldt championed (1767 — 1835) this trend. In England it was the English poet and writer Edward Fitzgerald (1809 — 1883) who led this trend and whose translation of Omar Khayyam (1859) is perhaps the most famous in the literary world. Fitzgerald’s translation of the Persian philosopher, mathematician, and poet Omar Khayyam (1048 — 1131) is particularly notable for its avowed domestication which is a well-documented historical literary fact. The prolific British translator and writer J. M. Cohen (1903 — 1989) says that Fitzgerald in reality drew very little of his material from the original Persian sources (1962, 65). Some of the translation scholars were of the opinion that Fitzgerald translated a poem which never existed — a modernist idea which seeks to rewrite the source texts effacing their manifold conditions and literary features in order to serve the elitist agendas.

Yet, it can be easily observed that Fitzgerald made Khayyam utter such things “as he would himself have spoken if he had been born in England and in an age still slightly overshadowed by Byron” (Bunting, 1936,715). In this comment, the condescending and

89 patronizing attitude of Fitzgerald towards Khayyam is easily discernible. This translation also involved a reworking of the actual poem into the rhymed verse and Fitzgerald while commenting about his strategy of translation said:

It is an amusement for me to take what Liberties I like with these Persians, who (as I think) are not Poets enough to frighten one from such excursions, and who really do want a little Art to shape them (quoted in Bassnett, 1980 14).

This comment shows that Fitzgerald’s attitude towards the Persian culture was essentially disdainful and marked by Eurocentrism and self-important narcissism. The “little Art” is little more than an awkward euphemism for an insidious domestication of the source text. It is because of this domestication that Fitzgerald made extensive additions, deletions and modifications in his translation. We will discuss just some of them here given the constraints of space.

Khayyam spoke of the “legs of lamb” but Fitzgerald found them “unpoetic” and unworthy of inclusion in his translation. Therefore it was summarily dropped by the translator. Fitzgerald also included some poems which were not part of the original text. As for the structure, Fitzgerald’s work is totally a free translation with little correspondence to the original prosody of the poem. To the notable translation scholar and professor of Germanic Studies at University of Texas André Lefevere (1945 — 1996), Fitzgerald considered Persian inferior to English. Therefore, while making his translation acceptable according to the dominant literary and cultural conventions, he was also “ameliorating” the original text (Lefevere, 1992a). This denigrating and patronizing attitude is one of the most apparent consequences of a Eurocentrism which pervaded the minds of so many of Western translators of the Eastern literatures since antiquity.

The reader of Fitzgerald’s translation is also intrigued by a superimposed philosophy which belongs more to the translator and less to the author. We have to constantly remember that Rubáiyát are anthologies of quatrains which can be arranged in any order so as to support one understanding or another. This possibility of multiple

90 arrangements of Rubáiyát has led to a variety of widely differing interpretations of them ranging from a recital of doom and gloom to an epicurean eulogization of the mirth and merriment of the now. In a distinctly domesticating vein, Fitzgerald gave the Rubáiyát a distinctly fatalistic spin making it look like the Greek tragic predestinarianism.

True, English literary tradition has assimilated immensely from the Greek classical tradition and a domestication of Omar along the Greek fatalistic lines was nothing but a natural corollary of approaching a Persian poet from a Eurocentric perspective. It was this fatalism of Fitzgerald’s translation which made it catch the attention and praise of the Pre-Raphaelites. Fitzgerald’s readers were his Victorian contemporaries. The exotic notions of Oriental sensuality, repression, idyllic pleasure, sublimity, supine passivity were foregrounded in the translation. In translating an Oriental work like Rubáiyát, what really mattered was the constructed and clichéd image of the Orient which, of course, was not representative of the unmediated reality of the Orient. Edward W. Said made this point coherently when he said:

What inevitably goes with such work, however, is a kind of free-floating mythology of the Orient, an Orient that derives not only from contemporary attitudes and popular prejudices but also from what Vico called the conceit of nations and of scholars. I have already alluded to the political uses of such material as it has turned up in the twentieth century (Said, 1978, 62).

Therefore, in this depiction of the Orient, the translator also seemed to have depended more on his intuitive guess underwritten by the sociocultural legacy he inherited than the actual knowledge of Persian. “I have,” Fitzgerald famously said, “more reliance on my unreasoning than on my reasoning affections in such matters” (Borges, 1999, 26). At a more fundamental level, what is wrong with such an approach of translation is the transformation of the very identity of the author. By all accounts, Fitzgerald’s presentation of Khayyam is, at best, plainly truncated and, at worst, utterly distorted.

The preeminent Islamic philosopher and professor of Islamic Studies at George Washington University Seyyed Hossein Nasr (1933 —), takes into account the misinterpretations of Khayyam in the West and maintains that unless a correct and authentic study of Rubáiyát is done in accordance with the deeply spiritual and mystical leanings of the Khayyam, we would keep viewing Khayyam as a lowly hedonistic wine- lover and a sulky skeptic. Neither will his mystic profundity be appreciated at any level by the public at large (Nasr & Aminrazavi, 1999). C. H. A. Bjerregaard (1845—1922), an authority of mysticism, earlier concluded the situation:

The writings of Omar Khayyam are good specimens of Sufism but are not valued in the West as they ought to be, and the mass of the people know him only through the poems of Edward Fitzgerald which is unfortunate. It is unfortunate because Fitzgerald is not faithful to his master and model, and at times he lays words upon the tongue of the Sufi which are blasphemous. Such outrageous language is that of the eighty-first quatrain for instance. Fitzgerald is doubly guilty because he was more of a Sufi than he was willing to admit (Bjerregaard, 1915, 3).

It is worth mentioning here that Fitzgerald also translated Oedipus Rex as The Downfall and Death of King Oedipus in 1880. This too was a domesticated translation. He outspokenly defended a translator’s right to omit, add or alter. In fact his translation of Oedipus Rex was neither a translation nor a paraphrase. Instead, it was, as per the translator’s word, “chiefly taken” from Sophocles. Besides, Fitzgerald was more concerned with the thought patterns and practices of the contemporary British readers than those of the Athenians (Fitzgerald, 1880). He famously said that instead of having a stuffed eagle, one should have a live sparrow (Bassnett, 1980, 14). Therefore, Fitzgerald as a translator primarily aimed at bringing the source text into the realm of target language culture as a living entity, no matter how extremely shorn of its cultural/linguistic actualities. What mattered ultimately was the understanding of the target text readers.

According to the prominent translation scholar Susan Bassnett (1980, 14), in this communication of the source text, mostly an avowedly patronizing attitude is assumed by the translator which is another form of cultural and literary elitism. It is the upholding of this cultural and literary elitism which the foremost scholar of the Bible translation Eugene Nida (1914 — 2011) terms as the “spirit of exclusivism” in which the translator functions as a skilled merchant offering exotic wares to the discerning few (Bassnett, 1980, 14). Fitzgerald is also upholding this literary and cultural elitism.

The American translation theorist André Lefevere (1945 — 1996) has also traced some of the factors which influence the choices of a translator in more than one way resulting in the domestication of translation. These factors are pertinent to mention here as they have a direct bearings on the approach adopted by Fitzgerald. Lefevere has postulated some “concrete factors” which come into play when a source text is domesticated in such an extensive and outright manner. These factors are as much “ideological” (pertaining to dominant ideology) as “poetological” (pertaining to dominant poetics). Interestingly in Fitzgerald’s translation we find an interplay of both of these factors. To Lefevere a whole-sale domestication of an original text simply amounts to a kind of rewriting of it (Lefevere, 1992a, 2). Here we see the original text giving way to the canons of the dominant poetics and ideology. All these features are conspicuously present in Fitzgerald’s translation of Omar Khayyam and for this reason his work should be better described not as a translation but as what some of the translation theorists have called “a naturalizing reconstruction” of the original (France, 2000, 91)

2. 9.6. Newman’s Foreignization of Homer

When Fitzgerald was domesticating Khayyam, the celebrated English poet and critic Matthew Arnold (1822 — 1888) and the English scholar and writer F. W. Newman (1805 —1897) were wrangling over the translation of Homer. The polemic between these two literary giants is indicative of the dominant thought of the day about the subject of translation. Domesticating tends were gradually gaining roots not only in England but also in the Continental Europe. Take the example of the French poet and critic Charles

Baudelaire (1821 — 1867), who completely transformed Poe from a reasonably good second-rate American author into a first-class French writer through an extensive domestication.

In Britain, Matthew Arnold insisted on a radically domesticated presentation of the legendary Greek epic poet Homer but Newman, awed at this prospect, strongly recommended to foreignize him for which archaic poetic structures and obsolete words were perfectly suitable. He was in favor of presenting Homer “unadorned” with all the archaisms and antiquities of the classical Greek epic tradition. In this debate, Newman was supported by such figures as John Conington (1825—1869) and Richard Jebb (1841—1105). In the wake of this historic debate, a large number of Homeric translations (either domesticated or foreignized) came into existence. Although Newman could not impress his viewpoint on the contemporary academia, his strong advocacy for foreignizing the practice of translation and according greater respect to the cultural and linguistic peculiarities of the source text successfully problematized the subject of translation. It was in 1856 that Newman brought out his foreignized and archaicized translation of Iliad, clearly departing from the Victorian standards of invisible, transparent and domesticated translation. This approach to translation secured him a membership in a small group of the Victorian translators who were promoting foreignizing strategies of translation in the literary circles and were consistently resisting the elitist and ethnocentric domestication. Newman rooted his translation of Homer in a more democratically cultural and populist politics and intentionally pitched it against the monopolist academic elite of the day.

In fact, Newman had a very different understanding not just of translation but of education also. To him the prime aim of education was to promote liberal democracy and break the stronghold of cultural dominations in the society (1847b. 19). For translation also he conceived the same anti-hegemonic and liberalist role. To him, the presence of any amount of domestication would be utterly ruinous to the role of translation in the society. He censures Alexander Pope and William Cowper for expurgating the original Latin texts they translated and which they inscribed with the Anglophone middle class

94 urbanity. Thus he criticized all the domesticating principles of translation which were firmly in place when he took up his translation of Homer:

One of these is, that the reader ought, if possible, to forget that it is a translation at all, and be lulled into the illusion that he is reading an original work. Of course a necessary inference from such a dogma is, that whatever has a foreign colour is undesirable and is even a grave defect. The translator, it seems, must carefully obliterate all that is characteristic of the original, unless it happens to be identical in spirit to something already familiar in English. From such a notion I cannot too strongly express my intense dissent. I am at precisely the opposite;—to retain every peculiarity of the original, so far as I am able, with the greater care, the more foreign it may happen to be,—whether it be a matter of taste, of intellect, or of morals. […] the English translator should desire the reader always to remember that his work is an imitation, and moreover is in a different material; that the original is foreign, and in many respects extremely unlike our native compositions (quoted in Venuti, 1995, 67).

Alternatively, Newman thought that his theory of translation would resist and overthrow the contemporary canonization of domestication imposed by an insidious collusion of a cultural elite and the trend-setting publishing industry (Newman, 1856, xvii). So he cultivated an amazingly heterogeneous, foreignized and deliberately archaized discourse to translate Homer. Thus such a counter-hegemonic discourse wrought by Newman was not Anglo-American but Saxo-Norman and it was seen as challenging the elitist concept of a dominant national culture (1856, vi).

2.9.7. Arnold versus Newman

In spite of all the scholarly credentials and patient labors of Newman, his foreignized translation of Homer appeared unusually “quaint” and “un-English” to many and it embroiled him in a mid century controversy with Matthew Arnold over the “principles” of translation. The radical and resistant nature of Newman’s

95 conceptualization of translation shocked Arnold who was so passionately concerned to found an English culture which was both elitist and nationalist. In his three lectures On Translating Homer (1861), he mounted a merciless attack on Newman and termed his translation of Homer as “eccentric and ignoble”. In these lectures his professed aim was to lay down the “true principles” on which Homer’s translation should ideally be founded. Nevertheless, these principles were light years away from those of Newman.

Arguably Arnold presented in his lectures the most spirited and systematic defense of domestication. Arnold wanted translation to assimilate and to transcend the cultural differences rather than to register and communicate them. Embracing a strangely Platonic metaphysics, he reposed full trust in the transcendental nature of language in which spatio-temporal attributes and properties did not matter seriously and he did not find it incumbent upon the translator to communicate these attributes and properties in any real sense. Following in the footsteps of Denham, Tytler, Dryden and Frere and upholding the canonical tradition of cultural elitism in translation, Arnold advocated a fluent and transparent method of translation in which the cultural differences just tended to disappear and sink in the syntax of translation. Elucidating his view of translating Homer, he said:

So essentially characteristic of Homer is his plainness and naturalness of thought, that to the preservation of this in his own version the translator must without scruple sacrifice, where it is necessary, verbal fidelity to his original, rather than run any risk of producing, by literalness, an odd and unnatural effect (Arnold, 1960, 157-158).

In fact what really mattered for Arnold was not so much the accuracy of a translation per se but an elitist endorsement of it coming from the canonical scholars of such centers of prestige and power as Eton, Oxford and Cambridge — the gatekeepers of Anglo-American cultural and literary elitism. Thus Arnold’s censuring of Newman was primarily informed by a culture which was on the one hand elitist and nationalist, and on the other hand Anglo-centric and stereotypical. Translation, in Arnold’s confirmed

96 opinion, was a way of strengthening an academic elite by endowing it with a nationalist and cultural empowerment.

Nevertheless, the literary elitism supported by Arnold did pave the way to the imposition of exclusive Victorian values on the foreign cultural constituencies (Venuti, 1995, 132). In this business of literary elitism, the entire vocabulary of Arnold is moral to the core. Everywhere in his normative exhortations, Arnold reminds us that a translation of Homer must be noble; however, nowhere does he define this nobleness. But it is not difficult to see that what Arnold equated with nobleness was nothing else but an Anglo- American bourgeois sense of moral propriety.

Arnold’s scathing critique of Newman elicited an elaborate response from the latter and in 1861 Newman published a book-length reply in which he was able to delineate the contours of this translation theory more elaborately. Newman’s reply was meant to be a corrective to Arnold’s exclusivity and domestication and he sought to redress the balance in favour of foreignization. At the outset he clarified that his translation of Homer was not aimed to serve the agenda of a hegemonic academic elite; rather it was meant for a popular readership — a popular readership which was equally entitled to read and evaluate a piece of literature on their own (see Venuti, 1995, 68).

While denouncing Arnold for assigning an exclusive authority to the academy in the construction of a nationalist culture, Newman upheld a more democratic and heterogeneous position. To him any such cultural formation in England would have racist and xenophobic tendencies. He also dismissed the monopoly of any exclusive elite in deciding the matters of literary taste and artistic merit:

Scholars are the tribunal of Erudition, but of Taste the educated but unlearned public is the only rightful judge; and to it I wish to appeal. Even scholars collectively have no right, and much less have single scholars, to pronounce a final sentence on questions of taste in their court (quoted in Venuti, 1995, 71).

In this way, Newman defended his foreignized translation of Homer in which he purposefully resisted the domestication of the original text to the canonical regimes of the dominant discourses. It remained one of his deeply held convictions that a translator had to foreignize and historicize his translation in order to register all the cultural and linguistic properties of the original texts instead of just flattening them out for the ease of the reader. He rightly criticized Matthew Arnold who proposed a universalistic conception of taste and a transcendentalist ideal of refinement and for whose sake he endorsed a thorough domestication of all the cultural, linguistic and historical differences attached to the source text. To Newman, such an attitude was anachronistic, unreasonable and unworthy of the vocation of a translator (Venuti, 1995, 78).

This debate between Arnold and Newman unleashed a burgeoning of discussion on the topic of domestication and foreignization. To a majority of the contemporary reviewers and critics, Arnold appeared more persuasive. It is also worth mentioning here that between 1861 and 1924 the British and the American publishers brought out as many as seventeen editions of Arnold’s lectures in favour of domesticating strategies of translation; whereas Newman’s Iliad — a foreignized translation indicating the historical remoteness of the source text — was just went through one reprinting in 1871.

This greater acceptance of Arnold’s viewpoint in such a case is, in itself, a clear indication of the deep-rootedness of domestication. It also testifies how, after centuries of long-term conditioning, the English readership as well as academia developed an across- the-board acceptability for domestication. It was, however, only towards the second half of the 20th century, that the practice of translation was successfully problematized form unprecedentedly novel critical perspectives, that Newman was paid a renewed and full attention.

2.9.8. Lamb, Frere and the Censored Translations

After Arnold and Newman, two names merit brief mention here: the British writer and translator George Lamb (1784 — 1834) and the English author and diplomat John

Hookham Frere (1769 — 1846). In 1821, Lamb published a highly domesticated translation of some of the poems of the Latin poet Gaius Valerius Catullus (84 BC — 54 BC). In much of his translation, Lamb mitigated or omitted what he perceived to be the “pagan and coarse sexuality” of the poet. Thus in order to deal with such “objectionable” expressions, Lamb, driven by the assumption that Catullus was “a genius originally pure but sullied by the immorality of his age, developed strategies of “omission and amplification” (Venuti, 1995, 87). Lamb’s translation abided by the bourgeois and aristocratic values and he inscribed his translation with a conservative morality. Look at the following example of his translation:

Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo, Aureli pathice et cinaede Furi, qui me ex versiculis meis putastis, quod sunt molliculi, parum pudicum.

And dare ye, Profligates, arraign The ardour of my sprightly strain, And e”en myself asperse? (quoted in Venuti, 1995, 87)

This is a specimen of a highly domesticated translation of Catullus by Lamb. Lamb’s choice of “profligates” seemed to have tellingly purged the Latin text of its “perceived immorality” (Venuti, 1995, 73). However, his bourgeois sense of decorum and propriety was so intense that he could not help commenting in a footnote, “This poem is a very free imitation of the original, which could not be tolerated if translated literally” (Lamb, 1821, 141). Furthermore, in order to support a bourgeois morality, Lamb also makes extensive additions to the Latin text. For this domestication of Catullus, the conservative Anti-Jacobian Review called admired Lamb by terming him as a “patriot” and a “Christian” (Venuti, 1995, 73). The magazine also wrote:

The extreme impropriety of many Poems written by Catullus, has obliged Mr. Lamb to omit them, and had he turned his attention wholly to some purer author, it would have honoured his powers of selection. At this hour of contest between the good and evil principle among us, when so many are professedly Atheists, and blasphemy is encouraged by subscription, and sedition supported by charities, no patriot and Christian would assist vice by palliating its excesses, or render them less offensive by a decent veil (Venuti, 1995, 92).

Lamb also adapted Shakespeare’s Timon of Athens for the theatre in 1816 in which the same “expurgation of coarseness and impropriety” can be seen at work. For example the following dialog was completely omitted presuming upon its “churlishness”:

Tim. Wilt thou dine with me, Apemantus? Apem. No; I eat not lords. Tim. And thou shouldst, thou”dst anger ladies. Apem. O they eat lords; so they come by great bellies. Tim. That’s a lascivious apprehension. Apem. So thou apprehend’st it; take it for thy labour. (Quoted in Venuti, 1995, 97)

This intensive bowdlerization of the source text done in the name of “refinement and propriety” was warmly welcomed by the contemporary critics and theorists (Venuti, 1995). Perhaps one reason for this was that Lamb was also serving the agenda of the right wing cultural elite whose urbane sensitivities he could not afford to alienate. This further illustrates the popularity of domesticating practices in the 19th century England.

Although Lamb also domesticated his translation enormously, yet it was for John Hookham Frere to render yeoman’s service to the cause of domestication. Frere rigorously postulated that an absence of domestication in translation would amount to a real drawback and a genuine defect. To him, a translation had to read like an original and this constituted the greatest merit of a translation. Frere is mostly known for his verse

100 translations of the Greek dramatist Aristophanes (446 BC —386 BC) which were immensely popular at that time in many ways. To Frere, a translation should by “invisible” and by that he meant that it should not read like a translation rather like an original work — a text not derivative in any sense but a text autonomous in all respects. This was all a euphemistic plea to serve the cause of domestication.

We can also note that behind Frere’s adulation of “invisibility” of a translation lies his belief that translation is capable of presenting the foreign writer’s intentions and thoughts in an unproblematic and transparent way (Venuti, 1995). Furthermore, to him, a translator is obliged by the very obligation of his vocation to suppress the linguistic and cultural peculiarities of the foreign text or, at least, to bring them in line with the canonical values of target language culture. This could serve as a false consolation to the reader that whatever he was consuming was not the translation but the original text in its own right. This belief itself was a legacy of liberal humanism which played a key role in the canonization of domestication in the Anglo-American culture.

Frere’s conceptualizations of translation were also informed by this tradition of liberal humanism. Frere considered the subjectivity of the individual translator competent enough to transcend the cultural, historical and linguistic differences and communicate the source text in some “unmediated” way (Venuti, 1995). On the face of it, the workings of this liberal humanism may sound democratic, but it in fact leads to an extremely radical dismissal of the foreign texts and their inscription with domesticated valuations and significations.

By the end of the 19th century, a translation method based upon the elision of cultural and linguistic differences and an extensive domestication was already solidly entrenched. Domestication came to be seen (and accepted) as a textual homogenization that sought to dislodge the cultural and linguistic specificities of the source texts as far as possible in order not to ruffle the understanding of the bourgeois readership at home. Thus the history of translation during the 19th century has been marked by discursive

101 inclusions, exclusions and omissions. The canonization of domestication severely limited the translators’ choices and somehow predefined their cultural roles and political stakes.

2.10. The Twentieth Century

The 20th century witnessed an explosion in the publication of translation thanks to the unparalleled developments in the field of science, technology, international organizations, intercultural exchanges, multinational corporations etc. The enormous contributions to such academic disciplines as international politics, international law and international relations also played a significant role in establishing the greater need as well as popularity of translations. More and more new factors (external as well as to text) came to influence the practice of translation. Increased social mobility, greater cultural diversity, growing economic interdependence, increased demographic heterogeneity and an extraordinary techno-industrial growth were the factors which incredibly added to the significance and relevance of translation. At the same time, new findings in disciplines like cultural anthropology, sociology, political science, linguistics, literary theory and cognitive psychology brought a new realization to the translation theorist. However this tremendous increase in the role and importance of translation came with a lot of added ethical burden on translators and translation scholars around the world.

It was chiefly in the 20th century (especially in the second half of the 20th century) that the age-old Ciceronian principle of the sense-for-sense translation (which underpinned the notion of domestication for so long) was seriously called into question. It does not, however, mean that the opposite of this (the word-for-word translation) was adopted in toto. In fact, it was at this time that such concepts as the lexical correctness, proximity to the original wording and even to the syntax of the source text, began to shape the theorizations and conceptualizations of the translation scholars. Translators openly called for an accommodation of non-English and non-European patterns of speech as well as thought. As a result, increasing regard was accorded to the foreign effects while translating texts from the remote past or the distant places (France, 2000, 91).

102

2.10.1. Pound’s Experiment with the Foreign

Any discussion of the 20th century translation discourse is incomplete without sufficiently taking into account the contributions of the prominent American poet, critic and translator Ezra Pound (1885 — 1972). With the unique courage and single-minded commitment Pound set about the business of translation and refused to be influenced by the literary domination of domestication. Pound was a foremost architect of the early modernist movement in the English poetry whose declared aim was experimenting with the form as well as the content, exploring the non-Western literary conventions and discarding the traditions of the immediate past.

Therefore, in a very radical way, Pound took it upon himself to infuse English literature with richness, innovation and grandeur and for this purpose he explored other literary traditions and advised the poets “to look beyond America” for literary enrichment. To him, translation could facilitate the formation of the domestic literary discourses and for this reason translations can be enlisted in the grand cultural schemes at home, notably the development of national language and culture. Although these intentions somewhat resemble those of Matthew Arnold, yet, unlike Arnold, Pound exhibited great regard and sensitivity in registering and communicating the foreignness of the foreign texts.

For this purpose Pound suggested a discreet use of translation in order to form a distinctly domestic cultural identity. This could be achieved, Pound contended, not by depriving the source text of its “voice”, but by a judicious importation of its foreignness into the domestic discourses (Venuti, 1995). He criticized the American poet and essayist Walt Whitman (1819 — 1892) for the latter’s exclusive preoccupation with an America whose literary canons were becoming increasingly ethnocentric. In such poems as A Pact (1916), Pound paid reluctant tribute to Whitman, calling him a “pig-headed father” but also declaring:

It was you that broke the new wood,

103

Now it is time for the carving. We have one sap and one root— Let there be commerce between us. (Sieburth, 2010, 39)

What Ezra Pound meant by “carving” was the employment of linguistic devices from the foreign languages and literatures. In order to counter the effects of Whitman’s ethnocentric exclusivity, he also advocated the employment of the literary devices in translation taken from the diverse linguistic and cultural traditions (Venuti, 1995). Pound himself assiduously practiced what he preached to Walt Whitman and widely translated from the Oriental and Provençal literary traditions while keeping their foreignness and uniqueness as intact as literarily possible. Pounds translations were marked by heterogeneous cultural discourses and diverse linguistic and idiomatic schemes which had the potential to resist the practice of domestication (Catherine, 2010).

Above all, unlike his predecessors such as Dryden, Arnold, Frere and Pope, Ezra Pound did not seek to construct an illusion either of transparency or of the authorial presence and presented the foreign as the foreign and this is how his translation strategies met with success in problematizing the positivistic conceptualization not only of translation but also of language as such.

In his translations Pounds employed a non-transparent discourse of deliberate opacity and archaicism which served to distinguish his translations from other contemporary domesticated translations. In 1912, he brought out his translation of the eighth-century Old English poem The Seafarer in which he decisively departed from the conventions and practices of the modern English and stayed faithful to the Anglo-Saxon register. He closely imitated such Anglo-Saxon features as accentual meter, kennings, stressed and slack syllables, alliteration and compound words. With the translation of this work, Pound introduced a new prosody into the English literary tradition based on a linear alliterative verse. With this kind of prosody, Pound aimed at communicating the

104 feel and the physical impact associated with the Anglo-Saxon literature. Here is one excerpt from Pound’s translation of the poem:

May make merry man faring needy. This he little believes, who aye in winsome life Abides 'mid burghers some heavy business, Wealthy and wine-flushed, how I weary oft Must bide above brine. Neareth nightshade, snoweth from north, Frost froze the land, hail fell on earth then Corn of the coldest. Nathless there knocketh now The heart's thought that I on high streams The salt-wavy tumult traverse alone. Moaneth alway my mind's lust That I fare forth, that I afar hence Seek out a foreign fastness. For this there's no mood-lofty man over earth's midst, Not though he be given his good, but will have in his youth greed; Nor his deed to the daring, nor his king to the faithful But shall have his sorrow for sea-fare Whatever his lord will. (Sieburth, 2010, 34)

Pound’s deliberate employment of archaic syntax, foreign lexis, discursive opacity and the Anglo-Saxon prosody can be clearly seen in this specimen. All these features help the translator in successfully foreignizing the translation.

Similarly, Pound’s translation of the distinguished Italian poet Guido Cavalcanti (1255 — 1300) is also marked by the same foregrounding of the linguistic and cultural differences and peculiarities of the source text indicating the historical and spatial remoteness of the original text. Pound published this translation in 1936 under the title

105

The Sonnets and Ballate of Guido Cavalcanti and based his translation strategy upon the pre-Elizabethan poetic discourses and employed archaicism as a discursive strategy to achieve his foreignizing goals and to retain a sense of the remotene. Pound also translated Gascon poet-musician and prominent troubadour Marcabru (1130 — 1150) for his book The Spirit of Romance (1910). Look at the following specimen which clearly shows the foreignized nature of Pound’s translation:

L’autrier jost’un sebissa trobei pastora mestissa, de joi e de sen massissa, si cum filla de vilana, cap’ e gonel’e pelissa vest e camiza trelissa, sotlars e caussas e lana.

Ves lieis vinc per la planissa: “Toza, fim ieu, res faitissa, dol ai car lo freitz vos fissa.” “seigner, som dis la vilana, merce Dieu e ma noirissa, pauc m’o pretz sil vens m”erissa, qu’alegreta sui e sana.”

“Toza, fi’m ieu, cauza pia, destors me sui de la via per far a vos compaignia; quar aitals toza vilana no deu ses pareill paria pastorgar tanta bestia en aital terra, soldana.” (Dejeanne, 1971, 33)

106

The other day beside a hedge I found a low-born shepherdess, Full of joy and ready wit, And she was the daughter of a peasant woman; Cape and petticoat and jacket, vest and shirt of fustian, Shoes, and stockings of wool.

I came towards her through the plain, “Damsel,” said I, “pretty one, I grieve for the cold that pierces you.” “sir,” said the peasant maid, “Thank God and my nurse I care little if the wind ruffle me, For I am happy and sound.”

“Damsel,” said I, “pleasant one, I have turned aside from the road To keep you company. For such a peasant maid Should not, without a suitable companion, Shepherd so many beasts In such a lonely place.” (Pound, 1952, 62-63)

In Pound’s translation, the workings of the discursive heterogeneity and archaicism. For example, Pound translates “damsel” for “toza” which other translators have rendered merely as “little girl” (Levy 1966). By employing this equivalent, Pound is, in a way, investing his translation with an air of irony. Besides he successfully creates a heterogeneous discourse wherein he juxtaposes formal usage (“grieve”, “suitable

107 companion”) with slang (“pretty one”). Pound’s provokingly innovative and experimental approach to the source text is assessed by Lawrence Venuti in the following words:

To mimic an archaic verse form, Pound developed a discursive heterogeneity that refused fluency, privileging the signifier over the signified, risking not just the unidiomatic, but the unintelligible […] Pound’s translations signified the foreignness of the foreign text, not because they were faithful or accurate…but because they deviated from domestic literary canons in English (1995, 200).

Small wonder the contemporary reviewers and critics came down very harsh upon Pound and castigated him for the lack of fluency and transparency in his translations. His non-domesticated and non-transparent method of translation was termed “clumsy”, “obscure” and bereft of any “fine tact about language” (Homberger, 1972, 91). The Provençal translations made by Pound were particularly subversive of the cultural elitism at home and elicited the same harsh criticism from the literary circles of various persuasions. Many critics mounted politicized attacks on Pound and one of them was the American literary critic and writer Leslie Aaron Fiedler (1917 — 2003) who condemned Pound’s translations for lacking a “centre” (Fiedler, 1962, 459).

Nevertheless, the fact of the matter is that Pound was defying the elitist and ethnocentric cultural norms and, to him, a translation could only resist domestication by signifying and registering the differences embedded in the foreign text and one of the ways to do it is to employ a discursive heterogeneity. Instead of promoting the dominant domestic values, a translator should take stock of the marginal and residual values in an experimental and innovative way. The historical remoteness and cultural marginality of a foreign text could only be communicated by radically disrupting the current hierarchy of values found ascendant in the target language culture at any given time.

This can, obviously, lead to an amount of “estrangement” but the translators have to risk it in order to establish a cultural difference by drawing upon the marginal and the foreign. Therefore, to Pound, an act of translation is not an uncritical replacement of

108 source-language intelligibilities with target-language ones. In spite of Pound’s prolific contributions, he remained a marginal figure as a translator in the Anglo-American literary circles. Last but not least, it should be mentioned here that Pound’s formulations of translations were marked by considerable vagueness and confusion. Whether he was all for the practice of foreignization as propounded by Venuti is doubtful and parts of his translations did not really conform to the basic tenets of foreignization as well. The following quote sums up Pound’s position on this point:

Pound’s influence, besides being problematical when viewed in a late 20th-c. perspective, is also rather ambiguous. On the one hand, he appears to emphasize content, especially, of course, with regard to classical narrative poetry; on the other, he is plainly intent on approximating the physical or aural effect of the source text. “The Sea-farer” is thus both a copy and a rewrite. Insofar as it is a copy, it presages Pound’s later tendency, in the Cantos, to incorporate actual foreign texts rather than translations of them. Here we see literalism, as it were, taken to its logical and somewhat absurd extreme (France, 2000, 94).

2.10.2. Fitts’s Criticism of Pound

The writer and a notable translator of the classical texts Dudley Fitts (1903- 1968), criticized Pound for his scheme of translation. Fitts’s authority as a foremost translator of his time hinges on his support for the domesticating strategies of translation. Although initially appreciative of Pound’s translations, Fitts totally changed his attitude towards the latter half of his career. In 1939, he dismissed Pound’s translations in harsh terms for not complying with the dominant conventions of the target culture and for employing an archaic, historicized and heterogeneous discourse (Homberger, 1972, 246). In his own translation of the Greek works Fitts went to great lengths to domesticate the source text in order to bring it in line with the dominant cultural canons of the day (Locher, 1980, 152). In the preface to his One Hundred Poems from the Palatine Anthology (1938), he enunciated his approach to translation which is explicitly domesticating:

109

I have not really undertaken translation at all—translation, that is to say, as it is understood in the schools. I have simply tried to restate in my own idiom what the Greek verses have meant to me. The disadvantages of this method are obvious: it has involved cutting, altering, expansion, revision—in short, all the devices of free paraphrase. […] In general, my purpose has been to compose, first of all, and as simply as possible, an English poem. To this end I have discarded poeticisms…I have avoided such archaisms as “thou” and “ye” and all their train of attendant ghosts. Less defensibly, I have risked a spurious atmosphere of monotheism by writing “God” for “Zeus” (but Mr. Leslie would have it “Jupiter”!) whenever the context admitted it without too perilous a clash (Fitts, 1956, xvii—xviii).

This rather long excerpt makes the domesticating impulse in Fitts’s translation abundantly clear and it is not difficult to see that the domestication advocated by Fitts is both linguistic and cultural. His submission for simplicity and his risking of “a spurious atmosphere of monotheism” are clear examples of the cultural appropriation he attempted. Fitts also made an effort to produce the effect of fluency and an illusion of transparency and in order to achieve this end he inscribed the source text with the contemporary Anglo-American dominant values.

Driven by such domesticating and appropriating translational trends himself, Fitts harshly reviewed Pound’s archaicized, historicized and foreignized approach to translation. To him Pound’s translations appeared “clumsy” “bizarre” and “unidiomatic”. This was due to his own long-term conditioning to naturalized translational discourses found in the contemporary academic world. Although Pound’s deliberate use of archaicism and foreignization was meant for signifying a cultural and historical remoteness of the source texts, Fitts judged his translations as “unreadable” (1954, 19). To him all translational discourses must assimilate the historical and cultural differences to such an extent that the prevailing homogeneity of target language values might not be dismantled or disturbed.

110

It seems that Fitts was not ready to understand what makes a foreign text foreign and, to him, just the target text along with all its elitist norms and principles should reign supreme in the literary universe of translations.

2.10.3. The Publishing Industry and the Hegemony of English

In the 20th century the domesticating trends were further reinforced by the global hegemony of English and the trends set by the Anglo-American publishing industry. The end of the Cold War, the emergence of the unipolar world and the pre-eminence of the US in the world affairs contributed to the worldwide dominance of English. Moreover, the America’s military might, its economic clout and its immense influence in international politics helped impose the Anglophone cultural values on translations made into English. Today it is the American English which is influencing not only the other languages but also the other varieties of English because it is the medium through which the appeal of American way of life — its literature, Hollywood motion pictures, pop music and television programs — is spread to the world. The US State Department has had a language section for the purpose of evaluating translations of diplomatic documents and making interpretational arrangements during international conventions. By the end of the 20th century, the Language Service Division (LSD) had an annual budget of $8 million (Obst & Cline, 1990, 12).

The significance and influence of English is further enhanced by the number of academic journals published in this language. According to an estimate almost one hundred thousand academic journals are currently being published in English and according to the Science Citation Index (SCI), just in 1998 about 95% of the total number of peer-reviewed research articles were written in English. Interestingly, only half of them were written by the authors from the English-speaking countries (Altabach, 2006). The Anglo-American scientific community has been endorsing specific Anglocentric writing conventions and editorial norms and the contributors to such journals have to

111 comply with them. Commenting on this situation, Arthur C. Huntley, M.D. wrote to the Dermatology Online Journal, and raised an extremely fundamental question:

Does it make sense that excellent academic work of our Spanish and Portuguese colleagues should be first translated into English to undergo peer review, and then translated back into the original language for those readers? (Huntley, 1997, 79).

Therefore, this formidable supremacy of the English language always had far- reaching implications for the translations made into this language as the translators, more often than not, sought to impose its own values on the other languages (Baker, 1998). Robert Phillipson (1992, 53), a Professor of English in the Copenhagen Business School, has provided a thorough study of the enormous significance of English to most of the neo-colonial enterprises. To Phillipson, power is expressed in English and then reinforced by English by means of pedagogic practices the world over and this phenomenon constitutes what Phillipson has called the “linguistic imperialism of English” (1992, 50).

The result of this global linguistic imperialism of English is a cultural homogeneity and aggressive monolingualism coupled with a literary elitism. This is how Phillipson has worked out his conceptualization of this imperialism of English:

…imperialism theory provides a conceptual framework within which English linguistic imperialism, the dominance of English worldwide, and efforts to promote the language can be understood. Scientific imperialism, media imperialism, and educational imperialism are all sub-types of cultural imperialism. So is linguistic imperialism. Linguistic imperialism also permeates all the other types of imperialism, since language is the means used to mediate and express them (Phillipson, 1992, 65).

Recently, the studies emerging from such disciplines as critical discourse analysis and critical pedagogy have revealed how the neo-liberal ideologies of globalization are

112 promoting hegemony of the English language. Democracy necessitates a multicultural participation in an ongoing intercultural dialogue. However, the predominance of English is proving detrimental to the existence and growth of other languages, especially those spoken by the less privileged nations of the world. Within the Anglophone world, a large number of writers are authoring books on diverse subjects without even citing a single non-English source and this marks a growing ostracization of the cultural other (see Crawford, 2000). Interestingly the American publishers have been in the forefront of this linguistic and cultural appropriation of the foreign the world over:

American publishers sell translation rights for more and more English-language translations of foreign books. As a result, the United States exercised a hegemony over foreign countries that is not simply political and economic, as the particular case may be, but cultural as well. Publishers have profited from successfully imposing American cultural values on a vast foreign leadership, while creating a domestic culture that is aggressively monolingual and receptive to the foreign only when it meets American expectations (Baler, 1998, 310)

To Venuti, the widespread acceptance and popularity of domestication in the Anglo-American world has ushered in a new era of the ascendancy of transparent discourses. In a growing number of translations of poetry, prose, print journalism and bestsellers the target language is English which is obviously a dominant language (Venuti, 1995, 117). The Anglo-American publishing industry, catering for the needs of the mass readership at home, has been instrumental in consolidating these transparent discourses just because they are readily consumable in the contemporary cultural marketplace at home:

It can be said that Anglo-American publishing has been instrumental in producing readers who are aggressively monolingual and culturally parochial while reaping the economic benefits of successfully imposing Anglo-American cultural values on a sizeable foreign readership. (Venuti, 1992, 6)

113

It is not difficult to witness today the adverse effects of that xenophobic and ill- informed attitude which Venuti bemoans in the above-mentioned quote. Aggressive monolingualism has been instrumental in creating a cultural parochialism in a vast majority of Anglo-American readership. To Venuti’s dismay, the dominance of domestication has largely been influencing the decisions as to what to publish and what not to publish. Mostly those foreign texts which could radically resist the Anglophone regimes of fluency and transparency do not bear much chance of getting published (Venuti, 1992, 6). Even Newman felt this hegemony of publishers under which “every deviation is resented as a vexatious eccentricity…” (Venuti, 1995, 122).

The hegemonic role played the Anglo-American publishing industry can be appreciated by the prestige and circulation enjoyed by such canonical works of literature as the Great Books, and the Penguin Classics. The prolific translator of the European literature into English John Michael Cohen (1903 — 1989) states how Penguin Classics have reinforced the domesticating practices of translation as the imprint prefers to engage a translator who:

…aims to make everything plain, though without the use of footnotes since the conditions of reading have radically changed and the young person of today is generally reading in far less comfortable surroundings than his father or grandfather. He has therefore to carry forward on an irresistible stream of narrative. Little can be demanded of him except his attention. Knowledge, standards of comparison, Classical background: all must be supplied by the translator in his choice of words or in the briefest of introductions (Cohen, 1962, 33).

Thus Penguin Classics are particularly worth mentioning here as they ushered in a mass market for paperback literature, including the bestselling works. A large part of this mass literature was underwritten by translated works in which domestication was more of a norm than exception. The transparent and fluent discourses founded on mere factual information were preferred over sociocultural and linguistic peculiarities of the source

114 texts (Graves, 1965, 51). By the same token, the immediate and enormous success of such Latin American authors as Julio Cortázar (1914 — 1984), Jorge Luis Borges (1899 — 1986) and Mario Luis Rodríguez Cobos (1938 — 2010) owed mostly to the favorable reviews and the support of such prominent publishing houses as Pantheon, Grove and New Directions, Random House Inc., etc. Arguably these writers were considerably close to the dominant American canons and whatever they authored seemed readily consumable in the form of translations in the Anglo-American mass readership market.

This constituted one of the major reasons for the warm support they received from the American publishers or else the dominant American canon went through a transformation and found no difficulty in accommodating such writers (Venuti, 1995, 265). In either case, there was a compliance with the dominant discourse of American literary world.

Interestingly, Lawrence Venuti, the most vocal critic of domestication in the contemporary discipline of Translation Studies, himself has been a victim of this hegemony of the publishing industry. His non-domesticated archaicized and historicized translations have not been welcomed for publication in the mainstream magazines. His foreignized translations of a selection of the Italian experimental poet Milo De Angelis’s poetry received numerous rejections form the mainstream American and British publishers — the gatekeepers of the domesticating trends in the Anglophone academia. Lawrence Venuti in his translation adopted a resistant strategy and defied the transparent discourse that dominated the Anglo-American literary elitism (see Venuti, 1995, 300 — 305).

2.10.4. Jones’ Re-Interpretation of Poetics

In 1962, the prominent 20th century classical scholar and writer John Jones published a landmark book — On Aristotle and Greek Tragedy (1962). In this book Jones called into question the traditional and dominant interpretations and understandings of the Greek tragedy derived largely from Aristotle’s Poetics. To Jones, such manifestly

115 mistaken interpretations of the Greek tragedy were a direct result of the numerous domesticated translations of Poetics which in one way or the other aimed at Anglicizing and Romanticizing the concept of the Greek instead of presenting it in a distinctly the Aristotelian or Greek vein. To Jones even some of the most scholarly editions of Poetics in English suffered here and there from the problem of domestication and were underwritten by the post-Enlightenment and Romantic notions of the protagonist (Jones, 1962, 12). Both the Enlightenment and Romanticism reiterated the concept of individualism which was conceived of as a self-determining human agency/subjectivity (Berlin, 1997).

Jones coherently substantiated his central thesis and showed how, under the individualistic legacy of the Enlightenment, the English translators of Aristotle shifted the emphasis from the action to the hero. According to Jones this transformation had serious implications as it completely changed the original Greek notion of tragedy. Aristotle’s prime concern and “centre of gravity” was situational but his English translators espoused a concern which was personal (Venuti, 1998) Even the notion of “the change in fortune” — foundational to Aristotle’s whole scheme of tragedy — should have been appreciated in a situational sense. Jones elaborated on this point and said that Aristotle never spoke of the change in the hero’s personal fortune (as Bywater’s 1909 translation puts it) but just of the change of fortune—a generic reference to a decaying state of affairs rather than to “the stage-portrayal of one man’s vicissitude” (Jones 1971, 14-16).

In fact, the Romantic notion of an autonomous individuality was utterly alien to the Greek thought which saw human subjectivity not so much as individually functioning as socially determined in all its facets. Jones’ re-reading of Aristotle successfully transformed the way of looking at the concept of Greek tragedy as he showed that Aristotle never espoused a notion of a “tragic hero” in any Romantic or Hamlet-like sense so recognizable to the 20th century Anglo-American readership.

Jones’ skillful deconstruction of Aristotle’s translations astounded the academia and by and large people received his critique favorably (Burnett, 1963, 177). In an

116 extremely ingenious way, he effected a paradigm shift in the interpretation and understanding of the Greek tragedy. It was a shift from the hero-centered approach to the situation-centered approach. So powerfully did he critique the canonical and standard translations of Poetics that a radically new disciplinary revision set in (Gellie, 1963, 354). In the following passage, Jones shrewdly locates how one of Aristotle’s translations (Bywater, 1909) domesticated the Aristotelian notion of tragedy:

There are three discrepancies to be noted between Bywater’s translation and the Greek original. Where he has “a good man” the Greek has “good men”; where he has “a bad man” the Greek has “bad men”; and where he renders “the change in the hero’s fortune” the Greek has “the change of fortune.” The first and second of his alterations…suggest that Aristotle has in mind a single dominant figure throughout, when in fact his discourse shifts from plural to singular. These two alterations help pave the way for the third, which is, in the whole range of its implications, momentous. […] Aristotle’s demand that the change of fortune shall be brought about by the hamartia of “the intermediate kind of personage” does not entitle us to style that personage the Tragic Hero; for to call him the hero can only mean that we put him at the centre of our ideal play—as commentator after commentator has alleged that Aristotle does, thrusting the hero on his treatise (Jones, 1962, 19-20).

In this excerpt, Jones rightly contended that all these deviations from the source text should not be construed as “mistakes”; rather, these were highly calculated lexical choices aimed at making the translation more and more acceptable to the contemporary Romantic Anglo-American readers. Jones termed these deviations as “discrepancies” and “discontinuities” with the source text which resulted in the construction of a new individualistic ideology underwritten by the ideals of an autonomous self. Jones also stressed that in spite of the stringent canons of accuracy, the translators deliberately constructed the recognizably domestic representations of the foreign (Jones, 1962, 33). He was also of the view that the English translators of Aristotle psychologized him by

117 making such well-calculated discursive choices (1962, 49). To Venuti, Jones effectively illuminated the abandoned and distorted aspects of Aristotle’s Poetics (1998: 70).

At the same things, along with other things, Jones’s successful deconstruction and problematization of the highly domesticated and romanticized representations of Poetics illustrates that no matter how firmly established a domesticated introduction of a writer gets, it is always possible to dismantle it and thereby precipitate a disciplinary revision.

Nonetheless, with the benefit of hindsight now we can see that Jones, in an extremely subtle and ingenious way, created another localized (and also domesticated) representation of Aristotle and thereby subjected the Greek philosopher to another kind of domestication which might not be as assimilationist as its predecessors had been yet a domestication it most certainly was. We see Jones successfully dismantling one kind of elitist orthodoxy but, at the same time, setting up another orthodoxy in its stead. What as researchers we should never forget is the fact that Jones was the child of his age and Venuti has shown that, at times, even his apparently non-domesticated interpretation of Aristotle was highly influenced by the 20th century philosophy of Existentialism:

… Jones’ study was able to establish a new orthodoxy in classical scholarship because it met scholarly standards for textual evidence and critical argument, but also because it reflected the rise of existentialism as a powerful current in post- World War II culture (Venuti 1998: 70-1).

However, the question as to whether Jones’s own interpretation of Aristotle is a domesticated one does not invalidate his criticism of the earlier interpretations. Jones rightly and perceptively pointed to the lacunae, enormous discontinuities, antithetical claims and gross distortions present in the popular translations and interpretations of Aristotle. Jones has clearly shown the complexity of historical and cross-cultural interpretations of terms and concepts. We also learn from this that even such canonical texts as Aristotle’s Poetics, given their historic-cultural distance, are not immune from this terminological and textual misinterpretation and mischaracterization.

118

2.10.5. Graves and Weaver

In 1957, the English poet, writer and translator Robert Graves (1895 — 1985) brought out his translation of The Twelve Caesars by the Roman historian and writer Suetonius Tranquillus (c. 70? — 130?). Robert Graves was one of the most illustrious scholars of antiquity and an extremely prolific writer and his translation of Suetonius still enjoys a widespread popularity. Yet it happens to be one of the most explicitly domesticated translation of the 20th century. In the preface to his translation, Graves forthrightly acknowledges the overall domesticating scheme of his translation:

For English readers Suetonius’s sentences…must often be turned inside-out. Wherever his references are incomprehensible to anyone not closely familiar with the Roman scene, I have also brought up into the text a few words of explanation that would normally have appeared in a footnote. Dates have been everywhere changed from the pagan to the Christian era; modern names of cities used whenever they are more familiar to the common reader than the classical ones; and sums in sesterces reduced to gold pieces, at 100 to a gold piece (of twenty denarii), which resembled a British sovereign (Graves, 1957,8).

The translator, first and foremost, aims at assimilating the foreign culture by subjecting it to a large-scale domestication and appropriation of names, dates, referential contexts etc. Thus the Greco-Roman culture of Suetonius’ times is transmuted into the Anglo-American culture of the mid-20th century. It renders the entire practice of translation an extremely anachronistic and unrepresentative experiment of the original work. It seems that because of this radically revisionistic approach, Graves has almost re-written (re-created?) the source text. In the preface to his translation, he also maintained that his version was not seeking to serve as what he called a “school crib”; rather it aspired to be more and more acceptable to and readable to the contemporary readership (1957, 8).

119

Therefore, in order to achieve this acceptability and readability at home, Graves opted for a scheme of translation which was domesticating per se and the one which necessitated not only an extensive amount of annotations but also a wide-ranging inscription of the original text with the contemporary dominant Anglophone values. He has little qualms for openly Anglicizing the Latinate milieu of the source text, ensuring quick intelligibility even at the cost of (con)textual realities of the original work. All this is done by Robert Graves in order to make his translation more popular with a specific cultural constituency of the readers well versed only in the idioms and literary canons of the day.

Thus right from the purely textual moves to such broader questions as the publishing schemes and the narrative development everything was rigorously conditioned and governed by the prevailing moods and attitudes fashionable within the Anglocentric readership market. At the broader level moreover, Graves’s translation also serves to illustrate the linguistic and cultural marginality of the classical scholarship in the post- war Europe.

It is not difficult for the reader to trace a lurking homophobia in Graves’ translation under the impact of which the translator found himself obliged to domesticate the cultural and linguistic differences of the source text. This produces a ‘normalizing’ and ‘naturalizing’ effect in his translation and deprives the original author of his voice by re-expressing the foreign in terms of the familiar.

Graves domesticated the Roman historian of antiquity, but it was for another of his contemporary English translators to domesticate the relatively recent Italian fiction. William Weaver (1923— ), an eminent English language translator of modern Italian literature, translated Italian short-story writer Italo Calvino (1923 — 1985) into English in 1968. Weaver translated a collection of the Italian writer’s short stories and in one of them Calvino used the word “ricotta” as an equivalence to convey the idea of the interstellar matter. The word, in fact, refers to an elastic, mild Italian cheese made of the

120 cow whey (Berman & Wood, 2005, 180). However, while translating it, Weaver repeatedly replaces it with English words that hardly communicate the real sense: . Il latte lunare era molto denso, come una specie di ricotta. [Moon-milk was very thick, like a kind of cream cheese.]

La ricotta volava [The cheese flew]

adesso s’erano trovati prigionieri d”una specie di ricotta spugnosa [Now they were imprisoned in a kind of spongy cream] (Quoted in Venuti 1995, 167)

Every time in his translation, Weaver was repressing the cultural particularity of the word “ricotta” by replacing it with equivalents which were more recognizable to English speaking people. The proposed equivalent “cheese” generalizes the original word; whereas the equivalent “cream” departs from the very idea of cheese. More problematic is the equivalent “cream cheese” which is uniquely an American cheese. It is sometimes associated with a brand name — Philadelphia Cream Cheese (Venuti, 1995). All these translations represent the lexical shifts and the syntactic moves that domesticate the source text in line with the canons set by the Anglo-American culture. This domestication occurs time and again in Weaver’s translation. Consider the following example:

La Galassia si voltata come una frittata nella sua padella infuocata, essa stessa padella friggente e dorato pesceduovo [The Galaxy turned like an omelet in its heated pan, itself both frying pan and golden egg]

121

cosa volete che ce ne facessimo, del tempo, stando lì pigiati come acciughe? [What use did we have for time, packed in there like sardines?]

Attraversai una metropoli nuragica tutta torri di pietra [I crossed a piled-up metropolis of stones]

—Ragazzi, avessi un po” di spazio, come mi piacerebbe farvi le tagliatelle!— [“Oh, if I only had some room, how I”d like to make some noodles for you boys!”]

(Quoted in Venuti 1995, 123-129)

In all these instances, Weaver exhibited a close adherence to the terms and dictates of target language culture. The culturally specific lexical choices of the translator were thoroughly governed by domestication. Weaver stripped the Italian word “Pseceduovo”, — a specific omelet folded to make a long and fish-like roll — of its cultural significance by oversimplifying it while translating. While translating “pigiati come acciughe” — meaning “pressed like anchovies” — Weaver utterly removed “anchovies” which is particularly an Italian term of cuisine. Instead, he had recourse to one of the most notorious Anglo-American clichés “packed like sardines”. In the same way, “nuragica” was translated in a generalized and simplified way — “piled up” and “tagliatelle” was replaced with the Anglocentric “noodles” (Venuti, 1995).

This mode of translation clearly amounts to a discursive and strategic course of action aimed at creating a domesticated representation of the original author for the sake of an easy and quick recognition and acceptance at home (Berman & Wood, 2005). Further instances of these domesticated renderings are as follows: “Ignoranti…Ignorantoni” — the big ignoramuses — as “a bunch of ignorant louts…know-nothings”; “la forte miscela” — the strong mixture — as “the heady blend”;

122

“la partita è nulla” — the game is invalid — as “the game is null and void”; “poteva avere torto marcio” — he could be totally wrong — as “he could be dead wrong”; “l”avreste capita” — you would have understood — as “to catch on”; “non mi sarei cambiato” — I would not have changed—as “I wouldn’t have traded places”; “sbranarla” — tear her to pieces — as “tear her from limb to limb” (Venuti, 1995).

All these lexical choices made by the William Weaver significantly domesticated the source text and re-cast it in the recognizable Anglocentric terms at the cost of cultural and linguistic features of the source text. The easy readability of the translation produces an illusionistic effect of fluency and transparency. The reader is deluded into believing as if whatever he or she is going through is the original in spite of the fact that he or she is considerably away from the cultural and linguistic milieu of the original. This very illusionism of transparency has been a benchmark of the Anglo-American translation tradition since the 17th century. Such transparent translational discourses subtly imply — by subscribing to an empiricist epistemology — that language can furnish an unmediated access to extra-linguistic reality (Venuti, 1995). In this way Weaver too forged a specifically nationalist and highly domesticated translational discourse in which the Eurocentric features figured considerably prominently and the translator strictly and strategically avoided communicating any sense of the foreignness or historico-cultural remoteness of the source text. This is how an insidiously domesticating method of translation can potentially result in diverse forms of cultural exclusions and historical marginalization of foreign texts.

2.10.6. The Domestication of the Far Eastern Literature

The domestication of the literary works by the Anglo-American translators extended even beyond the Continental Europe, the Indian Subcontinent, the Middle East and Persia and reached the Far East. Another literary tradition which has been domesticated extensively by the Anglo-Saxon translators is the Japanese tradition. Having beaten Japan into World War II and converting it into a submissive and vanquished trade partner, a growing domestication of its literary works took place at the

123 hands of the Anglo-American translators. A large part of the modern Japanese fiction has been rendered into the English language but most of it has been so radically and cannibalistically domesticated that the resultant translations seem more English and less Japanese.

The works of such 20th century Far Eastern writers as Kawabata Yasunari (1899 — 1972), Jun’ichirō Tanizaki (1886 — 1965) and Mishima Yukio (1925 — 1970) were frequently translated into the English language and the publishers as diverse as Grove Press, New Directions and Alfred Knopf published their translations. These Far Eastern writers were largely stripped of the sociocultural and linguistic characteristics of their works and translated into English. The publishing houses mentioned above were reaping the immense financial benefits by imposing the Anglo-American cultural and literary values on a vast readership market at home. At the same time they were creating a domestic culture whose orientations and credentials were becoming increasingly monolingual, ethnocentric and unreceptive to the foreign elements.

Small wonder such culture was not so amenable to a dialogic and reciprocal engagement with the cultural others. Another adverse consequence of this way of translating the foreign texts was that the entire reading experience of the Anglo-American readership was likely to degenerate into an experiment of misreading in which a domestic representation of the source text is taken as the unmediated original text.

To Venuti such aggressively monolingual readership is passionately accustomed to the domesticated and fluent modes of translations which imperceptibly yet invariably seek to inscribe the foreign texts with the Anglo-American values. This is however not merely an academic or literary fashion adopted for its own sake. Instead it serves another intangible function as it provides the reader with a narcissistic comfort which ultimately adds to the self-importance of the Anglo-American readership (Venuti, 1995, 15). But however pleasing and re-assuring this huge narcissistic solace for the reader may be, it exacts a heavy price and blinds him or her to the foreign patterns of thought and the

124 modes of cultures different from his or her own. This, in its wake, brings a Eurocentrism and an Anglophonism which is obviously detrimental in the contemporary global world.

Edward B. Fowler (1954 — ), the Professor of East Asian Languages at the University of California, contends that the American publishers instituted a specific literary canon for the translation of the Japanese fiction into the English language which was unrepresentative of the Japanese literary tradition and was underwritten by a fundamental stereotyping. This canon was to govern all the publishing practices taking place in the Anglo-American world for about forty years. What is more, this stereotyping did not remain confined just to the Anglo-American world; rather, it also travelled to other European countries because the European translators frequently modeled their translations on the Anglo-American translational patterns. Therefore, in this way, the taste of an average English speaking reader determined and prescribed the tastes of the entire European world in relation to the translations of the Japanese fiction (Fowler, 1992, 15-16). For more than half a century the English language functioned as the medium through which the Japanese fiction was disseminated into the European countries as well as languages (Harker, 1994, 4). In fact it is this highly political and discursive act of the ‘canon formation’ which is bemoaned by scholars such as Lawrence Venuti, Lefevere and Niranjana. A canon which is formed as a result of this political and discursive act has the elitist and exclusionary orientations which are ipso facto geared towards domestication.

As for as the canon formation of the translation of the Japanese fiction is concerned, this was done by a considerably small group of “academic specialists” such as the Harvard Professor of Japanese Literature Howard Hibbett (1920 — ), the distinguished Japanologist Edward Seidensticker (1921 — 2007), the celebrated translator Ivan Morris (1925 — 1976) and the American-born Japanese translator Donald Keene (1922 — ). Such university professors and translation scholars were eagerly and routinely consulted by the editors, literary agents and the publishers alike and their opinions were always accepted with as much awe as reverence (Fowler, 1992, 12). Most of the stereotyping of Japanese culture was patterned on the legacy of World War II.

125

Japan was conceived as a land of the Oriental mystique, taciturnity, exotic foreignness, elusiveness and languishing melancholy which seriously lacked in the dynamism and enthusiasm of the post-industrial Europe.

Consequently a fixed and a stereotypically static process of identity formation was conjured into existence by such translators whose thinking was shaped by the academic specialists. More or less all the American translators of Japanese fiction lived up to this legacy and what was conveniently forgotten was the simple fact that identity is not a fixed entity and can hardly fossilized in the mobile matrices of time and space. What was required in connection with these translations of the Japanese works was a right, unbiased, well-informed and more catholic consciousness about the role of translation vis-à-vis cultural identity.

Therefore what Venuti advocates with reference to his act of canon formation is a radical and paradigmatic shift which could create the probability of according a greater cultural recognition and humanistic regard to a foreign text during the process of its translation (1998: 73). As a matter of fact, translation can also trigger a process of social transformation because neither the subjects nor the institutions can be wholly sealed off from the varied ideologies found in the domestic culture. Identity is never irrevocably fixed but rather contingent. It is the nodal point for a multiplicity of practices and institutions whose utter heterogeneity generates the possibility of social transformation and inter-cultural understanding (Laclau and Mouffee, 1985, 105 — 114).

It has been variously observed that most of the translations of the Japanese fiction produced under the watchful eye of the exclusionary and elitist canons were carefully homogenized by conscientiously avoiding the inclusion of any expression or phrase which “might not have been used by a modern American university professor of modest literacy, and concomitantly modest literary gifts” (Miller, 1986, 219). Nevertheless, by the end of the 20th century, a change of attitude set in and many a foreignized translation of the Japanese literary works appeared on the Anglo-American academic and publishing scene. This led to the much-desired process of canon reformation/revision.

126

However, the clearest and the most significant sign of this canon reformation came with the translation of the renowned Japanese writer Banana Yoshimoto’s novel Kitchen (キッチン). The translation was published in America in 1993 and was included in the Mitsios's Anthology. The translation upheld the Japanese cultural elements and the textual tenor. In spite of its non-domesticated nature, the translation was eagerly received by the Anglo-American readership and the university scholars. This impressive popularity of Kitchen in America was largely due to a “middle brow” audience for the Japanese fiction — an audience radically different from the elitist and academic specialists who had hitherto been dictating the literary and aesthetic canons. The respected translation scholar Professor Jaime Harker rightly argued that the immense success of this translation in the American literary circles was due to the fact that it was not only accessible but also very “oriental” in its subject matter as well as its treatment (Harker, 1994, 2).

Although Kitchen is not an adequately and ideally foreignized translation, yet it illustrates a change and promises a transformation and is an evidence that a canon reformation is already well underway. This is a very re-assuring and positive development not only for the foreign literatures but also for the Anglo-American literary, cultural and academic traditions.

2.10.7. New Trends and New Considerations

The growing vernacularization and foreignization of translation was a landmark development not only for Translation Studies but also for such companion disciplines as Cultural Studies, Anthropology, Sociology and Critical Discourse Analysis during the second half of the 20th century. The explicitly counter-hegemonic and resistant nature of this phenomenon led to a growing democratization of the discipline. The minor and marginalized languages and literatures achieved wide-reaching recognition and acceptance by through of translations.

127

It was the cumulative result of all these factors that the smaller countries of Eastern Europe welcomed the enhanced opportunities of being translated into the major European languages because it was considered to be a gateway to the greater audience. But for the translations, such dissident writers as Milan Kundera (1929 — ) and Alexander Solzhenitsyn (1918—2008) could never have been introduced to the non- Communist Europe at all. Moreover, it was because of the translations that the formerly colonized nations forged their own individualistic and influential literary voices which were avowedly counter-hegemonic and counteractive. As a result, there emerged an increasing interest in hitherto unconsidered literatures of the minor and/or non-European languages.

With the Foucauldian and the Derridean formulations of language, translation was seen in new light. The questions of text, context, power, knowledge, center, control, authority acquired an added relevance to the subject and the politics of translation the world over. Michel Foucault’s archaeologies and genealogies of knowledge saw our social and historical “truths” as mere long-term systematizations of the everyday practices governed by the shifting patterns of power within a society (McNay, 1994). Therefore, translation was seen as a site of various semantic and sociocultural possibilities subject to varying historico-political assumptions and any choice of inclusions or exclusions was necessarily a discursive and strategic one. Thus meaning was perceived as a contingent and unstable relation marked by hierarchies of dominance, cultural/literary elitism and social marginality (Said, 1979, 74). This creates complex configurations of cultural, linguistic and political relations and “meaning” itself is one such relation with its own intricate textualities.

Therefore the viability of translation was to be determined by its relation with the sociocultural conditions under which it is conceived, produced and consumed. Traditionally, translation was more like a forcible dislodgement of all the cultural and linguistic differences which were either assimilated by the dominant canons and codes or simply eliminated under the impact of exclusionary ideologies. In either case the result was a domestication which was as political as literary. As a consequence translation

128 sought to appropriate and domesticate all the cultural and linguistic others in such totality that their identities were written off wholesale.

The Derridean notion of deconstruction also considerably impacted upon the theory and practice of translation. With such fundamental notions as the free-play of signifier and différance, Derrida brought about a radical shift in the way we look not only at translation but also at language. Derrida saw text as a site of contradictions, false assumptions and ambiguities, lacunae resulting in a distrust of language as a transparent and unmediated communication of reality (Naas, 2008, 45-48). Language was shown to be a realm of inescapable tensions between the notions of intelligibility and coherence that should ideally govern its operations. The Derridean formulations also took the inevitable inadequacies of language into account. Given the polysemic and intertextual nature of language, meaning was deemed to be an effect of differential relations among the signifiers which are far from being stable and coherent (Derrida, 1982).

During all these years, the developments in literary theory and linguistics kept impacting upon the field of translation studies in one way or another. In the Anglo- American academia, structuralism gave rise to the theories and practices of the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) — an American-based missionary organization whose goal was to develop the lesser-known languages in order to promote the Biblical literacy into those languages by means of translations.

In this respect, the contribution of the distinguished translation theorist Eugene Nida (1914 — 2011) were indispensible whose role was foundational to the establishment of SIL. Nida’s most famous contribution to the discipline of translation studies were the notion of the ‘dynamic equivalence’ and ‘functional equivalence’ which had far-reaching effects on the practice and theory of translation. To Venuti, Nida’s translation theory encouraged ethnocentric violence as it sought to enlist transparency “in the service of Christian humanism” (Venuti, 1995, 21). A deeper reflection would suggest that what Nida termed as ‘dynamic equivalence’ was nothing else but a

129 systematic and spirited defense of domestication. This is how Nida’s theorization on this subject is domesticating:

A translation of dynamic equivalence [i.e. an equivalent which seeks to going beyond lexicographical and linguistic considerations] aims at complete naturalness of expression and tries to relate the receptor to modes of behavior relevant within the context of his own culture (Nida, 1964, 159).

This, however, is not difficult to see that the expression — “naturalness of expression” — indicates the employment of transparency which involves domestication. In his subsequent writings, Nida became more straightforward and maintained that “the translator must be a person who can draw aside the curtains of linguistic and cultural differences so that people may see clearly the relevance of the original message” (Nida and de Waard, 1986, 14). This is exactly a plea for a domestic and appropriated representation of the foreign in which the foreign loses its identity and uniqueness and ceases to exist in its own right. Venuti is of the view that Nida enforced the Anglophone valorization of domestication (Venuti, 1995, 21).

More specifically however, English translation theory at this time arose from the works of two of the British linguists: J. R. Firth (1890 — 1960) and Michael Halliday (1925 — ). Both of these linguists were the proponents of the functionalist linguistics in which the context of the situation (inclusive of all the communicative events and participants) was deemed extremely crucial to the working of language. Many of the translation scholars in Britain applied this functionalist notion of language to the practice of translation. People like Ezra Pound in America and Yves Bonnefoy in France were influenced by the 20th century symbolist theories of literature.

In France, the notable linguist Charles Bally (1865 — 1947) was a major influence on the translation theory whose works were germane to the establishment of the Geneva School of Linguistics. Bally’s theories of translation were influenced by the insights emerging mainly from the field of contrastive linguistics. The renowned 20th

130 century translation theorists Vinay and Darbelnet also took contrastive linguistics as their model. Towards the close of the 20th century, some attempts were made to combine linguistic and literary theories. For this purpose the notion of ‘communicative act’ was posited whereby the source and target texts are considered to be embedded into differential cultural moulds.

Another notable trend which greatly influenced the theory and practice of translation was an increased interest in the translations of the Eastern literatures by such figures as the renowned sinologist and comparatist Achilles Fang (1910 — 1995) and the British poet and critic I. A. Richards (1893 — 1979). However, the nexus between power and translation was more prominently recognized with the so-called cultural turn— presaged by the works of such translation scholars as Even-Zohar (1939 —) and Gideon Toury (1942 —). It was also at about this time that the formal discipline of Translation Studies came into being. The so-called ‘cultural turn’ brought about numerous viable and critical approaches to translation which started dealing rigorously with the questions of social oppressions and cultural coercions. The approaches sought to dismantle the assumptions and pretentions of the elitist translators and thereby set out to contest repressive hierarchical power structures embedded in the contemporary social configurations.

In this way, the issues of cultural context, ideology and power began to be foregrounded with greater visibility and prominence and more and more translation scholars began to theorize with the poststructural and the postcolonial assumptions. Translation was seen afresh not as an innocent and apolitical venture into linguistic mediations but as a site of political activism, cultural conflict, canon construction and identity formation.

At this stage it is also pertinent to take a brief account of some of the Marxist literary theories. In fact, with the disintegration of the Soviet Union, most of the economic-oriented Marxist theories of literature fell out of favour and the conditions formerly explained (or rather oversimplified) in terms of economic and materialistic

131 considerations were crying for new theoretical and enabling frameworks to be explained adequately. In fact the problem with such Marxist literary theories was that they transmuted economic and materialistic considerations into ontological truths and paid scant attention to complex sociocultural configurations and their decisive impact on all literary activities. New paradigms were provided by the approaches which emerged at this time thanks to the contributions of the postcolonial and the poststructural writers of note.

To almost all the major postcolonial critics who emerged at this time such as Rafael, Niranjana, Cheyfitz and Bhabha, translation was primarily a ‘power relation’—a kind of textual (re)presentation of the cultural others in the service of Imperialism. For Bhabha specifically translation meant a hybrid intercultural and syncretic space, whereas for Niranjana it was a mechanism of colonial supremacy and forced subjugation (Baker, 1998). The postcolonial approaches to translation are clearly central to the concerns and interests we are perusing here. Emerging from the descriptive approaches to translation— developed by Even-Zohar (1978, 1990), Gideon Toury (1980, 1982, 1991, 1995), André Lefevere (1992b) and others — postcolonial translation theories sought to address the questions about the interrelation between translation, power, ideology and politics.

The development of these approaches to translation was aptly summarized by Robinson as he attempted to delineate the broader field of the postcolonial translation studies. He (1997:6) identified what he called the “narrative or utopian myth of postcolonial translation studies”— a trajectory derived from Frantz Fanon. This trajectory comprised three stages: (1) the colonized stage, (2) the intermediate stage, and (3) the decolonized stage. The first stage was seen as a stage of total and unconditional subjugation at which the colonial values are introjected and enforced upon the colonials by repressive institutional arrangements. The second stage was looked at as a semi- liberated stage at which an independent identity of the colonials began to emerge but still constrained by an opposition to the colonizers’ values and therefore not fully crystallized. Finally the third stage was looked at as a stage of total decolonization in which the truly autonomous perspectives underwritten by indigenous identities could develop (Robinson,

132

1997, 6).

2.10.8. Venuti’s Problematization of Translation

Here it is pertinent to discuss Lawrence Venuti at some length because his theory of domestication and foreignization constitutes the central premise of this research and the researcher has taken him as his theoretical model. Venuti (born 1953), the American translation scholar, translation historian, prolific translator and a professor of English at Temple University, is arguably one of the most far-reaching and provocative translation theorists of our time. Venuti is on the editorial boards of such prestigious journals as Reformation: The Journal of the Tyndale Society and The Translator: Studies in Intercultural Communication. In 1998, he edited a special issue of The Translator devoted to the subject “Translation and Minority”. His translation projects have won numerous awards and brought him huge international recognition.

In 2007 he was awarded the prestigious Guggenheim Fellowship in Humanities for translating some of Giovanni Pascoli’s works. Venuti did more than anyone else to problematize the theory and practice of translation and to give the notion of domestication an internally consistent and systematic expression. In this regard, his book The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation (1995) is a landmark work and a magnum opus tracing the history of translation across a variety of perspectives and showing the deep-rootedness of domestication dating back to antiquity.

Venuti conceptualized translation in a much broader cultural and historical frame. To Venuti, domestication in translation is scandalous because it involves a complicity with power and seeks a reprehensible perpetuation of the hegemony discourses in the society. Within the Anglo-American culture, domestication is the result of a blind and dogged adherence to the domestic literary canons with little attention to the non- European, marginal cultures (Venuti, 1995). In order to counteract these hegemonic discourses translators must show ‘resistance’ and instead of removing the cultural and

133 linguistic differences of the foreign texts, they should communicate them vocally even to the detriment of fluency in translation.

To Venuti, ‘fluency’ itself is an elitist canon born of the Anglo-American literary tradition of translation underwritten by an Anglocentrism (Venuti 1998a, 10). As a consequence, when fluency becomes a central concern with a translator, the heterogeneity of the source text is considered a liability and is smoothed out during translation. Therefore the translation will emerge much more fluent and homogenized. This is how under the garb of domestication the foreign is rendered fluent and is ultimately stripped of its foreignness. A fluent translation strategy may make an easy reading, yet it exacts an extremely high price. It closes down the Anglophone mind and nurtures an exclusionary attitude which is both Eurocentric and narcissistic (Venuti, 1995).

In consequence, a fluent translation made by such domesticating devices as linear syntax and univocal meanings produces an illusionistic effect of transparency and, as a result, the translation appears to be indistinguishable from the original. This scandalous fluency of translation is an intriguing disguising of the manifold determinants and power considerations which go into its making. With this fluency and transparency, translation becomes a virtual rewriting of the source text (Venuti, 1995).

This all results in domestication — the term implying both complacency and aggressive taming. It has adverse implications for our multicultural and multiethnic world. Its chief ideological effect is that it thwarts a possibility of encountering the cultural differences because the foreign texts are homogeneously and unilaterally forced into such literary and cultural patterns, genres and registers which are readily recognizable at home (Munday, 2001). This approach is, ipso facto, prone to exhibit a considerable disregard for the uniqueness and the sociocultural distinctiveness of the source text. This is how Venuti indicts the reigning practices of translation which are by and large domesticating:

134

A translated text…is judged acceptable by most publishers, reviewers, and readers when it reads fluently, when it reads fluently, when the absence of any linguistic or stylistic peculiarities makes it seem transparent, giving the appearance that it reflects the foreign writer’s personality or intention or the essential meaning of the foreign text — the appearance, in other words, that the translation is not in fact a translation, but the ‘original’ (1995, 1).

To Venuti, another untoward effect of domestication is that it perpetuates the Anglo-American cultural and linguistic hegemony by marginalizing and silencing all the other competing discourses and narratives. In the Anglo-American academy and publishing industry, the dominant trend towards domestication since the late 20th century has had a normalizing and neutralizing effect on the mass readership. It has therefore played a prominent role in depriving the source texts of their voices and in rewriting the foreign cultural values in terms of what is familiar (and therefore unchallenging) to the dominant culture (Hatim & Mason 1997, 145).

For that reason, resistance on the part of translators will recover the residual value of a foreign text and consequently it will it well neigh impossible to be domesticated. Venuti contends that in order to practice resistance in translation, a translator should defamiliarize his translation discourse by registering the linguistic and cultural features of the source text and indicating its socio-historical remoteness in time and space (Venuti, 1995). Here Venuti’s analysis is more culture-oriented which calls for a greater visibility and recognition of the translator as a mediator of two cultures. In this perspective, the translator should opt for an ‘alienation’ of translation rather than ‘naturalization’ because this will be the only viable way to register and communicate the inter-cultural differences. It is for this reason that he is critical of linguistics-oriented approaches to translation as they present “a conservative model of translation that would unduly restrict [translation’s] role in cultural innovation and change” (1998b, 21).

At the same time Venuti maintains that the scope of translation studies should be widened in order to take into consideration the value-ridden nature of the historico-

135 cultural framework of translation and to overcome the cultural bias (if any) on the part of the translator. Linguistics-oriented approaches are ill-equipped to analyze the norms (both linguistic and literary), domestic values, social representations and beliefs which carry an ideological onus in catering for the interests of the elitist groups which enlist translation in political agendas (1998b, 29). Venuti also calls for an interventionism on the part of the translator in order to counteract the effects of the linguistic hegemony of English:

I want to suggest that insofar as foreignizing translation seeks to restrain the ethnocentric violence of translation, it is highly desirable today, a strategic cultural intervention in the current state of world affairs, pitched against the hegemonic English-language nations and the unequal cultural exchanges in which they engage their global others. Foreignizing translation in English can be a form of resistance against ethnocentrism and racism, cultural narcissism and imperialism, in the interests of democratic geopolitical relations (1995, 20).

Along with an interventionism, Venuti proposes an ‘ethics of difference’ which will morally mandate a translator to foreignize his or her translation (Munday, 2009, 98). We would round off this section with the following insightful quote from Venuti: “The ethical stance I advocate urges that translations be written, read, and evaluated with greater respect for linguistic and cultural differences” (1998, 6).

2. 10.9. Translation and the Politics of Power

With such power-oriented and culture-specific underpinnings, the act of translation appears to be considerably more than a mere verbal/linguistic transaction. It seems to be an act of handing over the territory into other hands, replacing one system of thought with another and dislocating the local identities by either merging them into those of the foreigners or just dispensing with them altogether (Cronin, 1996, 76).

136

There is another reason because of which a translator is uniquely privileged and invested with power. If we take translation as a text that stands for another text, then translation, in effect, is meant for those who have little or no access to the meaning in the original text. So at the outset we have to bear this fact in mind that, translations are largely made by people who do not really require them for those who have no ability to understand the original texts (Lefevere, 1992). This puts translators in a privileged position whereby he or she can exercise power in order to forge out specified sensibilities in his or her readers whose. It is this elitist and advantaged position of translation which inevitably goads it with the questions of authority and legitimacy and ultimately those of power. Again, it is this power-oriented and culture-specific character of translation which has always made it an obvious topic of countless scathing debates over centuries.

2.10.10. Context, Culture and Representation

Although the notion of the context is foundational to translation, most of the European translators did not take a sufficiently serious account of the local contexts while translating the foreign (non-European) texts into English. The term ‘context’ was first applied to the translation by the Polish-born British anthropologist Bronisław Kasper Malinowski (1984 — 1942) and this characterization of translation is still relevant to the debates on the issue. While making extensive anthropological studies of the inhabitants of the Trobriand Islands in Papua New Guinea, Malinowski felt the need of adding a Comment for a lay reader to make sense of the meaning implicit in Kilivila (a dialect of the Austronesian language family spoken in the Trobriand Islands). Such additions of annotating commentaries was later came to be seen as a ‘thick translation’ (see Venuti, 2000, 417-425). In such ‘thick translations’, a reader is provided not only with the lexico-grammatical help but also with the cultural insight into the source text by laying bare the fine nuances of meaning and allusions implicit in the original work.

Malinowski made clear that “language is essentially rooted in the reality of culture… the broader context of verbal utterance” (1967, 305). This is what has varyingly been called the “Context of Culture” or the “Cultural Grammar” (Munday, 2008). On the

137 other hands, a large number of European translators and philologists exhibited insufficient regard for the contextual considerations and most of the time, while translating, forced the foreign texts into the straightjackets of the Anglophonic cultural patterns.

Along with the question of context, the issues of representation and identity have also been at the heart of the contemporary postcolonial debates about the theory as well as the practice of translation. The subject of representation and identity obviously tends to raise the questions which do not admit of simple and easy answers. The obvious anthropological fact that different cultural and linguistic identities should be appreciated on their own terms only adds to the difficulty of the question of representation. The present day theory of translation is deeply steeped in the identity politics. Hence, the practice of translation has often been viewed with suspicion for its inability to do justice with its representations. It has been argued that whatever is represented by means of translation, loses much of its authenticity/orignality and at best turns out to be an approximation of the source text and at worst a grotesque inversion of it.

2.10.11. Translation as Rewriting

This has already been mentioned that the notion of translation as a transparent and fluent discourse faithfully representing the original text has been vigorously called into question. If Robert Frost has gone so far as to make this radical claim that it is poetry itself which is lost in translation, there are numerous translation theorists who has advanced a more guarded assertion that translations because of excessive domestication are just ‘re-writings’ of the original texts (Lefevere, 1992). To André Lefevere, all the acts of translation, by and large, manipulate the source text as well culture. Consequently, the target text emerges more like a rewriting. Powerful sociopolitical as well as literary institutions play a key role in these rewritings of the foreign texts. Lefevere succinctly illustrates the impact of these rewritings both on literature as well as society:

138

Translation is, of course, a rewriting of an original text. All rewritings, whatever their intention, reflect a certain ideology and a poetics and as such manipulate literature to function in a given society in a given way. Rewriting is manipulation, undertaken in the service of power, and in its positive aspect can help in the evolution of a literature and a society…But rewriting can also repress innovation, distort and contain, and in an age of ever increasing manipulation of all kinds, the study of the manipulative processes of literature as exemplified by translation can help us towards a greater awareness of the world in which we live. (Lefevere, 1992, xi)

In this sense, translation will be nothing less than a virtual rewriting of the original which would essentially depart from the cultural and linguistic features of the source texts. All rewritings, regardless of their intent, have ideological concoctions and as such manipulate and appropriate the original texts. The English writer Anthony Burgess (1917 — 1993) can be profitably recalled here who once said that translation is not a matter of words only; rather, it is a matter of making sense of a whole culture empathetically.

In this way the supreme motives in the mind of a translator should not be ‘conquest’, ‘polarization’, and ‘appropriation’; rather, dialogue and synthesis. However, still, translation with its heavy colonial and historical baggage is yet to shed a number of its presuppositions and premises if it really wants to re-invent itself in the global and multicultural world of ours (Tymoczko, 2006). The present-day global scene, with its increased interconnectedness coupled with complicated economic inequalities in addition to the ascendancy of English makes these concerns far more imperative.

2.11. Iqbal’s Poetics and Translations—Some Considerations

The literary and cultural significance of Iqbal’s translation is immeasurable both quantitatively as well as qualitatively. For a vast majority of the Urdu speaking people Muhammad Iqbal (1877 — 1938) typifies the inner core of the Muslim identity as he is

139 hailed as an ideological founder of Pakistan and the Poet of the East. Quantitatively he is among the most widely translated of the Urdu poets; and qualitatively his poetic works have gone a long way in forming the cultural identities and literary and linguistic traditions. All this is amply manifested by the profusion of publications forthcoming from

an academic discipline devoted to the — (اابقایلت :the discipline of Iqbal Studies (Urdu study and research of Iqbal. Within Urdu and Persian literatures, he was been

which means “extraordinarily (العہم :consensually given the honorific of Allama (Urdu learned”.

Before talking about some of the foremost translators of Muhammad Iqbal it is significant to mention here that Urdu happens to be one of those languages which have not been very frequently translated into English and within the Anglophonic translation discourse its position is still quite marginal. Since the World War II, the languages most often translated into English were mainly the European ones such as French, Italian, Russian, German, Spanish, etc (Baker, 1998, 311). This asymmetrical power relations between English and Urdu impacted very deeply on the translations of Iqbal in more than one way which will be discussed the fourth chapter. There have been a large number of people who translated Iqbal into English but immediately we are just concerned with the British translators. The prominent British translators of Iqbal include such prolific and eminent Orientalists as R. A. Nicholson (1868 — 1945), Arthur John Arberry (1905 — 1969) and Victor Gordon Kiernan (1913 — 2009). These much esteemed writers, in fact, belong to the classic tradition of British oriental scholarship whose intellectual authority on the subject has been accepted unquestioningly (and uncritically too). Nevertheless, these translators produced such translations which, in one way or another, suffer from the problem of domestication and, at times, outright inaccuracies. The notable Pakistani scholar of Iqbal and the University Professor of Islamic Studies at Youngstown State University Mustansir Mir (1949 —) is of the view that most of Iqbal’s translations into English “frequently raise the questions of accuracy and quality” (Mir, 2006, 151).

140

Here is cursory discussion of some of the instances of domestication and inaccuracies found in Nicholson’s and Arberry’s translations of Iqbal. The greatest scholarly indictment of these translators can be framed as follows: although their translations are widely acclaimed and carry great literary import in their own ways, yet for a more intimate and genuine study of their subject they substituted a kind of elaborate discourse which was readily accessible to them in the imperial culture of their period. Their universe of discourse was largely formed by such prominent people as Sir William Muir (1819 — 1905), Anthony Ashley Bevan (1859 — 1933) and Charles James Lyall (1845 — 1920) who directly followed in the line of descent from people like Sir Edward William Lane. Their scholarly precepts were supplied primarily by such apologists for imperialism as Rudyard Kipling, who had sung so excitingly of holding “dominion over palm and pine” (see Said, 1978, 224-225).

Moreover, these translators, although extremely well-versed and erudite in the field of their “specialization”, lacked that empathic perspective which is the only means to transcend the socio-cultural and political barriers in order to gain an informed perspective. They went about their business with unshakable maxims, abstractions and ‘truths’ about the Orient based upon the mythology of the mysterious and inscrutable East. This is what Kiernan himself has termed as “Europe’s collective day-dream of the Orient” (Said: 1978, 53). Here we will take into account some of the domesticating instances of Nicholson’s and Arberry’s translations.

2.11.1. Reynold Alleyne Nicholson (1868 — 1945)

Nicholson translated Iqbal’s book Asrar-e-Khudi as The Secret of the Self. This was Iqbal’s first introduction to the West. Iqbal gave his critical response to this translation and did not feel wholly satisfied with it and revised it here and there. Some of the corrections recommended by Iqbal were abidingly incorporated while some others were rejected by Nicholson. What is more, on occasion, Nicholson tried to ‘improve upon’ the recommendations made by Iqbal (Ghani, 2004). For instance look at the following verse (Line 363-364):

141

د، ازیگند، رپد، اتَدب، ردم

وسز، ارفوزد، ُکشد ، ریمد، ددم

Nicholson translates it as follows:

The Self rises, kindles, falls, glows, breathes; Burns, shines, walks and flies. (Nicholson, 1920, 19)

The problematic nature of this translation can easily be seen. There is nothing in the source text which could mean “falls”, “walks”, or “breathes”. Nicholson has

as “breathes”. This is a wrong lexical move which is ”ردم“ incorrectly translated the verb clearly redundant and therefore constitutes an instance of unwarranted inclusion. At the same time we have two interesting examples of unwarranted exclusion also. For

grows), have been left) ”ددم“ kills), and) ”دشک“ examples two verbs present in the original out by the translator. Let us see at another extremely interesting example of domestication (Line 372):

ابالغم وخشی ربکی وخاں تسشن

Nicholson translates it as follows:

He sat with his slave at one table (Nicholson, 1920, 25)

In this line, Iqbal is talking about the essential egalitarianism introduced by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) as he demolished all the distinctions of high and low and never hesitated to sit with his servants and sharing his meal with them. Now

142 anyone slightly familiar with the Arab dining customs knows all too well that the Arabs up till this day sit on a mat spread upon the ground.

Moreover, within the classical Islamic tradition it is a well-documented fact that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) never sat on a table for eating his meals. In fact, sitting on a mat for eating meals is part of the Semitic, Middle-Eastern tradition and the use of dining tables and chairs is more common in the non-Arab culture. But Nicholson’s use of the word “table” makes his translation well corresponding with the British cuisine and dining etiquette of the 20th century. This is a clear example of disregarding the cultural specificities associated with the source text and subjugating it in line with the contemporary dominant canons of the target language culture.

It is because of these inclusions, exclusions and outright departures from the original text that at times Nicholson’s translation is also given to considerable amount of domestication. However, this is not a place to pursue this subject to any greater lengths. Such instances of inclusions and exclusions can be found in the translations of the following lines, 17, 26, 33, 57, 60, 66, 95, 96, 102, 113, 125,126, 170, 217, 218, 335, 700, 885, etc (Ghani, 2004). However it is pertinent to conclude that Nicholson’s translation, much to Venuti’s chagrin, is remarkably fluent and transparent. Its fluency and transparency is so naturalized that it does not look like a translation and the ‘alienating’ and ‘de-familiarizing’ experiment which a translator should ideally enact is totally absent. One clear aim of all the lexical as well as syntactic choices made by the translator is certainly to smooth out some of the cultural peculiarities of the source text which may dishevel the fluency and transparency of the target text and thereby pose a challenge to the easy reading of the reader at home.

Having dealt with these specific cases of domestication now the researcher will discuss one conceptual problem related to Nicholson’s misidentification of Iqbal’s thought.

Nicholson, while translating Iqbal, was driven by a very deformed understanding

143

the central theme of The Secrets of the Self. He—(وخدی) of the concept of the Self miserably failed to understand the poet’s notion of the Self and put it in a highly contorted form. Nicholson, presented Iqbal as

…a religious enthusiast, inspired by the vision of a New Mecca, a world-wide, theocratic, Utopian state in which all Moslems, no longer divided by the barriers of race and country, shall be one… It must be observed that when he speaks of religion he always means Islam. Non-Muslims are simply unbelievers, and (in theory, at any rate) the jihad is justifiable, provided that it is waged “for God’s sake alone” (Vahid, 1964, 93).

Nicholson’s unfounded and highly erroneous view created a great deal of misunderstanding of the Poet of the East. Even a well-meaning figure like E. M. Forster was deluded into saying after coming across this view of Nicholson that “the significance of Iqbal is not that he holds [Nietzsche’s doctrine] but that he manages to connect it with the Koran” (quoted in Hassan, 1977). Now this is hardly what Iqbal saw himself doing and is profoundly at variance with his philosophical and religious persuasions. Iqbal protested vehemently in his letter dated 24 January 1921 to Nicholson at this mischaracterization of his thought by E. M. Forster in the following words:

Nor does he rightly understand my idea of the Perfect Man which he confounds with the German thinker’s Super-man. I wrote on the Sufi doctrine of the Perfect Man more than twenty years ago, long before I had read or heard anything of Nietzsche... The English reader ought to approach this idea, not through the German thinker, but through an English thinker of great merit – I mean Alexander– whose Gifford Lectures delivered at Glasgow were published last year (Iqbal, 1978, 141-42).

The foremost reason for such a grossly flawed understanding of Iqbal’s poetic philosophy is an outright domestication of his philosophical thought. Iqbal never saw himself founding a “New Mecca”; rather, he exhorted the Muslims to go back to the same

144 old Makkah. Look at the following line in which he clearly makes this exhortation:

ےکٹھب وہ ٔے آ ُ ہو وک رھپ وس ٔے ممچ

[O God!] Once again guide the strayed deer [Muslim Ummah] toward the Haram! ( my translation).

Similarly, Iqbal was never an advocate of any theocratic or Utopian state. His political philosophy was thoroughly realistic and in tune with the times. Iqbal never envisaged Islamic state as a theocracy in the Western sense of the word:

The essence of Tauhīd, as a working idea, is equality, solidarity, and freedom. The state, from the Islamic standpoint, is an endeavour to transform these ideal principles into space-time forces, an aspiration to realize them in a definite human organization. It is in this sense alone that the state in Islam is a theocracy, not in the sense that it is headed by a representative of God on earth who can always screen his despotic will behind his supposed infallibility. The critics of Islam have lost sight of this important consideration. (Iqbal, 2000, 67).

Furthermore Forster’s casting of Iqbal’s Mard-e-Momin (the researcher will translate it as the Noble Master) in Nietzsche’s power-driven and godless Superman (Übermensch) is a clear example of the domestic as well as the domesticated representation of the foreign. Making sense of Iqbal by equating him with Nietzsche is a very superficial understanding of the poet and the one which subjugates the actualities of the philosophical underpinnings of the source text to the dominant structures of the target language culture. In spite of the clear protestation from Iqbal, Nicholson’s misappropriation of his thought is an evident indication of the deep-rooted practice of domestication pervasive in the Anglo-American literary culture.

2.11.2. Arthur John Arberry (1905 — 1969)

145

Equally fluent and prosodically more artistic than Nicholson’s is Arberry’s translation of Muhammad Iqbal. Arberry was one of the most widely respected British Orientalists and a prolific scholar of Islamic studies and mysticism. It is also to his credit that he introduced the 11th century legendary mystic poet Rumi’s thought to the English speaking world through his selective translations (Mystical Poems of Rumi published by the University of Chicago Press in 2009). When it came to translating Iqbal, Arberry declared to remain as faithful to the source text as possible and it can be seen too that he was not without success in this declaration. Arguably, his is the least domesticated and reasonably balanced translation of Iqbal when juxtaposed with Nicholson’s and Kiernan’s.

There are, however, numerous examples of domestication present in his translation. His translation of Shikwa and Jawab-e-Shikwa (“The Complaint” and “The Answer” published in 1955) is a case in point. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of all this is that Arberry did not know Urdu as it is evidenced from his Preface (Arberry, 1955). In order to overcome this critical shortcoming, he was graciously provided with a literal rendering on which he based his translation. Therefore this very indirectness of his translation made it inevitably prone to domestication. Here are just a few instances:

ریتے دویاےن یھب ںیہ رظتنم ُھو ےھٹیب

Arberry translates it as follows:

Dream, Thy lovers, of Thy coming, and the cry of “He the King” (Arberry, 1995, 18)

which does not ” ُ ہو“ Here what the translator fails to appreciate here is the word refer here to God or Providence. Nor are the “lovers” eagerly announcing the Kingdom of God. Rather what is being longed for by the lovers is the consoling voice which emanates from God and not from humans. It may be the case that the biblical notion of the

146

Kingdom of God was operating at the back of the mind and surfaced when he was dealing with this verse. However it is just a probability. Now look at another distortion:

سیقزتمحشک اہنتیئ رحصا ہن رےہ

Look at Arberry’s translation of this line

Qais, if so he pleases, may endure the desert’s solitude. (Arberry, 1995, 37)

This is a clear case of mistranslation—an obvious incomprehension/distortion of the source text. The original line makes a negative statement about the well-known Arab lover Qais; whereas Arberry’s translation is making a positive statement. This shift completely inverts the concept. In fact, Iqbal bemoans the tragic fact that the modern-day Qais (the Muslim who ardently claims to be God’s lover) is no longer ready to endure the solitude of desert which can bring him with the Beloved. But this is precisely which is not shown in the translation at all. Look at yet another example:

آامسںریچ ایگ انہلٔ ابیبک رما

Arberry translates it as follows (1995, 24):

That the very walls of heaven fell down before its wild lament.

In fact what Iqbal is talking about that is the piercing of the sky whereas the falling down of the walls of heaven is an unwarranted inclusion and altogether alien to the tenor of the source text. Moreover, it appears to be a case of using an inappropriate expression as heaven does not have walls or at least in Islamic cosmology there is no such reference. It is instructing to bear in mind that Iqbal’s poetic discourse is contextualized by the Islamic cosmology to a very large extent. Now we are left with only two possible inferences and

147 both of them are problematic: either it is an outright inclusion just to keep the prosodic balance, or it is an imposition of the Anglo-American canon on the foreign text. In both cases the result is the domestication of the source text, hence not acceptable.

Similar problems arise in Arberry’s translation the Persian poetry of Iqbal. Here too the equivalents proposed by Arberry are inappropriate and unrepresentative of the

as “spent”; whereas the proper ”رپاشین“ actual words. For example he translates the word equivalent should have been “scattered”. Therefore his translation: “A spent scent in the garden I suspire” should have been “A scattered scent in the garden I suspire”.

as “annihilation”; whereas it ”دعم“ At another occasion he renders the Urdu word should have been “the world beyond”. Therefore his translation “Thus in annihilation, spoke the moth” should have been “Thus in the world beyond, spoke the moth”. Due to a

;”as “carrier of clay ”اخدکاں“ misinterpretation, Arberry at one point translates the word whereas what Iqbal means by this word is something like “the House of Dust” pointing to the Universe we inhabit. Therefore his translation: “If thou couldst clear this carrier of

is being ”زبم“ clay” should have been “If thou couldst clear this house of dust”. The word rendered by Arberry as “banquet” which necessarily implies an elaborate and ceremonious meal but Iqbal does not seem to mean anything of that sort.

This is a very brief analysis of Arberry’s domestication of Iqbal which is by no means complete obviously. Yet it remains an area of potential research for the future researcher and with this is segment of discussion is concluded.

2.12. Difficulty of Translating Iqbal

Something has to be said about the difficulty of translation Iqbal too as he happens to be one of the most challenging writers to translation for more than one reason. There are various factors which contribute to the difficulty of translating Iqbal which are

148 at once linguistic, literary, and cultural. Sayyid Abdul Vahid is one of the prominent and the most acclaimed scholars of Iqbal from Pakistan. He has delicately described the difficulties which make it all the more cumbersome for a translator to translate Iqbal. To Vahid, Iqbal’s poetry has an overwhelming sense of newness and the chief reason for this is that Iqbal employs certain words and expressions to communicate his vision which are totally original.

However, this does not entail that Iqbal is anti-traditionalist yet he departs from many a traditional canon of conventional thought and art. A considerable number of these words and expressions are ingeniously coined by him. Along with this, he also frequently used the common words in altogether different senses. At times, the sense attached to a word by Iqbal happens to be so radically counter-intuitive that it baffles even a person reasonably well versed in the Urdu language. To Vahid, Iqbal is also one of the great phrase-makers of Urdu literature who has been endowed by an unusual felicity of expression by which his poetic discourse achieves meanings beyond the ones assigned by the lexicon. These words and expressions function like the “keystone for the entire arch of the poetic inspiration”. Vahid illustrates the knack of expression of the great poet:

As the removal of the keystone is sure to cause the downfall of the entire arch, so if we try to substitute some-thing else for the master word or phrase, the whole artistic expression is marred… The use of those words and phrases gives to Iqbal’s poetry not only a sense of newness found in very few Urdu and Persian poets, but also the quality of surprise which “characterizes all great poetry (Vahid, 1964, 17).

Iqbal’s inventive genius gave new dimensions to such age-old literary allusions love, time, selfhood, freedom, art, etc. Take just one example — Iqbal’s conceptualization of love. To Iqbal, love is an ecstatic and dynamic passion which awakens what is divine in the humans. Iqbal defies the conformist notions of love which take it in a quietist and passive sense. Instead Iqbal take love as “the source of the highest inspiration for true knowledge and effective, righteous action (De Bary, 1958, 754). Love

149 is the main that vitality which can enable a devout Muslims to achieve such noble goals as spiritual redemption, moral integrity, and individual freedom. Hence, to Iqbal, love is the alpha and omega of the human existence and has the miraculous power to awaken the hidden talents. This is how Iqbal describes the full immensity of the role played by love in the world:

The luminous point whose name is the Self Is the life-spark beneath our dust. By love it is made more lasting, More living, more burning, more glowing. From love proceeds the radiance of its being And the development of its unknown possibilities. Its nature gathers fire from love, Love instructs it to illumine the world. Love fears neither sword nor dagger, Love is not born of water and air and earth. Love makes peace and war in the world, Love is the fountain of life, love is the flashing sword of death. The hardest rocks are shivered by Love’s glance: Love of God at last becomes wholly God. (Iqbal, 1915, 28-229)

This kind of conceptual and philosophical uniqueness surrounds all the major themes which Iqbal draws on repeatedly. It is this uniquely situated cultural and literary position of Iqbal which proves to be a daunting challenge for all those who set out to translate him. The famous translation scholar Eugene Nida illustrates this problem in full immensity when he says that for a truly successful translation, it is biculturalism which is more important than bilingualism (Nida, 2002, 82). Another translation scholar Christiane Nord makes the same point when he says that the cultural chasm between the two given languages has always been a hard nut for translators to crack. It is with this conceptualization in mind that he opines: “...translating means comparing cultures”

150

(Nord, 2001, 34). And it seems to be this biculturalism or the cultural chasm which is largely responsible for a great of deal of domestication of Iqbal by his English translators.

2.13. Conclusion

With this the researcher comes to the end of the literature review. The review has given an elaborate account of and the reasons for the widespread use of the practice of domestication in the Anglo-American literary tradition of translation. Taking into account various methodological and theoretical contributions, the researcher has argued that domestication has been one of the regular and the most prominent features of diverse translational discourses across time and space. The researcher has also taken into consideration the role played by fluency and transparency which invariably played a major part in the construction of the domesticated as well as domestic translational discourses.

The review also explored different dominant canons and ascendant discourses pertaining to the target language culture and their impact on translation. It has been found with remarkable consistency and sufficient evidence that linguistic and cultural differences of the source texts were more often appropriated and flattened out in the process of translation. On occasion, notable figures challenged these powerful regimes of domestication and appropriation but it was not until the second half of the 20th century that efforts met with substantial success. The problem of domestication is still far from being over yet today, more than ever, there is a realization of its detrimental and counter- productive role.

151

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1. Introduction

Research in the nascent discipline of translation studies is still at a very initial stage and it will be some time before it could chalk out an autonomous and well- demarcated territory of its own. At present, the apparent multiplicity of approaches and methods sometimes appears to be confounding and massive importations of ideas from other disciplines can potentially disorientate the trajectory of the research currently being done in translation studies. More often than not, there has been a strong temptation for the researchers to adhere to one specific method or approach (with which they feel particularly comfortable) to the virtual exclusion of all the other.

At the same time, however, the studies and insights emerging from such disciplines as critical discourse analysis, postcolonial studies, cultural studies, sociolinguistics, critical theory, postmodernism etc. just make the task of a translator more challenging. These developments give birth to such fundamental questions as what gets translated, why and by whom and these questions, in turn, lead to new debates centered upon the relationship between translation, identity, control and power. The following quote illustrates the typical problems encountered during research in translation studies:

Conventional research methods used in the social sciences or in the humanities fall short when applied to research in translation studies, which requires an interdisciplinary approach to comparative analysis. Existing research methods in translation studies itself are fragmentary and largely inaccessible to the

152

inexperienced researcher. The practicalities of research design have largely been neglected in translation; there is a wealth of theoretical articles available, but very few sources provide explicit guidance to researchers with regard to the choice of a corpus, the formulation of a research problem and its corresponding hypothesis, how to conduct a comparative analysis between an original text and its translation, and lastly, but most importantly, how to integrate approaches derived from other disciplines into translation studies (Kruger & Wallmach, 1997, 119).

Moreover, the research in the discipline of translation studies becomes all the more daunting when we take into consideration the relatively recent problematization of the theory as well as the practice of translation per se. It has lately been proposed that in order to undermine the linguistic imperialism of English, the translators must be ‘resistant’ to the dominant canons and principles imposed by the Anglocentric discourses. Translation has been seen as a viable means to redress the patterns of unequal cultural and linguistic exchanges and this can only be achieved by critically re-assessing and challenging the literary canons and the ethnolinguistic stereotypes prevalent in the contemporary academia (Venuti, 1997, 10).

With such an overtly radical and anti-hegemonic stance, the notion of translation can be located within the domain of critical discourse analysis where it vigorously enacts an ‘ethics of difference’ and an ideological resistance. Since the advent of the ‘cultural turn’ of the late 20th century, most of the scholars found the linguistic and grammatical theories of translation to be seriously inadequate (Bassnett & Lefevere, 1990, 4). To them, these theories may potentially proceed from word to text as a unit; however, they fail to go beyond and do not consider the text in its wider cultural and political environment. Translation has also been seen not just as a product of textual interactions, rather a result of multiple institutional configurations and hierarchical moves in which a considerable part is played by the politico-ideological agendas dictated by the realpolitik (Munday, 2001).

153

Consequently, of late, translation has been re-conceptualized as a site of cultural conflicts and polemical engagements with the thorny questions of identity formation and nationalist loyalties. In this way, translation has been considered afresh in a broader and more inclusive perspective and ever since this important realization this trend has continued apace:

Cultural studies bring to translation an understanding of the complexities of gender and culture. It allows us to situate linguistic transfer within the multiple “post” realities of today: poststructuralism, postcolonialism and postmodernism (Simon, 1996, 136).

All these developments in the discipline of translation studies have just added to the labor of the researchers in this field as they require a deeper, broader and more critically informed approach. The contemporary researchers and scholars are obliged to develop a more nuanced and more empathetic understanding of the source text and an increasingly sophisticated idea of its sociocultural and political framings. They are also called upon to deconstruct the stereotypical and sedimented notions of cultural, literary and political hegemonies in order to prevent the polarization of our multicultural and multilingual world.

Informed by this criticality about the role and status of translation, the principle purpose of this chapter is to spell out the nature and structure of this research by offering a thorough account of the conceptual framework and research methodology along with their appropriateness for the present inquiry. The methodology adopted here, in effect, has enabled the researcher to cast his net sufficiently wider and go beyond the mere linguistic and grammatical theories of translation in order to accord due recognition to the socio-cultural and historico-political considerations as well. In the same way, the researcher has accounted for the processes of data collection and data analysis used in the study. This is how the researcher has sought to achieve a methodologically viable perspective on the study of translation.

154

3.2. Conceptual Framework

Drawing on such disciplines as linguistics, critical discourse analysis, hermeneutics and literary theory the researcher has taken translation studies as his main conceptual framework. Translation studies itself is an interdisciplinary subject comprising elements of the humanities, social sciences, history and political theory. The concept of translation and its attendant complexities necessitate a qualitative but vastly customized research approach and the selection of the conceptual framework has been made while keeping this requirement in mind.

The practice of translation is largely contingent upon the multiple forms of sociocultural framings and counter framings. Therefore, this research hinges upon the assumption that a translator needs access to a set of analytical tools which could enable him or her to investigate the question of translation in a more critically informed way. Moreover, this research is also conceptually founded on the assumption that a deeper and more reflective appreciation of the dynamics and ideological repercussions of translation is a precondition to a non-domesticated and culturally viable translation.

Finally, it should be made clear at the outset that the conceptual framework of this research, at times, may overlap with the theoretical framework in such as way as to be interdependent. This scheme of things, far from being a capricious complex, is more like a collage or a montage as put forward by Denzin and Lincoln showing the interconnected, multi-relational and non-linear character of qualitative research as such:

In montage, several different images are juxtaposed to or superimposed on one another to create a picture. In a sense, montage is like pentimento, in which something that has been painted out of a picture (an image the painter “repented” or denied) becomes visible again, creating something new. What is new is what had been obscured by a previous image (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005, 4).

155

In the light of this quote we can say that although presenting the analyses in a linear way facilitates explanation, yet it brings in a considerable amount of oversimplification and runs the risk of losing sight of a more nuanced and subtler understanding of the subject at hand. It is precisely because of this reason that although Venuti’s ideas underpin the theoretical framework of this study, yet the researcher has additionally drawn upon Antoine Berman’s deforming tendencies of translations which play a very significant role in the domestication of a foreign text.

3.3. Theoretical Framework

In order to link the practice of translation with the politico-cultural engagements, what is required is a theoretical conceptualization coupled with a viable research methodology. What else is required is the need to bring to light what constitutes the particular instances of a domesticated translation and to analyze the translation techniques that usually lead to such domestication. The notion of domestication and foreignization as propounded by the internationally renowned translation scholar Lawrence Venuti (1992, 1995, 1998a, 1998b, 2003, 2007) constitutes the theoretical framework of the present study.

Therefore, within this broader domain of translation studies, these are Venuti’s formulations on translation, especially his notion of domestication and foreignization, which serve as the central theoretical framework for this research. It is through this theoretical framework that the researcher has approached the problem of Kiernan’s translation of Iqbal in relation to a single organizing principle — domestication.

At the broadest level, the theoretical framework chosen by the researcher is more like an intermediate theory which seeks to connect all the aspects of his inquiry (e.g., research question, purpose of the study, methodology, literature review, data collection, analysis and conclusion/recommendations). The theoretical framework also links the particular research questions of this study to the larger theoretical and discursive constructs such as domestication, resistance, foreignization, identity, canon-formation,

156 literary avant-gardism, cultural interactionism and appropriation. Furthermore, the theoretical framework also helps illustrate the fact that the findings of this study can illuminate the broader issues of literary translations and can be built upon by the future researchers. Hence, the theoretical framework has acted like a map giving direction and coherence to the present research as well as elucidating its epistemological and methodological assumptions.

Lastly, the research framework has provided the researcher with essential theoretical underpinnings to advance his critique of Kiernan’s translation of Iqbal into English. In addition, it has also helped the researcher achieve a sufficient amount of specificity in order to maintain a sharp focus on the study.

3.4. Research Methodology and its Rationale

As regards the methodology, the researcher has drawn upon the textual analysis which is primarily situated in the domain of qualitative research. Through the textual analysis the researcher has critically interpreted and evaluated the data instead of merely describing it. The choice of the textual analysis has been primarily informed by the fact that the focal point and the fundamental constituent of translation is TEXT per se, whether written or spoken.

The main purpose behind using the textual analysis is obviously to work out answers to the research questions laid down in this chapter. Besides, by grounding this research in a rigorously critical and analytical discourse, the researcher expects to achieve a far greater amount of objectivity than would have otherwise been possible. Furthermore, passing unsubstantiated judgements or drawing unsupported conclusion strictly falls outside the compass of this study. Therefore the conclusions drawn by the researcher have meticulously been correlated with the textual evidences from Kiernan’s translation of Iqbal. This is how the researcher has ensured that the epistemological assumptions of the research approach adopted here are congruent with the methodology and logically lead to the conclusions.

157

It is also worth mentioning that poetry is an aesthetically realized literary phenomenon with least empirical or scientific underpinnings. Thus a study of poetry (or for that matter of its translation) does not lend itself easily to the empirical and quantitative analyses as such. Therefore the capturing of this very non-scientific, impressionistic and (inter)subjective nature of the data is yet another reason behind the choice of the qualitative approach by the researcher. Moreover, the researcher has also not opted for a rigorously quantitative approach as that would have precluded a fuller and more inclusive cognizance of such primary textual ingredients as figurative meanings, metaphorical strands, thematic patterns, etc.

Finally, along with employing this methodology, the researcher has taken special care to avoid irrelevancies, disorganizations, shallow interpretations, biases, and weak analyses as far as he possibly could. For this purpose, the French translation scholar Antoine Berman’s deforming strategies of translation have been used in order to guide and advance the development of this research. In addition, the study has introduced its own methodological techniques and epistemological assumptions, where it was sensed that the parameters of the present research framework were inadequate to interpret the findings at hand.

3.5. Research Design

The present research is based upon a critique of V. G. Kiernan’s translation of Iqbal informed by the domestication-foreignization model proposed by the American translation scholar Lawrence Venuti. The critique operates at micro as well as macro level. At the macro level, the critique is modeled on the following twelve deforming strategies of translations (Berman, 1992, 280-288):

. Rationalization: This deforming strategy affects the syntax by rationalizing the translation and by filtering out all the ‘unreasonable’ elements of the source text during the process of translation.

158

. Clarification: This strategy renders ‘clear’ which has been deliberately left unclear and vague by the original author.

. Expansion: Usually a target text tends to be longer than a source text. This is mainly because of the empty explicitation and overtranslation done by a translator.

. Omission: By employing this strategy part of the source text is either eliminated or reduced which results in a truncated communication of the original.

. Ennoblement: Sometimes a translator gratuitously tries to ‘ennoble’ and ‘improve’ the source text. This is usually done by rewriting the source text in an ‘elegant’ way.

. Updating: By using this strategy, a translator replaces archaic words and expressions with their current and familiar equivalents.

. Qualitative impoverishment: By using this strategy, a translator replaces the original words and expressions with such equivalents which do not have the richness, grandeur and profundity of the original.

. Quantitative impoverishment: Occasionally a translator superimposes a homogeneity and structural uniformity on the source text and does not retain the lexico-syntactic variations in translation which are present in the source text. This is called quantitative impoverishment.

. The destruction of vernacular networks or their exoticizeation: A translator sometimes seeks to eliminate the vernacular networks and exotic elements which play an important role in establishing the settings in a source text. This happens because the translator deems such elements simply ‘unworthy’ of translation. Thus a destruction of these elements leads to the deformation of translation.

159

. The destruction of expressions and idioms: Sometimes a translator replaces the idioms found in the source text with the equivalents present in the target text. This strategy dislocates the indigenous specificity of the source text and results in the deformation of translation.

The researcher has taken this set of strategies in order to make the methodology more compatible and relevant to the research data. However, based upon the insights and the fundamental principles emanating from these strategies, the researcher has tailored the following nine categories in which the data will be analyzed: Anglicization, classificational dislocation, distortion, mistranslation, omission, qualitative impoverishment, prosodic domestication, expansion/explicitation and ennoblement.

Moreover, in order to give a wider and deeper reliability to the main findings of this study the researcher has also carried out a comprehensive corpus analysis of the data. For this purpose the researcher has designed an elaborate corpus of eight five highly domesticated words/phrases. Each of these words/phrases has been subjected to an extensive analysis and the insights emerging thereby have been carefully correlated to the central question of the study — domestication.

3.6. Collection of Data

V. G. Kiernan’s translation of Iqbal’s selected poems has been taken as the primary data by the researcher to be analyzed for this study. The data collected for this study comprises Kiernan’s translations of one hundred poems of Iqbal in total —sixteen from Bang-i-Dara (The Call of the Road), thirty seven from Bal-i-Jibril (Gabriel’s Wing), forty one from Zarb-i-Kalim (The Rod of Moses), and six from Armaghan-i- Hejaz (The Gift of Hejaz).

In the collection of this data, the researcher has been guided by a single unified principle — domestication. In fact, Kiernan has translated about one hundred and eighteen poems of Iqbal in total. Out of this population, the researcher has selected a

160 sample of one hundred poems for the present study. Therefore, these selected poems constitute the primary source text to be critically compared with its parallel target text. Seventeen poems which have been left out were either in Persian in terms of their source text (eight poems) or were too brief to contain substantial material for analysis (nine poems).

3.7. Analysis of Data

Data analysis has been done in a non-empirical way. The researcher has analyzed the extracts of the source text (ST) and the target text (TT) pairs. While comparing ST and TT linguistically in an extremely meticulous manner, the researcher has subjected each poem to a textual analysis and traced the elements of domestication present in it. These instances of domestication have been then placed in the broader categories and linked with the theoretical constructs proposed by Venuti. The data has been interpreted and analyzed in the following nine categories: Anglicization, classificational dislocation, distortion, mistranslation, omission, qualitative impoverishment, prosodic domestication, expansion/explicitation and ennoblement. Subsequently, the findings and insights emerging from this nuanced analysis enabled the researcher to problematize Kiernan’s translation and relate it to a much larger body of investigation in the discipline of translation studies (Venuti, 1995, 1998, 2003, Niranjana, 1992, Lefevere, 1975, 1981, 1990, 1992a, 1992b, Berman, 1984, Fairclough, 1989, Cheyfitz, 1991, Tymoczko, 1999a, 1999b, Snell-Hornby, 2006).

The primary data led to the construction of the hypotheses for a critical analysis of translation both at the micro-textual level (lexis, syntax, semantic fields, terminologies, formal literary structures, metaphors within the text) and the macro-textual level (cohesion patterns, language variety, text structure, etc). From this textual analysis the researcher embarked on the explanation phase of the research and for this purpose he took into consideration the broader cultural, political, social, and literary norms and conventions of both the source as well as the target text systems.

161

Therefore, in order to theorize and describe the sociocultural and literary obligations of a translator, new sets of strategic guidelines were also incorporated in this research. Nevertheless, the focus of the study remained on the central question as to how omissions, departures, distortions and inclusions in Kiernan’s translation affect the completeness of thought and ingenuity of meaning as produced by Iqbal.

Lastly, it is extremely significant to mention it here that during analyzing data there has been an extensive discussion about the meanings of the source text as well as target text. For this purpose, the researcher has drawn on two extremely authoritative sources. For the discussion and elaboration of the target text meanings, the researcher has relied upon Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (SOED) and for the discussion and elaboration of the source text, the researcher has drawn upon Feroz- ul- Lughat Urdu

Both of these lexicons are extremely authoritative and prestigious. Therefore .(ریفوزااغللت اُردو) all the discussion with reference to meanings is by default based upon these two sources.

3.8. Results/Findings

After the careful and systematic analysis of data, the results have been drawn and a viable interpretation has been given to them. The researcher has presented the findings of this researcher and has elaborated them with reference to the main research question of this study. In the light of these findings, the researcher has also put forward various recommendations which can help translators produce non-domesticated translations. These recommendations are also supposed to raise the general level of consciousness to the fact that domestication is the foremost scandal of translation which impedes the efforts to create an intercultural harmony in a growingly multilingual world in which translation is playing an unprecedentedly important yet largely unacknowledged role.

Lastly, the researcher has laid down some valuable guidelines which are expected to go a long way in helping as well as motivating the future researchers.

162

CHAPTER 4

DATA ANALYSIS

4.1. Introduction

In this chapter, which constitutes the core of the research, the researcher has taken an exhaustive account of the domestication of Iqbal’s poetry by V. G. Kiernan. It is in this chapter that the researcher will establish and substantiate the central premise of the study that Kiernan’s translation of Iqbal is domesticated. Kiernan’s domestication of Iqbal is wide-ranging and includes such lexico-syntactic operations as textual deformities, inclusions, exclusions and substitutions made in accordance with the dominant Anglophonic norms and canons. It seriously compromises the sociocultural and textual viability of the source text in more than one way.

Since time immemorial it has been actively maintained not only by the wide majority of translation scholars but also by the general readers that a successful translation should read fluently and smoothly just like the original text (Venuti: 1995). That it should not look like a translation and should be fully in tune with the literary and linguistic parameters of the target language has been taken as one of the givens of translation theory. Such fluent (hence ‘successful’) translations have been hailed as ‘good’ translations by the translation theorists and general readers alike. At the same time, it can be seen that a ‘good’ translation, more often than not, has been defined with respect to such features as the eases of reading, aesthetic embellishment, fluency, etc (Venuti: 1998).

The following exhaustive analysis of domestication of Iqbal’s poetry by V. G. Kiernan has been carried out under various categories. These categories (nine in total) clearly bring about a nuanced understanding of the different forms of domestication

163 found in Kiernan’s translation of Iqbal. For this purpose, the researcher has adopted a well thought of and elaborate scheme of analysis. This analysis, at the broadest level, is divided into two parts. In the first part, nine categories of domestication have been distinguished and each category has been discussed thoroughly with the help of a broad range of examples from Kiernan’s translation of Iqbal’s poetry. All the carefully calibrated insights emanating from the discussions of these examples have been organized around the central question of the research — domestication. It is also noteworthy that some of the verses occur in more than one category. This means that these verses have been discussed from two independent perspectives and have relevance to both of them. By no means does it imply a repetition of any sort.

In this way, the analysis furnishes a careful and thorough investigation of Kiernan’s translation of Iqbal.

4.2. The Workings of Domestication

This section comprises the first half of the analysis which is based upon the following nine categories of domestication: Anglicization, classificational dislocation, distortion, mistranslation, omission, qualitative impoverishment, prosodic domestication, expansion/explicitation and ennoblement. Each category presents a broad range of domesticating trends but its central premise remains the same and has been substantiated by numerous examples.

4.2.1. Anglicization

By far the greatest indictment of Kiernan’s translation of Iqbal is its growing and unwarranted Anglicization which domesticates, in the most fundamental way, the poetic discourse of Iqbal and inscribes it with the Eurocentric and Anglophonic norms and canons. Kiernan, at numerous occasions, exhibits massive disregard for the linguistic and the cultural features of the source text and instead of registering and communicating these

164 cultural/textual peculiarities, he just either elides them or casts them in the Anglicized moulds and thought patterns. Doubtless, the relation between literature and culture is direct and elemental. It is culture which, with its expansiveness and magnitude, serves as the paradigmatic context for literature. A translation of, for instance, Shakespeare’s Sonnet 18, Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day, into Arabic may not have the same artistic and emotional appeal as in the Arabian Peninsula the very idea of summer is associated with the oppressive heat and blinding sunshine (Munday, 2009, 75).

Similarly when an Urdu poet bemoans the collapsing of the wall of his house and terms it a huge encroachment upon his estate by the strangers, an Englishman may not appreciate this ‘grievous’ loss as in the English culture walls are frequently associated with separation and estrangement. Robert Frost famously wrote:

Something there is that doesn't love a wall, That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it, And spills the upper boulders in the sun, And makes gaps even two can pass abreast. (Quoted in Venuti, 1995, 179)

On the contrary, in Urdu literature walls denote such notions as safety, honour, privacy, etc. This is how a relatively less known Urdu poet Sibt-e-Ali Saba (b. 1935 —) grieves the crumpling of the wall of his home in the following way (Sadiq, 1997, 78):

دویار ایک یم ریمے ہتسخواکمن یک

ولوگں ےن ریمے نحص ںیمرےتس انب ےیل

The wall of my brittle house was to collapse! People made paths through my courtyard (my translation).

165

For an English reader, it is may be somewhat difficult to appreciate the intensity of the poet’s grief over the mere collapsing of the wall. Thus, it is incumbent upon a translator to accord fuller and greater recognition to the culture of the language he or she is dealing with. It is not enough for a translator to be externally alive of the culture he or she is dealing with. Instead the translator must be empathetically well aware of the inner core of the culture which the source text belongs to. It is important to clarify that here the researcher is talking about culture in terms of a Weltanschauung — a shared map of the perceived world. This shared map orientates the individuals as well as the societies. There are also certain core cultural values which influence a translator’s choice during the process of an intercultural translation (Chesterman, 2010, 149).

Take the example of the Russian word duša. According to the translation theorist Anna Wierzbickathis word does not have a corresponding equivalent in the entire “universe of Anglo-Saxon culture”. The word recurs in the prominent Soviet writer and journalist Vasily Semyonovich Grossman’s novel Life and Fate (1980). This recurrence of the word is an indispensable characteristic of the source text. However, its English equivalent “soul” as proposed by its translators brings about a contextual incongruity and cultural strangeness (Wierzbicka, 2011, 63).

Some of the translation scholars and the theorists have termed this sort of compromised translations as a “distortion” of the original text (Munday, 2000, 84). In the course of dealing with those literary works which are culturally at variance with the background of the translator, an inadequate translation of metaphors and idioms can seriously impair the overall scheme of translation and mar the comprehension of the reader. It does not mean, however, that a proverb or idiom does not have an equivalent in the target language. It may have its equivalents in the target language but, due to their cultural dissimilarity, they do not translate it as such. At best they can furnish the reader with a rough idea.

There are numerous examples in Kiernan’s translation of Iqbal which duly attest to the presence of Anglicization in it. This Anglicization constitutes domestication. The

166 examples of this kind of domestication and their in-depth analyses have been given below:

وھچڑویرپ ےک ےیل رصق دبن ےک مخ و چیپ .(1)

روح ےک رصق ںیم ےہ رض ب میلک ایہّلل!

To Europe leave the dance of serpent limb: The prophet’s power is born of the spirit’s dance. (Kiernan, 1955, 200)

as “the dance of serpent ”رصق دبن ےک مخ و چیپ“ Comment: Translating the Urdu phrase limb” is an explicit instance of and attempt at Anglicizing the original text. The serpent, in Christian theology, is perhaps one of the most well-known symbols associated with Satan. In the Bible the serpent is associated with Satan (Genesis: 3, 1ff.). Sometimes, the serpent is even identified with Satan. Paul has suggested that the serpent was Satan incarnate (Romans, 16, 20). Substantial evidence of this association can be found in the apocalyptic literature too. In the Jewish pseudepigraphical group of writings — Apocalypse of Moses — it is clearly mentioned that the serpent who led Adam and Eve astray was little more than an instrument used by Satan. Thus in the English literary tradition, the windings of the serpents stand for the diabolical and satanic designs. Therefore, the mentioning of the serpent’s dance here is logically and historically traceable to the Judeo-Christian apocalyptical traditions which had a profound influence on the English literary tradition (Murdoch, 2009, 79).

Similarly, the pre-eminent English philosopher and essayist Sir Francis Bacon (1561 — 1626) also demeans the serpent in one his famous essay, “Of Truth” in the following words: “For these winding, and crooked courses, are the goings of the serpent; which goeth basely upon the belly, and not upon the feet” (Bacon, 2005, 5). Furthermore, the legendary English poet John Milton (1608—1674) also held the serpent responsible for the fall of Adam and Eve: “Th’ infernal Serpent; he it was, whose guile//Stird up with

167

Envy and Revenge, deceiv’d” (1: 35). Albert C. Labriola, Professor of English at Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, brings out the intrinsic diabolical nature of the serpent in the following words:

Disobedience and its consequences, therefore, come to the fore in Raphael’s instruction of Adam and Eve, who (especially in Books 6 and 8) are admonished to remain obedient. By examining the sinfulness of Satan in thought and in deed, Milton positions this part of his narrative close to the temptation of Eve. This arrangement enables Milton to highlight how and why Satan, who inhabits a serpent to seduce Eve in Book 9, induces in her the inordinate pride that brought about his own downfall. Satan arouses in Eve a comparable state of mind, which is enacted in her partaking of the forbidden fruit, an act of disobedience (quoted in Augustyn, 2013, 334).

In addition, it is also worth taking into consideration that in the first line, Kiernan includes a reference which clearly bespeaks of Christian theological tradition but in the second line, where Iqbal is mentioning an Islamic historical reference, the translator just

implies the “Stroke of Moses”. Moses, as ”رض ب میلک“ elides it. Originally, the Urdu phrase

(اصع) per the Semitic/Abrahamic tradition, was blessed by God with a miraculous Rod

is one of the most abiding and recurrent themes in (رض ب یمیلک) and the stroking by this Rod Iqbal’s poetic discourse. So ingrained and deeply embedded this notion in Iqbal’s poetic

— (رض ب میلک) — and philosophical thought is that he has named one of his books after it which can be translated as the “Stroke of Moses”.

Iqbal increasingly looks towards Moses as a revolutionary and a revivalist who would iconoclastically smash the pagan and idolatrous ideologies and break the spirit of

holds a promise of liberation and (رض ب میلک) the rebellious Pharaohs. The Stroke of Moses consolation for a suffering and agonizing humankind. All these implications are deeply embedded in the original text but they largely go amiss in the translation as they are

168 either left out or radically Anglicized. Kiernan subsumes these extremely nuanced implications, springing from the phrase (the Stroke of Moses), under a nonspecific and generic equivalent: “the prophet’s power”. It is not clear from this translation that which particular prophet is meant here whereas the original text clearly talks about Moses. This way of tackling the source text directly results in the loss of historical specificity of the original.

اسںیمایککشےہ ہک مکحم ےہ ہی ایسیلب اظنم .(2)

ہتخپ رت اس ےس وہےوخ ٔے الغیم ںیم وعام

Firm, beyond doubt, is the sovereignty of Hell Through it the nations have grown rotten-ripe in slavishness. (Kiernan, 1955, 230)

Comment: In this piece of translation, the Anglicization of the source text takes a

Satan’s) ”ایسیلب اظنم“ very radical form. In the source text, the poet has included the phrase dominion) which is translated by the translated as “the sovereignty of Hell”. This

and the mentioning of “Hell” is alien to Islamic historico-literary ”اسیلب“ reference to thought. However the identification of Satan with hell is not uncommon in the Anglo- American literary tradition. In English literature, there have been writers who made this identification. Sometimes this identification is carried to that extent where both of these words start looking synonymous. Take, for example, the case of John Milton who in his legendary epic Paradise Lost identified Satan with hell:

Me miserable! which way shall I fly Infinite wrath and infinite despair? Which way I fly is hell; myself am hell; And in the lowest deep a lower deep, Still threat’ning to devour me, opens wide, To which the hell I suffer seems a heaven.

169

(Paradise Lost IX: 73-78) This extract has been taken from the Book IX of Paradise Lost. This book illustrates the change which occurs in Satan’s attitude ever since he raised the flag of revolt against God in the Book I. His haughtiness, courage and passion are now things of the past. Satan seems to have learnt his lesson having paid a larger-than-life price. The hellfire is corroding him so mercilessly that he himself has turned into hell. The realization which Satan ultimately achieves is far greater. Not that he himself is hell; rather, wherever he goes will be hell. This is how the word Satan is being identified with hell and this very identification can be seen operating in the translation made by Kiernan.

دخابیصن رکے دنہ ےک اامومں وک .(3)

وہ دجسہسجںیمےہ تّلم یک زدنیگ اک ایپم

--God teach His ministers in India A way of worship that shall be to all His people an evangel of new life! (Kiernan, 1955, 224)

Comment: This translation also serves as an interesting example of the

has been rendered as ”اامم“ Anglicization of the original text. First, the Urdu word “minister”. A minister is a member of the clergy of the Christian church, especially a Protestant one. The head of the Roman Catholic order is also called a minister. In this way this word has an unmistakable and all too apparent Christian ring to it and using it to translate an exclusively Islamic theological designation is an obvious domestication (rewriting) of the source text. Technically, it leads to an inversion of the connotations enshrined in the source text. Even etymologically, the equivalent is considerably problematic. The word “minister” [with the Latin root minor implies “servant” or

”اامم“ inferior”] contradicts the meanings and implications associated with the word“ which has such implications as “leader” “forerunner” and “commander”. However, this is

170 not the basic indictment of this equivalent. That is indeed its Anglicization which the researcher has already elucidated above. Once again it is an instance of defining the foreign in terms of the domestic.

as “a way of worship” is also a ”دجسہ“ Similarly translating the Urdu word departure from the linguistic and contextual specificity of the source text. In the Islamic

constitutes the core of the worship. Once again it is one ”دجسہ“ scheme of rituals, the word of those Urdu words which do not comfortably lend themselves to translation into English. This researcher has discussed this issue somewhere else in this research and, therefore, here nothing more should be said with reference to it.

However, the most glaring example of the Anglicization of the source text in this

Evangel is .”ایپم“ translation is the use of the equivalent “evangel” for the Urdu word another word for the Christian Gospel. More precisely, Evangel stands for any one of the first four books of the Christian Bible that tells of the life of Jesus Christ. In ecclesiastical terms, it also stands for a body of teachings in a discipline regarded as basic and central. Doubtless, one of its connotations also implies such meanings as “good news”, “tidings”, etc., but the main problem remains that the word is primarily associated with the

gives the ”ایپم“ Christian religious order and its employment as an equivalent for translation a coloration which is ecclesiastical in nature. To sum up it makes the Anglicization of translation considerably more pronounced.

شھی ي د تبحم ہن اکرف، ہن اغزمو .(4)

ووو تبحمیکرںیمس ہن رتیک ہن اتزم

The martyrs of Love are Muslim nor Paynim, The manners of Love are not Arab nor Turk. (Kiernan, 1955, 148)

171

Comment: This piece of translation is fraught with problems which are at once

as “paynim” and ”اکرف“ linguistic and cultural. The translator is rendering the Urdu word

as “Muslim”. This entails confusion. Let us begin with the ”اغزم“ the other Urdu word first problematic equivalent — paynim. Paynim (Middle English: painim) is an archaic word and was used previously for a person who was pagan from an ecclesiastical perspective. The ecclesiastical tradition termed all those people as paynims who were non-Christian especially Muslim. Thus a Muslim is a paynim as per the Christian theological tradition and also as per the real linguistic background of this word. So this

as “paynim” brings us back to the square one as the word ”اکرف“ translation of the word itself implies a Muslim. The renowned English critic and poet Thomson Warton (1728 — 1790), while describing the traditional story of Arthur’s death, mentions the word “paynim” in this sense:

Yet in vain a paynim foe Armed with fate the mighty blow; For when he fell, the Elfin queen, All in secret and unseen, O’er the fainting hero threw Her mantle of ambrosial blue, And bade her spirits bear him far, In Merlin’s agate-axled car, To her green isle’s enamelled steep, Far in the navel of the deep. (Johnson, 1810, 110)

which the translator renders as “Muslim”, it must be ”اغزم“ As regards the word

is used for a gallant ”اغزم“ said that this is not what Iqbal intends to say. In Urdu, the word soldier who survives a military expedition in the way of God. To Iqbal, those who lay

172 down their lives for the noble cause of love deserve our deepest regards. They are the undisputed heroes of humankind irrespective of the bonds of religion and creed. Therefore, the martyrs of love are always above and beyond the categories drawn by the institutionalized systems of thought. As with love, so with its martyr! Love is neither pagan nor Muslim, nor Turkic.

Moreover, it is here that we see how a translation strategy brings about textual deformation. If, on the one hand, the translator is Hellenizing his translational discourse, on the other hand, he is also Christianizing it. Therefore, on this count, it can be inferred, that Kiernan’s translation seems swinging between these two poles of domestication — Hellenization and Christianization. However, it is pertinent to note that these both poles entail the Anglicization of the source text. All this may add to the acceptability and readability of the translation, yet it has serious implications for the linguistic and cultural features of the source text.

اے رم د دخا!وھجتوک وہ وقت ںیہن احلص . (5)

اجھٹیبیسکاغر ںیم اہلل وک رک اید

But that strength, preacher, we shall not Find your hand muster; Go, and recite in some cool grot Your paternoster. (Kiernan, 1955, 178)

Comment: The Anglicization of the source text is also apparent in this piece of

.”a devotee) as “preacher) ”رم د ُخ ا“ translation. The translator is translating the Urdu phrase Although, strictly speaking, this is not an Anglicization of the source text as such, it is an

is certainly more than a preacher ”رمددخا“ inadequate translation of it. The Urdu phrase which brings to mind the idea of a commonplace proselytizer of the creed. However, the

173 researcher will instantly move to the next instances of the domestication in this translation which are far more serious and require a more detailed discussion.

The more visible example of the Anglicization of the source text is the translation

:as “recite…paternoster”. Here the word “paternoster” (Latin ”اہلل وک رک اید“ of the Urdu phrase pater noster “our father”) calls for some discussion as it is this word which is giving the translation an ecclesiastical coloration. It is another name for the Lord’s Prayer in the Roman Catholic Church. The Lord’s Prayer is by far the most important prayer in Christianity taught by Jesus Christ to his disciples according to the Gospels of Luke (11, 2 - 4) and Mathew (6:9 - 13). The Prayer consists of seven petitions which seem to be a liturgical expansion of the actual statements of Jesus Christ. After the rite of baptism, the Paternoster is the most significant connection of unity among Christians and it is always recited in the course of ecumenical gatherings.

Here is one specimen of the Paternoster, which has been employed liturgically since the beginning of the Christian tradition:

Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, On earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread; And forgive us our debts, As we also have forgiven our debtors; And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil. (Wiersbe, 2000,63)

Therefore, this radical foregrounding of the ecclesiastical elements in the translation gives it an overtly Anglicized tone which is the subject of discussion here.

174

اجاتن وہں ںیم ہی اُتم احلم رقآں ںیہن .(6)

ےہ ویہ رسامہی دارم دنب ٔہ ومنم اک دںیوو

I know its congregation is the Law’s Upholder now more; the Muslim runs With all the rest, makes capitalism his creed. (Kiernan, 1955, 240)

Comment: This piece of translation is also full of patently Christian terms and

.is untrue for certain reasons ”اُتم“ references. To begin with, using “congregation” for The word congregation has an overtly Christian ring to it. It has such dictionary meanings as (1) A body of assembled people; a gathering” (2) “Members of the specific church” (3) “A group of people gathered for a religious service” (4) “A Roman Catholic religious body whose members follow a common rule of life and are bound by simple vows” (5) “A committee of Roman Catholic bishops responsible for handling the business of a general council”, etc. None of these definitions measures up to the meaning of the Urdu

.”اُتم“ word

The notion of “Congregationalism” is crucial to the understanding of the Christian theological thought. It denotes a system of church government under which each individual congregation or local church enjoys autonomy. The word can be employed either generally, or to refer to a specific historical development having its origin in Puritanism, or to designate a specific denomination within that tradition (Woodhead, 2004).

Secondly and perhaps more problematically, the translator uses the word “Law”

This is yet another deviation from the source text. Terming the Quran as a .”رقآن“ for mere Law is to exhibit disregard for the complex nature of the Quran. True, the Quran spells out numerous laws and commandments but it also contains stories of the earlier

175 people, details of the Islamic rituals, accounts of Divine justice, eschatological descriptions, details of the afterlife, etc. If the translator is reducing the Quran to a mere

to mere creed on the other hand. The same ”دنی“ Law on the one hand; he is reducing indictment can also be made against this piece of translation as well. A creed is just one

is ”دنی“ and, certainly, not the whole of it. In fact the word ”دنی“ of the constituents of untranslatable into the English language. Even the most frequently employed equivalent

.”دنی“ — religion” does not totally capture the true essence and real breadth of the term“

Here the researcher finds it pertinent to elaborate the untranslatable nature of the

dīn). It is an Arabic word which is frequently but erroneously translated into) ”دنی“ word English as religion. Whereas religion commonly implies a belief in the Unseen along with a set of rituals; the word dīn, On the contrary, is an all-encompassing way of life carried out under the auspices of God’s divine purpose. As used in the Quran, it refers both to the path along which virtuous Muslims journey in order to obey divine law, and to the ultimate judgment to which all humanity must inevitably face without intercessors before God (Quran, 1:4; 2:256; 4:46; 15:35; 22:78).

The renowned Islamic intellectual and writer Fazlur Rahman, is of the view that in the Islamic tradition, dīn is considered to be “the way-to-be-followed”. According to him, in this sense, it is the exact correlate of Sharia. He illustrates this point, “Whereas Shari’a is the ordaining of the Way and its proper subject is God, dīn is the following of that Way, and its subject is man” (Rahman, 1979, 100).

In the same way, what the poet is maintaining here also necessitates a broader and more inclusive conceptualization of this term. The poet is lamenting the fact that the present-day Muslims, in general, have taken capitalism as their dīn. Now what the poet means by this is quite easy to appreciate e.g. the Muslims have subscribed to the tenets of capitalism and adhere to its practices in totality. In short, the Muslims have taken capitalism not just as a politico-economic doctrine of mere theoretical import but as an

176 all-encompassing way of life — as their dīn. Viewing from this perspective, the Muslims seem to have made a religion of it and their commitment with it is all consuming and unconditional. This is how, in effect, an utterly Islamic terminology is cast in a noticeably Anglicized mould. This brings about a cultural as well as linguistic dislocation in the translation and renders it well neigh unrepresentative of the original text. Eventually it results in the domestication of that what Iqbal wrote.

ہہیقفرہش یک ریقحت!وایک اجمل رمم .(7)

رگمہیابتہکںیم ڈوھڈنات وہں دل یک اشکد

And for the Pharisee—far from this poor worm be disrespect! But how to enfranchise Man, is all the problem I have sounded. (Kiernan, 1955, 94)

Comment: This translation is problematic for a two-fold reason and eventually results in the Anglicization of the source text. To begin with, the use of the equivalent

is unmistakably an instance of Anglicizing the original text. By all ”ہہیقف رہش“ Pharisee” for“ accounts, it is abundantly clear that the word “Pharisee” (Aramaic: prīsayyā; Hebrew: has Judaic connotations. Kiernan takes this word from the Jewish theological (פְּרּושִׁ ים traditions and employs it to translate an Islamic jurisprudential designation. A Pharisee stands for a member of a Jewish religious party that flourished in Palestine during the latter part of the Second Temple period.

with a Pharisee because of his ”ہہیقف رہش“ Most probably, the translator is likening the extreme and obsessive emphasis on the questions of morality. But that remains an insufficient reason to do that. This is just goading one religion tradition into another with total disregard to the specificities of the original text. What Iqbal is talking about here is the self-righteousness and pretentious hypocrisy of the Muslim jurists who are ceaselessly engaged in theological hair-splitting and mechanical observation of rituals.

177

Furthermore, the translation of the second line is also marked by Anglicization.

as “to enfranchise man”. To put دلیک ”اشکد ڈوھڈنان“ Here Kiernan is translating the Urdu phrase it briefly, this is an extremely superficial, oversimplified and somewhat far-fetched way of approaching the original text. The original Urdu phrase bespeaks of something profoundly expressive which the translation is communicating only inadequately. Iqbal is talking of a profound quest which could alleviate his inner turbulence and disenthrall his agitated soul. Here Iqbal is directly concerned with his inner discord and spiritual

heart) denotes the inner dimension of that struggle) ”دل“ restiveness. The very Urdu word and conflict the poet is describing here.

the) ”ہہیقفٔ رہش“ Moreover, his uneven and somewhat conflictual relations with the arch-jurist) are also because of this reason — Iqbal is preoccupied with his inner disquiet whereas the arch-jurist is insistent upon the exoteric and utterly perfunctory observation of the rituals. However, all this remains uncommunicated in the translation and the reader is presented with a very operational, incomplete and positively misleading target text — “to franchise man”. What is more, the unmistakable Anglicization of the original text is also detectable here. The word “franchise” brings to mind and foregrounds the Westminster democratic model whose battle cry is “enfranchisement”.

Finally it should be mentioned here that Iqbal’s entire poetic discourse is extensively and deeply characterized by the references to the Islamic historical and theological traditions. It is largely due to these references that his poetry successfully achieves a recognition and uniqueness which is one of the hallmarks of Urdu literature. For that reason, any attempt to translate Iqbal while dispensing with these references is likely to lead to its serious domestication and rewriting as is happening here.

مجعےک ایخالت ںیم وھک ایگ .(8)

ہیاسکل اقمامت ںیم وھک ایگ

178

Turned sophist roams his inner stage, Imaginary pilgrimage. (Kiernan, 1955, 130)

Comment: The translation of this verse is also one of the specimens of the translator’s utter disregard for the terminologies of the Islamic mystic discourse which

as “sophist” is ”اسکل“ serves as the background to this verse. Translating the Urdu word patently inaccurate for more than one reason and marks an exceedingly disingenuous way of approaching the source text.

Besides there is much more to the source text which is left untranslated by

stands for a Sufi, or a wanderer ”اسکل“ Kiernan. In the Islamic mystic discourse the word who seeks to achieve a state of oneness with God and the Universe by passing through various spiritual stations. Attaining the direct and unmediated communion with God

a) ”رمدش“ through a series of ecstatic and uplifting experiences under the guidance of a

a mystic or a Sufi). The mystic starts this) ”اسکل“ preceptor) remains the real aim of a

an aspirer). Each spiritual station marks a new and more) ”رمدی“ spiritual journey as a arduous phase of spiritual development which aims at achieving the Divine Love and a total annihilation of one’s own egoistical being.

What Iqbal is lamenting here is the fact that the Muslim mystics and Sufis have mistaken these stations for the actual destination. This confusing of the means with the ends has caused a socio-spiritual malaise in the mystical orders and their practices have been reduced to empty, ritualistic cults devoid of meaning and significance. Therefore, it

mystic) that) ”اسکل“ is because of this essential textual and contextual meaning of the term when it is translated as “sophist”, it fails to communicate the real intent of the source text.

179

On the contrary, it adds an anachronistically awkward Hellenistic dimension to the translation as sophism was one the main strands of Hellenism. This is also an interesting example of translating an Islamic mystic term by making use of the foreign tropes and references which seriously affect the semantic scheme of the source text. There may well be an element of sophistry in the current practices and cultic rituals of Sufism which have, of late, degenerated into petty commercialism. However, translating an utterly Islamic mystic term by using an equivalent from the Greek historic- philosophical tradition compromises the meanings embedded in the source text.

is left totally untranslated by Kiernan. Iqbal is ”مجع“ Furthermore, the reference to critical of the fact that the Muslim mystics are lost in the “Persian abstract meditations”

In an extremely roundabout way, the translator has rendered it as roaming .”مجعےک ایخالت“ — the “inner stage”. This translation is so far-fetched as to be incomprehensible. One can only conjecture as to what relation he or she can construct between the original expression and its translation.

Another relational problem arises regarding another expression used by the translator — “imaginary pilgrimage”. It is not clear from the translation whether the spiritual pilgrimage of a Sufi is actually imaginary or is considered to be as such by the Sufi himself. The clarification of this ambiguity remains a pre-condition for the proper understanding of the source text. The cumulative effect of all these instances of domestication is textual ambiguity and confusion which can delude the reader.

Therefore, this instance of translation serves as an intriguing example of how the foreign is being redefined and re-presented by the translator in terms of the domestic. This is one of the most widely used strategies of domestication and it has a familiarizing and the naturalizing effect on the experience of the reader. In its most characteristic way, it first strips a foreign text of its foreignness and only then brings it to the reader for an easy and uncritical consumption. Even if the text is rendered fairly faithfully; its context is radically reformulated. In this way, this is the goading of Iqbal’s poetic discourse with

180 the Greek historic-philosophical thought which can also be seen at other occasions as the following instance amply illustrates.

وہداین یک یٹم، ہی دوزخ یک یٹم .(9)

وہتباخہن اخیک، ہی اخرتسکم ےہ!

That—earth’s soil: this—soil of Hades; Dust, their temple; ashes, ours. (Kiernan, 1955, 158)

as ”دوزخ“ Comment: In this instance, the translator is translating the Urdu word “Hades”. This is yet another interesting instance of the Hellenization of the source text. The word “Hades” (Greek: Aidēs) has been actually taken from the Greek mythological tradition. In the Greek mythology, Hades was considered to be god of the underworld. The legend has it that Hades was the son of the Titans Cronus and Rhea and the brother of Zeus and Poseidon. When the three brothers divided up the universe after they had deposed their father, Cronus, Hades was awarded the underworld (Peterson & Dunworth, 2004). Hades was believed to supervise the trials and punishments of the wicked after their death. Homer refers to it in his Iliad:

Sing, goddess, the anger of Peleus' son Achilleus and its devastation, which put pains thousandfold upon the Achaians, hurled in their multitudes to the house of Hades strong souls of heroes . . . (Iliad I, 1-5)

At the same time, the word Hades was used in the Greek Old Testament to translate the Hebrew word “sheol”, denoting a dark underground region inhabited by the condemned souls. By extension, the word is also used more generally to denote hell. However, its Greek mythological connotation and coloration is so apparent that its use in

181 the translation clearly contributes to the Hellenization of this translation, which is the

could have ”دوزخ“ immediate concern of the researcher in this context. The reference to easily been translated in more neutral terms by employing such equivalents as “hell” and “inferno”. This could have largely prevented the Hellenization/Anglicization of the source text.

ہی اتب ن رصع احرض ہک ےنب ںیہ دمرےس ںیم .(10)

ہن اداے اکرفاہن!وہن رتا ش آزراہن!

The school-bred demi-goddesses of this age Lack the carved grace of the old pagan mould. (Kiernan, 1955, 70)

رتا شِ “ — In the second line, the poet is referring to a proper historical reference

originally: Āzar’s carvings). According to the Quran, Āzar (English: Tareh) was) ”آزراہن the father of Abraham, the revered prophet for all the three Semitic religions. In the Quran, Āzar is portrayed as a highly wicked and arrogant idol-monger (6:74). As per the Semitic scriptural traditions, he used to manufacture idols and his attachment to his idols was proverbial. When he saw his idols smashed by his son, he was infuriated and expelled Abraham from his household.

In this verse, the poet is mentioning the idol-mongering cult of Āzar and bewails the fact that the modern day educated generation is little different from the idols carved by the crooked idol-manufacturers like Āzar. However these modern day, school-bred idols do not bear any of the marks of their manufacturer’s craft. But the translator leaves out this historical reference of the Semitic tradition and remains content with an extremely generalized rendering of the original text. There is no mention of the name Āzar in the translation anywhere and the entire concept is rendered as “the old pagan mould”.

182

At the same time, by all accounts, it is apparent that the source text is more iconic and visual than its translation which is overtly homogenized. The rhymed juxtaposition of

is conspicuously absent in the translation. Besides, the iconicity ”رتا ش آزراہن“ and وو”ادا ٔے اکرفاہن“ of the source text is yet another feature which is not present in the translation and, perhaps, the translator cannot be much blamed for this since it is one of the hardest things for any translator to accomplish. Many of the translation theorists have recognized this difficulty. Consider for example the following opinion which illustrates the full immensity of this challenge:

From a translational viewpoint, the most difficult situation . . . arises when a linguistic sign, a phrase, refers metaphorically to an iconographic sign or image that the source and target culture do not share (Cintas & Remael, 2007, 46).

At times, the Anglicization done by the translator completely squanders the artistic and aesthetic merits of the original text. Some of the words are so differently significated in Urdu that an attempt by Kiernan to translate them results into superficiality and simplification. It is at such moments that the translation sounds prosaic. This point has been elaborated in the last section of this chapter.

دمتن، ّوصتف،رشتعی،الکم .(11)

اتب ن مجع ےک اجپرم امتم

…his art, Philosophy, law, divinity Still tainted with idolatry. (Kiernan, 1955, 130)

Comment: In this example, various terminologies used by the poet are being assigned the wrong categories by the translator. Moreover, the translation is marred by an increasing amount of elision and serious instances of omission. These four terms present

183

,”are respectively translated as “art (”الکم“ and ”رشتعی“ ,”وصتف“ ,”دمتّن“) in the source text “divinity”, “law” and “philosophy”. The inadequacy and failing of these equivalents in dealing with the source text can be clearly discerned. To begin with, “art” is just a part of

originally “civilization”) which is an unusually broad term and whose exact) ”دمتّن“

is as much as about ”دمتّن“ translation into English is well neigh impossible. The word

implies all the products ”دمتّن“ art” as about “craft”. At the broadest level, the Urdu word“ of creative human imaginations, cultural achievements, civilizational accomplishments and even technological advancements.

to just one ”دمتن“ Consequently, reducing the complex and multifaceted notion of aspect of it is to subtract immensely from the burgeoning meaningfulness of the source

;”تمّد ن“ text. Although there is not exact single equivalent in English to translate the word however, the word “civilization” is obviously a better choice.

.is not “divinity” as the translator has rendered it ”وصتف“ Second, the Urdu word Divinity stands for the study of religion, especially the Christian religion. In this sense, it is synonymous with “theology”. In yet another sense, divinity stands for courses of specialized religious training, especially the ones intended to lead students to a vocation

on the other hand, implies an ,”ّوصتف“ in the Christian Church (Gunton, 1997). The word Islamic mystical practice in which Muslims seek to discover the reality of God’s love and knowledge through direct personal experience of Him. It consists of a range of spiritual paths that have been structured to ascertain the reality of man and God and to make possible the experience of the presence of divine love and wisdom in the world. It is, at the deepest level, about the loving union and the transformation of all creation with and into God (Egan, 1991, 14).

184

English: Sharia) as “law” which is also a) ”رشتعی“ Third, Kiernan translates somewhat compromised translation. Sharia is not “law” in a generally accepted or secular sense of the word. Instead, Sharia stands for the religious law of Islam which the Muslims take as an expression of God’s Will — a divinely ordained code for Muslims which is supposed to guides them in the totality of their lives (Sonn, 2010).

Moreover, Sharia has a transcendental and metaphysical side to it also which is ordinarily not associated with “law” which merely stands for a body of official regulations which are thorough and thorough anthropomorphic. Whereas law is concerned just with our external social behavior, Sharia, in Islam, also takes into cognizance the personal and the private. One more important difference is that Sharia, according to the Quran, is immutable as it is taken to be an exteriorization of God’s Will which is obviously not the case with Law (see Quran: 48:43). Law is certainly subject to revisions and modifications by the competent authorities invested with requisite

The ?”رشتعی“ legislative powers. So what can be the possible equivalents for the word researcher is of the view that an addition of some qualifier to the word ‘law’ can help here e.g. ‘sacred law’, ‘hallowed law’, ‘divine law’, etc.

as “philosophy” is inaccurate for certain technical ”الکم“ Lastly, translating reasons. In Islam, Kalam (a widely used loanword in English) stands for speculative

Arabic: “Word of God”), which) ”الکم اہلل“ theology. The term is derived from the phrase refers to the Quran. Originally, Kalam was a defence of Islam against the other religions particularly Christianity and Manichaeism (Sonn, 2010). Soon the Muslim theologians and philosophers were to adopt the dialectic technique of the Greek sophists and skeptics

(الکم) in their methodology. In this way, the discipline of the speculative theology formally came into existence which very soon degenerated into petty hairsplitting and polemical confrontations.

185

Many of the Muslim philosophers went to long lengths to accommodate Plato, Aristotle and Pythagoras into an Islamic context. With the autonomy of reason propounded by the Mutazilites in the 8th century and its vigorous countering by the Asharite School the philosophy of Kalam turned into an endless pedantries and quibbling (see Fakhry: 2004). This contributed to a stigmatization of the term in a certain sense and many looked at it as little more than petty sectarianism with devastating implications for the true and simple message of Islam. Iqbal too, in his poetry as well as philosophy, was highly critical of Kalam and found it lethal to the uncomplicated and valuable message of the Quran. Therefore, the equivalent “philosophy” is inadequate to translate the

.(Kalam (Corbin: 1993 — ”الکم“ implications associated with the original word

مغ رم ہن رک، مس مغ ہن اھک ہک یہی ےہ اش ن دنلقرم .(12)

…do not bewail that terror, do not Swallow the poison of that wailing: take The road by which the saints came to their crown. (Kiernan, 1955, 42)

Comment: In this verse, Iqbal is counseling the Muslims as to how they should ideally behave towards the woes and miseries of life in order to get over them and to emerge victorious. To Iqbal one should neither mourn the terror of life nor consume the poison of existence which comes from grief and anguish. Rather to remain indifferent to the grief, pain and suffering of life has been the real merit of the true votaries of God. The

which the translator has rendered as saint. Saint is a ”دنلقر“ original text has the word household word for the Anglophone world; however, it is an imprecise and inadequate

.(for several reasons (Boyett: 2009, 47 ”دنلقر“ equivalent for the Urdu word

To begin with, it must be pointed out that the meaning of the word saint as used in the Christian theological context is alien to the Islamic tradition. In the New Testament

186

(Colossians 1:2), this nomenclature is applied to the members of the Christian community and its use remains restricted in the ecclesiastical circle from the very early times to those who have an unusual excellence and virtue of character. In the Biblical tradition, saints are traditionally distributed into several classes: apostles, evangelists, martyrs,

is not a theologically ”دنلقر“ confessors, etc. Unlike a Christian saint, a Muslim

by means of any formal ”دنلقر“ institutionalized position. Nor can a person become a

stands for the one ”دنلقر“ ,canonization as is the case with a saint. In true sense of the word who, having transcended the materiality of his or her existence reaches a state of total detachment and gnosis.

Therefore, translating this Urdu word as “saint” is an instance of the Anglicization of the source text — an instance of describing the foreign in terms of the domestic. However, this equivalent gives an ecclesiastical coloration to a poetic discourse which is

as “saint” sounds like و”دنلقر“ avowedly invested with Islamic tone and tenor. Translating

.(the Grand Imam) ”اام م امظع“ the Grand Mufti) or) یتفمَ” امظع“ translating Pope into Urdu as

Keeping in line with the linguistic and contextual characteristics of the source

,”are more likely to be “mystic ”دنلقر“ text, somewhat better equivalents for the word

etc. However, the researcher is not becoming prescriptive here or و,”dervish”, “sufi“ proposing these equivalents with any degree of finality. Moreover, it does not lie in the purview of the present research. Primarily the researcher is concerned with problematizing Kiernan’s translation and illustrating its domesticated nature.

ٔ وہا ےہ دنب ٔہ ومنم وسف ن ارفگن .(13)

ایسببسےسدنلقر یک آھکن ےہ انمنک

One hermit’s eyes grew wet with watching how you fell, Poor Muslim, under England’s spell. (Kiernan, 1955, 204)

187

is translated as “hermit” by ”دنلقر“ Comment: In this instance also, the Urdu word Kiernan. Hermit [Greek: erēmitēs, Old French: hermite] means somebody who, in early Christian period, renounced worldly things and decided to live away from the society in a monkish way. The Christian eremitic life started in Egypt in the 3rd century. As a result of the persecution by the Roman emperor Decius (ca. 201 — 251), Christians fled to the nearby deserts to pray and to maintain their faith. Conventionally, the first Christian hermit was Paul of Thebes, who fled to the desert around 250 AD and took up a wandering life. The eremitic life was marked by austerity and rigor (see Boyett: 2009, 45- 50).

who does spend a life of austerity ”دنلقر“ Now this is not the characterization of a but does not seek to flee from the society in an escapist way. Especially in Iqbal’s poetry

is a mystic of great ”دنلقر“ is very significant and unique. To Iqbal, a ”دنلقر“ the notion of a theosophic wisdom but, at the same time, he is also distinguished from the ordinary folk by virtue of his heroic resistance to the demonic forces rending the social and moral fabric of the human existence. He lives in the midst of all the sound and fury of life yet does not lose sight of his goal. Nor is he dazzled by the apparent pomp and show of an exhibitionist world which is so prone to avarice and commercialism (Corbin: 1993, 173).

All this essential contextual knowledge remains conspicuously absent in the translation and the Anglicization done by the translator dislocates the source text from its crucial textual configurations. In the above-mentioned verse too, Iqbal highlights the

as it was he whose eyes welled with tears the moment ”دنلقر“ socially pro-active role of a he saw his co-religionists bowing to the pomp and show of the world (Iqbal: 2000, 115).

رگمںیمذنر وک اک آ ہنیگب ال ای وہں .(14)

وجزیچاسںیم ےہ، تّنج ںیم ںیہن یتلم

188

But I have brought this chalice here to make my sacrifice; The thing it holds you will not find in all your Paradise. (Kiernan, 1955, 40)

crystal goblet) is rendered by as) ”آہنیگب“ Comment: In the first line the word “chalice” which is a purely theological and ecclesiastical reference taken from the Christian tradition. Chalice, (Latin: calix, drinking cup), stands for, in the ecclesiastical usage, a sacred vessel used in the Eucharistic rite, in which bread and wine are consecrated and consumed by an ordained minister. This is how the Anglicization of the

crystal goblet) is not exactly a chalice. There is) ”آہنیگب“ source text takes place. The world a remarkable difference in their structure as well as material. Customarily, a crystal goblet is made of glass, whereas a chalice is usually made of metal (gold or silver) with multicolour carvings upon it.

In the Indo-Pak cultural which serves as the background to Iqbal’s poetry, chalices do not have that fundamental religious value as they do in the ecclesiastical context. Thus the word used by the translator does not sustain a semantic equivalence with the original Urdu word because of the lack of cultural correspondence. In order for the Anglicization to work, the translator has to suppress the cultural specificity of the

.(crystal goblet) ”آہنیگب“ word

The translation done by the translator constitutes a lexical shift that assimilates the Urdu text to the Anglophone cultural terms. This way of tackling the source text is part of that overall technique in which Kiernan’s choices are largely aimed at catering for the Anglophone readership. Therefore, he frequently overwrites the contextual and linguistic particularities of the source text with an Anglophone discourse. The strategy adopted above is one of the discursive strategies which enable the translator to create familiarizing effects which eventually naturalize the translation in the consciousness of the readers at home (Venuti, 2013, 121).

189

ہگن دیپا رکاے اغلف ّ ّجت نیع رطفت ےہ .(15)

Rub your eyes, sluggard! Light is Nature’s law. (Kiernan, 1955, 74)

Comment: Iqbal is exhorting the slumbering Muslims to create/achieve what he

This extremely .”ہگن دیپا رک“ :by issuing this momentous imperative to them ”ہگن“ calls intricate and consequential command is rendered by the translator in a banal and crude

is not so simple to translate in fact. In the ”ہگن“ way — “Rub your eyes!” The word

which the translator is rendering as “eyes”. This is a ”ہگن“ source text, we have the word very superficial way. Iqbal is not mourning the loss of eyes. Obviously the slumbering Muslims do have eyes but in spite of them they are unable to “see”. So “rubbing the eyes” will not work. What the poet is saying is exceptionally deeper and more communicative. In fact Iqbal is reiterating one of the Quranic themes here which illustrates how some people go blind in spite of their eyes. The Quran makes this point:

Have they not travelled in the land, and have they hearts wherewith to feel and ears wherewith to hear? For indeed it is not the eyes that grow blind, but it is the hearts, which are within the bosoms, that grow blind (22:46).

In the similar sense, Iqbal is mourning the loss of this inner blindness. Thus,

does not merely stand for an optical ”ہگن“ viewed from this perspective, the word capability of an individual to perceive an object visually. Instead, it is something

implies an ”ہگن“ decisively more than that. Therefore, more accurately, the Urdu word enlightening and enabling insight which has the exceptionally great discerning ability and

insight, vision) constitutes a) ”ہگن“ deep intuitive knowledge. Therefore the Urdu word theosophic illumination and a transformative ability which can lay bare the muffled

190 mysteries of the human existence. It is by making a choice of the equivalent “eye” here that the translation is belittling the real significance and signification of the source text in more than one way.

ہیامہری یعسِ مہیپ یک رکاتم ےہ ہک آج .(16)

وصیفواّلُمولم تیک ےک دنبے ںیہ امتم

دنکوہرکرہ یئگ ومنم یک غیتِ ےب اینم

From our unceasing labour this wonder blooms: Priesthood and sainthood now are servile props For alien dominion. (Kiernan, 1955, 232)

Comment: In this instance the equivalent phrase “priesthood and sainthood” for

constitutes a clear act of the Anglicization of the original وصیف ”واّلم“ the Urdu expression text. The researcher has already discussed this point at length and shown that there is no concept of “sainthood” per se in the Islamic theological tradition. Besides, translating

as “sainthood” is also less than appropriate due to the meanings and implications ”وصیف“ associated with the ideal of sainthood in the ecclesiastical tradition. In Islam the Sufis are not canonized the way the saints are canonized in Christianity. Sufi is an unofficial title which is conferred by no one.

In fact whenever such culturally specific words are translated into other language, some kind of dislocation becomes inevitable. Every religious tradition has some notion of holiness attached to certain individuals but the words which refer to this holiness vary across a continuum of attributes and degrees. In Buddhism the term for a holy individual is arhat or bodhisattva; in Hinduism it is rishi or guru; in Judaism it is tzadik; in Islam it is wali or sufi; and in Christianity it is saint. But what is important to note is the fact that

191 each of this term denotes different sets of attributes and levels of moral achievements. Describing any of them in terms of any other will essentially bring about some kind of cultural and formal dislocations. The same cultural and formal dislocation occurs when, in this instance, Kiernan describes a Sufi in terms of a saint.

Secondly, the translator is using the equivalent “priesthood” for the Urdu word

This is also an inversion of the original text as the notion of an institutionalized .”اّلُم“

is widely different ”اّلُم“ theocracy or priesthood is not present in Islam. The Urdu word from the English word “priest”. Priests are especially consecrated to the service of a divinity and it is through them that prayers and sacrifices are offered to God.

Moreover, it is also by the agency of a priest that pardons and blessings are obtained by the worshipers. Priests are the formal members of the sacerdotal ministry. They have the privilege and authority to celebrate mass and to oversee the sacraments. On the contrary, Islam does not acknowledge any specific or institutionalized priesthood in its theological fold. The Islamic theological tradition postulates a universal and lay priesthood in which every member of the Muslim community has an equal stake. Nor is there any formal mediating agency in the classical Islamic tradition which could stand between man and God. Iqbal is particularly dismissive of any intermediaries between God and man when it comes to the questions of salvation and the observance of the rituals. Therefore, postulating any notion of priesthood in Islam has no place at least in Iqbal’s discourse. There are other instances too where Kiernan uses the equivalent “priest” in order to translate the Islamic traditional terms. Look at the following example:

ہیرازمہ ےس اپھچای ےہ ریم واظع ےن .(17)

Secret our priests have hidden. (Kiernan, 1955, 260)

192

Comment: Here it is safe to infer that the translator has been seriously tricked.

as “priest” which is a highly problematic ”ریمواظع“ He is translation the Urdu phrase

is a politico-religious honorific title which is given ”ریمواظع“ translation. In fact, the phrase to the leaders in the Kashmir Valley. Instead of being a mere priest, a Mirwaiz will be a politico-religious head of the Kashmiri Muslims. The political dimension of this title is very pronounced and remains uncommunicated in the translation done by Kiernan.

Moreover when the entire context in which the above line is situated is taken into consideration, the equivalent “priest” looks all the more awkward. The line has been

From the Diary of MuIlah Zada Zaigham) المزادہمغیض ”ولال یب ریمشکم اک ایبض“ taken from Iqbal’s poem Lolabi of Kashmir) which is a politically oriented poem in which Iqbal bewails the woe- stricken fate of Kashmir. The political tone of the poem is distinctly prominent. In this way, the equivalent “priest” used by the translator sounds all the more unsuitable. In additions, it also adds to the Anglicization of the source text.

اھبلات ےہ دل وک الک ِم بیطخ .(18)

رگم ذل ِت وشق ےس بیصن

…the priest’s phrase May charm the ear, but all is bare Of Love’s true fervour. (Kiernan, 1955, 130)

Comment: Apart from being an instance of the Anglicization of the original text, this translation is also domesticated because of certain other reasons. The Anglicization is

orator). Enough of discussion) ”بیطخ“ clear from the use of the equivalent “priest” for the with reference to this word has already taken place above and it is obvious that it is an unsuitable equivalent to be used in any Islamic context.

193

Besides this, the translation also suffers from certain other problems which the researcher will point out here. The translator is introducing here such elements which are not present in the original text. The poet specifies that it is the heart which is charmed by the speech of the orator, but the translator substitutes the heart for the ear. To him the preacher’s phrase charms the ear of the believers. But, to the poet, it charms the heart of the believers. This replacement constitutes an overt departure from the actuality of the source text. The Urdu literary tradition, in which Iqbal located his poetry, customarily terms heart to be particularly vulnerable to the deceptive and false bewitchments. According to the poet, it is the heart of an ordinary Muslim which is constantly beguiled by the pleasant-sounding and enthralling rhetoric of the orator. Introducing “ear” in this scheme of things is pointless and wide off the mark (Vahid: 1964, 68).

ےہرعش مجع یہچ رطب انک و دل آوزی .(19)

اسرعشےسوہ یت ںیہن ریشمش وخدم زیت

The Persian Muse is mirthsome and heart-easing, No whetstone for the sword-edge of the Self. (Kiernan, 1955, 198)

Comment: In this instance, the classificational dislocation takes a remarkably intriguing course as the translator relies on the equivalents which are metonymic in nature and invests the translation with a distinctly Anglophone character. In the source

literally: “Persian poetry”) which has been translated) ”رعش مجع“ text, we have the phrase metonymically by Kiernan as “The Persian Muse”. Here the mention of the word “Muse” is noteworthy. The reference to “Muse” — one of the daughters of Mnemosyne and Zeus — is an avowedly Greek allusion. Such a notion of inspiring goddesses presiding over the different realms of art forms is alien to the Persian poetic and literary tradition (Morrison: 1981, 269).

194

Therefore, an inclusion of such a Greek mythological reference into the poetic discourse of Iqbal dislocates the original text and recasts it in an Anglocentric mode which is heir to the Greco-Roman literary tradition. The impact of the Greek mythology on English art and literature is a well documented historical fact and it continued well into the 19th and the 20th century. The following comment is a testament to this far- reaching and in-depth influence of the Greco-Roman literary thought on English literature:

The impact of Greek mythology on [Western] literature has been incalculably great. In the 20th century the story of the murderous revenge of Orestes on his mother Clytemnestra (for killing his father, Agamemnon) has inspired writers as diverse as American dramatist Eugene O’Neill (in Mourning Becomes Electra, 1931), American-born poet and playwright T. S. Eliot (in The Family Reunion, 1939), and French philosopher and playwright Jean-Paul Sartre (in Les Mouches [1943; The Flies, 1946]). Among the most notable of all literary works inspired by Greek mythology is Ulysses by Irish writer James Joyce (Graf, 1993, 45).

Besides, even Iqbal did not have much love lost for the Greek mythological thought and he hardly ever adopted it to express his views. On the contrary, he was a vocal critic of such mythological thoughts and speculative systems of ideas and their espousal in literature. Therefore, it can be clearly seen how the classificational dislocation working as one of the most efficient tools of domestication here (Vahid: 1964, 94).

Now and then, the translator is seen Anglicizing the original text from even more

وضح ر “ وpronounced politico-historical points of view. A title of one of the poems of Iqbal

is rendered as “Before the Prophet’s Throne”. More appropriately its ”راستل آمبﷺوںیم translation should have been “In the Presence of the Blessed Prophet” or simply “Before the Blessed Prophet”. But Kiernan brings the notion of throne which is a metonymic reference to monarchy and kingdom — a household theme of the Restoration English literature. With the advent of the Restoration Literature, the theme of monarchy became a

195 recurrent preoccupation with the English writers and poets. The prominent English writer and critic John Dryden is just a case in point. Dryden’s celebration of the Restoration of the monarchy and the return of Charles II to the British royal throne is vividly present in his work Astraea Redux (1660). The work is a royalist panegyric and in it Dryden terms the period immediately before the Restoration as anarchy. Charles II’s return is hailed as a regaining of peace, harmony and order (Davis: 2006, 269).

Iqbal, on the contrary, neither intended nor mentioned monarchy with reference to the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him). For Iqbal, who so profoundly disdained the monarchical periods of Islamic history, it is well neigh impossible to include any reference to it while mentioning the name of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him). Viewing from this perspective, Kiernan’s translation of the above-mentioned verse gives the Restoration coloration to the source text. Eventually it leads to an Anglicization of the original text which in turn adds to the domestication of Iqbal’s poetry.

With this we come to the end of this section. The researcher has demonstrated with ample evidence that Kiernan has considerably Anglicized Iqbal’s poetic discourse. Numerous references, words, phrases present in the original text have been transformed to more “English” norms. The extensive amount of Anglicization which has been pointed out above contributes to the rewriting the source text in the Eurocentric cultural and historical terms. Eventually the cumulative outcome of this Anglicization is the large-scale and systematic domestication of Iqbal’s poetry by the translator.

4.2.2. Classificational Dislocation

Iqbal’s poetic discourse is highly classified and this classification suits the thematic and linguistic variety of his poetry in an accomplished manner. The alteration between the proper and the common nouns and between the generic and the specific references has always been done by the poet to achieve a particularly desirable effect. It serves to communicate as well as develop a pinpointed and nuanced understanding of the subject matter in the reader. However, there are numerous instances in Kiernan’s

196 translation in which he dislocates this classification and in a largely unwarranted and gratuitous way replaces one category with the other. This dislocation has domesticating effects on the overall textual as well as the semantic scheme of the source text ranging from slight misunderstanding to outright misrepresentation. The following examples illustrate this problem:

ہن زیتسہ اگہ اہجں یئن، ہن مفی ہجنپ نگف ےئن .(1)

ویہ رطف ت ادس ایہّلل، ویہ رم یبحؔ، ویہ رتنع ؔمو

Not new the antagonists, face to face, hands clenched; Unchanged of purpose stands the Lion of God, Unchanged the opposing champions. (Kiernan, 1955, 43)

Comment: In this instance we see the problem classificational dislocation growing particularly intricate as the translator selects too broad and blanket equivalents for the original Urdu words as well as expressions. In the original text, Iqbal is talking

the antagonism of the world) which obviously is a state) ”زیتسہ ِہ ِ اہجں“ about (antagonism) but Kiernan is describing it in terms of the agent (antagonists). However, this is a minor instance of classification dislocation and the researcher will move to the more serious dislocation present in this piece of translation.

It is the second line of this verse in which Iqbal has included three historical references based upon three proper nouns but Kiernan, while translating, just deals with the first of them and omits the rest two. The reference to Ali, the Lion of God, is translated as per the textual scheme wrought by Iqbal. But the references to Marhab (a Jewish chieftain and one of the chief adversaries of Islam), and to Antar (an Arab warrior who perished at the hands of Ali at the Battle of Khayber), are left out. Marhab symbolizes the arrogance and formidable hostility which Islam had to encounter in its early days. He landed in the famous Battle of Kkayber chanting the following war cries:

197

Khaybar knows well that I am Marhab whose weapon is sharp, a warrior tested. Sometimes I thrust with spear; sometimes I strike with sword, when lions advance in burning rage. (Tabari, 1997, 135)

Therefore Marhab’s killing by Ali marks an important millstone in the early history of Islam. In the later Islamic literature, Ali’s gallant victory over pompous and pretentious Marhab came to emblematize the triumph of Islam against the mighty forces hostility and aggression. Keeping this in view, an elision of the reference to Marhab results in an out and out historico-literary impoverishment of the source text. The same literary impoverishment is the result of the elision of the reference to Antar. In all probability, Kiernan wants to spare his readers of such historical intricacies. But in that case it is a clear betrayal of his vocation and an appropriation of the original text.

Moreover, the last line “Unchanged the opposing champions” is a strange inclusion by the translator which, as can be clearly seen, is not present in the original text. Perhaps, Kiernan is making this inclusion in order to make up for the loss which is resulting because of the extensive exclusions by him which have just been pointed out.

However whatever it may be, the translation made by Kiernan domesticates the source text and renders it more ‘readable’ and, by flattening out the proper references, diminishes its Semitic spirit. This brings about a classificational dislocation as a highly specified text has been rendered in an extremely non-specific and generalized way. The translator’s disregard for the particular historical actualities and allusions of the original text is obvious here. It seems that Kiernan is more interested in enhancing the acceptability and comprehension of his translation than taking into consideration the discursive and schematic characteristics of the source text. To him, probably, an inclusion of the Arab historical characters would task the mind of the reader or ruffle his or her aesthetic sensibilities. Or probably he thought a clustering of the Arab historical

198 characters would make his translation look anachronistically Middle-Eastern. Whatever are the motives in the mind of the translator, the result is quite simple — domestication of the source text.

ےہ ویہ اس ز نہک رغمب اک وہمجرم اظنم .(2)

سج ےک رپدوں ںیم ںیہن ریغ از ونا ٔے رصیقم

In the West the people rule, they say: And what is this new reign? The same harp still, the same strings play The despots’ old refrain. (Kiernan, 1955, 52)

Comment: In this particular instance, the translator is replacing a proper noun with a common one and therefore bringing about the classificational dislocation. In the original text, Iqbal is equating the Western brand of democracy with the despotic and tyrannical regimes of Caesars. To Iqbal, the contemporary form of Western democracy has sham pretenses with its rabble-rousing and demagogic juggernauts.

On the contrary, the translator, instead of translating the proper reference to the Caesarian despotism, merely renders it as “the despots”. This is obviously less than what Iqbal meant or it only inadequately expresses the intent of the poet. Iqbal is not talking about the ordinary historical despotisms of bygone days; rather, he is referring to the Caesarian despotism in concrete terms. The net result of this translation is the loss of historical specificity of the source text. This description of a concrete historical reference in general and unqualified terms is an interesting example of classificational dislocation which obviously amounts to the domestication of the source text.

راقتبملعورعافں ںیم طلغ ینیب ےہ ربنم یک .(3)

199

ہک وہ ّلحاج یک وسیل وک اھجمس ےہ ر اانپ Where reason and revelation war, faith errs To think the mystic on his cross its foe. (Kiernan, 1955, 74)

Comment: Here too, Iqbal is referring to a specific and immensely significant figure of the Islamic history but the translator is replacing this proper reference with a common and generic noun. In the original text, Iqbal is talking about Mansur al-Hallaj (858 — 922), a Persian mystic, revolutionary writer and teacher of Sufism, who was executed for his allegedly heretical views and who subsequently became a symbol of undying divine love and spiritual uplifting. While talking about him, Iqbal says that the present day Muslim intellectuals and divines have set up a false and uncalled-for dichotomy between Reason and Revelation. These intellectuals and divines, driven mainly by their willful ignorance, are taking Mansur as their rival for naught. However, the translator, just uses the very generic word — “the mystic”. This, in itself, is a classificational dislocation because it is a nonspecific reference and can stand for any mystic; not necessarily for Mansur al-Hallaj who is the actual subject in the original text.

However, the second problem with the translation of this verse is far more serious than the first one. To Iqbal, a dichotomy between the Reason and the Revelation is never

which is a metonymic (ربنم) ”real; rather it is the spurious concoction of the “pulpit reference to the Muslim clerics and preachers. Iqbal is of the view that these are the injudicious and unenlightened Muslim clerics and preachers who are responsible for this false divide between Reason and Revelation. On the contrary, the translator has attributed the creation of this false divide to “faith” per se which is an obvious inaccuracy. This is a superficial way of tackling a tricky concept and using a false equivalent for it.

There is yet another count on which the translation of this verse can be faulted.

as “revelation” — which is obviously not true. The ”رعافن“ Kieran is translating the word

200

is more accurately translated as “gnosis” which signifies a spiritual ”رعافن“ word

which ”ویح“ knowledge. In Urdu, the proper and widely used word for “revelation” is

is (ویح) stands for a direct self-communication of God to His chosen prophets. Revelation the disclosure of the Divine Being or the Divine Will and its origin is also always divine.

is the understanding and awareness of the spiritual (رعافن) ”On the other hand, “gnosis

is not (رعافن) ”dimensions and its origin can well be anthropomorphic. Therefore, “gnosis

.as Kiernan’s translation is implying ,(ویح) ”synonymous with “revelation

رضحیھبےب دتس و اپ، اایلس یھب ےب دتس اپ .(4)

Your ministers and your prophets are pale shades. (Kiernan, 1955, 142)

Comment: This translation once again is an instance of describing the specific and proper references in broad and general terms which do not adequately signify the textual implications of the source text. In this particular example, the poet is mentioning two celebrated figures of Islamic history. Khidr was a revered figure in Islam, a mystic of great wisdom and knowledge; whereas, Ilyas (English: Elijah), was a famous Hebrew prophet who combated the idolatrous and pagan spirit of his time. In different Islamic and non-Islamic traditions, Khidr is variously described as a messenger, prophet, wali (an Urdu word meaning “a companion of Allah). In the above-mentioned verse the poet presents Satan who is belittling these two outstanding figures of Islamic history. Satan finds Khidr and Ilyas to be quite powerless and infantile before his crooked and expedient designs.

However when looking at Kiernan’s translation, we readily recognize its

as “Your ministers and ”اایلس“ and ”رضح“ inadequacy and shallowness. Kiernan translates your prophets”. This is yet another example of the classificational dislocation in which

201 the proper historical nouns are translated in common and unusually generic terms which deprecate the much-intended specificity of the original references. In technical language, this kind of translation results in what may be called “semantic deficiency” or “referential deficiency”. By casting the expressly referential components in a loose and sweeping mould leads to a thorough flattening of the source text. The names Khider and Ilyas supply the source text with its iconic richness and denotative strength which is singularly absent in the translation.

Lastly it is pertinent to mention here that Iqbal’s poetic discourse is replete with the mention of prophets, saints, revolutionaries, philosophers, thinkers, artists, poets, generals, leaders, dictators, commander, angels etc. These references animate his poetry and add to its richness and artistry. This broad range of proper historical references gives his poetry a schematic grandeur and a discursive exuberance which is one of the distinctive features of his poetry. Therefore viewing from this perspective, any translation technique or approach which seeks to leave out these concrete and specific references or to subsume them under the generic and umbrella equivalents is likely to negatively impact upon the literary appeal and artistic significance of the source text.

سلجمتلم وہ ای رپوزی اک درابر وہ .(5)

ےہوہاطلسں،ریغ یک یتیھک ہپ وہ سج یک رظن

Whether parliaments of nations meet, or Majesty holds court, Whoever casts his eye on another’s field Is tyrant born. (Kiernan, 1955, 234)

Comment: This is also an instance of classificational dislocation in much the

just as “Majesty” — once رپوزی ” اک درابر“ same way as the preceding one. Kiernan translates again a classificational dislocation in which a proper historical reference is being translated in an exceedingly generic and nonspecific way. The proper historical reference

202 enshrined in the source text is flattened out by the translator in a way which seriously affects the discursive heterogeneity of the source text. Khusro Parvez (590 — 628) was the ruler of the Persian Empire and the contemporary of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him). Iqbal, in this verse, intends to, in fact, illustrate the pernicious effects of exploitative and overbearing forms of governments be they in the garb of democracy or monarchy. Iqbal is mentioning Khusro Pervez as an embodiment of all the vile and mischief of monarchy.

However, in Islamic history, Khusro Pervez personifies not only the repressively monarchial rule but also outright haughtiness and implacable hostility towards Islam as he tore the letter of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) contemptuously and berated the Arab race in the loathsome terms. Given this importance and relevance of this specific historical reference, the loss which may result form its omission is not difficult to assess. Thus, here too, it can be clearly seen how the translation is depriving the source text of its historicity as well as specificity.

ابگن ارسالیف اُن وک زدنہ رک یتکس ںیہن .(6)

روحےساھت زدنیگ ںیم یھب یہت نج اک دسج

No angel’s trumpet-blast Can bring those back to life Whose bodies whilst they lived were void of spirit. (Kiernan, 1955, 248)

Comment: It is yet another obvious example of classificational dislocation which results in the domestication of the source text. In the Islamic eschatological discourse, Israfil is the one of the archangels who is divinely appointed to blow the trumpet which will proclaim the Day of Judgment. In the above-mentioned verse, Iqbal makes a clear

as a mere ”ارسالیف“ and direct mentioning of this archangel. But Kiernan has translated

203

“angel”. This is how the translation falls short of expressing the specific nature of the source text and re-casts it in too generic and unsignifying terms.

ار، وکحمم یک تّیم ےس وس ابر ار .(7)

اے رسالیف!واے دخا ٔے اک انئت!واے اج ن اپک

Beware the carrion slave, A hundred times beware, Angels, and oh You Whom the worlds obey! (Kiernan, 1955, 248)

Comment: This is also an instance of classificational dislocation in much the same way as the preceding one. Here, once again, the translator is translating the specific

,in an extremely broad and generic terms. Surprisingly — (ارسالیف) reference — Israfil Kiernan is using a plural equivalent (“angels”) here in order to render a singular and

This employment of a plural equivalent here for a singular .(ارسالیف) proper noun — Israfil word invests the translation with even greater generality and further dislocates it from its essential specificity. Once again what is lost in this kind of domesticated translation marked by classificational dislocation is the loss of what may be termed as referential specificity.

اعرف و اعیم امتم دنب ٔہ الت و انمت! .(8)

وخار وہا سک دقر آد م زیداں افصت

Wisdom and folly Bow before stocks and stones. How has man, once Made in God’s image, fallen so low? (Kiernan, 1955, 248)

204

Comment: In this verse the presence of classificational dislocation is very conspicuous and it considerably affects the semantic structure of the source text. The

originally “the highbrows and the lowbrows”) are rendered) ”اعرف و اعیم“ initial two words as “wisdom and folly”. This is a dislocation — a move from the agent to the agency and that too in extremely broad terms. This may, however, be acceptable on expedient and pragmatic grounds but the subsequent moves made by the translator mar this possibility irrevocably. The poet is mentioning in the source text two of the pre-Islamic Arabian goddesses which were enshrined in the form of idols in Kabbah, the House of God. These

Both of these goddesses are mentioned in the .(انمت) and Manaat (الت) are evidently Laat chapter 53 of the Quran.

The poet, as a matter of fact, is bemoaning the tragic fact that the present day Muslims are merely serving the goddesses like Laat and Manaat instead of serving the One Supreme God--Allah. On the contrary, the translator overgeneralizes this enormously particular and factual reference and renders it as “stocks and stones”, without even making the first letters of these two equivalents capital. This results in the total loss of that narrative specificity as well as historicity which is structurally embedded in the source text. What is more, the reverberating alliteration and the purposive repetition found in the source text are conspicuously absent in the translation here.

سک زابں ےس اے ُ ُگ ژپرُمدہ ھجت وک ُُگ وہکں .(9)

How shall I call you now a flower Tell me, oh withered rose. (Kiernan, 1955, 2)

Comment: This is a clear instance of classificational dislocation. In the source

meaning “flower”) which occurs two times. Now) ” ُُگو“ text we have a common noun when it occurs first time, it is translated as “flower” which is the most accurate and

205 logical equivalent given its generic category. However, the second time the same word is translated as “rose” which constitutes a clear instance of classificational dislocation as

is a proper noun. In this particular case, it is an unwarranted ” ُُگو“ rose”, unlike“ substitution of a common noun with a proper noun. In a way this replacement of a common noun with a proper noun curtails the communicative scope of the source text. The source text is predicated on “a withered flower” and not on any specific genus of flower i.e. rose, tulip, daffodil, etc. The translation looks even more problematic when we see the translator opting for two different equivalents for the same word.

One possible motive in the mind of the translator can likely to be an effort to avoid ungainly repetition. But this, again, cannot be a viable notion because this repetition is present even in the source text and does not create any ungainly effect there. Moreover, when a particular scheme is found in the source text, it has to be carried into the translation unless there is some obvious impossibility of doing so.

ُ انم اھت نحص گلسی اں ںیم ُ ُگ دنخاں رتا .(10)

And your name once was Laughing Rose. (Kiernan, 1955, 2)

(not just as “rose” (as he did previously ” ُُگو“ Comment: Here Kiernan translates but as “Rose” with a capital “R” which intensifies its specificity in an even more apparent way. This is an act of domestication which is all the more dismissive of the source text. It is really difficult to discover as to why the translator is enhancing the specificity of one

.(”flower“) ” ُُگو“ :of the central words around which Iqbal has constructed the entire poem Therefore, nothing can be said with finality as to why the translator has changed the lexical category of this word during translation. First, he translated a common noun as a proper noun and then made its first letter capital. On the face of it, it may appear to be a minor modification but it has far-reaching implications for the general scheme of ideas

206 presented by the poet. Some of the theorists have condemned this kind of ‘overtranslation’ by terming it as “unnecessary foregrounding” which results in the heavy processing of the target text (Ferez, 2009). The cumulative and ultimate effect of this kind of domestication is, indeed, hampering reader’s fuller comprehension of the source text.

رتماتکوبںںیم اے میکح اعمش راھک یہ ایک ےہ آر؟ .(11)

What after all, sapient economists, Is to be found in your biblification? (Kiernan, 1955, 202)

Comment: This instance of classificational dislocation is more interesting than the preceding one. Here the translator translates a singular noun by employing a plural

.trans) ” اکرل امرسک یک آواز“ equivalent in its stead. This line has been taken from Iqbal’s poem “The Voice of Karl Marx”) in which the German political philosopher and socialist thinker Karl Marx (1818 — 1883) challengingly addresses the Western capitalist (in a

اے میکح “ singular sense) and exposes the hollowness of his economic creed. The phrase

.(a clearly singular reference) is translated by Kiernan as plural (sapient economists) ”اعمش This is how translating a singular reference by using a plural equivalent constitutes the classificational dislocation.

آزاد یک رگ تخس ےہ امدنن ر گو گنس .(12)

The freeman’s veins are firm as veins of granite; (Kiernan, 1955, 258)

Comment: Here the translator is making a reverse move and translates the generic and nonspecific reference in the proper and specified terms. This, on the face of

207 it, may not seriously affect the scheme of translation; however, in its own way, it does constitute an instance of classificational dislocation. Here too, the translator is resorting to the specific and proper equivalents largely due to the considerations which are not strictly related to the act translation as such i.e. rhyming, linguistic embellishment,

”ر گ گنس“ prosodic orality, elegance of expression. Translating the compound Urdu phrase as “veins of granite” is an instance of this classificational dislocation. In Urdu, the word

English: stone, rock, boulder, pebble, etc.) can stand for any stone, not necessarily) ”گنس“ for “granite” which is an igneous rock of visible crystalline formation and texture. This casting of the general and the particular unnecessarily constricting the textual scope of the translation. This form of classificational dislocation is the direct opposite of the forms previously discussed by the researcher.

One of the corollaries of this way of approaching the source text is, once again, an unnecessary curtailment of its communicative scope. An employment of a particular reference (e.g. “granite”) as an equivalent for a noun which is general and common (“stone”) is an obvious instance of domestication and remains problematical from the viewpoint of the present study as its abridges the vastness which is inherent in the source text. The application of such proper references denotes a specificity which may not be essentially a characteristic of the original text as such.

یھجبقشع یک آگ، ادنریھ ےہ .(13)

املسمں ںیہن، راھک اک ڈریھ ےہ

Quenched is devotion’s burring spark, Islam an ash-heap cold and dark. (Kiernan, 1955, 130)

Comment: In this instance, the translator is translating the original word by employing an equivalent which is although associated yet not identified with it. The word

208

Muslim”) is rendered as “Islam”. Now certainly the word “Muslim” is“) ”املسمں“ associated with Islam but not identified with it. This kind of classificational dislocation may serve to give a rough and ready idea to the reader about the meaning of the source text but it hardly does the full justice with its nuanced and subtle nature. It looks all the more problematical when one notices that the translator’s resorting to such an equivalent is not so much due to any technical/terminological necessity as to a mere beautification

is not given to translation ”ملسم“ and embellishment of the translation. Not that the word into the English language because of any sociocultural or linguistic difficulties but that its exact translation may not have adequately beautified the translation.

There is, however, one more corollary of this kind of translation which is extremely alarming and disturbing with far-reaching implications. Using “Islam” as an equivalent for “Muslims” can possibly bring about a veiled insinuation that the plight of the Muslims (mourned by Iqbal here) is perhaps a failing of Islam as such. In entire Islamic discourse in general and in Iqbal’s poetry in particular the distinction between Islam as a religion and the Muslims as followers is crucially maintained. Nowhere in his poetry does Iqbal equate the plight of the Muslims with the fall of Islam. That, certainly, would have been an anathema to his thinking because, to Iqbal, “religion has always elevated individuals, and transformed whole societies” (Iqbal, 1934, 76). He made this conviction explicit in his Presidential Address to the All India Muslim League in 1930:

To address this session of the All India Muslim League you have selected a man who has not despaired of Islam as a living force for freeing the outlook of men from its geographical limitations, who believes that religion is a power of the utmost importance in the life of individuals as well as states, and finally who believes that Islam is itself Destiny and will not suffer a destiny (quoted in Singh, 1997, 88)

209

In this way, Kiernan’s equation of the Muslims with Islam is constitutes a classificational dislocation which does not sit well either with the scheme of the source text or the philosophy of the actual author.

وخدم ریتم املسمں ویکںںیہن ےہ؟ .(14)

Why is your nature without belief? (Kiernan, 1955, 256)

Comment: Now what is there in the translation is not exactly being communicated in the target text. The poet is lamenting the tragic fact and raising a

(”وخدم“) rhetorical question to his coreligionists and compatriots as to why their Selfhood has not fully surrendered and submitted to the Will of God. Why does the Selfhood not become truly Muslim? This remains an unremitting concern of the poet and he is expressing it succinctly. On the contrary, the translator renders it as “Why is your nature without belief?” which is a very vague and blanket way of handling the original text and, therefore, can be faulted on more than one count.

To begin with, it is obvious that to have belief is not the same as to be a Muslim. In the Islamic theological tradition (which is germane to Iqbal’s entire poetic genius) one may be a having a belief yet not be a Muslim in the exact sense of the word in which Iqbal is using this term. One of the most apparent themes of Iqbal’s poetry is the scathing criticism of those who do confess a belief in Islam yet remain utterly void of Islam. Therefore, to Iqbal, one may have belief but yet not be a Muslim. In one of his verses he makes this point in the following words:

رد ےن ہہکیھبدای ال اہلٰ وت ایک احلص؟

دلواگنہ املسمں ںیہن وت ھچک یھب ںیہن

210

To what avail is the Mind’s confession of the Divine Unity? If Heart and Vision are not Muslim, all confessions are empty (my translation).

The same point is reiterated in the following verse as well:

ایوہقشع وت اکرف یھب املسمں

ہنوہ قشع وتاملسمںیھب اکرف و زدنقی

With a passionate love, even a pagan is a Muslim And without a passionate love, even a Muslim is a pagan faithless (my translation).

In Iqbal’s philosophical paradigm, to be a Muslim what is actually required is an unconditional and total surrender to the Will of God; not a mere possession of a belief or abstract confession. At the same time, here, it is pertinent to probe briefly into the meaning of belief. “Belief” is usually defined as a mental attitude of acceptance or assent toward a proposition without the full intellectual knowledge required to guarantee its truth. Now this can clearly been seen that Iqbal is not pining for the lack of belief in the Muslims in this sense; nor is he preaching any specific set of beliefs to his reader.

Instead, what the poet is really regretting is exactly the opposite: in spite of

remains unacquainted (”وخدم“) possessing beliefs and theological doctrines, our Selfhood with Islam — not fully bowed before God. Instead, it remains preoccupied with its narcissistic and egotistical self-importance. Thus the classificational dislocation in this instance of translation is quite subversive to the overall meaning of the verse itself and the reader’s understanding is likely to be tricked by this.

has been translated as “nature” which is also ”وخدم“ Lastly, the word

(Selfhood) ”وخدم“ incomprehensible and positively misleading. First of all, the notion of which is foundational to Iqbal’s entire poetic and philosophical discourse needs to be translated in even more precise and accurate terms. For that purpose, any equivalent

211 employed in its stead should ideally begin with a capital letter. That is one way of foregrounding this central theme of Iqbal’s poetry and giving it an enhanced and pronounced visibility.

Selfhood), as proposed by the) ”وخدم“ Second, the equivalent “nature” for translator, is less than accurate. Nature almost certainly refers to the overall disposition and temperament of one’s personality. It may also refer to intrinsic qualities of an individual. At the same time it can also stand for the universal human behavior. But

Selfhood) is entirely distinct from nature per se. It is worth mentioning here that) ”وخدم“ what is commonly termed as nature is a taken-for-granted component of our Being. All

”وخدم“ individuals possess nature by nature (pun is intended). But this is not the case with (Selfhood) which can only be realized by a relentless and conscious struggle by humans and can never be taken for granted. Thus, to Iqbal, the possession and the constant maintenance of Selfhood is the measure of our existence. Elsewhere in this research the exact meaning of Selfhood and its significance have been discussed in detail by the researcher taking into consideration the essentially nuanced and multilayered nature of the concept.

To conclude this section, it can be maintained that Kiernan’s translation of Iqbal is characterized by the classificational dislocations which not only adversely affect the understanding of the reader but also take a heavy toll of the poet’s artistic and literary prowess enshrined in the source text. Evidently, the translation is characterized by Kiernan’s wide understanding of the literary/poetic tradition of the Urdu language but what he fails to do is to make a difference by registering and communicating the distinctive literary and cultural features of the source text. More often than not, the translator resorts to unusually general and common nouns in order to translate the proper and historically specified references. This form of classificational dislocation results in an impoverishment of the translation and deprives it of its historicity and textual specificity.

212

At times, the entire scheme of Kiernan’s translation appears to be a compromise solution to the challenges and intricacies of the source text. In order to mete out proper justice to these proper and specific references present in the source text, a translator should endeavor to articulate them with as much concreteness and visibility as possible. This can be achieved by foregrounding these references in the translation instead of either omitting them or casting them in too generic terms. However, this necessitates certain pre-conditions on the part of the translator:

The transformation of names in translation…is rooted deeply in the cultural background of the translator which includes phonetic and phonological competence, morphological competence, complete understanding of the context, correct attitude to the message, respect for tradition, compliance with the current state of cross-cultural interference of languages, respect for the cultural values and the responsibilities of the translator. The process reaches from an ear for aesthetic sounding to the philosophical motivation of re-naming (Apostolova, 2004, 14).

This quote illustrates that translation is not a merely a lexico-syntactic operation in which the source text is transformed into the target text. Instead, it calls for multiple competencies and an utmost regard for the linguistic, contextual and cultural features of the source text. It has also been seen in the preceding discussion that the translator swings widely between two extremes: on one hand, he translates specific and proper references in broad and generic terms; on the other he translates broad and generic references in specific and proper terms. Sometimes, the translators recasts the concrete in the abstract and the vice versa with the same domesticating and dislocating effects.

These wide departures and dislocations in the translation amount to an unwarranted tempering with the textual and cultural actualities of the source text resulting in a wide-ranging domestication of Iqbal’s poetic intents and purposes. These classificational dislocations are effected not just by translating verbs into substantives or vice versa but also by total and radical syntactic re-arrangements. The instances of abstraction found in Kiernan’s translation are all the more insidious because they are not

213 complete. They, mostly, aims at just reversing the relations present in the original text — between the ordered and the disorderly, the abstract and the concrete, the formal and the informal, etc. Now this form of conversion is indicative of the domesticated nature of translation as it makes the source text go through a fundamental transformation of signification. Finally, the translator also puts to work the Anglocentric notions and literary sensibilities in order to make his translation sufficiently accessible to the reader. This makes him omit some of the most essential characteristics/references of the source text. Instead of making his translation look like a site of heterogeneous cultural and literary tensions, the translator presents a version of textuality which sounds largely monolithic and unilateral underwritten by avowedly elitist and Anglophonic values.

4.2.3. Distortion

The problem of distorting in translation is widespread and to a certain extent inevitable. Even when translation, as a discursive practice, seeks to transcend the national and the cultural barriers to communicate a supposedly universal spirit, some amount of distortion is unavoidable. On occasion, the communicative process initiated by translation is confounded due to various socio-cultural and linguistic factors with which the translator had to reckon consistently. Some of these factors lie utterly beyond the control of the translator and, consequently, there is little what he or she could do to help the situation. At the same time, there are so many things which a translator can do in order to reduce the likelihood of distortion in translation. The researcher has laid down detailed recommendations in this regard in the last chapter.

Language, which remains the ultimate and the only tool of translation, has certain constitutive properties which have a direct bearing on the process as well as the end result of translation. Schleiermacher showed an unusual understanding of these constitutive properties of language and maintained that it was largely due to these properties that all representations (including translation) are appropriative. They are seldom transparent or adequate to their subject and they play a key role in establishing the multiple forms for

214 consciousness in the mind of the reader. These forms of consciousness remain crucial in the entire process of translation right from its inception (Venuti, 1995, 111).

Therefore, in a certain sense, the instances of distortion taken from Kiernan’s translation of Iqbal and discussed below have also to do something with the well-known phenomenon of cross-linguistic and cross-cultural mappings. According to the renowned translation theorist Roman Jacobson, these mappings are based upon obligatory syntactic and lexical forms —“Languages differ essentially in what they must convey and not in what they may convey” (see Munday, 2001, 38). This is one of the most basic conceptualizations which can help us understand the phenomenon of distortion in translation.

In Kiernan’s translation of Iqbal, there are numerous examples of the distortion of the original text. These examples range from the mild twists to the outright inversions and inaccuracies of the source text. These distortions undermine the overall literary and artistic makeup of the original text and, and to a considerable extent, mischaracterize the intents and motives of the poet. Consider the first of these examples of distortion:

ردی ےتکس ںیہ داین ںیم رشع ت رپوزی .(1)

دخایک دنی ےہ رسامہیٔ مغ رفاہد

The fleshpots of the wealthy are for sale about the world; Who bears love’s toils and pangs earns wealth that God’s hand has compounded. (Kiernan, 1955, 94)

Comment: In this translation, the distortion takes place because of the unusual explicitation and the elision of two of the proper references present in the source text. A

is rendered by a fourteen-word line — “Who bears (دخایکدنی ےہ رسامہیٔ مغ رفاہد) seven-word line love’s toils and pangs earns wealth that God’s hand has compounded”. The researcher is

215 not, as such, faulting the translator here for using an unusually longer target text in order to render a comparatively shorter source text. However, what really concerns the researcher is that, in spite of this much padding and verbosity, the translator does not seem to have succeeded in translating the source text adequately.

In the source text, the poet has used two extremely significant figures who symbolize two opposite poles of the historical spectrum. Khusro Parvez (590 — 628), the Emperor of Persia represents the extreme indulgence, despotic power and excessive luxury. On the other hand, Farhad, the celebrated Persian statuary (who, in order to please his mistress Shirin, dug through a huge mountain) stands for astounding courage and excessive destitution. He embodies nobility in the face of adversity.

By referring to these two diametrically opposed figures of history Iqbal is making the point that the rich and the powerful live a life of excessive indulgence and laxity. These affluent people can afford the material luxuries. However, the people like Farhad, though utterly penniless, yet succeed in achieving the deep heart contentment of which the rich can just dream. This deep heart contentment is the sheer grace of God. However, in the translation, there is no mention either of Farhad or Pervez. The translator omits these two crucial references and resorts to a very generalized translation. Once again, in an unwarranted way, the translator seems to have invested the translation with an impersonal and abstract tone.

the translator uses an ”رشع ت رپوزی“ It is also noteworthy that for the Urdu phrase inordinately far-fetched phrase: “the fleshpots of the wealthy”. Therefore, this is how even an extensively padded and verbose translation fails in communicating the source text.

اجاتنوہںںیم ہک رشمق یک ادنریھم رات ںیم .(2)

ےب دیِ اضیب ےہ ریپا ِن رحم یک آںیتس

216

I know that in this dark night of the East No shining hand that Moses raised to Pharaoh Hides under his priests’ sleeve. (Kiernan, 1955, 240)

as ”ریپا ن مم“ Comment: In this piece of translation, the translation renders “priest”. This is an interesting example of defining one cultural reference in terms of the

as “priest” is a serious distortions for several reasons. True, the ”ریپا ن مم“ other. Defining word “priest” has more generalized connotations such as a person having an authority to perform or administer the religious rites, however its ecclesiastical connotations overwrite the source text with an alien semantic and contextual configuration.

Here the researcher intends to delve somewhat deeper as it has become unusually common with the Western writers to use the word “priest” to denote an Islamic religious scholar. In the Islamic theological traditions, the religious scholars do not have the same role as they do in the Christian tradition. In the Christian context, the semantics of the term “priest” is significantly focused on an ordained person with highly institutionalized functions who enjoys a specific place in the ecclesiastical polity. If the Judaic equivalent to priesthood is rabbanite, its Islamic equivalent is “ulema” — a term considerably current in the English language. In the Islamic theological traditions, the religious authorities (ulema, muftis, sheikhs, scholars) are not institutionalized the way they are in Christianity.

In fact, no single Islamic office corresponds to the Christian institution of priesthood. Some of the religious and holy functions in Islam are not performed by any institutionalized authority at all. Therefore the term priest which is very often recklessly applied to such Muslim functionaries as Imam or Faqīh, by the Western authors is misleading and alien to Islamic understanding. There are several reasons which account for the absence of priests in Islam. To be more precise, there are no priests in Islam because:

217

. The duties of the faith apply equally to everyone. . Every Muslim can communicate directly with God, so a mediator is not needed. . Islam does not recognize sacerdotal authority. . The scholars of Sharia do have quasi-clerical functions but they do not act as intercessors between God and humanity. . Every one is accountable to God in a highly personalized and individual sense. . Everyone can perform the rites such as leading the prayers or sanctifying a marriage.

In this way, it is not difficult to understand that Kiernan’s use of the equivalent “priest” here is resulting in a huge cultural appropriation and dislocation. There are numerous occasions on which Kiernan, in his translation of Iqbal, employs this equivalent for the Islamic functionaries. This leads to a very serious domestication of the source text.

ہمغن ےہ وسدا ٔے اخم ِ ، وخ ن رگج ےک ریغب .(3)

Warmed by no blood from the heart, poetry’s rapture grows faint. (Kiernan, 1955, 75)

Comment: This is also an important example to illustrate how the translator appropriates the tropes and symbols used by the poet in the source text. Here the poet is

the blood of the liver”) which is one of“) ”وخ ن رگج” distinctly mentioning the Urdu phrase the oft-used phrases in Urdu literature. This reference has extraordinarily wide-ranging implications and the deep literary import. But the translator inverts this phrase and makes it “blood from the heart”. This amounts to a total appropriation of the intents and

the blood of the liver”) is“) ”وخ ن رگج“ purposes of the poet by the translator. The phrase exceptionally significant in Iqbal’s poetry. In the literary tradition of Urdu, the reference “the blood of the liver” is taken as a source of unswerving courage and diligence which could steer clear of the hurdles and difficulties of life.

218

It seems that subconsciously the poet is bringing his translation more in line with literary norms of his own tradition. Arguably, “the blood of the liver” is not much common in the literary tradition of English perhaps. However, whatever may the reason be the translator is inverting the phrase used by the poet and this amounts to an outright domestication of the source text.

ےہ زدنہ طقف ودح ت ااکفر ےس تّلم.(3)

ودحت وہ انفسجےس وہ ااہلم یھب ااحلد

Only identity of thought Keeps the Faith thriving— Doctrine by whose means schism is brought Is impious striving; (Kiernan, 1955, 178)

Comment: This translation is likely to cause a subtle dislocation in the understanding of the reader given the distortion it contains. The translator is rendering the

,as “Faith” which is not appropriate for more than one reason. To begin with ”تّلم“ word

a pan-Islamic and) ”تّلم“ this is a considerably imprecise equivalent. The concept of a sociopolitical community of Muslims) features very prominently in Iqbal’s poetry as well as philosophy. Indeed, faith plays a crucial role in the formation and maintenance of a

is not wholly reducible to faith as ”تلم“ English: “nation”), yet the concept of a) ”تلم“ such. Instead faith is just one of the factors which have formative influence on it.

as “Faith” is overemphasizing the part at the cost of the ”تّلم“ Therefore, translating whole. Besides it does not successfully communicate what the poet intends to communicate.

219

originally “intuition”) as) ”ااہلم“ Secondly, the translation of the Urdu word “doctrine” by the translator is yet another explicit example of the distortion of the source

implies a form of knowledge or of cognition ”ااہلم“ text. To be more precise, the word which is independent of the sensory experience or conscious reasoning. In the great mystic traditions of different religions, it is considered to be one of the miraculous qualities of the human mind. It also refers to a form of truth that surpasses the power of the abstract human reasoning and theorization.

Viewing from this perspective, a better equivalent for this Urdu word is “intuition” or “insightful judgement” which in Spinoza’s philosophy stands as the highest form of knowledge, surpassing both empirical knowledge derived from the senses as well as the scientific knowledge derived from reasoning. Intuitive knowledge gives an individual the comprehension of an orderly and sophisticatedly unified universe and permits the mind to be a part of the Infinite Being which permeates this universe (James, 2012, 67). Therefore, when this word is translated as “doctrine”, the entire notion is fundamentally distorted and miscommunicated. There is little correlation either semantically or theologically between the two. A doctrine, to be more exact, is a belief system that is part of every theological tradition and an essential part of a religion (Holmes, 2012).

رتےدنلب انمبص یک وہ، ای رب! .(4)

ہکانےک واےطس وت ےن ایک وخدم وک الہک

God give you joy of those high offices, to taste Whose sweets you laid your own soul waste! (Kiernan, 1955, 204)

Comment: This instance of translation inverts one of the most fundamental

as ”وخدم“ Selfhood). The translator renders) وخدم — concepts of Iqbal’s poetic discourse

220

is better ”وخدم“ soul” which by no means captures the spirit of the original. The notion of‘ described as “Selfhood” (with a capital ‘s’) or more simply “Self”. The concept of “Self” is a central feature of Iqbal’s philosophical as well as poetic discourse. The equivalent

was also approved by Iqbal himself in his lifetime. It is learnt from ”وخدم“ Self” for“

was translated into English and its ”ارسا ر وخدم“ history that in 1915 his long Persian poem title was rendered as “The Secrets of the Self”. It is reported that Iqbal readily approved this translation of the title (Vahid, 1964).

It seems pertinent here to discuss this notion of the Self in somewhat detail as it constitutes arguably the most fundamental theme in Iqbal’s poetic thought. The Self is characterized by an antithesis to a self-negating and defeatist quietism. According to the poet, quietism is a form of apathy which teaches that perfection and spiritual tranquility are achievable by an inert absorption in the contemplation of God. On the contrary, the Self is a principle of activism and dynamism. It seeks an unceasingly creative self- affirmation and vitality in the face of all odds. It leads individuals through all the realms of thought and experience to the final encounter and meeting with the Divine. To the poet, the Self is a living and experienced reality with an infinity of potentialities capabilities. It is neither a monkish quietism, nor a syllogistic reasoning (Singh, 1997).

Therefore, in the light of this elucidation, it is not difficult to recognize that

as “soul” remains largely inadequate. The word “soul” — which is the ”وخدم“ translating immaterial element that, together with the material body, constitutes the human individual — also stands for an inner, vital, and spiritual principle which remains the source of all bodily functions and particularly of mental activities. But in spite of this breadth of meaning, the notion of soul is not fully co-extensive with that of the Self which is a highly nuanced and complex term employed by Iqbal who, at time, is recognized with reference to this principle — The Poet of the Selfhood.

ہنیسٔ االفک ےس اُیتھٹ ےہ آہ وسزانک .(5)

221

رم د قح وہات ےہ بج رموع ب اطلسن و اریم

A burning sigh breaks from the Heavens, to see Their children crouch in awe of tyrant lords. (Kiernan, 1955, 258)

Comment: In this instance, the translation of the second line is noticeably

— in a strangely subjective way ”رم د قح“ distorted. The translator renders the phrase “Their children”. This is an extremely imprecise translation and because of its imprecision it unleashes so many legitimate questions such as:

. In the phrase “Their children”, what is meant by “their”? . Are the children being attributed to Heaven”? If yes, why?

?”رم د قح“ Is the translator employing the phrase — Heaven’s children — to translation . . In the first line, the translator has used the verb “see”. Who is the subject of this verb i.e. who sees?

Now all these questions deserve reasonable answers but it is very difficult to work out these answers from within the translation made by Kiernan. These questions illustrate the vagueness and ambiguity which can hamper the understanding of the reader.

is one of the most frequently (”رم د ومنم“ as well as its variation) ”رم د قح“ The phrase used phrases in Iqbal’s poetry. Iqbal uses this term in a very specified and original way. The phrase bespeaks an ideal Muslim who is distinguished from the ordinary folk by his superlative courage, unshaken faith and an extreme consciousness of the Selfhood. With a contented heart and a fully alert ego, he is in the world but not of it. On the other hand, the translator is translating it as “their children”. This is highly problematic and imprecise as has already been mentioned above. In this way it can be maintained that translating

222 such a polysemic and multilayered phrase in imprecise terms negatively impacts upon the quality of translation and distorts the sense of the source text.

ودحت یک افحتظ ںیہن ےب وق ت ابزو .(6)

آیتںیہنھچک اکم اہی ں لقع دخاداد

And only the strong hand is fit To guard the creed: Let no-one trust man’s native wit To serve such need. (Kiernan, 1955, 178)

Comment: In this instance, two major problems are marring the communicative value of the translation. First, the translator, in an extremely roundabout way, is

as “the creed”. This is a hugely subjective and extrapolated ”ودحت“ translating the word equivalent employed by the translator which fails to communicate the source text in its

”ودحت“ originality and uniqueness. In the fuller context of the source text, the word stands for a pan-Islamic unity and integration which transcends the racial, tribal and cultural bond. Throughout his poetry, one can see Iqbal exhorting Muslims to work for and ultimately achieve this integration and unity. In this particular verse also Iqbal, in effect is regretting the splintering and fracturing of the Muslim Ummah along the sectarian and nationalist lines and advocates a greater and fuller unity and harmony within their ranks. All this is distorted and very inadequately communicated by the

is not the same as (ودحت) translator. A grand and supra-tribal and trans-racial integration the creed.

223

is causing a ”ودحت“ Therefore, the employment of the equivalent “the creed” for dislocation in the meaning of the source text and brings about an appropriation of its intents and motives. This, in turn, leads to the domestication of the source text.

یہیدنیِ مکحم، یہی حتفِ ایب .(7)

ہکداینںیم وتدیح وہ ےب اجحب!

Here is true victory, here is faith’s crown— One creed and one world, division thrown down! (Kiernan, 1955, 152)

Comment: This piece of translation is yet another instance of distortion of the source text. To begin with, the translator is rendering the second line in a highly

”وتدیح“ subjective way bordering upon far-fetched paraphrasing. The poet is using the word in the source text — a reference which lies at the very heart of Islam. It is translated by the translator as “one creed and one world”. This appears to be a considerably general

of its ”وتدیح“ way of dealing with the source text. This translation deprives the word doctrinal and religious significance.

,implies absolute Oneness of Allah. To Iqbal ”وتدیح“ First and foremost, the word this doctrine is the source of power and resoluteness in the world because submitting to One Supreme God can rid the humankind of all the other subjugations and slaveries. The total vindication of this revolutionary doctrine in the world will bring Islam its real victory which will herald the new era of the emancipation of mankind. On the contrary, the phrase used by the translator — “one creed and one world”— does not help the reader in appreciating this core meaning of the source text here.

آہ وہ رمدا ن قح!وورع یب وسہشار .(8)

224

احلم قلخ ‘‘میظع”، اصِبح دصق و ںیقی

Ah, those proud cavaliers, champions Arabia sent forth Pledged to the splendid Way, knights of the truth and the creed. (Kiernan, 1955, 108) Comment: This piece of translation also constitutes an example of distortion. The translation is disregarding some of the most fundamental notions enshrined in the source

becomes “champions”. This ”رمدا ن قح“ text. In a highly domesticated way, the Urdu phrase is a very shallow equivalent to be used for the original phrase. The equivalent strips the source text of its iconic beauty and communicative depth. The source text clearly indicates that the poet is not talking about “champions” rather about “the Champions of

has two remarkable meanings: God and Truth. Both of these ”قح“ Truth”. The word meanings are crucial to the understanding of the verse mentioned above. Therefore, the

.”more accurately can be translated as “the Champions of Truth ”رمدا ن قح“ phrase

There are two more problems with this translation which, in isolation, may not seriously affect the translation, but cumulatively they become all the more detrimental. The inclusion of such words as “knights” and “cavaliers” in the translation invests the target text with a strangely medieval European coloration. The knights and the cavaliers bring to mind such references as the European feudal order and the power struggle of King Charles I and the support he received by the Cavaliers. In this way, collectively the references present in the translation create a schematic atmosphere which does not sit well with the overall scheme of the source text.

بیصن ہطخ وہ ای رب وہ دنب ٔہ دروشی .(9)

ہک سج ےک رقف ںیم ادناز وہں کلیيم اہن

Grant to this country, oh God, such a guide as hides under beggar’s rags

225

Prophet’s high thoughts! (Kiernan, 1955, 260)

Comment: In this instance also it is the second line whose translation can pose considerable problems for the reader. In the source text, the poet has used an adjective

which is a historico-religious reference to the Prophet Moses. However, the ”کلیيم اہن“ translator has over-generalized it while rendering it into English and the phrase

.”becomes “Prophet’s high thoughts ”ادناز۔۔۔کلیيم اہن“

This equivalent phrase is flawed for a two-fold reason. First, it is extremely generalized and therefore hardly signifies anything specific. Second, in spite of slight

encompasses the realms of thought as well ”ادناز“ padding, it is truncated. The Urdu word as actions. But the translator is just making a mention of “thoughts” here with reference

This is an unwarranted pruning of the source text. Rather it is contradicting the .”ادناز“ to spirit of Iqbal’s poetic philosophy which intensely censures mere thoughts in the absence of corresponding actions.

ےیک ںیہ افش روم ز دنلقرم ںیم ےن .(10)

ہک رکفدمرہس و اخاقنہ وہ آزاد

I have laid bare such mysteries as the hermit learns, that thought, In cloister or in college, in true freedom may be grounded. (Kiernan, 1955, 94)

Comment: In this translation, Kiernan is using the equivalent “such mysteries as

In fact, the word “hermit” is an .”روم ز دنلقرم“ the hermit learns” for the Urdu phrase

A hermit usually stands ”دنلقر“ extremely distorted characterization of the original word

226 for a recluse who adopts a monkish life and tends to pay no heed to the mundane affairs and the existential challenges. A hermitic life is typically marked by self-denial and a

is a heroic believer who far from ”دنلقر“ somewhat escapist attitude. On the contrary, a being a monkish figure, accepts and confronts the hard challenges of the practical life. It

has a totally unique and ”دنلقر“ is remarkable that in Iqbal poetic discourse, the word different meaning to it. Far from being an ascetic escapist, he stands firm in the face of all odds and remain a paragon as much of heroism as of spirituality.

رحس یک اذاں وھ یئگ، اب وت اجگ .(11)

Wake, and hear dawn its high summons proclaim! (Kiernan, 1955, 152)

Comment: In this instance, the source text contains a highly culture-sensitive word which is untranslatable in the English language because the English culture does not have its equivalent concept. Arguably, once again the translator is subconsciously sparing his reader of any perceived or real difficulty of intelligibility. For this purpose, it becomes well neigh necessary for him to turn a back on the specificities of the source text. All this leads to an all-out domestication of the original text.

as “high summons” is a betrayal of the original ”اذان“ Translating the Urdu word

stands for the Islamic ritualistic call to prayer, typically recited by a ”اذان“ text. The word muezzin at prescribed times preferably from a minaret. For this highly institutionalized concept with religious underpinnings, a mere use of the equivalent “high summons” does not signify anything and for the reader it is well neigh impossible from the translation to contextualize his or her understanding properly. One wonders why the translator is not resorting to loanword or loan translation in order to render such expressions which are really untranslatable.

227

اپدنب م ااکح م رشتعی ںیم ےہ اسیک ؟ .(12)

ووووووووووووگ رعش ںیم ےہ رکش میلک وہ این

But how do religion’s stern monishments seem To agree with this man who at verse beats Kalim? (Kiernan, 1955, 69) Comment: Here the translator is more inclined towards paraphrase than translation. Even this paraphrase is not wholly warranted by the source text as such. One gets the impression that the translator is resorting to the explicitation of the source text.

the translator is using the equivalent phrase: “religion’s ”ااکح م رشتعی“ For the Urdu phrase stern monishments”. Now this is not what one actually gathers from the source text or, at least, is not this much foregrounded. True, in Islam, Sharia enshrines all the regulations and bindings which a Muslim is expected to observe but the poet is not foregrounding its stern character in the source text as such. On the contrary, the translator is overemphasizing and foregrounding this sternness of the Sharia.

It constitutes one of the great merits of literature, especially poetry, that its clarities and concisions are finely counterbalanced by its ambiguities, implicitness. What is cast implicitly and indirectly by the author can only be explicated and elucidated at the cost of its literary merit and worth. The distortion present in this instance of translation is extremely subtle yet considerably dismissive of the source text.

ایس درای ےس اُیتھٹ ےہ وہ وم جوو دنت وووجالں یھب .(13)

تہ یگ وں ےک نمیشن سج ےس وہےت ںیہ ہت وابلا

Her waters that have bred the shark now breed The storm‐wave that will smash its den below! (Kiernan, 1955, 74)

228

Comment: The translation of this verse contains two mischaracterizations. First,

ت as “Her waters that have bred ”ایس درای ےس اُ ھیی ےہ وہ وم ج دنت وجالں یھب“ the translation of the first line the shark now breed” is to some extent an over-translation. This inclusion of the word “shark” and its supposed breeding by the waters is a fanciful and subjective extrapolation by the translator. The source text, on the contrary, implies something considerably different: “That tumultuous wave rises from the same waters.” This is all what this line implies. But the translator subjectively and erroneously includes the reference to the shark and attributes its breeding to the waters.

With this the researcher comes to the end of this section and it is time to sum up. The researcher has discussed several examples of distortion from Kiernan’s translation of Iqbal. A large number of these distortions are mostly due to an increased disregard for the specificities and referentialities embedded in the source text. The translator recasts the source text and creates new textual patterns and narrative paradigms with altogether different cultural underpinnings. It is not difficult to discern that different elitist norms are at work in this translation. These norms, by and large, tend to reinforce the syntactic and lexical patterns of the target text.

It is also established from the preceding discussion that a target language orientation looms large in Kiernan’s translation of Iqbal. Therefore, this translation is more like an act of “naturalization” i.e. a laboriously effected process by which the translator seeks to naturalize all the lexical choices and syntactic moves. The distinctly individual and discreet essence of the source text is radically repressed and ultimately overwritten by the Anglocentric cultural terms. As a consequence, the foremost ethical aim of translation (i.e. receiving the foreign as foreign) is rigorously compromised by Kiernan (Berman, 1992). Besides, numerous hyper-textual/meta-textual transformations are also impacting upon the procedures of translation discussed above.

Ideally, one of the foremost objectives of this kind of translation should have been to acknowledge and communicate the polysemic patterns of the source text in line with its cultural and linguistic specificities. But, it also has to be conceded here that it is not

229 wholly possible given the cross-cultural barriers and linguistic variations. However, Kiernan’s translation in this regard fails to communicate even those cultural and linguistic features of the source text which are possible for it to communicate. This leads to serious distortions in the translation and, eventually, creates another problem which Antoine Berman calls “shapeless polylogic” and an arbitrary homogenization (Venuti, 2000, 288). The translator rigorously centres his discourse on the literary and the political norms which, at the same time, include a vast range of domestic beliefs, significations, and social representations which carry distinct ideological flavour. These are also interesting examples how such significations and representations are enlisted in the service of political agendas and finally make their way to the target text.

4.2.4. Mistranslation

There are numerous examples of mistranslation in Kiernan’s translation of Iqbal which is also one of the most serious indictments of this translation. Technically mistranslation takes place when the source text is translated into the target text in such a way that the difference in the meaning makes the translation wholly unrepresentative of the source text (Venuti: 2013, 68). In other words, mistranslation is an utter lack of correspondence between the significations of the source text and the target text. Even if there is a partial overlap, it further complicates the signification and semantics of the target text (Baker: 2006, 157).

Mistranslation also results when the target text fails to capture the crucial nuances of the source text. For example, when the French word “demande” is translated into English as “demand”, it does not capture all the necessary nuances. A similar problem arises when the French term “différance” is translated as “difference” into the English language. This is precisely what Antoine Berman has termed as “the trial of the foreign” — an appropriating process in which the foreign is trialed and ultimately stripped of its essential linguistic and cultural characteristics (Venuti: 2013, 68).

230

In the extreme cases, however, the problem of mistranslation can be appreciated as a situation in which the source text and the target text become mutually exclusive. Viewing from this perspective, mistranslation happens to be the most serious and scandalous form of domestication which appropriates the intents and purposes of the source text wholesale. In the following discussion, the researcher has discussed various examples of mistranslation found in Kiernan’s translation. Let us discuss the first of these examples:

وخدمےساس مسلط رگن و وُبوک وتڑ ےتکس ںیہ .(1)

یہیوتدیحیھتسجوک ہن وت اھجمس ہن ںیم اھجمس

By Selfhood only are the spells Of sense broken,—that power we did not know. (Kiernan, 1955, 74)

Comment: This is an obvious instance of mistranslation. In the source text, the

This is an Arabic word with such meanings as .”وت دیح“ poet has employed the word “Divine Unity”, “Oneness of God” or “Grand Unification”. A careful reading of the source text suggests that the poet is using this word in a very close tandem with the

However, the translator fails to communicate this essential .(وخدم) notion of the Selfhood meaning of the source text. Instead of capturing the nuances of the word used by the poet, the translator subsumes it under a very sketchy and imprecise phrase: “— that power we did not know.” In an extremely disingenuous way, the translator is confusing the notion

.”with an amorphous and faceless “power (وتدیح) of the Grand Unification

This is an enormously problematic way of approaching the source text. The translation hardly signifies anything substantial with direct reference to the source text specificities. It seems that the translator is taking the source text only as a raw material to be used as per the norms and the canons of the target text. In fact, Iqbal is implying in

231 this verse that, at the highest level, the notion of Selfhood becomes indistinguishable

and it is the former which is a true crystallization of (وتدیح) from the ideal of a Grand Unity the latter. This happens to be one of the most frequently employed themes. While dealing with this theme, Iqbal usually describes the notion of Divine Unity in terms of Selfhood.

To him, at the broadest level, in the absence of a fully awakened and active

a mere confession of the Divine Unity is little more ,(وخدی دیبار) Selfhood in an individual than an abstract belief of no real import. Without a dynamic Selfhood any such confession will degenerate into a ritualistic testament bereft of durable underpinnings. Thus, Iqbal perceives the Selfhood to be the custodian of the Grand Unity. At some other occasion, Iqbal has presented the same concept in the following words:

ي زدنہ وقت یھت اہجں ييم ي وت يح یھبک

آج يکا ےہ، طقف اک ہلئسمٔ ملع الکم

Animated force once this Tawhid was And now? A topic of mere rhetoric (my translation).

However, when one goes through Kiernan’s translation, one does not find any inkling of this essential meaning deeply embedded in the source text. On the contrary, Kiernan’s translation is eliminating the very notion which is the lynchpin of the conceptual framework of the source text. In the target text, there is nothing which could enable the reader to somehow correlate the notion of the Selfhood with that of the Grand Unity. As a result the reading which emanates from the translation is not mandated by the source text. This is how the mistranslation is taking place in this instance.

ریتا الجل و امجل، رم د دخا یک دلیل .(2)

وہیھبلیلجولیمج، وت یھب لیلج و لیمج

232

Outward and inward grace, witness in you for him, Prove your builder, like you, fair of shape and of soul. (Kiernan, 1955, 104)

Comment: This is one of the most glaring examples of mistranslation and outright appropriation of the source text. Poorly conceived equivalents, elisions of the essential source-text references, and unnecessary curtailments of lexis and syntax mar the entire scheme of this translation. In effect, what the translator has brought about looks more like rewriting of the source text than its translation in any way. In the source text,

which the translator is translating as “Outward and ”الجل و امجل“ the poet has used a phrase inward grace”. This is problematic for several reasons and invites some elaboration.

has such meanings as “majesty” and “splendor”; whereas ”الجل“ The Urdu word

can be translated as “beauty” and “comeliness of one’s person”. The former has the ”امجل“ undertones of grandeur and masculinity; whereas the latter has the undertones of

.is necessarily inward or outward ”امجل“ nor ”الجل“ tenderness and femininity. Neither Instead both of them have inward as well as outward dimensions. Thus when the

to an “inward grace”, he is unnecessarily curtailing the semantic ”الجل“ translator reduces scope of the word. Besides, he is also mistranslating it. The similar problem can be

and its translation as “outward grace”. This is mistaken. In ”امجل“ detected with the word

is as much inward as outward. Limiting the notion of (امجل) Iqbal’s aesthetics, Beauty Beauty to the mere outward dimension, would be scandalous in terms of Iqbal’s conceptualization of it who famously maintained (Iqbal, 1915, 76):

شکسی وصرت ہن رپمتس نم ،منص اخہن م نم

Little do I adore the faces.

233

All idol houses I have torn down (my translation).

which the translator ”رم د دخا“ Next problem pertains to the translation of the phrase has translated in a highly unimaginative way. For this the translator has used a bald and plain objective pronoun “him” which is powerless to signify the burgeoning meaningfulness of the original phrase. The employment of this objective pronoun here is extremely vague and, in effect, trivializing for the following reasons: First, this objective pronoun is not clearly referring to any antecedent within the translation i.e. any noun.

-is somewhat synonymous with another oft ”رم د دخا“ Second, it is inadequate. The phrase

which has already been explained in detail by ”رم د ومنم“ quoted phrase in Iqbal’s discourse the researcher.

frequently punctuates Iqbal’s poetic and philosophical ”رم د ومنم“ The phrase discourse and is of foundational importance for his entire scheme of thought. It is such a rich and meaningful term that a mere employment of an objective pronoun (i.e. “him”) cannot do justice with it. Only a Muslim of exceptional caliber blessed with perceptiveness, courage and a highly developed sense of the Self (Khudi) can be

.”Such a reference cannot be translated merely as “him .”رم د ومنم“ legitimately called a

Furthermore, the translation of the second line is also deeply flawed for several technical reasons. As a matter of fact, the poet, in an extremely inventive and artistic way, draws an ingenious parallel between the Mosque of Cordoba and the Accomplished

.(”رم د دخا“ Believer (an equivalent proposed by the researcher to render the Urdu phrase Therefore, according to the poet, it is with special reference to this comparison that in

the Cordoba Mosque and an Accomplished (امجل) as well as in Majesty (الجل) Beauty Believer are totally identified with each other.

234

Finally, there is an undue historical specificity in Kiernan’s translation. — a reference to the builder of the Mosque. Kiernan is correlating the Beauty and Majesty of the Mosque with those of its builder. This is not what the source text seems to imply in

the source text plainly ,(رم د دخا) any sense. By a clear allusion to an Accomplished Believer establishes the generality of the reference. But the translator, in direct violation of this generality, confines the reference to only those believers who built the Mosque. All these problems have a huge cumulative effect on the translation and compromise its representativeness of the source text in a serious way.

ٹم ںیہن اتکس یھبک رم د املسمں ہک ےہ .(3)

اسیکاذاونں ےس افش رس میلکؑ و یلخؑو

Never can Muslim despair: he, reciting his creed, Stands before God where once Moses and Abraham stood. (Kiernan, 1955, 104)

Comment: This is another example of blatantly inaccurate translation. This piece of translation is extremely problematic for a variety of reasons which will be discussed here. In this instance, the domestication of the source text is multi-layered and complex.

has been rendered as “Never can Muslim ”ٹم ںیہن اتکس یھبک رم د املسمں“ First, the Urdu phrase despair”. This is an obvious mistranslation. It becomes clear from the source text that the poet is maintaining that Muslims can never be wiped out from the world. However, the translator puts it this way that Muslims can never despair. Now clearly this is not what the source text is saying. Thus this translation is more of a mistranslation.

.”a prayer call) is translated as “reciting…creed) ”اذان“ Furthermore, the word This is also not what is enshrined in the source text. The Islamic call to prayer is not just a recitation of the creed. The recitation of the creed is just one component of it. Such phrases as “Hasten to worship!” and “Hasten to salvation!” are also included in the

235

Islamic call to prayer. Therefore, it is not just about the recitation of the creed in any narrow sense of the word.

Lastly, the entire second line has been translated in an enormously imprecise and

has been translated as “…he, reciting his اس ” یک اذاونں ےسافش رس میلکؑ و یلخؑو“ deficient way. The line creed / Stands before God where once Moses and Abraham stood”. This is incomprehensible and the translation is not easily correlatable to the source text. In accordance with the source text, the translation should have been something like this: “His prayer calls lay bare the mysteries of Moses and Abraham” There is nothing in the source text which could possibly imply the act of “standing before God” in any sense.

ویہ تُب رفویش، ویہتُب رگی ےہ .(4)

امنیسےہ ای تعنصِ آزری ےہ؟

Cinema—or new fetish-fashioning, Idol-making and mongering still? (Kiernan, 1955, 158)

Comment: In this piece of instance also there is a considerable amount of problem with reference to mistranslation. The equivalents used by the translator can be schematically presented as follows:

These equivalents are repetitious and evidently less than accurate. To begin with, a close glance at all the three equivalents will make it clear that they are repetitious. “Fetish-fashioning”, “idol-making” and “idol-mongering” refer to more or less the same

236 phenomenon. This is one of the most apparent features of domesticated discourses that most of them seek to cast a homogeneity on the discursive heterogeneity of the source texts. Here also the translator is imposing a lexical homogeneity on the remarkable diversity of the source text.

There is nothing more remarkable to be said about the first two equivalents;

is not ”تعنص آزرم“ however, the third equivalent calls for some discussion. The phrase precisely “[idol]-mongering” as the translator rendering it. Incidentally, this is the most

is also an explicit ”تعنص آزرم“ problematic of the three equivalents. In fact, the phrase historical reference to Āzar (English: Tareh), the father of Abraham and one of the most notorious idol-makers. This historical reference has been eliminated in Kiernan’s translation and the target text does not make any mention of to it. There is no direct or indirect clue which could enable the reader of the translation to appreciate the central role of Āzar vis-à-vis this verse.

رھب آ ٔے وھُپل ےک آوسن ایپ م منبش ےس .(5)

یلکاکاھّنناس دل وخن وہ ایگ مغ ےس

And at the dew’s report the flower’s eye filled With pain the new bud’s tiny heartbeat thrilled; (Kiernan, 1955, 24)

Comment: In this translation, one of the Urdu expressions used in the source text gets distorted as it is translated into English in a highly domesticated way. However, the rest of the translation, in this instance, does not suffer from any remarkable form of

means “to experience acute pain” or “to be ”دل وخن وہان“ domestication. The Urdu expression

Its translation یلکاکاھنن .” اس دل وخن وہ ایگ“ deeply distressed”. The poet has used this expression as should have been something like this: “The petal’s tiny heart snapped”.

237

However, in a very strange way the translator has rendered it as “…new bud’s tiny heartbeat thrilled”. This is a considerably distorting and domesticating way of putting it. In fact, the translation is implying something totally opposed to that what is delicately embedded in the source text. To be thrilled means to feel excited or to be delighted; however, the source text is all about grief, mourning and severe heartache. This is an appropriation of the original text to such a large extent that the translation totally departs from the narrative actualities of the source text. Exactly, the same kind of appropriation takes place in the following instance where that translated text is deviating antithetically from the original.

عبطِ رشمق ےک ےیلومزوں یہی اویفن یھت .(6)

ورہنّوقایلےس ھچک مک رت ںیہن ملعِ الکم

…Opium such as theirs Was medicinable to Asia; had we needed, The sophist’s art lay ready no less potent Than droning psalm. (Kiernan, 1955, 232)

Comment: This piece of translation is also fraught with problems. To begin with,

has been rendered as “droning psalm” which is an extremely domesticated ”وقایل“ the word and distorted way of putting it. It is evident that the translator has crafted this equivalent in order to cater for his translational needs but this is an inadequate and misleading

is ”وقایل“ ,crafting for the following reasons: First and foremost, in real sense of the word not just a “sacred song” or a “prayer hymn” as the equivalent “psalm” is suggesting here. It is a devotional and passionate narrative in the poetic form which is sung with elaborate musical arrangements. Qawwali (a loanword frequently used in the English language) can

238 deal with a number of themes ranging from an epic re-collection of the glorious past to a fervent self-abnegation and love-songs (ghazals).

Second, the juxtaposition of the adjective “droning” with it makes this equivalent phrase all the more inappropriate as, in contrast to the loud rush and throb of qawwali, it has the undertones of a “low humming” and “flat buzzing”. Qawwali comes of a rich vocal tradition and largely takes the form of devotional music and chanting characterized by melodic and free-rhythmic versification (Kopka, 2011, 110). The vocal and musical scheme of a droning psalm is, in fact, diametrically opposed to that of a qawwali. The American novelist and story writer Sarah Orne Jewett (1849 — 1909) in her work A March Island, makes use of the phrase ‘droning psalm’:

As he went up the broad green sloping yard toward the orchard, a little later, Mrs. Owen's voice reached him as she sang a high droning psalm tune behind the wilted scarlet runners of the pantry window. She had sung in the church choir in her early years, and had agreed with her neighbors that her gift was quite uncommon; but it was impossible now for the listener to resist a smile at some of her ambitious excursions among the higher notes (Jewett, 1885, 3).

The passage clearly illustrates low, rhythmic and musical characteristics of a droning psalm which are at sharp variance with a high pitched, and full-throated intensity coupled with a swift pacing of a qawwali.

These are some of the instances of distortion found in Kiernan’s translation of Iqbal. All these instances clearly establish that, at times, the translator has failed in rendering the source text with accuracy and essential semantic approximation. It is also established from these instances that the translator, at times, has failed to make a translation from which the source text intentionalities and meanings can be derived. This is largely due to the fact the translator has not been successful in incorporating as much material from the source text as desirable. While dealing with the culture-sensitive terms and references, the translator does not register variations between the two languages. This

239 results in a serious problem for the reader seeking to understand the text on its own terms. Such translations, for the most part, miss the mark “by failing to signal the wider semantic field distinctive of the author’s structure of thought, which consists in a web of intricately interconnected synonyms and antonyms” (Lukes, 1973, 34).

4.2.5. Omission (Domestication by Exclusion)

Within the Anglo-American literary tradition of translation, the practice of translation has been marked by extensive omissions and elisions. There is a considerable number the European translators who found discursive heterogeneity of the foreign texts more of a liability than an asset. Many of them took it upon themselves to rid these texts of all the “irrelevant” and “insignificant” elements. This, in itself, was an extremely condescending and patronizing attitude. Many of these translators set about to bring “organization” in the “perplexing mazes of the skewed narratives” so that the domestic readership could comprehend them and successfully find a syntactico-lexical order in them (Munday, 2009, 51). In order to achieve this goal, these translators attempted various cuts and omissions which, in turn, seriously affected the overall lexical cohesion, syntactic development and discursive fullness of the foreign test thus translated. These omissions lead to one of the most disturbing form of domestication since they suppress the ‘voice’ of the source text or, at the very least, communicate it remarkably differently.

Kiernan’s translation of Iqbal also suffers from this problem of omission and entails a syntactic and semantic loss along with a truncated comprehension of the source text by the reader. On occasion, the proliferation of significations, tropes, allusions and figures present in the original is curtailed by the translator by means of unnecessary and extensive omissions. At times, the translator has resorted to an extremely pejorative characterizations and elucidations of the source text which are not really warranted by the source text per se. This following discussion takes into consideration numerous instances of the large-scale omissions present in Kiernan’s translation of Iqbal. Take the first of these examples:

240

یہیخیشمم ےہوج رُچا رک چیب اھکات ےہ .(1)

میلگ وُبذ ؓرو دقلِ اوسیؓ و اچد ِر زرہ ؓا ! …the Prophet’s heir filches and sells the blankets of the Prophet’s kin. (Kiernan, 1955, 74)

Comment: In this verse, there are three proper historical references which have been omitted by the translator and instead of them an extremely general and superficial equivalent phrase has been introduced in the translation. Furthermore, some of the words form the source texts are translated in an increasingly subjective way which negatively impacts upon the fidelity of the translation. In the source text, three proper historical names have been mentioned by the poet: (1) Abu Dharr Ghaffari, (2) Uwais Qarni, (3) Fatima, the daughter of the Prophet Muhammad. With reference to these notable personalities of Islam, Iqbal says that the contemporary Muslim preachers have lost all qualms and they do not shrink from exploiting the names of these noble people. However, in the translation, these three historical personalities are subsumed under an exceedingly generic and somewhat non-factual phrase, “the Prophet’s kin”.

To begin with, there is no mention of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) in the original text and translating three names mentioned above by referring them to the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) is rather unwarranted. It is an interesting example of explaining one thing with reference to another which is not altogether present in the source text as such. Secondly and more importantly, it is enormously inadequate to rely on one simple and generic phrase — “the Prophet’s kin” to refer to these three proper references. The proper references present in the source text are historically specific and context-sensitive. It becomes clear form a cursory glance on the pages of Islamic history that in Islam these figures are known for their proverbial other-worldliness, detachment to the thing mundane and a total austerity.

241

Thirdly, there is a semantic and factual problem too which seriously mars the overall scheme of translation presented here. Semantically, the word “kin” implies a group of persons of common ancestor or more generally to one’s relatives. Out of these three personalities, Fatima indeed was the daughter of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), therefore his close kin. However, Abu Dharr Ghaffari and Uwais Qarni did not share the ancestry, in any way, with the Prophet (peace be upon him). Therefore, all of these personalities are not the relatives of the Prophet as the translation is implying.

Finally, the translator has also used the equivalent phrase “the Prophet’s heir” for

This, although not an instance of omission, is not a right خیش .” مم“ :the Urdu reference choice. This, more precisely, is an instance of “explicitation” of the source text which is also one form of domestication discussed above.

اگنہ قشع و یتسم ںیم ویہ ا ّول، ویہ آر .(2)

ٰي ي ویہ رقآں، ویہ رفاقں، ویہ ٰی، ویہ ٰطہوٰ!

Love’s eyes, not slow to kindle, hail him Alpha and Omega, Chapter, and Word, and Book. (Kiernan, 1955, 78)

Comment: In this translation, most of the proper nouns used by the poet have been left out by the translator. Moreover, the omissions done by the translator are operating on two different levels. First, by the sheer quantitative perspective, every proper nomenclature present in the source text has not been provided with an equivalent

,”رقآں“ :by the translator. In the original text, there are four such proper nomenclatures

but, on the other hand, in the translation there are just three ”ٰہط“ and ” ٰي ي وٰی“ ,”رفاقں“ equivalents: “Chapter”, “Word” and “Book”. This is the indictment of this translation on the purely quantitative grounds.

242

Qualitatively, none of these equivalents is pertinent enough to capture the spirit of the original text. They suffer from various kinds of semantic and referential inadequacies. Furthermore, the equivalents proposed by the translator are too general to signify

originally) ”رفاقں“ something specific in the translation. Let us begin with the Urdu word “The Differtiator”). This word, which occupies a central position in the overall scheme of the original verse, has been altogether omitted by the translator. This omission entails a serious semantic loss which the translator does not seek to compensate in the target text.

and “ ” are also left out by the translator ” ٰي ي “ In the same way, the two words ٰط ٰہو ٰیو and in their stead the translator uses extremely generic equivalents i.e. “Word” and “Book”. As to the equivalent “Word”, it is difficult to say whether the translator intends it for the Quran or for any other word from the source text. In this way, these three equivalents can become everything to everybody and deprive the source text of its discursive definiteness and the syntactic completeness. Finally, the ultimate result of all this is a radical omission resulting in the serious domestication of the source text.

دنب ٔہ زم ُدور وک اج رک رما اغیپم دے .(3)

رضخ اک اغیپم ایک، ےہ ہی اغیپ م اک انئت

To the workman go, the toiler, and to him this message tell: Words not mine alone, a message that the world’s four corners swell. (Kiernan, 1955, 54)

Comment: This is an interesting example of an extremely unwarranted omission of the source text by the translator. In this piece of translation, the poet is mentioning Khidr, a revered figure in Islam described by the Quran as an upright servant of God (18: 65). The reference to Khidr is crucial to conceptualize the core significance and relevance of this verse. This reference serves as an essential background to the source text and invests it with historicity and discursive power. According to the Quran, Khidr was blessed by Allah with remarkable wisdom and great mystic knowledge (gnosis). In the

243

Quran he has also been depicted as Moses’ spiritual master, who, in fact, initiates Moses into the divine sciences and esoteric mysteries. The Quran anecdotally describes how Khidr ingeniously justifies God’s ways to man.

All this essential information goes amiss in the translation as the translator altogether omits his name in the translation and uses a pronoun in its stead. However, in the source text the proper name has been mentioned by the poet. Interestingly and more remarkably, in the entire translation of this poem, nowhere does the translator mention the name of Khidr and, therefore, leaves a huge lacuna in the fuller understanding of the poem. There is no way a reader could make out what the pronoun used by the translator really stands for. Instead of giving the translation a specificity and a historicity, the translator is presenting it in an extremely general and non-signifying way. Moreover, by omitting the proper name, the translator is giving a highly impersonal tone to the poem which is not the case with the source text altogether.

یہچ ربمہ ےہ تم ےس اظن م تسہ و وبد .(4)

ںیہ ایس آوشب ےس ےب رپدہ ارسا ر ووجد

Though Resurrection wrench The fabric of existence It lays all mysteries bare in its fierce gale. (Kiernan, 1955, 248)

Comment: Here is another example of brief but quite far-reaching instance of

,the mysteries of existence) but) ”ارسا ر ووجد“ omission. In the source text, the poet talks about

is left ”ووجد“ in the translation, the translator just mentions “mysteries” and the noun untranslated. “Existence” and, by the same token, “non-Existence” are two important themes in Iqbal poetic and philosophical thought. His treatment of these two themes is superbly complex, nuanced and extremely crucial to the overall scheme of ideas. He

244 elucidates the question of existence taking into account its essential complexities and its many-sided realities/mysteries. Therefore, the poet, in this verse, is not just talking about mysteries in any ordinary sense of the word. Instead, he is concerned with the mysteries which have fatefully complicated the human existence on this planet and which will ultimately be unraveled on the Judgment Day. Viewing from this perspective, the translator appears to have deprived the source text of its essential qualifications.

Therefore, reducing “mysteries of existence” to mere “mysteries” is to commit a radical omission which clearly results in a domestication of the source text and is likely to negatively impacts upon the comprehension of reader.

دمتن، ّوصتف،رشتعی،الکم .(5)

اتب ِن مجع ےک اجپری امتم

…his art, Philosophy, law, divinity Still tainted with idolatry. (Kiernan, 1955, 130)

Comment: The translation of this verse also happens to be seriously domesticated and appropriated. The instances of omission are very apparent in this translation. The translator has skipped so much which should have been preserved. As a result of this wholesale omission the target text seems semantically at wide variance with the source text. To the poet, whatever Muslims are claiming in the name of culture, mysticism, Kalam, and even Sharia are but the offshoots of the Persian idolatrous traditions which are so profoundly antithetical to the spirit of Islam. The poet is of the view that all such doctrines and institutions are the plagiaristic adaptations of the Persian and Mazdakian cults and have no warrant in Islam. Iqbal is primarily interested in the recovery of what he thought to be the pristine form of Islam bereft of all the subsequent accretions.

245

For this purpose he avowedly opposes and disapproves what he found to be the Persian accretions in Islam. To him Islam remains, first and foremost, a complete and “unadulterated” religion on its own right. All the Greco-Roman and Mazdakian elements in Islam are an anathema to him. All this becomes apparent when one looks at the original text as the poet categorically mentions the Persian idolatrous and polytheistic cult and its adverse impact on Islam.

However, the lion’s part of these reference and terminologies is left out by the

is translated as “still tainted with ”اتب ِن مجع ےک اجپری امتم“ translator and the second line idolatry”. It should be remembered that idolatry, as a pagan phenomenon, is as old as polytheism. It ranges from the veneration of false gods to an excessive devotion to the material images. But here the translator is specifically concerned with the Persian idolatrous cult and its contamination of the Islamic doctrines and institutions. All this is omitted in the target text which just mentions idolatry without bringing about any further qualifications. The result of this way of approaching the source text is the loss of historicity and specificity which characterizes the source text. This is how the source text is deformed by the translation strategy adopted by the translator.

رھبوہسرکںیہن ےتکس الغومں یک ریصبت رپ .(6)

ہک داین ںیم طقف رمدا ن م یک آھکن ےہ انیب!

Trust no slave’s eyes, clear sight and liberty go hand in hand. (Kiernan, 1955, 76)

Comment: This translation is a very glaring example of the omission done by the

which has been translated as “clear ”ہک داین ںیم طقف رمدا ن رُح یک آھکن ےہ انیب“ translator. The second line sight and liberty go hand in hand”, is problematic on account of some serious omissions.

246

This leads to an extremely domesticated translation dislocated from its linguistic and cultural features.

The amorphousness and lack of specificity which characterizes this translation establishes the point that the target text is being homogenized by the translator. Moreover, the extremely nuanced character of the source text is being flattened out by him. The iconicity of the source text is conspicuously absent in the translation. Most of these iconic words/references are omitted and in their stead the translator proposes very

becomes “eyes” which is ”ریصبت“ generic and unsignifying equivalents. The Urdu word

”ریصبت“ obviously an inadequate equivalent. More appropriately, the original word denotes something exceedingly greater than that which is implied by “eyes”. The word

in fact, stands for a uniquely endowed perceptiveness which enables the ordinary ,”ریصبت“ folks to see the esoteric and the ultimate mysteries of our existence.

In this particular instance, the poet is exhorting the Muslims not to trust the

of the slaves. This implies that the slaves are incapable of that perceptiveness and ”ریصبت“

.which could be really trusted upon by the Muslims in the times of woes (ریصبت) insight

ار، وکحمم یک تّیم ےس وس ابر ار .(7)

اے رسالیف!واے دخا ٔے اک انئت!واے اج ن اپک

Beware the carrion slave, A hundred times beware, Angels, and oh You Whom the worlds obey! (Kiernan, 1955, 248)

Comment: In this particular instance of translation, the translator has committed serious omissions while translating the second line. In this line, there are three phrases of

247 equal textual import but only the first two of them are translated and the last one is left untranslated by Kiernan. To be more precise, only two of the Urdu phrases are translated as shown below:

”as “Angels ”ا ٔے رسالیف“ .

”!as “oh You Whom the worlds obey ”ا ٔے دخا ٔے اپک“ .

is omitted in —”ا ٔےو اج ن اپک“—The third phrase which is present in the source text the translation by Kiernan. Moreover, apart from this exclusion there is one more

has been rendered ”ار“ problem which should be mentioned here. The compound word

is a ”ار“ as “Beware” by the translator which is not wholly correct. In fact, the word compressed and formulaic prayer which originally means: “Thy shelter O God!” In the cultural context of the Urdu language this expression precedes all the fateful proclamations which people made in the more formal discourse. Finally, the researcher will also like to mention it in passing that the two equivalent phrases proposed by Kiernan are problematic for the obvious reasons which have already been discussed in the preceding analysis.

With this the researcher comes to an end of this section and therefore it is pertinent to draw together some of the stands of the preceding discussion. Here the researcher has established this point with the help of numerous examples that in his translation of Iqbal, Kiernan has committed extensive omissions which have eventually resulted in the domestication of the source text. Like other domesticating strategies, the practice of omission has also resulted in the silencing the “voice” of the source text.

It has been shown that a considerable number of proper references, tropes, allusions mentioned by the poet, have been omitted by the translator. These references and tropes have either been translated very generically or omitted altogether. In the absence of these proper source-text references, the translation experiences a cultural and

248 linguistic dislocation. The target text does not remain as communicative and as meaningful as the source text happens to be. A poetic discourse as rich as Iqbal’s has an extraordinary scope and breadth and any attempt by a translator to curtail this scope will seriously damage the translation. The renowned literary critic and author Mustnsir Mir has elucidated this merit of Iqbal’s poetry in the following words:

A reader of Iqbal’s poetry is struck by its sheer thematic variety. Iqbal was deeply interested in the issues that have exercised the best minds of the human race—the issues of the meaning of life, change and constancy, freedom and determinism, survival and progress, the relation between the body and the soul, the conflict between reason and emotion, evil and suffering, the position and role of human beings in the universe—and in his poetry he deals with these and other issues. He had also read widely in history, philosophy, literature, mysticism, and politics, and, again, his catholic interests are reflected in his poetry (2000, 13).

This quote amply illustrates the breadth and fullness of Iqbal’s poetic discourse. In the light of this expansive and inclusive scope of Iqbal’s poetry, the omissions committed by the translator appear to be seriously problematic. The omissions committed by the translator bring about a syntactic and semantic loss in the translation which, in turn, creates lacunae in the comprehension of the reader. The following quote insightfully sums up this problem:

[T]he ideology of a translation resides not simply in the text translated, but in the voicing and stance of the translator, and in the relevance to the receiving audience. These latter features are affected by the place of enunciation of the translator: indeed they are part of what we mean by the “place” of enunciation, for that “place” is an ideological positioning as well as a geographical or temporal one. These aspects of a translation are motivated and determined by the translator’s cultural and ideological affiliations as much as or even more than by the temporal and spatial location that the translator speaks from (Tymoczko 2003, 183).

249

4.2.6. Qualitative Impoverishment

The poetic discourse of Iqbal abounds in expressions, references, figures and turns of phrases which have proverbial exquisiteness, artistry and inventiveness. Iqbal is one of those poets who set new benchmarks of excellence and merit in the literary tradition of Urdu. There are various examples in Kiernan’s translation of Iqbal where the translator overtly fails to maintain the requisite standards of artistic and qualitative standards. This results in highly prosaic pieces of rendition. In this section, the researcher has taken various examples into account which illustrate the qualitative impoverishment of Kiernan’s translation of Iqbal. To begin with, consider the following instance:

تقیقح راافت ںیم وھک یئگ.(1)

ہی اُتم رواایت ںیم وھک یئگ

Truth buried in rubbish, a ritual maze Burying the creed… (Kiernan, 1955, 130)

is a very ”اُتم“ Comment: As it has already been discussed that the word complex term. It is not easy to translate it into English. At the most fundamental level, the word Ummah (a loanword widely used in English) means the pan-Islamic community of the believers. This community is supposed to transcend the long-established tribal and ethnic boundaries in order to bring about a degree of political unity. Primarily, the word Ummah is a non-territorial affiliation. It evokes a sense of belonging and a shared identity which is crystallized and communicated by an association founded on religious grounds. At the same time it refers to a socio-cultural totality and a politico-theological collectivity with common aspirations and objectives.

250

The translator is rendering this word as “the creed” which is highly problematic.

.as “the creed” does not signify anything substantial ”اُتم“ In fact, translating the word The employment of this equivalent is extremely far-fetched and fanciful. Perhaps the word “creed” has been metonymically used for Islam which, in turn, has been expected to stand for the Ummah. But, if that is the case, then it is a considerably tortuous way of articulating the source text. First, the word “creed” cannot even stand for Islam, let alone for a complex and unique concept like Ummah. The word “creed” (Latin: credo) stand for an authoritative summary of the primary articles of faith of the various Christen churches or the bodies of believers. Thus, even using the term “creed” for Islam is an act of cultural and historical appropriation.

Furthermore, while looking at the source text, the reader achieves this realization that Iqbal is not mourning here the loss of any creed as such. It is not even the creed which is lost in the mazes of rituals. Instead, more accurately, it is the Ummah which has gone adrift because of the sectarian hair-splitting and an overemphasis on the externalities of the faith. In this way, the entire translation of this verse appears to be fundamentally flawed and domesticated.

رشکیمکح الغومں وک رک ںیہن ےتکس .(2)

ردیےت ںیہ طقف اُن اک وجرہ ادراک

No slave is given a partnership in England’s reign— She only wants to buy her brain. (Kiernan, 1955, 204)

Comment: In this piece of translation, the translator is rendering the Urdu phrase

as “brain” which compromises the depth and the splendor of the original. The ”وجرہ ادراک“ word “brain” elicits the idea of the cerebral smartness and purely mental potential. It has an external and superficial ring to it. In Iqbal’s poetic and philosophical discourse, it is very rare for the “brain” to be considered a locus of wisdom or insight. Many a time Iqbal

251 comes down harshly upon the self-important role of the brain (the role played by abstract

is an extremely far-reaching and profound ”وجرہ ادراک“ ,On the other hand .(لقع — reason phrase which, on account of its amazingly wide reach, far surpasses the meanings

betokens a highly sophisticated and ”وجرہ ادراک“ conveyed by the word “brain”. The phrase developed ability of an individual to make sense of the mysteries of our existence. It is an exceptional talent which illuminates human understanding and extends far beyond the workings of theoretical and abstract reasoning.

from the mere ”وجرہ ادراک“ However, what really characterizes and distinguishes talent of the abstract reasoning is the deeper knowledge which is the result of an enlightened and gnostic understanding. The source of this knowledge is the spiritual

implies a ”وجرہ ادراک“ realm of our existence. Viewing from this perspective, the tem gnostic and illuminated discernment which in the very act of seeing embraces the object of vision. However, all this is not communicated by the equivalent used by the translator— brain.

رھبوہسرکںیہن ےتکس الغومں یک ریصبت رپ .(3)

ہک داین ںیم طقف رمدا ن م یک آھکنےہ انیب!

Trust no slave’s eyes, clear sight and liberty go hand in hand. (Kiernan, 1955, 76)

Comment: In this translation, the artistic and aesthetic exquisiteness of the source text suffers because of the superficial and simplistic equivalents. The poet is employing the finely nuanced phrases which the translator is translating by resorting to largely one-

the translator uses the ”الغومں یکریصبت“ dimensional equivalents. For the Urdu phrase equivalent “slave’s eyes” which is a somewhat crude way of tackling the source text. In

252

is similar to another Urdu word which has already been discussed ”ریصبت“ fact the word

In Urdu, both of these words go beyond the mere optical ability .”ہگن“ — by the researcher of an individual to visualize an object. Instead, both of these Urdu words imply an enlightened and gnostic glance which is capable of a miraculous insight. In this way, the

is something like a theosophic illumination which could lay bare the ”ریصبت“ Urdu word deeper mysteries of our existence. By using the phrase “slave’s eyes”, the translator is depreciating the true value of the original phrase.

Almost a similar indictment can be made of another equivalent phrase used by the translator here — “clear sight”. In the translation, this phrase stands for the Urdu

Although the word “sight” is more consequential and meaningful انیب .”آھکن“ :expression when compared with the word “eye”; still it falls short of the required level of communicability. It is rather “insight” what Iqbal is really talking about, and not just “sight”. In spite of its somewhat broader semantics, the word “sight” basically remains an external and physical faculty of seeing and visualizing. In Iqbal’s scheme of ideas, it

.which makes humankind spiritually and esoterically blind (ریصبت) ”is the loss of “insight To him, one may be deprived of “insight” in spite of being fully in possession of “sight”. The one, in fact, does not necessitate the other.

as “liberty” is also ”رمدا ن رُح“ Finally, in the same way, rendering the Urdu phrase indictable on much the same grounds. The equivalent “liberty” is too abstract as

which should ideally be rendered as something ”رمدا ن رُح“ compared to the original phrase like this: “soldiers of freedom”. The equivalent used by the translator invests the translation with an impersonal tone. However, the source text does not have this impersonality and abstractness of tone. In fact, Iqbal’s poetic discourse is highly embodied and personal in which things are not expected to happen on their own. Nor are they expected to pop into existence from nowhere. Instead a personal and human agency is mostly posited behind all the purposive actions. Therefore, it can be inferred when the

253

as “liberty” subconsciously he is reducing the agent to the ”رمدا ن رُح“ translator renders agency which constitutes an overt dislocation — a point already discussed above.

احرض وہا ںیم خیش ّّم ؒد یک رپ .(4)

I stood by the Reformer’s tomb. (Kiernan, 1955, 160)

خیش .” دجمّد“ Comment: In this translation Kiernan is using the word “Reformer” for

is an ”خیش“ This translation is inadequate and somewhat misleading. First, the word important honorific used of those Muslim scholars, mystics or spiritual masters who are considered to be highly revered and erudite. However, the translator has left this word untranslated altogether. This entails the qualitative impoverishment of the translation. Nevertheless, the second problem with this instance of translation is more serious and

.is imprecise and inaccurate ”دجمّد“ insinuating than the first one. The word “Reformer” for

in the English language is a “Revivalist”. In the Islamic ”دجمّد“ The proper word for

who were largely (دجمدنی) ”religious tradition, there have been numerous “Revivalists responsible for the reassertion and restoration of the pure and unadulterated Islamic teachings against the syncretistic and unorthodox tendencies of the day.

In this particular verse, likewise, Iqbal is referring to Sheikh Ahmad of Sirhind (1564 — 1624) who was an Indian Mystic and a revered Revivalist. He is more

The Revivalist of the Second — (دجمد افل اثین) ,commonly known as Mujaddid-i Alf-i Thaani Millennium. It is a reference to the fact that he lived at the beginning of the second millennium of the Muslim calendar. However, the use of the word “Reformer” smacks of the Lutheran idea of a 16th century Protestant Reformation. It is also worth mentioning

.as “reformer” which is an obvious mistake ”دجمد“ here that it is very common to translate

254

For all the intents and purposes it has to be “revivalist”, the one who takes up the Revival

.of the faith. On the contrary, a reformer is just concerned with its reform (دجتدی)

اتچیب ےہ اہیمش، انوم س دنی یفطصمﷺ .(5)

The lord of Mecca barters the honour of Mecca’s faith. (Kiernan, 1955, 46)

Comment: This is also an example of the shallow translation of the source text. Here what Iqbal implies is the sad fact that the Muslim scholars (those who claim to be the heirs to the Prophet) are auctioning away the honour of the Prophet’s faith. But مصط is ”انوم ِس دنیِ فٰی ﷺ“ Kiernan has widely generalized this whole notion. The Urdu phrase rendered as “the honour of Mecca’s faith”. This is not what is evident from the source text. Here Iqbal is historically referring to Hussain Bin Ali (1854 — 1931), commonly known as Sharif of Mecca. He declared himself as the King of Hejaz and initiated the famous Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Caliphate. After the abolition of the Caliphate, he became the self-proclaimed Caliph of the Muslims.

According to the poet, this was an act of treason and betrayal and he was deeply pestered by it. In this verse he is referring to Sharif of Mecca and his selling out of the مصط .”which is rendered by the translator as “Mecca’s faith (انوم س دنی فٰیﷺ) honour of Islam To Iqbal, Sharif’s act amounted to a betrayal of the entire Ummah; not just Mecca. Therefore, the translator is unnecessarily confining the “honour of the faith of the Prophet” to mere “Mecca’s faith”.

اخیلےہ ومیلکں ےس ہی وکہ و رمکورہن .(6)

No Prophet walks these hills, or we might be. (Kiernan, 1955, 12)

255

here is a title used for the Prophet Moses as in the ”میلک“ Comment: The word

The one who speaks to Allah). In) میلک ”اہلل“ Islamic tradition Moses was given the title Iqbal’s poetry, Moses symbolizes revolutionary zeal and robust courage in the face of arrogant Pharaohs. To him only a Moses-like individual can deliver the Muslim Ummah from an all-prevailing darkness and bondage. Just as Moses delivered the Israelites from the slavery of the Pharaohs, an exceptionally gallant and spiritually alive leader is needed to liberate the Ummah at this critical juncture. Therefore, in this verse, Iqbal is alluding to him and the entire concept has been worked out with reference to him.

However, in the translation most of this is lost and the translator brings an extremely generalized equivalent: “Prophet” which does not signify anything specific with reference to the source text. Doubtless, all the prophets sought to overthrow the tyrannous and oppressive regimes of the day with remarkable enthusiasm but with reference to the source text, here, it is Moses who happens to be the direct object of Iqbal’s thoughts. Therefore, an omission of this central reference deprives the translation of its essential historicity and deprives the source text of its richness and communicative potential.

ہی اضیف ن رظن اھت ای ہک بتکم یک رکاتم یھت.(7)

اھکس ٔے سک ےن اامسلیع ؑ وک آدا ب رفزدنم؟

Was it book-lesson, or father’s glance, that taught The son of Abraham what a son should bear? (Kiernan, 1955, 69)

Comment: This piece of translation presents another example of the

are ”آدا ب رفزدنم“ and ,”بتکم یک رکاتم“ ,”اضیف ن رظن“ impoverishment. Three Urdu phrases respectively translated as “father’s glance”, “book-lesson” and “what a son should bear”.

256

None of these three equivalents is doing justice with the majesty and the communicative grace of the original text. In fact, this is an extremely superficial way of translating the

is an enormously complex ”اضیف ن رظن“ source text. To begin with, the Urdu phrase expression to translate adequately. Instead of its oversimplification which is done here by the translator, a better translation could have been something like this: “the grace of the transformative glance”. Therefore, the equivalent phrase used by the translator — “father’s glance” — is not adequately articulating the textual intent. The source text, in fact, does not contain anything which should be translated as “father”.

is more than a “book-lesson” as the ”بتکم یک رکاتم“ Secondly, the Urdu phrase translator puts it. Exhorting the Muslims to learn from the book-lesson, does not sit well with the philosophy of Iqbal. On different occasions, Iqbal insists Muslims to go beyond all forms of book-lessons. In Gabriel’s Wing, for example, Iqbal exhorts the Muslims that mere book lessons will avail them naught until they themselves become what he terms as

can more profitably ”آدا ِب رفزدنی“ Lastly, the Urdu phrase .(اصِبح اتکب) books embodied been rendered as “the filial conduct”.

وہ تعنص ہن یھت، ویش ٔہ اکرفم اھت .(8)

ہی تعنص ںیہن، ویش ٔہ اس مم ےہ

Art, men called that olden voodoo— Art, they call this mumbo-jumbo; (Kiernan, 1955, 158)

Comment: A cursory glance at the source text makes the seriousness and formality of the source text abundantly clear. These lines have been taken from the poem

Cinema) which is characterized by a serious tone. However, the translator renders) ”امنیس“ it in a somewhat slang and informal manner which compromises the earnestness and the

257 decorum of the original text. In this way, the translator seems to have exhibited a disregard for the formal properties of the source text. Furthermore, this translation also smacks of the Anglicization of the source text.

as ”ویش ٔہ اس مم“ To begin with, the translator is rendering the compound Urdu phrase “mumbo-jumbo” which is obviously slang and informal. This original Urdu phrase implies such meanings as “sorcery”, “magic” and “bewitchment”. According to Iqbal, the modern day cinema industry is also a form of sorcery and bewitchment of human soul. On the contrary, the word “mumbo-jumbo, apart from being thoroughly informal and slang, is at variance with the source text. It stands for (1) unintelligible or incomprehensible language, (2) language or ritualistic activity intended to confuse, and (3) a complicated or obscure ritual. Now, none of these three meanings is likely to be a

.”ویش ٔہ اس مم“ reasonable equivalent to translate for the phrase

also calls for a brief ”ویش ٔہ اکرفم“ Moreover, the use of the word “voodoo” for elaboration with reference to the question of the qualitative impoverishment. The employment of the equivalent “voodoo” Anglicizes the poetic discourse of Iqbal. “Voodoo” implies a religion practiced throughout Caribbean countries, especially Haiti, that is a combination of Roman Catholicism and some brand of animism.

اراب ب رظن ےسںیہنوپدیشہ وک یئ راز .(9)

There are shrewd folk who always know what’s what. (Kiernan, 1955, 204)

has been rendered by the translator ”اراب ب رظن“ Comment: In this verse, the phrase as “shrewd folk” which is an extremely superficial instance of translation. Shrewdness implies pragmatism and a tricky intelligence. By extension it also connotes artfulness. In

258

which is an exceedingly complex and ”رظن“ the source text, the poet has used the word multifaceted word to translate into the English language. It entails a theosophic illumination and an intuitive insight coupled with an out of the ordinary perceptiveness.

in the Urdu ”اراب ب رظن“ Those who are endowed with this rare insight are hailed as language.

However, the translator is giving this couplet a totally pragmatic and utilitarian coloration by selecting the equivalent “shrewd folk”. This is a serious misappropriation of the intents and purposes of the original text. What is more, the equivalent is curtailing the extraordinarily amazing reach of the original text.

In the same way, the preceding phrase “who always know what’s what” is yet another superficial attempt at translation. In the source text the words used by the poet are far more meaningful and deeper. The way the translator is presenting this exceptional

it looks more like a psychometric and quantitative ,(اراب ب رظن) ability of the select few aptitude shorn of all intuitive and transcendental dimensions of knowing. What the source text is implying is something like this: “All mysteries are laid bare to the eyes of the discerning folks”.

اترکیےہ ارفگن ونیشمں ےکدوھںیئ ےس .(10)

ہی وادٔی انمی ںیہن اش ِن یلجت

Dark is the white man’s country with the grime Of engines, no valley that might see Splendour descending on a burning tree. (Kiernan, 1955, 207)

259

Comment: In this piece of translation, it can be noticed that once again the source

the Valley of) ”وادی انمی“ text is more iconic as well as symbolic. The poet is talking about Aiman). However, the translator has rendered it merely as “valley”. The Valley of Aiman is the place where the Prophet Moses (peace be upon him) heard God’s calling. The reference to this Valley invests the source text with a historicity and grandeur. But when the translator renders it as a mere “valley”, there is no way for a reader to appreciate the essential richness and the historical specificity of the reference. This result is all too obvious — the qualitative impoverishment of the translation. Once again the translator appears to have deprived the source text of its essential qualifications.

رماونکّلہک دصتّق ںیہ سج ہپ الہ رظن .(11)

My heart, though it found love In feeling heart its vassal… (Kiernan, 1955, 16)

symbolically and it ”ونکّل“ Comment: In this instance, the poet is using the word can also mean “heart” as the translator is explicating it in the translation. But the poet is symbolizing this word which is de-symbolized by the translator. Moreover, this is an

the poet does not mean his heart; rather this symbol is ”ونکّل“ imprecise translation. By intended for the poet’s beloved who remains the central figure of the poem. The translator could not properly get down to the meaning of the verse and this misunderstanding resulted in a meaninglessly circular translation: “My heart, though it found love/In feeling heart its vassal”. It is vague as to how to correlate the first heart with the second one. Did heart feel heart as its vassal? Does one of the references to heart stand for the beloved of the poet? All these and many more questions are difficult to settle given the deeply flawed scheme of translation.

260

ہن اایشی ںیم ہن ویرپ ںیم وسزواسز ایحت .(12)

وخدمیک ومت ےہ ہی، اور وہ ریمض یک ومت

Death to man’s soul is Europe, death is Asia To man’s will: neither feels the vital current. (Kiernan, 1955, 202)

Comment: This is an example of an extremely flattened translation which has homogenized most of the elements of the source text in an unwarranted way. The phrase

becomes the mere “vital current” in the translation. However, this equivalent ”وسزواس ز ایحت“ phrase does not capture the passion, the fervor, the iconic beauty and the alliterative scheme which characterizes the source text. Therefore, the equivalent phrase used by the translator is generalized and simplistic and fails to stand for the original phrase. Eventually, it leads to an impoverishment of the translation.

آہ اظمل!ووت اہجں ںیم دنب ٔہ وکحمم اھت .(13)

ںیمہنیھجمسیھت ہک ےہ ویکں اخک ریمم وسزانک

Ah, villain! Were you then A thing at ease with bondage? I did not guess what itch was in my clay! (Kiernan, 1955, 250)

.”is translated as “A thing at ease with bondage ”دنب ٔہ وکحمم“ Comment: The phrase This besides containing a lot of padding is a qualitatively impoverished piece of translation. It seems more like a paraphrasing of the original text. In Iqbal’s poetry the

has been used frequently which can profitably been translated as “an ”دنبہ وکحمم“ phrase enslaved creature”. As regards the translation of the second line, it must be said that it is

261

ںیمہنیھجمسیھت ہک ےہ ویکں اخک ریمم “ — extremely witless and banal. An exceptionally artistic line

is rendered as “I did not guess what itch was in my clay”. The word “itch” has — ”وسزانک the implications of “irritation” and “prickling”. Connotatively it implies “eager yearning” and “longing”. The word has an air of informality and causality.

This overtly informal character of this word has been document by all the notable dictionaries as well. The Webster College Dictionary 2010 and the Merriam Webster

which implies ”وسزانک“ Online are just two cases in point. Moreover, the original phrase “an ardent sense of burning” is decisively more than an “itch”. The somber seriousness and the sepulchral atmosphere of the poem is seriously affected by an inclusion of such an informal equivalent phrase.

ُنو ر وخردیش یک اتحم ج ےہ یتسہ ریمم .(14)

If I exist, it is only as a pensioner of the sun. (Kiernan, 1955, 8)

Comment: Here we can see that the original text is far more concrete and more

the light of the sun) is far more) ” ُ ون ِر وخردیش“ iconic than its translation. The word expressive than its replacement with a metonymic notion — “the sun”. The sun as a celestial object has many purposes (either perceived or real). It is not only a source of light but also the chief cause of heat and discomfort. However, here Iqbal is specifically concerned with a metaphorical aspect and what he means is not so much as physical light. Rather, more accurately, what he means is a spiritual and gnostic illumination. Therefore,

to the mere reference to (ون ِر وخردیش) reducing this complex and highly polysemic phrase the sun is inadequate and truncating. This entails to an impoverishment of the translation.

ایکزامےنےس رناال ےہ وسمینیل اک رُجم؟ .(15)

262

ےب لحم ڑگبا ےہ وصعمام ن ویرپ اک زماج

What, are crimes like Mussolini’s so unheard of in this age? Why should they put Europe’s goodies into such a silly rage? (Kiernan, 1955, 218)

Comment: This is another example of rendering a highly serious source text in somewhat informal terms. In this piece of translation, the translator has rendered the

as “Europe’s goodies”. Once again the phrase used as equivalent ”وصعمام ن ویرپ“ Urdu phrase

which ”وصعمم“ is informal. Furthermore, a “goody” does not have the denotations of a means “faultless”, “immaculate” and “unblemished”.

To conclude this section, it can be maintained that there are various instances in Kiernan’s translation of Iqbal which illustrate the qualitative impoverishment of the target text. The grace, historicity, richness, iconicity and depth present in the source text have not always been successfully rendered by the translator. At times, the translator has resorted to considerably pedestrian equivalents to render some of the highly nuanced, resonant and vivid words/expressions. On certain other occasions, the translator has gone for informal as well as slang equivalents. The sum total of all these moves made by the translator leads to the qualitative impoverishment of the translation. Eventually this qualitative impoverishment leads to the domestication of the source text by the translator. Besides, it has also been noted that this qualitative impoverishment also deprives the source text of its essential qualifications.

4.2.7. Prosodic Domestication — Misrepresentation of the Form

This kind of domestication is also detectable in Kiernan’s translation of Iqbal. The prosodic domestication in Kiernan’s translation bears mainly upon the structure of the source text and two of the most recognizable sites of this kind of domestication are syntax and punctuation. In this kind of domestication, the translator re-casts/re-shuffles

263 the syntax and the formal properties of the source text in such a radical way that the structural scheme of the source text is drastically disturbed. This re-structuring/reshuffling directly impacts upon the semantics of the source text and the translation either miscommunicates the source text or does not communicate it at all. In this way, although this kind of domestication pertains to the form, its implications are, by no means, confined to the form.

There is no other genre of literature in the construction of which the form plays as important a role as it does in the construction of poetry. Therefore, while rendering poetry, a translator’s scope of tempering with the form is always very limited. Such literary giants as Roman Jakobson (1896 — 1982) and Mikhail Bakhtin (1895 — 1975) dwelt extensively upon the significance of the form in poetry. However, in Kiernan’s translation there are certain instances which show the translator’s undue tampering with the form and its damaging effect on the content. By and large the translator exhibits a great regard for the formal/structural properties of the source text but, at times, he obviously fails to do so which has been pointed out in the following discussion.

ریمےاخکووخں ےس وت ےن ہی اہجں ایک ےہ دیپا.(1)

ہلصٔ دیہش ایک ےہ؟ بت و ات ِب اجوداہن!

Out of my flesh and blood you made this earth; Its quenchless fever the martyr’s crown of gold. (Kiernan, 1955, 70)

Comment: While going through this piece of translation, one clearly perceives that a considerable restructuring of the source text is taking place. In the source text there is a question embedded as well as answered in the second line. The use of questions (either actual or rhetorical) is a famous prosodic/formal techniques employed by the poets. Iqbal’s poetic discourse is also exquisitely marked by this characteristic. Here are a few examples of this phenomenon by various literary figures:

264

ںیم اہکں وہں وت اہکں ےہ؟ ہیاکمںہک الاکمں ےہ؟

Where am I, where are you? It is some space or non-space? (my translation)

ایکہنوچیبےگ وجلم اجںیئ منص رھتپ ےک؟

Will you not auction them, if the stone statues you are given? (my translation)

The same technique can be found in English poetry also. Shelley famously wrote:

O Wind! If Winter comes, can Spring be far behind?

Shakespeare wrote in Julius Caesar:

O mighty Caesar! dost thou lie so low? Are all thy conquests, glories, triumphs, spoils, Shrunk to this little measure?

From these examples the significance and relevance of questions in literature is not difficult to establish. In fact the use of such questions gives the text a forward thrust, a textual dynamism and a discursive heterogeneity. It also invests the text with a dialogic and dialectic quality and, as a result, adds to its expressiveness and artistry. However, in Kiernan’s translation it can be seen that the question present in the source text has been excluded and a plain phrase takes its place. This leads to a discursive homogeneity which the practice of domestication quite often seeks to impose on the source text. It also deprives the text of its dynamism and narrative thrust which remains foundational to the whole scheme of Iqbal’s poetic discourse.

265

ایکزامےنےس رناال ےہ وسمینیلج ؟مرم؟ .(2)

ےب لحم ڑگبا ےہ وصعمام ِن ویرپج زماج

What, are crimes like Mussolini’s so unheard of in this age? Why should they put Europe’s goodies into such a silly rage? (Kiernan, 1955, 218)

Comment: In this instance, the elimination of the interrogative mode which is present in the source text is affecting the scheme of translation adopted by the translator. This verse has been taken from Iqbal’s famous poem Mussolini: To his Eastern and Western Rivals. This poem is an address of the Italian dictator Benito Mussolini to his European adversaries and critics. The whole poem has been cast in a verbal and rhetorical mould and the use of the questions in it is foundational to its artistic crafting. In the textual structure of the poem, first, Mussolini raises a question and then supplies an answer. Sometimes, he just further elaborates the questions instead of answering them. This raising of questions and then answering them is one of the techniques used by the poet which contributes to the dialogic and the dialectical effect of the poem. But the translator tampers with the structural properties of the poem and turns even the answer into yet another question. This, besides upsetting the formal properties of the poem, affects the dialectical development of the discourse built by the poet.

وآزاد یک دوتل دل رونش سفن یم.(3)

وکحمماک رسامہی طقف ددیہ انمنک

وکحممےہ اگیبہنٔ االخص و رموت

رہدنچہکقطنم یک دولیلں ںیم ےہ اچالک

Quick pulse, clear vision, are the freeman’s treasure; The unfree, to kindness and affection dead,

266

Has no more wealth than tears of his own shedding And those glib words he has in such good measure. (Kiernan, 1955, 123)

Comment: In this piece of translation, Kiernan is doing an extensive reshuffling of the source text. He is radically disturbing the inter-stanzaic metircal lines and gives them a new order which has serious implications for the macro-structure of the entire poem. This can be shown schematically in the following way:

This re-arrangement of inter-stanzaic of lines radically recasts the structural organization of the poem. This rearrangement results in the creation of such textual and structural associations which do not exist in the original. The difference between the structural scheme of the source text and the translation can clearly be noticed.

رھبوہسرکںیہن ےتکس الغومں یک ریصبت رپ .(4)

ہک داین ںیم طقف رمدا ن م یک آھکن ےہ انیب!

Trust no slave’s eyes, clear sight and liberty Go hand in hand. (Kiernan, 1955, 76)

Comment: In this piece of translation, Kiernan is changing the modalities of the

has been translated as “Trust no slave’s ”رھبوہسرکںیہنےتکس الغومں یک ریصبت رپ“ source text. The line

267 eyes…” This is an act of changing the syntactic mode in which the source text has been cast. It is clear from the source text that its first line has been written in the simple, active and affirmative mode. However, the translator has made it an imperative. The use of the simple and affirmative mode invests the source text with a timelessness and generality which is largely impaired when cast in an imperative mode. An imperative mode, in fact, is giving the text a make-believe aura and strips it of its essential factuality. In the translation of some of the other verses too this change of modality by the translator continues unabated. The following translation is also an instance of the same phenomenon.

دصقسکلفحماک ےہ؟ آات ےہ سک لفحم ےس وت؟ .(5)

زرد ُرو اشدی وہا رجنِ رہِ زنمل ےس وت؟

To what far gathering are you bound, from what far gathering come? Your face is balanced, as if from journeying long and wearisome. (Kiernan, 1955, 14)

Comment: Here, the entire source text is in the interrogative scheme which is just partially retained in the translation. In the source text, both the lines are in the interrogative mode but the translator just maintains that interrogative mode in the first line; whereas, in the second line this mode has totally been discarded. In the source text, the interrogative mode of the second line can easily be seen in which the poet is inquiring

This is .”زرد ُرو اش ٔ يی وہا رنو رہ لزل ےس وت؟“ — about the reason for the pale countenance of the moon rendered in a positive mode by the translator — “Your face is balanced, as if from journeying long and wearisome”. In the source text, the poet is just raising two questions. The line which should also have been a question as per the source text becomes a statement of affirmation. This is how the translator is reshuffling the formal properties of the source text and as a result the relations of subordination/coordination and broader stylistic and syntactic features go through major transformations.

268

ار، وکحمم یک تّیم ےس وس ابر ار.(6)

اے رسالیف!واے دخا ٔے اک انئت!واے اج ن اپک

Beware the carrion slave, A hundred times beware, Angels, and oh You Whom the worlds obey! (Kiernan, 1955, 248) Comment: The alliterative repetition embedded in the source text is of special significance in Iqbal’s poetry, or in any poetry for that matter. It is partly due to an artistic alliterative repetition that the poetic texts acquire a reiterative and rhythmic character. In the above verse, the poet has employed exceptionally elegant repetition which is altogether absent in the translation. In the first line, the interjectional compound

is repeated and, as a result, reinforces the intensity of the expression. In the ”ار“ word

is repeated alliteratively three times in the second ”اے“ same way, the Urdu interjection line. This entire repetition scheme is flattened out in the translation and a prosaic homogeneity takes over. Eventually, the textual and discursive diversity of the source text is seriously dismissed by the translator. This ultimately results in the domestication of the source text.

To conclude this section it can be maintained that there are various instances of prosodic domestication in Kiernan’s translation which affect its structure and syntax. The crucial and direct relation between the form and the content which is one of the hallmarks of poetry is seriously impaired by this kind of domestication. It is fruitful here to recall Roman Jakobson who famously asserted that poetry by definition is untranslatable because in poetry form itself contributes to the production of the textual meaning (Hatim & Mason, 1997, 75). The underlying networks of significations which are built into the structure of the source text are largely disrupted. The logical outcome of all this is an extensive reshuffling of the structural and formal relations found in the source text which, in turn, leads to an inversion of the meanings. The discursive and narrative patterns found

269 in the source text are also dislocated and the translation acquires new paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations not precisely found in the source text.

4.2.8. Expansion/Explicitation (Domestication by Inclusion)

In a certain sense, some amount of expansion/explicitation is inherent in every act of translation as every translation involves some degree of semantic clarifications and syntactic qualifications. As a result, a translation is likely to be longer than the source text and for this reason the American literary critic and translation scholar Francis George Steiner (1929 — ) maintained that translations are ipso facto “inflationist”. However, this has some disturbing implications from the perspective of the present research. Translations customarily seek to elaborate the intents and the purposes of the source text somewhat more overtly.

It is possible for the actual writer to have concealed a thought, used vague tropes, alluded to something in passing or implied something in a roundabout way. However when it comes to translation, a translator is more likely to explicate such textual ambiguities and, consequently, eliminate the mystique and the indistinctness which essentially characterize the source text. Poetry is particularly marked by such textual ambiguities and the narrative mystique which serves as one of its defining features. But explicating these ambiguities in an overt manner leads to the domestication of the source text.

The same goes for Kiernan’s translation of Iqbal as it renders explicit which is not intended to be explicit in the original text. In Kiernan’s case it seems to be a move away from the polysemous nature of the source text and a shift towards its re-casting as a monospermous narrative. Certain themes, tropes and references which remain folded and muffled in the original text are readily unfolded by the translator in a way which can only be considered gratuitous. Moreover, in Kiernan’s case, at times this explicitation sounds empty and does not seem to add anything substantial either to the signification or to the significance of the source text. The instances of explicitations present in Kiernan’s

270 translation may unfold the source text, but they, in effect, obfuscate the text’s indigenous modes of narrative. All this results in what is technically termed as “overtranslation”.

Iqbal’s poetic expression proverbially possesses a purposeful brevity which contains a broad range of meanings. When Kiernan unfolds the source text this brevity of expression vis-à-vis an infinity of meaning is radically upset. The following discussion takes into consideration different instance of this phenomenon of explicitation.

ت ےہ اس یک طب ّعبيت ںیم شیيّ ُبيع یھب ذرا اس .(1)

لیضفتیلعؓ مہ ےن ینس اس یک زابین

And some taints of the Shias’ vile heresy sully His mind—I have heard him extolling their Ali. (Kiernan, 1955, 10)

Comment: Here it can easily be seen that the unwarranted inclusions by the translator result in the ambiguity and brings about a dislocation in the poetic discourse of Iqbal. So insidious this inclusion happens to be that it adds totally undesirable elements to the original and gives it a wholly adverse turn. Iqbal says that as per the opinions of his

shiitism) included in his) ”عیشت“ coreligionists and compatriots, he has an element of religious makeup. It is just because he holds Ali, the fourth rightly guided caliph of Islam, in high esteem. As a result his coreligionists consider him to be unusually prone towards

shiitism) which) ”عیشت“ shiitism. In the source text, Iqbal has mentioned a neutral term refers to one of the major divisions within Islam.

By no means, Iqbal, in the source text, qualifies this denomination with any deprecating or derogatory terms as such. On the contrary, in the translation, Kiernan has given it an extremely offensive coloration by adding a highly disparaging phrase to it — “vile heresy sully”. One wonders as to why the translator deemed it necessary to add this

271 offensive and highly judgmental phrase to a word which the actual author has presented in a neutral way. While reading the translation, the reader is likely to make an altogether different interpretation of the verse.

Now from the literary as well as the religious points of view this way of approaching the source text is not only benignly detrimental but wholly outrageous. The translator, in an extremely judgmental way, is indicting Shiites of “vile heresy”. But no such indictment is present in the source text per se. This might have been a subjective and far-fetched extrapolation from the source text, but not a viable interpretation of it from the perspective of translation. Whatever literary or artistic merit it may add to translation, is beside the point. In a clear way it is inverting the original text and resulting in an explicitation.

رکمدیک اچولں ےس ابزم چ ایگرسام ہی دار .(2)

ااہتنے اسدیگ ےساھک ایگ زمدور امت

Your sharp paymasters have swept the board, they cheat and know no shame: You, forever unsuspecting, have forever lost the game. (Kiernan, 1955, 54)

Comment: This is yet another example of the extensive overtranslation due to wholesale inclusion and explicitation. In this translation one complete phrase (“…they cheat and know no shame”) is altogether redundant and does not add anything essential to

has — ”رکمیکاچولںےس ابزم چ ایگ رسامہی دار“ — the meaning of the source text. When the first line been translated as “Your sharp paymasters have swept the board”, there remains little need for any further explicitation. All the syntactic units of the source text get adequately translated thereby. But he instantly adds to it the following phrase: “they cheat and know no shame”. This is utterly repetitious and redundant as it is just rephrasing what has already been put. Furthermore, it has created an undue intensity in the translation which they poet is just implying in the original text.

272

The second problem with this translation is the referential one. In the second line,

English: “laborer”, “workman”, or more) ”زمدور“ :the poet is mentioning the Urdu word generally “the proletariat”). However, in the translation, this core reference is conspicuously missing. Instead, the translator replaces it strangely with the pronoun “you” which is likely to be considerably disorientating for the reader. In a clearly unmistakable way, this “you” seems to be directed at the reader.

رےہںیہ،اور ںیہ رفوعن ریم م اھگت ںیم اب کت .(3)

رگمایکمغہکریم م آںیتس ںیم ےہ دی اضیب!

…Pharaoh Plotted and plots against me; but what harm? Heaven lifts my hand, like Moses’, white as snow. (Kiernan, 1955, 78)

Comment: In this piece of translation, the translator fails to achieve clarity in spite of substantial explicitation and verbosity. Instead, the result is more confusion and a

ریمم آںیتس ںیم ےہ دی “ radical departure from the source text. The problem occurs in this phrase

,’which the translator has rendered wordily as “Heaven lifts my hand, like Moses ”اضیب white as snow”. Originally and more accurately, it should have been “Underneath my sleeve lies a White Miraculous Hand”. It is not clear as to what the translator really means by “Heaven lifts my hand” as nothing like this is enshrined in the source text. The

True, the Prophet Moses’ hand was .(دی اضیب) ”source text just mentions the “White Hand miraculously rendered white by God in order to cow down his opponents but the poet is not confining this miraculous capability here to Moses alone. To do so would have been utterly to inverse the intentionality of the poet.

273

Besides, the designation “Pharaoh” has been used plurally by the poet implying all those people and tyrants who behaved with arrogance and depravity once they achieved power. The source text clearly bespeaks that Pharaohs are not a thing of the past. The present age has its own Pharaohs which are exceedingly more ruthless and more powerful than the Egyptian despots of the bygone days. But the translator has rendered it as singular, reducing it to a specific Pharaoh who belongs to just one particular period of time. At the broadest level, the source text talks about the timeless animosity of the Evil towards the Good and this animosity is being typified here by Pharaohs. But the translated version is just about one pharaoh or, at maximum, the ancient Egyptian Pharaohs (1550 — 1307 BC).

آدموکیھب داھکی ےہ یسک ےن یھبک دیبار؟ .(4)

Has ever star seen slumber Desert Man’s drowsy head? (Kiernan, 1955, 144)

Comment: In this verse, the Morning Star is addressing his comrades — the other smaller stars — and puts an interesting but extremely significant question to them. But in the translation, the translator has made some of the uncalled-for additions to this question. In the original text, the poet is mentioning the word Adam and avoids using any qualifications/modifications with it. Adam is a generic reference in this context and stands for the entire humankind. The translator, on the other hand, adds a qualification to this word and makes it a “Desert Man”.

One wonders how “Man”, as it is found in the original, becomes a “Desert Man” This is how the translation discourse proceeds in a truncated way. Recasting “Man” as “Desert Man” is a reductionist way to translate it which truncates its communicative and discursive reach. The question raised by the Morning Star is not about “Desert Man” but about “Man” as such. Eventually this leads to the problem of explicitation which in turn results in the domestication of the source text.

274

رو ح اطلسینرےہابیق وت رھپ ایک ارطضاب .(5)

ےہ رگم ایک اُس وہیدم یکرشارت ج وجاب؟

While tyranny’s spirit lives on no fear should come To trouble us! But what answer shall we give To that accursed creature, that vile Jew. (Kiernan, 1955, 234) Comment: In the original text, the poet is referring to the renowned economic

However, it can .(وہیدم :and political philosopher Karl Marx and terms him “Jew” (Urdu be noticed that during the translation a considerable amount of padding is done by the

Jew) — is translated in a padded way — “that) ”وہیدم“ — translator. The single word accursed creature, that vile Jew”. In the original text, Iqbal does not explicitly present this condemnation of Karl Marx; rather, just implies it in passing. But the translator goes to an unwarranted extent and introduces hugely derogatory terms in the translation.

This, obviously, is a departure from the source text. In a certain sense, the translator’s introduction of such derogatory terms in the target text smacks of anti- Semitism. Marx is presented as a Jew, accursed and vile. This, indeed, is a far more intensified indictment of Marx than the one present in the original text. Furthermore, it is a clear instance of explicitation which brings about the domestication of the source text.

آاتف ب اتزہ دیپا نطب یتیگ ےس وہا .(6)

From the womb of this old universe a new red sun is born. (Kiernan, 1955, 54)

Comment: In this piece of translation also the problem explicitation is very

.(the youthful sun) ”آاتف ب اتزہ“ prominent. In the source text, the poet is using the phrase

275

However, in the translation it becomes “a new red sun”. Now the qualifier “red” is the concoction of the translator’s own mind having no origin in the source text. One wonders why the translator is including this adjective at all. It is incorrect on purely factual grounds also. The rising sun, which the poet is mentioning here, is never red. On the contrary it is the setting sun which looks red because of the dusky aurora. The award- winning American writer Will F. Jenkinz (1896 — 1975) says in his short story — Easy Home-Coming — while talking about the main character of the story: “She thrust away the feeling as the taxi rolled out across the neck of land beyond most of the houses. The red, dying sun cast long shadows across the road” (Sivasankaran, 1993, 109). In this way the translation is an inversion of the original text which is likely to evoke different referentialities in the reader.

the) ”نطبِ یتیگ“ In the same way, in the original text the poet is using the phrase womb of the universe). But the translator has rendered it as “the womb of this old universe”. Once again, the word “old” attributed to universe is added here by the translator. This is yet another example of the explicitation by the translator. Iqbal may have been attributing oldness to the universe, but he avoids mentioning this in the original.

مغرم ہن رک، مس مغ ہن اھک ہک یہی ےہ اش ن دنلقرم .(7)

…do not bewail that terror, do not Swallow the poison of that wailing: take The road by which the saints came to their crown. (Kiernan, 1955, 42)

Comment: This verse vis-à-vis its translation has already come under discussion with reference to the problem of Anglicization discussed above. However, this time, the researcher has brought it here with reference to the problem of explicitation. In the

which is rendered by the translator as ”اش ن دنلقرم“ original text, Iqbal has used the phrase

276

“the road by which the saints came to their crown”. The two-word original Urdu phrase is rendered by a ten-word equivalent expression. This is irksome because of its extensive redundancy and explicitation. There are, obviously, techniques by which this padding and redundancy could have been dispensed with. One way of rendering this phrase can be using a more precise equivalent such as “ways of the Sufis/Dervishes”.

In additions, the mention of the word “crown” once again smacks of the English Restoration literature in which this word serves as a metonymic reference to the monarchy. This doubly problematizes the translation made by the translator.

گنج و دجلاھکسای واظع وکیھب دخا ےن .(8)

Our God too set His preachers to scold and to revile. (Kiernan, 1955, 20)

Comment: This is yet another example of an unnecessary qualification and nominal referentiality. In the original text the poet it is just mentioning the word “God”

but in translation it becomes “Our God”. What further complicates the translation is (دخا) the italicization of the pronoun “Our” by the translator. It is not so easy to say as to why the translator is making this move. Perhaps he intends to add to the specificity of the pronoun. Or perhaps he is emphasizing it. These, however, are all conjectures.

This unnecessary qualification does stop with the word “God”. One notices that the translator continues with it and qualifies another word. In the original text, the poet is

However, the translator has rendered it as “His .(واظع) ”using the word “preacher preacher”. There is yet another example of the unnecessary qualification present in this piece of translation. In the source text the poet is using the word “preacher” (singular) but, in the translation, Kiernan renders it as “preachers” (plural). All these unwarranted liberties which the translator is taking with the source text constitute various examples of the explicitation and the cumulative result is the domestication of the original text.

277

زمخ ُُگ ےک واےطس دتریب رممہ بک کلت .(9)

For the red wounds of the rose your idle ointment will you bring. (Kiernan, 1955, 54)

.(رممہ) ”Comment: In the source text, the poet is using the word “ointment However, the translator renders it as “idle ointment”. Moreover, the poet has not used any possessive pronoun with the word “ointment”, yet the translator makes it “your idle ointment”. All this brings about the problem of explicitation in the translation. The translator’s taking of unwarranted liberties with the source text, however, does not stop

the wound of the flower) is rendered as “the red) ”زمخ ُُگو“ here and the Urdu phrase wounds of the rose”. In the source text, there is nothing which could imply that the wounds of the flower are red. The poet does not identify any particular colour for the wound of the flower. Moreover, in passing, let it be mentioned here that more accurately

does not mean “rose” per se; rather, it means “flower”. However, this ” ُُگو“ the Urdu word point has already discussed in detail.

وضحرﷺدرہںیم آوسدیگ ںیہن یتلم .(10)

Master! there is no quiet in that land of time and space. (Kiernan, 1955, 40)

Comment: In this piece of translation also the translator has included the words which are not as such present in the original text and which seem to be more like an

meaning “world”) but) ”درہ“ extrapolation by the translator. What the poet talks about is the translator is rendering it as “that land of time and space”.

278

It is evident from Iqbal’s poetic and philosophical discourse that the concept of

is one of his choicest themes and the one which frequently (زامن و اکمں) Time and Space features in his literary thought. But here the poet is not making any mention of this theme and its inclusion by the translator here seems somewhat superfluous. Yet another untoward effect of this way of approaching the source text is that it brings about an unnecessary (and, at times, utterly misleading) foregrounding. A simpler and more precise rendition — such as “Oh Prophet! The world is void of quiet and comfort” — would have gone a long way in conveying the meaning of the source text without any amount of textual deformation and syntactic explicitation.

ویکں ںیہن وہیت رحسرضح ت ااسنں یک رات؟ .(11)

Or why does no daybreak Come to dispel mankind’s heavy night? (Kiernan, 1955, 252)

Comment: In this verse, Iqbal is mourning the never-ending night which shrouds humans. This “night” becomes “heavy night”. This translation may not much affect the source text, yet, in its own right, it constitutes an instance of explicitation. However, it is not difficult to detect as to why the translator is resorting to this act of explicitation. These are purely the prosodic considerations of rhyme and meter which are dictating the lexical and syntactic choice of the translator here. If so, then the translator is conveniently sacrificing the actuality of the source text to the structural exigencies of the target text.

اساخکںیم وپدیشہ ےہ وہ اصِبح ارسار .(12)

Dust shrouding that high knower of things unknown. (Kiernan, 1955, 160)

279

Comment: In this piece of translation too the exigencies of the rhyme and meter are making the translator have recourse to explicitation. Besides, this instance of translation is problematic for more than one reason but immediately the researcher is

,”prescient“) ”اصِبح ارسار“ concerned just with the notion of explicitation. The word “visionary”) becomes “that high knower of things unknown”. This unnecessarily leads to the padding of the target text which results in the problem of explicitation.

رکیپِ ونری وکےہدجسہ رسیم وت ایک .(13)

س اس وک رسیم ںیہن وسز و ُگدا ِز ج ُ ود

What, to Him Who is Light, is it to watch men kneel? He cannot feel this fire melting our limbs as we pray. (Kiernan, 1955, 104)

Comment: In this verse Iqbal is enunciating the inherent superiority of the human mode of worship over the angelic mode of worship as the latter is deprived of the

implies such meanings as “burning” “fire” and ”وسز“ The Urdu word .”وسزودگاز“ intrinsic

.”means “melting”, “consumption” and “anguish ” ُگ از“ passion”; whereas the Urdu word“

.”stands for “a passionate burning and consumption ”وسزو دگاز“ Put together, the phrase However, in the above-mentioned instance, the translator proposes a considerably redundant translation — “fire melting our limbs as we pray”. But in spite of this redundancy of expression, the true meaning of the source text is seriously compromised. There is no mentioning of the phrase “our limbs as we pray” in the original text and it appears to be yet another extrapolation made by the translator. This leads to the problem explicitation/expansion.

ےہ دب آومزی اوقام و مل ل اک م اس اک .(14)

اورتنجںیمہن دجسم، ہن اسیلک، ہن تشنک

280

His business has been to set folk by the ears And get nations and sects in a tangle: Up there in the sky is no Mosque and no Church And no Temple—with whom will he wangle? (Kiernan, 1955, 187)

Comment: In this piece of translation, the phrase “—with whom will he wrangle?” is utterly an addition by the translator which has no origin in the source text at all. This addition constitutes an obvious example of explicitation which eventually leads to the domestication of the source text by the translator. The addition made by the translator is also an instance of extrapolation.

وسینڑپموہ یئ ےہ دمت ےس دل یک یتسب .(15)

Too long has lain deserted the heart’s warm habitation. (Kiernan, 1955, 20)

Comment: This is also an example of the unnecessary qualification of the source

the vale“) ”دل یک یتسب“ text by the translator. In the original text the poet is using the phrase of heart”). However, the translator adds the adjective “warm” and makes it “the hearts warm habitation”. In the source text, the poet is neither using nor implying any such qualification. This also constitutes an example of the explicitation resulting in domestication.

رگمںیمذنر وک اک آ ہنیگب ال ای وہں .(16)

وجزیچاسںیم ےہ، تّنج ںیم ںیہن یتلم

But I have brought this chalice here to make my sacrifice; The thing it holds you will not find in all your Paradise.

281

(Kiernan, 1955, 40)

Comment: In this translation, the possessive pronoun “your” is redundant as in

paradise). The inclusion of this possessive pronoun can) ”تنج“ the original it is just potentially lead to the misunderstanding on the part of the reader. A neutral and unattributed noun is being attributed to the subject with little warrant from the source text.

رکںی ےگ الہِ رظناتزہ ایتسبں آابد .(17)

ریمیاگنہ ںیہن وسےٗ وکہف و دغباد

By men whose eyes see far and wide new cities shall be founded: Not by old Kufa or Baghdad is my thought’s vision bounded. (Kiernan, 1955, 94)

is ”الہ رظن“ Comment: In the Urdu literary and historical tradition the phrase immensely relevant and significant. Iqbal has also drawn upon this phrase in his poetry extensively and with remarkable artistic success. The translator has rendered this phrase

as “men whose eyes see far and wide”. This, for all intents and purposes, is — ”الہ رظن“ — an extremely redundant and superficial translation of a highly terse and meaningful expression. Within the Urdu literary tradition, the phrase is not used for those “whose eyes see far and wide”. That is a somewhat shallow and too subjective way of dealing with it.

should be more fruitfully translated as “the people of ”الہ رظن“ Instead, the phrase vision”. Here “vision” stands for an intuitive perceptiveness and an insightful discernment. There is always an element of transcendental competence which serves as an essential concomitant of this vision. It is largely because of this transcendental dimension that a “vision” achieves its depth and reach. Reducing this transcendental perceptiveness and insight to a mere optical ability of seeing “far and wide” is to do

282 injustice with the source text. This also illustrates that how in spite of redundancy and padding, a translation fails to stand for the intents and purposes of the source text in their entirety. Similar indictment can be made of the equivalent phrase “old Kufa” which the

Iqbal is mentioning Kufa which is .”وکہف“ translator has proposed for the Urdu word neither old nor new.

To sum up, it can be maintained that there are numerous examples of explicitation in Kiernan’s translation of Iqbal. It has been illustrated by citing various examples from Kiernan’s translation that he has made extensive additions to the source text while rendering it. As George Steiner has been quoted above to the effect that translations tend to be “inflationist” on account of the large-scale inclusions made by the translators, Kiernan’s translation also suffers from this problem. All the unnecessary inclusions made by the translator have an accumulative and ultimate effect of explicitation which, in turn, leads to the domestication of the source text. Here and there, the translator interposes qualifiers, modifiers, determiners, nouns, pronouns. Various lexical and syntactic operations also bring about the problem of explicitation.

These additions made by the translator become all the more superfluous when one becomes alive of the fact that all which the translator wants to clarify by such additions is already decipherable from the general context of the source text. It is evident that the poetic discourses are often deliberately left oblique and cast in an implied mould. The decipherability of these implied elements constitutes the real merit of poetry. Therefore, when a translator renders these implied and purposefully ambiguous elements explicit, the true merit and the real worth of the source text inevitably suffers. Furthermore, all these additions appear to be all the more problematic when one takes into consideration the obvious fact that these are more of the subjective extrapolations of the translator than the actual terms necessitated by the source text.

4.2.9. Ennoblement — Gratuitous Interventionism by the Translator

283

Ennoblement is yet another domesticating strategy which is widely used by the translators in order to add “grace” and “elegance” to the translation. The so-called classics of translation owe their acceptability and popularity to this domesticating strategy to an extremely great extent. In the Western literary tradition of translation Edward Fitzgerald’s translation of Omar Khayyam marks the high point of the ennoblement of translation. As it has been thoroughly discussed in the literature review, Fitzgerald sought to “ennoble” Omar Khayyam in an extremely unwarranted way and took unusual liberties with the source text. He took it upon himself to rid the source text of its “coarse” and “uncouth” elements in order not to shock the moral sensibilities of the European reader (this point has been extensively discussed in the Literature Review Chapter).

In the same way, it is largely because of the extensive practice of ennoblement that, all too often, a reader takes a translation for the original. It is not uncommon among the Anglophone philosophers/readers to discuss the ideas of René Descartes or Immanuel Kant as if they had written in English. Today, because of the global hegemony of the English language, that people like Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx, Jean-Paul Sartre, Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault are discussed as if they wrote in English.

The translations of all these notable figures are highly “elegant”, “ennobled” and “naturalized”. What is frequently disregarded, in this regard, is the basic fact that translations neither are nor can be transparent windows onto an unmediated reality. While reading a translation of Derrida or, for that matter, Freud, the reader inevitably remains at variance with the source text and the translation does complicate whatever he or she perceives.

In the same way, Kiernan’s translation of Iqbal also suffers from the problem of ennoblement and there are frequent occasions on which the translator seeks to “ennoble” the source text in a way which has little warrant in the original. It is not uncommon for the translator to add “graces” and “elegances” to the source text in such a way that the source text appears to be little more than the raw material to be used by the translator.

284

What really appears to matter for the translator is the target text. In the following extended discussion, the researcher has taken into consideration numerous examples which illustrate this ennoblement of the source text by the translator. Take, for example, the very first instance:

یھجبقشع یک آگ ، ادنریھ ےہ .(1)

املسمںںیہن، راھک ج ڈریھ ےہ Quenched is devotion’s burring spark, Islam an ash-heap cold and dark. (Kiernan, 1955, 130)

Comment: This translation is being ennobled by the translator by employing two syntactic operations. First, Iqbal is mentioning the word “Muslims” in this verse. However, when Kiernan translates it, it is replaced with the word “Islam”. To Iqbal, in

the Muslims are like a heap of ash and cinders ,(قشع) the absence of a Passionate Love which has exhausted its fervor and dynamism. In the translation, however, this reference to the Muslims is replaced with a reference to Islam. This has far-reaching implications which go beyond the mere linguistic considerations and the researcher has already discussed this issue at length.

Besides, the translation is ennobled by adding two qualifiers “cold” and “dark” in the second line which have no existence in the source text per se. An ash-heap by definition is dark. Now whether it is cold or not is not easy to decide. To term it cold unequivocally is not warranted by the source text. It is quite possible that the ash-head is smoldering still and therefore is not altogether cold as such. This point is lent further credibility when one takes into consideration the other poems of Iqbal also, especially his

Fatima — the Daughter of Abdullah). Nevertheless, it is to) ”افہمط ّ ن دبعاہلل“ famous poem the credit of the translator that the monorhythmic poetic stability of the original text is, to a considerable extent, retained in the translation and this constitutes one of the structural strengths of Kiernan’s translation and must be admitted as such.

285

وجاھت ںیہن ےہ، وج ےہ ہن وہ ِ، .(2)

یہی ےہ اک رح ِف رحمامنہ

What was, has faded: what is, is fading: but of these words few can tell the worth. (Kiernan, 1955, 136) Comment: Here the translation of the second line is problematic on account of its

as “…but of ”یہی ےہ اک م ف رحمامہن“ ennoblement by the translator. Kiernan translates the lie these words few can tell the worth”. This is not exactly what the poet means. To the poet, the transient nature of everything is one of the fundamental realities of our universe but this transience remains an eternal and clueless mystery. The only well familiar truth is the fleeting nature of all this which is apparent from this kind of translation. This has been the tragedy recognized by all the noble minds. The celebrated American poet H. W. Longfellow (1807 — 1882) also mourned this loss when he bewailed:

Art is long, and Time is fleeting, And our hearts, though stout and brave, Still, like muffled drums, are beating Funeral marches to the grave. (Abrams, 2011 245)

However, the translator makes it that few people can tell the worth of this fact that everything is transient. This is how an ennoblement of the source text takes place. The translation is roundabout and, in its own way, seeks to add ‘elegance’ to the translation.

زہارج م ںیہ رمدا ِن رُح وک داین ںیم .(3) ت اںیھن ےک ذو ِق لمع ےس ںیہ اُ ّموںج اظنم

286

In this world a thousand tasks lie ready for the free, In whom the love of high deeds burns and forges The nations and their laws. (Kiernan, 1955, 224)

Comment: In this instance also the translator is ennobling the translation by unnecessary additions and ‘graces’. The translator introduces a phrase — “In this world”— which has no origin in the source text. There is no need of any such inclusion here as the context as well as the co-text suffices to understand the meaning of the verse.

is considerably overtranslated — “In ”اںیھن ےک ذو ق لمع ےس ںیہ اُ ّموں اک اظنم“ Even the second line whom the love of high deeds burns and forges the nations and their laws”. The translator seems to have been seeking to create elegance by means of these additions in his translation.

آجوہریمشک ےہ وکحمم و وبجمر و ریقف .(4)

لک ےسج الہ رظن ےتہک ےھت اریا ن ریغص

Known once on polished lips as Little Persia, Downtrodden and penniless is Kashmir now. (Kiernan, 1955, 258)

has been rendered ”الہ رظن“ Comment: In this piece of translation, the Urdu phrase by the translator as “polished lips”. This is an exceedingly misleading and inadequate

is an ”الہ رظن“ way of putting it. In Iqbal’s poetic and philosophical discourse, the phrase oft-quoted expression which is immensely meaningful and consequential to his entire scheme of his literary thought.

It is one of those phrases which are extremely difficult to translate into the English language. It stands for those exceptionally blessed individuals who have an

287 intuitive and perceptive judgment and are unusually capable of weighing the matters insightfully. By no means does the phrase “polished lips” communicate this polysemic and multi-layered signification of the phrase. Rather the qualifier “polished” (with its implications of refinement and bourgeois sophistication) is resonant with the elitist undertones. This is an instance of the recasting of a source text in elitist and exclusive moulds — a trend vociferously championed by Matthew Arnold but which lost favor with the advent of the Cultural Turn of the late 20th century. For the elucidation of this

is left ”وبجمر“ point see the literature review chapter above. Moreover, the word

”ریقف“ and “penniless” stands for ”وکحمم“ untranslated. “Downtrodden” is an equivalent for

.”وبجمر“ but there is not equivalent for

To sum up this segment of discussion, it can be maintained that the effacement of the literary and linguistic features of the source text and its gratuitous ennoblement by the translator is a serious domestication of Iqbal’s poetic discourse. It is a question of effacing the peculiar plainness of the Urdu language which paves the way to an uncalled- for ennoblement of the source text. At times, the translator is seen replacing the single words from the source text with larger phrases. All this is undertaken by the translator in order to ennoble the original text as per his own subjective decisions/extrapolations. The renowned translation scholar and theorist Antoine Berman makes the point in the following quote which fittingly concludes the section:

From its very beginnings, western translation has been an embellishing restitution of meaning, based on the typically Platonic separation between spirit and letter, sense and word, content and form, the sensible and the non-sensible. When it is affirmed today that translation (including non-literary translation) must produce a “clear” and “elegant” text (even if the original does not possess these qualities), the affirmation assumes the Platonic figure of translating, even if unconsciously. All the tendencies noted in the analytic lead to the same result: the production of a text that is more “clear,” more “elegant,” more “fluent,” more “pure” than the

288

original. They are the destruction of the letter in favor of meaning (Venuti, 2000, 56).

With this the first major half of the data analysis comes to its end. In this section, which constitutes the lion’s share of the data analysis, the researcher has investigated the problem of domestication in V. G. Kiernan’s translation of Muhammad Iqbal with reference to nine categories charted above. Each of these categories has been discussed with the help numerous examples from the source text. The researcher has analyzed every instance systematically and thoroughly. Subsequently, from this systematicity and thoroughness of analysis the point has been established that Kiernan’s domestication of Iqbal is extensive, complex and highly structured. It is also established by the preceding discussion that the domestication of Iqbal by Kiernan is at once semantic and syntactic. The translator has frequently and extensively disregarded the essential linguistic and cultural features of the source text with the result of a large-scale domestication and rewriting of the intents and purposes of the source text. It is also evident from the preceding discussion that at numerous occasions the source text is deprived of its “voice” and the target text becomes wholly unrepresentative of it.

4.3. Corpus-Analysis of the Word-Level Equivalents

It has been seen in the previous section how one by one all the major domesticating categories tailored by the researcher affect Kiernan’s translation to varying degrees. However, their cumulative impact happens to take a much heavier toll of the translation and proves to be all the more pernicious. A corpus analysis of the word-level equivalent is necessary to give a wider and deeper reliability to the main findings of the previous section. Therefore this section is primarily intended to complement the previous discussion. Moreover, whereas the previous section is more qualitative in its treatment of the subject matter and the application of the research tools, the present section is more quantitative and involves a one to one study of the word-level equivalents employed by Kiernan while translating Iqbal. Here the researcher maintains a rigorous focus on such micro-level considerations as signifiers, metaphors, figures, etc.

289

droning) ”وقایل“ ,(Muslim) ”اغزم“ ,(sophist) ”اسکل“ In the source text, words such as Psalm), etc., openly indicates a cultural context which is at sharp variance with the target language culture. True, the translator has done his best to replace such cultural-sensitive words with their most approximate English equivalents but this very scheme of translation proves to be problematic for the subject at hand. Moreover, the translator has adopted a target-text-oriented approach to translation. This is established by the fact that there are few examples in the translation where the translator retained the original source- test word. On the other hand, the overtly Anglicizing equivalents are frequently used by the translator. Similarly it is interesting to note that Iqbal’s poetry is distinguished by a huge variety of references to the Islamic spirituality which is, certainly, very different from the monastic mysticism found in Christianity or with which the Europeans are customarily

has an elaborate system of denomination (وصتف) acquainted. The Islamic spirituality which is unique only to itself. When translating such spiritual terms from the Islamic philosophy, some dislocation (both cultural and linguistic) becomes inevitable. This is just one case in point. Let us formally begin with the corpus analysis of Kiernan’s translation.

Comment: These equivalents clearly illustrate their problematic nature. The word

290

rendered as “glowing orb” seems fanciful. Similarly the equivalent “devotions” for ”رہم“

.is imprecise. The word “devotion” implies a religious fervour or an act of prayer ”التوت“ It also implies a religious exercise or practice other than the regular ritualistic worship in the form of a congregation. At the broadest level the word “devotion” also refers to piety.

.strictly entails a ritualistic and aloud recitation of the Quran ,”التوت“ However, the word

which in reality is more ”واظع“ Next, the equivalent “reverend chatter” is used for

as “religion’s ”رشتعی“ like a holy and ceremonial sermon. In the same way, translating strict laws” is also domesticating as it is unilaterally judgmental on the part of the translator. At the same time, the juxtaposition of the adjective “New” with “Samaris” is gratuitous. There is no such qualification in the source text and it is clear contextually that Iqbal is using the word in a timeless way. Every age has its own Samaris — its idol- mongers — who lead the simple believers astray by their deceitful and polytheistic insinuations.

Comment: In the same way as it has been discussed above, the equivalent

is inappropriate and exceedingly domesticating. The ”منص“ senseless monsters” for“

originally referring to Persia in contradistinction to) ”مجع“— geographical reference

291

Arabia) has been rendered as “the alien lands” which does not signify anything specific. In Islamic history, Persia has always been taken as a foil to Arabia. This can only be conveyed in the translation if the word Persia finds place in the target text which does not happen in this case.

a phrase is used by the translator: “scorn of this world’s ”اانغتس“ Next, for the word show”. Once again this is not the right translation of the original word which is quite

is something like a self-contained and ”اانغتس“ intricate to translate in fact. The word enlightened aloofness and a non-attachment to the things mundane. It is a cultivation of autonomy to an unusual extent which puts an individual above and beyond the shackles of everyday needs — a move away from the self-indulgent existence. The use of the adjective “scorn” in the equivalent phrase is giving an altogether different coloration to

implies an indifference to the ”اانغتس“ the entire scheme of meaning. True, the word material world, yet it does not necessarily involve a sense of scorn or aversion. Furthermore the kind of enlightened indifference propounded by the poet is neither an ascetic denunciation of the world nor a monkish withdrawal from it. It is to remain in a non-attached mode of existence and to strive for the greater and deeper spirituality.

as “dust” happens to be an undertranslation as it inadequately ”ابغ ر راہ“ The phrase

does not just imply “dust”; rather, it ”ابغ ر راہ“ captures the breadth of the original. The word

as “girl” is also an ”درتخ داقہن“ stands for “the dust of the pathway”. Likewise, the phrase

means “the peasant’s girl”; whereas, the ” ُدرتخ داقہن“ undertranslation. Originally, the phrase equivalent used by the translator “girl” is quite general and common and hardly denotes anything substantial with reference to the original phrase used in the source text.

292

originally: a neckband, neckline, or a collar) as) ”یابین“ Comment: The word “seam” is mistaken and imprecise for certain reasons. To begin with, the word “seam” is a general reference which stands for a line along with the pieces of cloth are joined together. It never has as much idiomatic or communicative value in English as the word

:is used in such expressions as ی ”ابین“ has in Urdu. It is in Urdu that the word ”یابین“

To rend one’s robe ”یابین اچک رکان“ .

To buttonhole someone یابین” ڑکپان“ .

To feel utterly ashamed یابینںیم ”ہنم اپھچان“ .

To liberate oneself ”یابین وھچڑاان“ . from someone/something

On the contrary, the English word “seam” has altogether different cultural and idiomatic significance as well as signification which is amply illustrated from the expressions given below:

. “Burst at the seams” To be very full and burst

. “Fall apart at the seams” To break apart where the parts are joined

293

. “Seam something with something” To join the edges of something together

. “A rich seam” A subject which provides a lot of opportunities for people to discuss or write.

The purpose to mention these expressions is to establish the fact that the word

has a uniquely idiomatic and proverbial dimension to it and a mere replacement of ”یابین“ it with a generic equivalent “seam” will not translate it as such. The word “seam” has its

.”یابین“ own idiomatic signification which is markedly different from that of Furthermore, the word “seam” does not elicit those idiomatic and cultural associations

.”یابین“ which are indispensable concomitants of the word

Second, the word “belly-cheer” lacks the seriousness and the formal tone of the original word it purports to represent. Moreover, this equivalent smacks of causal and

the translator purposes such equivalents ,”الم“ informal undertones. Similarly, for the word as “priest”, “teacher”, “reverend divine”. These attempts at translating the original word also hardly seem to meet much success as none of them exactly stands for it. The word “divine” for a religious guru is a decisively ecclesiastical term; not suitably applicable in the Islamic context. “Priest” is obviously a poor choice given its socio-religious associations and connotations.

originally: sorcerer, necromancer) also) اس” م“ Lastly, the equivalent “shaman” for falls short of communicating the source text word for the same reasons as mentioned above. The similar problems can be detected with the equivalents used for the Urdu word

It has been rendered variously as: “alien dominion”, “conquest”, “empire”; yet .”ولمتیک“ none of these equivalents captures the core meaning attached to the original word which imply “autocratic despotism and monarchical authoritarianism”. The word which comes closest to express this shade of meaning is perhaps “dominion”; yet it too lacks the intensity as it just means “ruling power” or “authority”—not necessarily a despotic authority.

294

Comment: All of these equivalents are marked by unnecessary and semantically redundant qualifiers and modifiers. The following adjectives/modifiers are unnecessary: “fabled”, “warm”, “chill”, “blind” and “cold”. Nor are these adjectives/modifiers as such needed to communicate the source text. On the other hand, they add subjectively decided qualifications and extrapolations to different nouns and references which are not necessarily intended that way by the poet. For instance, the use of the adjective “fabled” with “peace” does not signify anything. No such qualification is implied by the original

Same is the case with the adjective “warm” in “heart’s وکسںاحملےہ .” دقرت ےک اکراخےن ںیم“ — verse

وسین ڑپم وہیئ ےہ دمت ےس دل یک “ — warm habitat” as the original verse is void of such implication

Likewise the use of “chill” with “breadth”; “blind” with “dust”; and “cold” with .”یتسب “heart” are problematic on the same grounds.

295

Comment: All these equivalents suffer from the problem of domestication to a

.”is not just “an ancient tomb ومیتر ”یک رتتب“ varying degree. To begin with, the Urdu phrase This equivalent evidently falls short of capturing the specificity and exactness of the source text. “An ancient tomb” can mean various things to various people. The proper reference which is enshrined in the source text is left untranslated. The source text alludes to the mausoleum of Tamerlane (1336 — 1405) who was a Turkic ruler and a conqueror.

has been rendered as “good men” which is an ”الہ رظن“ Next, the phrase

is (الہ رظن) exceedingly shallow and superficial way of translating it. The original phrase exceptional pregnant with meanings and significance. Its exact translation seems well neigh impossible. Nevertheless, at the broadest level, it implies “the people with a perceptive and insightful discernment”. Now the equivalent “good men” does not suggest anything specifically like this. Any and everybody can be good in one way or the other. There are different ways of being good or, at least, looking good. Goodness, as it stands, refers to so many discreet things ranging from a charitable disposition to a gregarious attitude. From Bentham’s Utilitarianism to the Greek Epicureanism, so many philosophies take good as their prime goal; yet there is hardly an agreed upon definition

as “good men” does not communicate any thing ”الہ رظن“ of good. Therefore translating substantively.

296

as “Earth’s poor familiar” is flawed for the same ”زںیم ےک رحمم“ The translation of reasons which have been discussed while commenting upon the preceding equivalents (16 to 20). In this translation, the adjective “poor” is a redundant intrusion by the translator which has no origin (either direct or implied) in the source text. Such uncalled- for intrusions are instrumental in the domestication of the source text here. These intrusions may invest the translation with greater acceptability by the readers; yet they recast the source text in altogether unwarranted terms.

The last two equivalents are problematic on account of their growing Anglicization of the source text. The translator imposes a patently Judeo-Christian character upon a distinctly Islamic text when he employs such equivalents. Consider, for

.”which has been rendered variously as “casuist” and “Pharisee ”ہہیقف“ example, the word

is ”ہہیقف“ Yet both of these equivalents are highly unsuitable. In Islamic theology, the word used for an Islamic scholar well-versed in the Muslim jurisprudence i.e. the science of establishing the exact terms of Sharia.

Now consider the first of the two equivalents used for this term by the translator i.e. “casuist”. Casuistry, in fact, refers to a system of deciding issues of conscience by the application of ethical principles. It is a term largely applied in the domain of moral theology. It has widely been used as an instructional vehicle by religious philosophers aiming at inculcating an ethical code in the masses. Its use has been more prevalent in Confucianism, Stoicism, Talmudic Judaism, and Christianity (Richardson, 2013). However, subsequently the moral laxity evidenced in the casuistic practices gave it a considerably pejorative coloration. As a result it came to imply the employment of deceptive reasoning in the moral theology in an over-juridical way.

The other equivalent used in this regard is “Pharisee” which is more problematic as its Judaic associations are more pronounced. The term “Pharisee” refers to the so- called Jewish sect dating from the 2nd century BC. Historically, the chief goal of

297

Pharisees was to counter all the foreign influences that could weaken the sacred Jewish law. The Pharisees insisted that all the socio-political matters be judged and decided against the criterion of the Judaic Divine Law. Jesus criticized the Pharisees for their self- righteous sanctimoniousness (Mathew, 23). Such condemnation is also found in the Talmud. Pejoratively, the term is used for a kind of hypocritical smugness and pompous show of one’s piety (Osborne, 2012). In the light of this historical analysis, the Judeo- Christian moorings of these two equivalents can easily be discerned and using them to translate a patently Islamic theological designation results in an imposition of the target- text cultural terms on the source text.

”اہجد“ On much the same grounds, an indictment of the equivalent “crusade” for can be made. Historically as well as religiously, “crusade” and “Jihad” are two distinct entities with very little in common. It is a sad fact that, stripped of all its essential conditionalities and dimensions, the word Jihad is commonly translated as “crusade” or “Holy War” in the Western media. Originally and technically, the word Jihad is a ceaseless striving against the one’s own egoistical self and social injustice:

There are four ways they may fulfill a jihad: by the heart, by the tongue, by the hand, and by the sword. The first refers to the inner, spiritual battle of the heart against vice, passion, and ignorance. The second way means speaking the truth and spreading the word of Islam with one’s tongue. The third way involves choosing to do what is right and to combat injustice and what is wrong with action, or one’s hand. The fourth way refers to defending Islam and waging war against its enemies with the sword (quoted in Bingel, 2013, 34)

On the other hand, the word “Crusade” refers to a series of military expeditions by the Christian mercenaries to reclaim the Holy Lands from the Muslims. The Crusades were first embarked on in the late 11th century and came to an end in the late 13th century. In this way, it also designates a specified period in the European history. The term “Crusade” was originally used solely for the European expeditions to recapture the city of Jerusalem from the Muslims. It was only later that the term was

298 applied to designate any military effort by the Europeans against non-Christians (see Madden, 2013). Thus translating Jihad as Crusade remains highly problematic and amounts to a radical domestication of the source text.

Comment: The equivalents listed above suffer from a variety of problems which have far-reaching implications for the overall scheme of translation adopted by Kiernan.

is a poor choice as the original word unerringly refers to a Passionate ”قشع“ Desire” for“ Love which is foundational to Iqbal’s entire poetic discourse. Mostly it is in this sense

On the contrary, “desire” is, indeed, one of the .”قشع“ that Iqbal uses the word

yet the original word is not entirely reducible to it. Primarily the ,”قشع“ constituents of

as employed by the poet stands for an ardent striving towards the Infinite ”قشع“ notion of and a zealous affirmation of one’s own identification with It. This complexity of the original word is only imperfectly communicated by the equivalent “desire”.

the translator uses the word “graven ”الت و انمت“ Secondly, for the Urdu phrase images” which is obviously a too generalized way of dealing with the utterly specified

(”انمت“ and و”الت“) references found in the original text. The two terms in the source text refer to two of the North Arabian goddesses of the pre-Islamic period. These two false

299 goddesses had sanctuaries near Makkah that used to be the site of idolatrous pilgrimages until the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) ordered them smashed (Sonn, 2010). The equivalent phrase “graven images” does not obtain the (con)-textual specificity found in the source text. The poet is not referring to some graven images in an undefined and generalized way. On the contrary, he is categorically mentioning the false gods and spurious deities of the pre-Islamic Arabia. At the same time, the poet is taking these false gods to be timelessly present in the world to be confronted by all the righteously disposed people.

becomes “impious striving” in the translation which is slightly off ”ااحلد“ The word the mark in a subtle way. An impious striving is characterized by a disrespectful

is not mere irreverence or sinfulness. In ”ااحلد“ demeanor and sinfulness; whereas, the word a more appropriate sense it implies a “haughty deviousness” and a “conceited

is characterized more about the presence of ”ااحلد“ ,perversion”. In a technical sense arrogance than by the mere ignorance of the “Straight Path” (Kaltner, 2011).

which is ”رط ز وطاف“ Similarly the equivalent phrase “a way of worship” is used for

does not merely imply just a way of worship. Instead, it ”رط زوطاف“ also flawed because stands for a ritualistic circumambulation of Kaaba. “A way of worships” is a sweeping and a catchall term which can mean anything ranging from fasting and alms-giving to wearing a smile and greeting one’s neighbor warmly. It is largely by means of these equivalents that the source text loses its referential exactness and contextual specificity. Moreover, by using such imprecise equivalents, the translator brings in a slack textual generality which can mean different things to different people.

suffers from the ”اُِتم رموحم“ Lastly, the equivalent phrase “chosen people” for

means “the community ”اُِتم رموحم“ problem of Anglicization. Originally, the Urdu phrase of the saved”. Interestingly in Islam, there is no concept of the “chosen people” as such.

300

Instead, the phrase has its origin in the Judaic historico-religious tradition. The term implies the Judaic notion that the Jewish people are the chosen ones and the sole claimants to salvation (Firestone, 2008). This Judaic notion is one of the recurrent subjects in the Jewish liturgy and is enshrined in the Scripture as well:

Ye are the children of the LORD your God: ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead. For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth. Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing. These are the beasts which ye shall eat: the ox, the sheep, and the goat, 14:5 The hart, and the roebuck, and the fallow deer, and the wild goat, and the pygarg, and the wild ox, and the chamois (Deuteronomy, 14, 1-5).

Even etymologically the term has the biblical origin. The term “chosen people” is a free translation of the biblical terms am segullah (“treasure people”) and am nahallah (“heritage people”). The concept of the chosen people has had a deep and long-term effect on the Jewish history and religious thought because it vouchsafes a unique significance to their relation with God. It implies a covenant between God and the Jews. As per the conditions of this covenant, the Jews were to be obedient and loyal to God and, in turn, God was to grant them His protection and blessings. This privileged status brought to the Jews not only more privileges but also special commitments and obligations: “Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people; and walk in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you” (Jer. 7, 23).

The Quran, on the contrary, categorically refutes such privileged positions and accords no such unique and exceptional status to Muslims. In the light of this entire analysis it is safely established that the use of the equivalent phrase “chosen people” for

not only falsifies the intents and purposes of the source text; it also, in an ”اُِتم رموحم“ intriguing way, inscribes the translation with the Judaic terms. This is how the Islamic character of the source text is being appropriated is the translation.

301

The first two equivalents “planets” and “ocean” which respectively stand for

are factually wrong. Their exact equivalents respectively are “stars” and ”درای“ and ”اتسرے“ “rivers”. Plants and stars are two distinct heavenly bodies with their own scientific

which is (درای) ”properties and cultural implications. For example, look at the word “river marked by a tempestuous wanderings and an earnest striving. Its turbulent flow is indicative of its ingrained desire to get united with the Infinite which is typified by the sea. It illustrates an earnest struggle for its own self-discovery which it ultimately attains when it finally joins the sea. Now come to the word “ocean” which is marked by self- reliance and self-realization. It has no further ambition as its Self has reached a final state of its fulfillment. Therefore, as passionate rivers join the sea every now and then, the sea itself does not want to join any other greater body of water because there is none. In this way, the sea has none of the qualities which the poet has actually intended — eagerness, tumultuousness, passion, etc. In this way a counter-factual replacement of “river” with “ocean” turns the entire scheme of things upside down. It is because of this reason that Iqbal’s use of these two words (“river” and “ocean”) is highly calculated and in total accordance with their respective properties. The same is the case with the distinction between a “star” and a “planet”. The former is marked by a stillness and calm; whereas the latter typifies movement and transformation and dynamism.

302

is being rendered as a “mumbling priest” which is an ”ریپ اسیلک“ Next, the phrase enormously derogatory way to put it. The juxtaposition of “mumbling” with “priest” adds to the intensity of the pejoration which characterizes the translation. The pejoration becomes all the more unwarranted when one notices that the source text is not quite

”as “madness” and “fury ”ونجں“ explicit on this count. In the same way, the translation of

may have ”ونجں“ is not in line with Iqbal’s treatment of this word. Ordinarily, the word been translated as “madness”. However, in Iqbal’s scheme of thought, it has an entirely different dimension to it. Whereas the word “madness” and “fury” imply an element of

more accurately means a passionate ”ونجں“ insanity” and “foolhardiness”; the word“ selflessness and a zealous devotion which is not utterly stripped of sanity but is, in effect, a fulfillment of it. It is more like a single-minded commitment to one’s higher and nobler cause in an absolutely non-utilitarian way.

can be faulted on the same grounds as 31 ”دنق“ Finally the equivalent ‘sherbet” for

is another name for “sugar” — a ”دنق“ and 32 have been criticized. Originally, the word sweet-tasting substance usually in the form of tiny white or brown cubes. The word “sherbet” on the other hand, is a loanword taken from Urdu which means a drink made

”is one of the ingredients of “sherbet (دنق) ”from fruit water and sugar. In this way, “sugar and the only commonality between them is their sweet taste.

303

Comment: In this table we see a fairly broad spectrum of domesticating

is rendered as ”ذو قِ ومن“ techniques employed by the translator. To begin with, the phrase “ambition” which is a very truncated and disingenuous way of translating it. The original phrase and its equivalent employed by the translator are at wide variance with each other. The original phrase has thoroughly positive implications and very approving connotations. However, its equivalent has earned something of notoriety over time and has rather unenthusiastic undertones. The word ambition smacks of an ardent longing for the things mundane — an insatiable yearning or quest.

-is more like a “pining for self ”ذو ق ومن“ On the other hand, the phrase manifestation” and a “passion for self-expression and self-realization”. It is more precisely an “exteriorization of one’s innermost excellence” which is of great value in combating the devils and demons of our material and perverted world which is so prone to cynicism and hedonism. With such vastness of meaning, the phrase is poorly rendered as “ambition” and this equivalent compromises the real import of the original word as well as the source text. Undeniably, the poet seeks to cultivate an earnest longing for perfection and moral excellence in his readers; yet this longing should not become an apology for one’s voraciousness and avidity.

is rendered as “other-worldliness” which is also a less ”رقف“ Secondly the word

304

is amazingly ”رقف“ than accurate way to translate it. In Iqbal’s semantics, the term

.”Iqbal does not mean “other-worldliness ,”رقف“ consequential and meaningful. By Instead, Iqbal censures all such escapist philosophies which encourage and promote otherworldliness in the face of challenges of our relentless existence on this planet. For this reason, he opposes vehemently all the hermitic and monkish cults and always advocates a perseverance and firmness against in the face of all adversities of fate and life.

-in a more accurate and inclusive sense, implies a non ,”رقف“ Thus the word attachment to and a non-dependence on opulence and the materialistic possessions. It is a non-acquisitive attitude which distinguishes the contented people from the ordinary folk. Nevertheless the equivalent “other-worldliness” overtly connotes an escapist attitude and a run-away disposition which makes one turn a blind eye to the daunting challenges of life. Consequently, the employment of this equivalent by the translator domesticates the entire notion enshrined in the source text.

can also be faulted for ”الت و انم ت“ Thirdly, the equivalent “Baals and Dagons” for more than one reason. To begin with, it happens to be a case of re-inscribing the source text with the foreign terms and redefining its cultural discourse by means of those foreign expressions which do not really capture its spirit. To put it simply, once again, the translator has attempted to communicate a thoroughly Islamic discourse by casting it in a Judeo-Christian mould. Al-Laat and Al-Manaat, as it has been discussed earlier, were two of the pre-Islamic Arabian goddesses enshrined in the form of idols, in Kabbah, the House of God. They are frequently mentioned in the Islamic discourses and epitomize the forces of inequity and godlessness in the world. The translator has used the equivalent

Baal” was, originally, a“ .”الت و انمت“ Baals and Dagons” which do not really stand for“ god worshiped in many ancient Middle Eastern communities, especially among the Canaanites who apparently considered him a fertility deity and one of the most important gods in the pantheon.

305

Moreover, Al-Laat was a female deity — a goddess; whereas, “Baal” is a male god characterized by such patriarchal terms as “Owner”, “Prince”, “Master” and “Lord of Fertility”. In the Old Testament, Baal’s appellation as the god of storm was “He Who Rides on the Clouds” (Thompson, 2012, 308). Similarly, “Dagon” was also an Assyro- Babylonian god of crop fertility and vegetation — a legendary inventor of the plow. He was father to the god Baal and was commonly known as “god of the Biblical Philistines” (Bodby, 2005, 305). He is mentioned in the Paradise Lost by John Milton:

...Next came one Who mourned in earnest, when the captive ark Maimed his brute image, head and hands lopt off, In his own temple, on the grunsel-edge, Where he fell flat and shamed his worshippers: Dagon his name, sea-monster, upward man And downward fish; yet had his temple high Reared in Azotus, dreaded through the coast Of Palestine, in Gath and Ascalon, And Accaron and Gaza’s frontier bounds. (1: 459 — 466)

calls for a somewhat ”ملسم“ Fourthly, the use of the word “Muhammadan” for extensive discussion here for various religious and cultural reasons. As a matter of fact, the term Muhammadan was an offensive term used mainly by the Orientalists for Muslims. This term never gained popularity among the Muslims for various religious reasons. In fact, the prophet Muhammad is not to Islam, what Jesus Christ is to Christianity. The former is taken by Muslims as the Last Messenger of Allah; whereas, the latter is considered by Christians to be God Incarnate. For this fateful and crucial difference, the Muslims never called themselves Muhammadans. There is a historic background also which needs to be elaborated here. By a vast majority of the Orientalists, Islam was taken to be a crude parody of Christianity. It was

306 also considered to be an alien nuisance and a formidable adversary which in history had earned huge military victories throughout the world. In this way, it was taken as a menace to the European civilization. Thus in the European consciousness, Islam, first and foremost, was placed within the domain of the Western understanding with regard to Christian notions rather than with respect to its own indigenous terms. One way of creating this deformed consciousness about Islam was to draw parallels between Islam and Christianity:

The obvious parallel is the one which some Orientalists draw between Muhammad and Christ. Since Christ is central to the Christian faith, Westerners assumed that Muhammad holds the same place in Islam. This misconception helped to popularize the use of the name “Mohammedanism”, a term highly offensive to Muslims. The Christ analogy also served to reinforce the notion that Muhammad was nothing more than an “impostor” and a pale version of the Christian Messiah (Craig, 1998, Vol. 1, 160).

Therefore, in the light of this discussion, it can be safely established that

is not only incorrect but also ”ملسم“ Muhammadan” as an equivalent for the Urdu word“ positively misleading. Lastly, something must be said about the equivalent “command”

-This is an obvious imprecision. Revelation is the self .”ویح“ which purportedly stands for communication of God i.e. God’s disclosure of His Will to humankind. It may be in the form of a vision, often accompanied by words, or may consist only of words. In all revelations, the primary element is the encounter with the Divine, which it is the task of religious doctrine and of religious tradition to interpret and convey (Wright, 2011). Therefore, in religion, the disclosure of the Divine or the sacred reality is what is called revelation. Such disclosure may come through mystical insights, historical events, or spiritual experiences that transform the lives of individuals and groups (Craig & Moreland, 2012). On the other hand, a command is too general to capture the specificity for associated with the word “revelation”. It is just an authoritative order or instruction whose origin is not necessarily divine. The anthropomorphic nature of command is as

307 much recognized as their divine character.

Comment: Here we have some of the most visible instances not only of domestication but also of outright inaccuracies. To begin with, the word “temple” for

itself ” مم“ is obviously inappropriate for the following reasons. The original word ”مم“ has gained currency in the English language and is widely used as a loanword — Haram. Besides, a “temple” particularly refers to non-Islamic places of worship i.e. synagogues, churches, pyramidal tombs, sanctums, Shinto shrines, Buddhist stupas, pagodas etc. To identify, for example, a mosque as a temple is repugnant to the Islamic historico- theological thought.

A temple can possibly be dedicated to more than one divinity which absolutely is not the case with Haram which is dedicated to the worship of one supreme God. The renowned scholar and historian William L. MacDonald, the author of The Pantheon— Design, Meaning and Progeny, has amply elucidated this point in his article titled “Temple” in Encyclopedia Encarta (2005). Similarly, a temple is not necessarily a place of worship but can be a centre of consecrated ordinances for the living and the dead. This is also not the case with Haram. There is hardly any Islamic writer of note who used this word for a mosque.

has been rendered as “incantation” which is a faulty ”وہ“ Secondly the word

308

a modified) ”وہ“ equivalent on certain technical grounds. In Islamic mysticism, the word

He”) is an ecstatic invocation and is used to refer to One Supreme“ ھ و form of Arabic Allah. It is one of the most abiding themes of the Muslim mystics and poets. It is a rapturous cry, a euphoric yell of the Sufis. On the other hand, the word “incantation” is the chanting of verbal charms and spells sung as part of a ritual of magic. It also refers to a recited formula of words intended to produce a magical effect or power over other people or supernatural beings. None of this constitutes the essential meaning of the word

which, in its own unique way, is a jubilant affirmation of God’s ubiquitous ,”وہ“ existence, a confession of His supremacy and an earnest yearning for a total absorption into the Divine.

is rendered by the translator as “evangel” — a word ”ایپم“ Next, the Urdu word with unmistakable Christian coloration. The word “Evangel” refers to the message concerning such themes as Jesus Christ, the Kingdom of God, the Redemption, etc. It also refers to one of the first four New Testament books. Connotatively, it means an interpretation of the Christian message. It is noteworthy that in the source text the poet is using this word in a fairly neutral sense — a tiding, a message, a proclamation, etc. It is only in translation that Kiernan is couching it in the ecclesiastical and biblical terms. The British National Corpus (BNC), a 100-million-word text corpus of English, records three sentences/entries under the entry of “evangel” and in all of these sentences the word has been used in this biblical sense. Here are these three entries quoted verbatim:

. AE4 1218 But they raised the question of authority only in the most ambiguous terms: ‘we have yet made no mention of change in authority nor has it even entered our hearts, but seeing that France and the Queen Regent here, her priests, etc., intend nothing but suppressing Christ's evangel…we are fully purposed to seek the next remedy and withstand their tyranny’ (Wormald, 1991, 97).

. G0M 1145 Oh, certainly I know the common practice of reading the future by opening the Evangel blindly, and laying a finger on the page, but what is this official

309

use of it in consecrating a new bishop? (Peters, 1993, 137)

. G0M 1923 They rose, they hung almost still, and gradually they declined and were flattened into the bulk of the later books of the Evangel (Peters, 1993, 48).

This is how the source text is being re-inscribed with the ecclesiastical terms and idioms and, as a result, gets dislocated from its essential linguistic and cultural specificities.

Furthermore, the last two equivalents in this list are flawed on purely factual

which is contrary to the ”ادنپس“ grounds. The translator has used the word “mustard” for

,brassica plant) ”رسوسں“ or ”رایئ“ fact. The exact Urdu equivalent for the word “mustard” is

is concerned, its proper English equivalent is: “ruta ”ادنپس“ its seeds). As far as the word graveolens” commonly known as “rue” — a woody plant with pungent, strongly scented leaves that yield oil which is used for medicinal purposes.

”نفک“ is also incorrect. The Urdu word ”نفک“ Last of all, the word “coffin” for stands for a cloth in which a dead body is wrapped before the ceremonial burial. The proper English equivalent for this word is “shroud”. “Coffin” is an altogether different term. It is a long oblong receptacle (either a chest or a box), usually made of wood, in which the corpse is confined before its final burial or cremation. Therefore, for that reason, the incongruity between a coffin and a shroud is quite evident as both the terms refer to two distinct and different objects.

310

These equivalents also suffer from a variety of problems. To begin with, a ladder

which is not exactly a ”دنمک“ is a device with rungs to climb on. Kiernan uses it for

.”is much different from the English word “ladder ”دنمک“ ladder”. Thus the Urdu word“

refers not just to a ladder but to a kind of scaling ladder, made of a ”دنمک“ The Urdu word sturdy cord. It is more like a noose with a slipknot which is used to climb the heights both

is obviously deficient ”دنمک“ literally and metaphorically. Thus the equivalent “ladder” for and fails to communicate the concept iconically enshrined in the source text.

is a glaringly inaccuracy. The ”رمخی“ Similarly, the next equivalent “Mercury” for

is not Mercury; it is Mars. By the same token, the correct Urdu ”رمخی“ exact equivalent for

This is one of the most apparent factual .”اطعرد“ it is ;”رمخی“ equivalent for “Mercury” is not mistakes committed by the translator. In the same way, the next equivalent is also an instance of a factual mistake and an act of totally mistranslation. The translator renders

as “wren” which is patently untrue. The proper and correct word for ”افخش“ the Urdu word

.in the English language is “bat” — which is a small nocturnal flying mammal ”افخش“

On the other hand, “wren” refers to a small songbird with a slender down-turned

311

as “wren” is contrary to fact. At the same time, it is not just ”افخش“ beak. Thus translating a matter of a mere mistranslation of one word; rather, it inverts the entire concept

bat” — is a derogatory“ — ”افخش“ enshrined in the source text. Culturally, the word reference. It epitomizes shortsightedness, lack of vision and spiritual blindness and, it is in this sense that the poet has used it in the source text. The poet contrasts a bat-like myopic vision with the acute farsightedness of an eagle. To the poet, humans are blessed with an eagle-like vision by Nature, but it is the curse of Slavery because of which this perceptive vision degenerates into a bat-like myopia. In the exact words of Iqbal:

ضیفرطفتےن ےھجت ددیہ اشںیہ اشخب

سج ںیم رھک دم ےہ الغیم ےن اگنہ افخش

Nature has blessed you with the vision of an Eagle Which slavery traded with the eye of a bat (my translation).

Nevertheless, the translation does not seem to have preserved/communicated this sense. The replacement made by the translator negatively impacts upon the intents and purposes of the source text. As a result, the whole notion is turned upside down. If a bat symbolizes a myopic and muddled vision; a wren stands for musicality, virtue and innocence. This is how William Wordsworth writes admiringly about a wren in his famous poem A Wren’s Nest:

Among the dwellings framed by birds In field or forest with nice care, Is none that with the little Wren’s In snugness may compare.

No door the tenement requires, And seldom needs a laboured roof;

312

Yet is it to the fiercest sun Impervious, and storm-proof.

So warm, so beautiful withal, In perfect fitness for its aim, That to the Kind by special grace Their instinct surely came. (Wordsworth, 1852, 150)

It is clear from this poem that the wren is symbolizing smugness and a warm comfort. This is how a single factual mistake can result in the total inversion of the entire contextual and cultural scheme of ideas presented in the source text. Eventually, all this leads to the domestication of the source text.

is ”وطاف“ Next, the English equivalent “sanctification” for the Urdu word

is a ritualistic ”وطاف“ extremely amorphous and imprecise In fact, the Urdu word circumambulation of the Kaaba — a black cuboid stone building in Makkah which is the most sacred Islamic site. This circumambulation constitutes one of the essential rituals of the Islamic pilgrimage. During the days of pilgrimage, Muslims ritualistically circle the Kaaba in an anticlockwise direction seven times. The word “sanctification”, on the other hand, is a very general term and refers to an act of becoming or making holy. As a matter of fact, it is yet another ecclesiastical term which is alien to the Islamic theological thought. In Islam, one cannot become “holy” the way one can in Christianity.

In the various denominations of Christianity, the word “sanctification” also refers to a person who seeks to become holy in some sense. For instance, John Wesley (1703 — 1791), the founder of Methodism in Christianity, proclaimed what was latter known as the Holiness Movement. This doctrine as propounded by John Wesley sought to assert that God’s sanctifying grace can lead to cleanse Christians of the demeaning effects of the Original Sin. Judging from this point of view, it is interesting to note that the very concept of the Original Sin is also foreign to Islamic theological thought. This is just one more example which illustrates the incompatibility between the English equivalent

313

This incompatibility is at once historical as .”وطاف“ sanctification” and the original word“ well as theological and leads to the domestication of the source text.

has been rendered by the translator as “fastness” which is ”ولخت“ Lastly, the word

has such implications ”ولخت“ also a total mistranslation. More accurately, the Urdu word

does ”ولخت“ as “loneliness”, “solitude”, “seclusion”, etc. “Fastness” as an equivalent for not signify the essential meanings of the original word. Above all, it is in this sense (that of “solitude”) that the poet is using this word. Says he:

ولختںیموخدم وہیت ےہ وخد ریگ و نکیل

ولختںیہناب دریو مم ںیم یھب رسیم

Solitude, indeed, nourishes the Self but, alas No solitude exists in Temple or in a Mosque (my translation)

Therefore, it can be concluded that the equivalent “fastness” is not appropriate the

which can more profitably and with greater precision be translated as ”ولخت“ word “solitude”.

Once again these are considerably domesticated equivalents used by the

314

is روح ”املسمں“ translator. To begin with, the equivalent “soul of Islam” for the Urdu phrase problematic because it is de-individualizing the source text in a highly subtle way. By looking at the original text, it becomes obvious that the poet is not talking about the “soul

which is the subject (رو ح ملسم) ”of Islam” per se. On the contrary, it is the “soul of a Muslim of the source text and the preoccupation of the poet.

Therefore, the soul of a Muslim and the soul of Islam are not one and the same and, in Iqbal’s scheme of ideas, this distinction is very crucial. To him, Islam is a timeless reality and, in this way, its “soul” is above and beyond the vicissitudes which can certainly characterize the soul of a Muslim. In a technical sense, the translator is guilty of confusing the agent with the agency — i.e. Muslims with Islam. This is the famous category mistake which has been committed by the translator at many occasions. It is also noteworthy in this context that in his poetry Iqbal always put the Muslim discourse and the Islamic discourse apart from each other. Therefore, a confusion of the two can result in a dislocation of the real intentionality of the source text.

has been rendered as “guide” by the ”دنب ٔہ دروشی“ Secondly, the Urdu phrase

دنب ٔہ “translator which is problematic for a few reasons. To begin with, the Urdu phrase

an accomplished believer, a dervish) can possible be a guide but that is not his) ”دروشی essential vocation. Therefore, by using the word “guide” as an equivalent for the phrase

the whole exercise by the translator amounts to imposing an unwarranted ,”دنب ٔہ دروشی“ necessity on the source text. At the same time, there is no textual or contextual compulsion under which the translator must opt for this translation and must cast an

.in the role of guide as such (رم د دروشی) accomplished believer

Furthermore, it should be mentioned, though in passing, that “guide” is not a

More accurately, the phrase can be .”دنب ٔہ دروشی“ proper translation for the Urdu phrase understood as a “dervish” or an “exalted soul”. Even the word “dervish”, as a loanword, has gained a wide currency in the English language and is used exactly in the same sense

315

.”دروشی“ which belongs to the original Persian word

has been translated as “face” by the translator which ”ںیبج“ Thirdly, the Urdu word

stands for a forehead ”ںیبج“ calls for a brief analysis here. In the Urdu language, the word which is just part of the face. Apparently this translation may not appear to be seriously problematic but in the Urdu language a rigorous distinction is certainly maintained between a forehead and a face and idiomatically both of these words signify different things and allusions. Therefore, the equivalent is less than suitable.

is being rendered as “lord of battle”; whereas the ”ریم رکشل“ Fourthly, the word correct translation should have been “lord of army/soldiers”. This, however, is not particularly problematic, yet it constitutes an instance of domestication in its own way.

is translated by Kiernan as “subtle ”اسم لئ رظنم“ Last of all, the compound Urdu word

the poet means abstract and speculative ,”اسملئ رظنم“ quirks”. In fact, by the phrase squabbles of the mullahs marked by theological hairsplitting and polemical arrogance. The history of these squabbles in Islam is extremely unenviable and disgraceful. However, the equivalent used by the translator — “subtle quirks” — does not show this pejoration of the original word to a fuller extent. To sum up, the cumulative and ultimate effect of all these equivalents is a domestication of the source text which is the central research question of the present study.

316

Comment: Most of the equivalents included in this list bear clear traces of outright Anglicization. Take, for instance, the first equivalent “genuflexion” for the Urdu

The Urdu .”دجسہ“ As a matter of fact, genuflexion is entirely different from .”دجسہ“ word

can be more accurately translated as “prostration”. On the other hand, the ”دجسہ“ word physical posturing implied by genuflexion is remarkably different. Genuflexion, in fact, is a bending of at least one knee and the lowering of the head. During this position, one’s forehead does not necessarily touch the ground which is an essential condition of

Genuflexion is considered to be a sign of deep reverence and can be .(دجسہ) prostration performed even in front of a human authority.

Historically, the practice of genuflexion has been performed, as court etiquette, in the empires such as Greek, Roman, Persian, and Byzantine (Chugg, 2006, 103). In the medieval Europe genuflexion by a knight in front of a king or his lady as a token of extreme respect and allegiance was commonplace. It can also mark a proposal of marriage. Therefore it has a recognizably social and totally non-religious function as well

Etymologically, the word “genuflexion” has .(دجسہ) which is not the case with prostration the Latin origin and implies “kneeling” and “bowing”. In the ecclesiastical terms, it is performed to kiss the Episcopal ring of a prelate as an acknowledgement of the bishop’s apostolic authority as the representation of Jesus Christ. The traces of obligatory genuflexion before the bishop of the diocese are found in the old editions of Caeremoniale Episcoporum — the book that describes the Church functions. To genuflect before a bishop during the liturgical ceremony was also in vogue during the bygone days (Evans, 2000, 101).

In this way, genuflexion, both from the technical as well as the purely theological viewpoints, is altogether different from prostration. In Islam, prostration is a unique privilege of God and prostrating to anything other than God amounts to polytheism — the most deadliest of all the sins in Islam. Technically as well as physically, prostration is performed much differently than genuflexion. In prostration, the toes, the knees, the

317 hands, the forehead and the tip of one’s nose must touch the ground simultaneously. Hands and arms also adopt a particular position. The toes remained directed towards

only which is an (دجسہ) Kaaba. All these conditionalities are unique to prostration exclusive prerogative of Allah.

has been rendered by the translator as “priest” which can ”ریپ مم“ Next, the word be faulted for numerous reasons. It is customary for the Orientalists to use this word for a Muslim religious scholar but it is just another example of how the terms taken from an altogether foreign discourse are coarsely imposed on the Islamic discourses. As a matter of fact, in the sacerdotal sense, there is no notion of priesthood — a mediatory agency between humankind and God — in Islam. By and large, priesthood as an institution is present in such religions as Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Shintoism, etc.

or (اامم) Interestingly, in Islam the person who leads the daily prayers is known as imam

But even this leading of the daily prayers can be performed by any Muslim .(بیطخ) khatīb without elaborate or institutionalized prerequisites.

At the same time, there is no ordination of an imam in Islam as such. A Muslim religious scholar enjoys no exceptional privileges to boast of. Nor is his opinion binding on the Muslim community at large or absolute like that of the Catholic Church.

also suffers from the problem of ”الکم اہلل“ In the similar vein, the Urdu phrase domestication when it is translated as the “word of Scripture”. The original phrase actually means “speech of God” or, for that matter, “words of God”. Although it may be argued that the Scripture also enshrines the Word of God, yet the distinction has to be maintained for at least two reasons. First, as per Venuti’s model of foreignization (which the researcher has taken as his main research paradigm), whenever the source text makes use of one specific and translatable expression, it must be communicated on its own terms. Second, the words of scriptures are not always the unadulterated words of God because tempering with the scriptures by the arrogant and carnal humanity is not

318 uncommon (Emmanuel, 1982, 334). Even if textually the words are intact, their meanings and interpretations are twisted beyond recognition and Iqbal seems to be fully alive of this fact. He famously said (Iqbal, 1990, 201):

وخددبےتل ںیہن رقآں دبل دےتی ںیہ

They alter Quran but never alter themselves (my translation).

as “Arts”. This ”ذہتبی“ Next problem arises with the translation of the Urdu word is an instance of what has commonly been termed as undertranslation. The Urdu word

originally “civilization”) is far more than “arts”. Arts are just one of the) ”ذہتبی“ constituents of a civilization albeit an important constituent. At the broadest level, the term “civilization” refers to the instrumental and material side of human culture. In this sense it encompasses science, arts, technology, urbanization, legal systems, transportation, political structure, architecture, division of labour, institutional makeup of a society, etc. In this way, it comes to characterize an advanced state of human society in which arts are also included. Therefore, civilization is not reducible to arts. Nor is it identical with it. (Coomaraswamy, 1982).

as “pillars of state” also fails to communicate ”اامام ن ایستس“ Lastly the translation of the richness of the original phrase. The poet is not alluding to “state” as such here. Instead, his reference is clearly directed to “politics”. However, the researcher would like to concede that it is one of the least domesticated of the equivalents mentioned in the list above. However it is pertinent to mention here that if some linguistic expression is enshrined in the source text and is duly translatable into the target text as such, then the translator should centainly avoid bringing about the “elegant variantions” while rendering it. The foreignization of translation, demands that the originality of the source text should be persevered to the maximum possible extent.

319

Here too the problem of domestication is impacting upon the original words in an

has been translated as “friends of ”الہ دل“ interesting way. To begin with, the Urdu phrase mankind” which captures just one of the shades of this highly polysemic Urdu phrase. The Urdu expression literally means “the people of the heart” which needs some elaboration here. In a certain sense it can also be maintained that the original phrase can be used to mean the “friends of mankind” as well. However, that is just one of its implications.

it is necessary to ,”الہ دل“ In order to understand the proper meaning of the phrase

originally: “heart”) in) ”دل“ understand the idiomatic and figurative use of the Urdu word the Urdu language. It certainly symbolizes compassion and consideration and it is in this sense that Kiernan takes it. However, at the same time it also symbolizes courage and valor and this sense remains wholly absent in Kiernan’s conceptualization of it. With

heart) is not easily translatable into) ”دل“ such diverse range meanings, the Urdu word the English language. Look, for example, at the following excerpt from A Thousand Splendid Suns, the best selling novel by Khalid Hosseini, in which the author retains the original Urdu word along with its translation in order to cater for the multiplicity and complexity of its connotations:

320

“Sometimes,” Nana said early one morning, as she was feeding the chickens outside the kolba, “I wish my father had had the stomach to sharpen one of his knives and do the honorable thing. It might have been better for me.” She tossed another handful of seeds into the coop, paused, and looked at Mariam. “Better for you too, maybe. It would have spared you the grief of knowing that you are what you are. But he was a coward, my father. He didn’t have the dil, the heart, for it…Jalil didn’t have the dil either, Nana said, to do the honorable thing” (Hosseini, 2007, 7).

This clearly shows the burgeoning meaningfulness and the idiomatic depth of the

heart). At the same time the reference also serve to illustrate the) ”دل“ Urdu word domesticated nature of the equivalent phrase employed by the translator.

The next equivalent is considerably padded and marred by redundancy. The Urdu

is translated as “that Archangel who must blow its trumpet”. This ”ارسالیف“ word equivalent is an example of domestication by means of expansion. This kind of domestication, as has already been discussed, seeks to translate the source text by having recourse to verbosity. It is done mostly for a gratuitous ennoblement and beautification the source text. It is strange that the translator chooses such a wordy equivalent when the original word has a direct and a one-word equivalent in the target language — “Israfil” or “Raphael”.

also suffers from the problem of ”ریبکت“ Similarly the equivalent “prayers” for

stands for ”ریبکت“ domestication. In the Islamic religious discourse, the Urdu word “glorification” and “exaltation” of Allah. The equivalent “prayers”, on the other hand, brings out the connotations of “beseeching” and “imploration” to a deity which is not necessarily a glorification of it. In the second sense, the equivalent “prayers” elicits the meanings of service to a deity which is also not a glorification of it in strict sense of the

in Islam originally stands for a formulaic ”ریبکت“ word. In contrast, the Urdu word

321

Allah is Great. Arguably, the commonest Islamic expression, it is — ”اہلل اربک“ expression used in various contexts and on a variety of occasions. Technically, the form “Allāhu” is the nominative of Allah. The form “akbar” is the elative of the adjective “kabīr” which means great.

All these technicalities and particularities of this term are smoothed out during the translation and an enormously catchall equivalent “prayers” is employed to render it. This way of approaching the issues of culture-sensitive expressions leads to an obvious domestication of the source text.

is flawed on the purely factual ”ر گ ُُگو“ The next equivalent “rose-bud’s vein” for

is “flower”; whereas the exact Urdu word for ” ُُگو“ grounds. The exact translation of

In this way, the poet is talking about a “flower” but the translator makes .” ُگلاب“ rose” is“ it a “rose”. This is patently an uncalled-for move from the general to the particular and the so-called category mistake which the translator has committed often in his translation. This uncalled-for move results in a needless particularization of the source text and a truncation of its communicative and discursive scope.

is rendered as “rose” and ” ُُگو“ In the same way, in the last equivalent too the word the same inaccuracy is repeated by the translator there. Moreover, here the problem of domestication is compounded by yet another move by the translator — the addition of the modifier “red” which has no origin in the source text as the poet does not specify any particular colour for the flower. Thus the translation has an unmistakable element of the far-fetched imagination of the translator instead of an objective presentation and negotiation of the original text. Whatever is enventually conveyed to the reader is a considerable extrapolation and it inadequately communicates the intentionality of the source text.

322

In this list the first equivalent “minstrelsy” has been used by the translator for the

,In fact .”رعشووصتف“ Minstrelsy” is not exactly the same as“ .”رعشووصتف“ Urdu phrase minstrelsy stands for the music and poetry of the minstrels. By the reference to “minstrels”, one is reminded of the medieval bards of Europe who would perform songs to amuse the public with their voluptuous piano arpeggios and full-throated ease. There was also a pseudo-folk element included in it. The minstrels would be frequently employed by the elite segments of the society as a source of entertainment. Subsequently, these minstrels were replaced by the troubadours. However, in the post-Renaissance era minstrelsy in strict sense of the word went out of fashion.

On the other hand, what the poet is talking about in the source text is, in fact, poetry and mysticism which can be artistically rendered as “rhyme and mystic art”, “verse and spirituality” or “verse and godliness”, etc. The problem with the equivalent “minstrelsy” is threefold: first, it is wide of the mark and does not capture the exact sense

but it has no ,”رعش“ of the original text; second, it may (in a compromised sense) stand for

third, the use of this ;”وصتف“ clear connotations which could negotiate the ideals of equivalent gives the source text the medieval European coloration and results in its Anglicization and its clear anachronization.

323

In the next equivalent — “moonlight pale” — the word “pale” is altogether an intrusion by the translator and is not found in the original text. Moonlight has its own color and, strictly put, it is neither pale nor pink. Furthermore, when the poet is not characterizing/qualifying “moonlight” in any particular sense it should be left uncharacterized/unqualified by the translator as well. This is how the peculiarities and attributes of the source text can be retained by and reflected in the translation.

has been rendered as a “canonist” by the translator which can ”خیش“ Next, the word be faulted on cultural grounds. The word sheikh (as the loanword is fairly common in the English language) is an honorific in Arabic which literally means “an elderly figure”. In more general terms it is used for a Muslim religious scholar. The word sheikh in this sense is a synonym of “scholar”. The equivalent “canonist”, which is an ecclesiastical term, stands for a person who is specialized in the canon law of Christian theology. In its most characteristic form, canon law is a particular to the Catholic Church. In strict sense of the word, there is no canon law in Islam the way it is in Christianity and any parallels drawn in this regard can be distressingly misleading. Canon law denotes the body of laws and regulations made or adopted by an ecclesiastical authority; whereas, in Islam there is no such institutionalized ecclesiastical authority. The role of canon law is crucial for the existence of an institutionalized church as well as priesthood. Peter J. Huizing, Professor of canon law at Catholic University of Nijmegen says:

A church is defined as a community founded in a unity of faith, a sacramental fellowship of all members with Christ as Lord, and a unity of government. Many scholars assert that a church cannot exist without authority—i.e., binding rules and organizational structures—and that religion and law are mutually inclusive. Thus the calling of a church leader to office is regarded as important in the organizational structure and, like every other fundamental vocation in the churches that accept the validity of canon law, it is also viewed as sacramental and linked to the priesthood—which, in turn, involves a calling to leadership in liturgy and preaching. (Huizing, 2012).

324

At the same time a cursory glance at the history of canon law will bring out the fact that its inception as well development is marked by so many revisions and annulments. For example, towards the end of the Middle Ages, Decretal law ceased to govern and lost its authority. Similarly, much later, in the course of the Second Vatican Council (1962 — 1965), the vision of the church underwent a radical revision and the earlier notion of the church as societas perfecta (“a perfect society”) was replaced by a vision of the church as a community in which every member is committed to the sacramental mission to practice and proclaim the teachings of the Gospel (Huizing, 2012).

Now when all this is compared with the inception and development of the classic Islamic law a marked difference can be traced out. Keeping all these particularities and technicalities in mind, it is safe to conclude that a Muslim religious scholar is not the same as an ecclesiastical canonist. A sheikh in Islam hardly enjoys the prerogatives and privileges to which a canonist has an exclusive and undisputed claim. Therefore,

as “canonist” is not only an Anglicization of the source text; it also ”خیش“ translating amount to its subtle distortion.

The penultimate equivalent in this list is “soul” which the translator has used for

is an extremely intricate ”وخدم“ Now by all accounts it is clear that .”وخدم“ the Urdu word and multilayered concept. It is, by far, the most significant theme of Iqbal’s poetic discourse. Its translation as “soul” is an oversimplification and an instance of

in ”وخدم“ undertranslation. True, it is well neigh impossible to exactly translate the word the English language; however, the equivalent “selfhood” can stand for it to a considerable extent. But as far as its translation as “soul” is concerned, it is altogether deficient.

The poet, in his own words, has shed substantial light on his concept of Selfhood.

Iqbal terms ,(ارسا ر وخدم) In the preface to the first edition of his book Secrets of the Self Selfhood as a “consciousness of one’s Being” and an “affirmation of one’s Self” (Iqbal,

325

1915). Therefore translating it as “soul” is to oversimplify it and ignore its nuanced and multifaceted semantics.

has been translated as “Church’s mantle ”ردا ٔے دنی و تّلم“ Finally the Urdu expression and the creed”. This translation is flawed for a twofold reason. First it should have been more like “the mantle of the creed and the nation” as per the syntactic and the semantic

nation”. The translator, however, is“ =”تّلم“ creed” and“ =”دنی“ :scheme of the source text maneuvering with the source text in a subtle way. He is using two words (“church” and

of the full original (”دنی“) creed”) which metonymically signify just one component“

Therefore, there is nothing in the equivalent phrase which could .(ردا ٔے دنی و تّلم) expression

In this way, it is an .”تلم“ :stand for the other component of the original expression instance of undertranslation.

Secondly, it is also an instance of mistranslation as there is no church in Islam.

as “church” is faulty on purely technical ”دنی“ Therefore, a metonymic translation of grounds. Once again it is a case of imposing the target text norms on the source text and thereby dislocating it from its essential underpinnings.

Comment: The equivalents mentioned in this list are also suffering from a variety of problems but all of them are domesticating the source text. To begin with, the

326

is not exactly ”غیت“ equivalent “dagger” is incorrect in this context. In fact, the Urdu word a dagger. More accurately it can be translated as “sword” or “scimitar”. A “dagger”, on the contrary, is a short, bladed weapon specifically designed for stabbing and not for

Thus this constitutes a .”رجنخ“ cutting or slashing. The proper Urdu word for “dagger” is factual error.

Next, the translator has used the equivalent “vital current” in order to translate the

This translation is also problematic for certain reasons. Look at .”وسزواس ز ایحت“ Urdu phrase the complete verse and its translation in which this equivalent occurs:

ہن اایشی ںیم ہن ویرپ ںیم وسزواس ز ایحت

وخدمیک ومت ےہ ہی اور وہ ریمضیک ومت

Death to man’s soul is Europe, death is Asia To man’s will: neither feels the vital current. Kiernan, 1955, 202

Now by translation it does not become clear that whose “vital current” is being talked about. On the other hand, the source text makes it abundantly clear that these are the vital currents or life which the poet is concerned with. A mere use of the phrase “vital current”

does not fully express the meaning of the source text. The original phrase ”وسزواس ز ایحت“ for is more alliterative, more meaningful than its translation. It is also noteworthy that the poet is not just talking about a “vital current”; rather, he is talking about the “vital current

connotes. From this perspective, it appears to be an instance of ”ایحت“ of life” as the word undertranslation too. More accurately and with greater semantic proximity to the source

.”can be translated as “rush and throb of life ”وسزواس زایحت“ text, the Urdu phrase

327

In this list the purpose of 72 is to show how sometimes in order to meet the requirement of rhymed translations, the translators have to opt for verbosity. This practice leads to longer-than-original translations which have technically been termed as “inflationist”. These inflationist translations have an inherent danger of becoming cumbersome and, at worst, incomprehensible. Furthermore, such an inflationist translation severely compromises the brevity and terseness which is one of the most remarkable features of the poetic discourses. One of the direct consequences this approach is to bring about this kind of wordy translation:

رکمیکاچولں ےس ابزم چ ایگرسام ہی دار

Your sharp paymasters Have swept the board, They cheat and know no shame. (Kiernan, 1955, 54)

by the translator while ”دل“ In 73, the word “faith” has been used probably for

But then what about the word “feeling”? Has it been .”دل و رظن“ rendering the Urdu phrase

”رظن“ If so, then it is an improper choice because ?”رظن“ used to translate the Urdu word does not correspond to “feeling” at all. Now only one option is left i.e. “feeling” is being

heart). But this also does not help because, in this way, the other) ”دل“ used for

faith) becomes problematic. This results in a dilemma which is = رظن) correspondence marring this translation and no matter whichever way is chosen, the problematic nature of the translation cannot be relieved. This dilemma can be shown schematically:

328

It is evident that both of these possible schemes are problematic. The first scheme

but there is ;”دل“ is problematic because whereas the word “faith” can somehow stand for

A Similar problem exists .”رظن“ no way that the word “feeling” could correspond with with the second possible scheme. While the word “feeling” can, in a certain sense, stand

.”رظن“ but it is very hard to establish an equivalence between “faith” and ;”دل“ for

is marred ”دل و رظن“ Consequently, “faith and feeling” as an equivalent for the Urdu phrase by lack of internal structural correspondence.

The next equivalent is “monkish cap” which the translator has used for the Urdu

This is also problematic for several technical reasons. Originally, the رطّہ.” داتسر“ phrase

implies “tip of the turban” or in more general terms just “turban”. A ”رط ّہ داتسر“ Urdu phrase turban is one of the cultural signs of the Muslim societies and it is an important headdress for men in the more traditional societies. It consists of a long piece of fabric wrapped either about a cap or directly around the head. This piece of fabric is usually of about five meters in length. Sometimes, elaborate turbans are permanently sewn to a foundation. Moreover, it is also common for turbans to have a starched tip standing vertically upright

On the other hand, a monkish cap رطہ .(” داتسر“ in Urdu (hence the word ”رطہ“ which is called is, culturally as well as structurally, an entirely different headdress. Besides, a turban has

(داتسر) an unusually great idiomatic and cultural import in the Muslim societies. A turban in the Urdu language symbolizes knowledge, honour, prestige, and seniority. A monkish cap, on the other hand, does not share in these features.

has been rendered as “girl” which is an instance of ”وحر“ Lastly, the Urdu word inadequate translation for obvious reasons and deprives the source text of its essential cultural and semantic qualifications. This point has already been discussed with reference to the problem of omission.

329

The first equivalent “puzzling intellect” which the translator has used for the Urdu

is quite incomprehensible. There is nothing in the source text which ”لقع میکح“ phrase implies anything to be “puzzling” about intellect. The adjective “puzzling” is primarily derogatory and has disparaging implications — “abstruse”, “bewildering” and, at times,

has been used by the poet in a thoroughly ”میکح“ misleading”. The original adjective“ positive sense.

in the Urdu ”میکح“ The relatively stable and widely favorable use of the word language can be attested by the fact that it is one of the attributive names of Allah —

.(تمکح) meaning “The Wise”. Even the Holy Quran is termed as full of this Wisdom ”امیکحل“

the Wise” has been mentioned in the Quran at different“ ”میکح“ Besides, the word occasion:

. By the Quran, full of wisdom. (36, 2)

. Remember God’s blessings upon you, and what He sent down to you of the ‘Al- Kitab’ and ‘Al-Hikmah’ to enlighten you with it. (2, 223)

. And I taught you the ‘Kitab’ (Book) and ‘Al-Hikmah’(Wisdom). (5, 110)

330

. Our Lord, and send for them a messenger from among them to recite to them your ‘Ayat’ and teach them the ‘Kitab’ (Book) and ‘Al-Hikmah’ (wisdom). (2, 129)

Iqbal intends positive implications such as ”لقع میکح“ Therefore, by the phrase “immaculate intellect” and “discerning wit”. However, there remains one possible sense in which the translator’s choice may be justified. The word “puzzling” can have such connotations as well: “pondering”, “brooding”, etc. If the translator has used the word in this sense, then his choice may sound less problematic but still it is less than suitable because it is not exactly what the source text directly implies. Besides, a translation conceived on such grounds may appear to be more like a considerably subjective interpretation of the source text than its faithful translation.

The same imprecision and problem seem to surround the translation of the Urdu

as “pride of action”. One can just conjecture as to the relevance and ”االخ ص لمع“ phrase suitability of this equivalent. Its employment may be justified but that is not easy to be done on textual as well as contextual bases. Even if the equivalent proposed by the translator somehow negotiates the original word, this is again not exactly what the poet is implying in the source text. More accurately and with greater fidelity and proximity to

.”can be translated as “sincerity of deeds ”االخ ص لمع“ ,the source text

which has been translated as mere “realities” is ”ےبرپدہ اقحقئ“ The next Urdu phrase

will be ”ےب رپدہ اقحقئ“ marred by severe undertranslation. The exact translation of the phrase “revealed realities”; not merely “realities”. Realties are an integral part of our existence as well as the total scheme of Nature. However, it is the discovery and the revelation of these realities which is the immediate concern of the poet here. However, the translation is oversimplifying this conceptual complexity which is embedded in the source text and is crucial to the scheme of ideas present therein.

331

The penultimate equivalent in this list is the phrase “plaster image” which the

This is another example of undue and .”تُب“ translator has used for the Urdu word

idol) is not) ”تب“ uncalled-for specification of a generic reference during translation. A always a “plaster image”. Nor is plaster the only raw material of which idols are made, for that matter. If this equivalent is marred by unnecessary specification, the next is plagued by an unnecessary generalization.

as “parching with thirst” sounds more like an ”رگج ہنشت“ Translating the Urdu phrase

which is ”ہنشت رگج“ instance of paraphrasing than translation. The poet uses the phrase uniquely important in Urdu and originally means “a thirsting liver”. In fact, the word “liver” in the Urdu language has a unique idiomatic and cultural value which correspondingly is not found in English. Thus, instead of smoothing out this peculiar reference, it should have been communicated by the translator. This would have been the only way to acquaint the reader with the actualities of the source text. Similarly, the use

is negotiating the source text purely on the terms dictated ” لزل“ of the word “magnet” for by the target language. There are more such examples which evidence that the translation has been negotiated on the Anglophone cultural terms rather than on Islamic cultural terms. Consider the following examples:

332

:as in ”ریپ تشنک“ Vicar of Christ” for“ .

مفطلغ نب یئگ تمصعریپ تشنک

اوروہیئ رکف یک یتشک انزک رواں

Vicars of Christ and their pomp dwindling to lying words, Reason’s fragile bark launched once more on its course; (Kiernan, 1995, 110)

:as in ”وخدم ےک ابہگنں“ Watchman soul” for“ .

وخدمےکابہگنں وک ےہ زرہ انب

وہانں سج ےس اجیت رےہ اس یک آب

Bread earned by any servitude, For the watchman soul is poisoned food; (Kiernan, 1995, 134)

:as in ”دانم اشم“ Evening’s skirt” for“ .

رشاب رسخ ےس رںیگن وہا ےہ دانم اشم

ےیلےہریپ کلف دتس رہشع دار ںیم اجم

With palsied hand the taverner of heaven Has brought the cup; red wine stains evening’s skirt; (Kiernan, 1995, 22)

333

:as in ”وجنیم“ Planet-gazer” for“ .

رمے مخ و چیپ وک وجنیمیکآھکن اچہپیتن ںیہن ےہ

دہف ےس اگیبہن ریتا اُس اک، رظن ںیہن سج یک اعرافہن

No planet‐gazer can ever see through my winding mazes; for when the eye That aims it sees by no lights from Heaven. (Kiernan, 1995, 136)

:as in ”دیلقت“ Parrot-ways” for“ .

رظن آےت ںیہن ےب رپدہ اقحقئ اُن وک

آھکننج یک وہیئ وکحمیم و دیلقت ےس وکر

Reality grows blurred to eyes whose vision Servility and parrot-ways abridge. (Kiernan, 1995, 188)

:as in ہنیس ” رپ ونر“ Glowing heart” for“ .

ےلعشےس وٹٹ ےک لثم رشر آوارہ ہن رہ

رک یسکہنیسٔ رُپوسز ںیمولخت یک التش!

Instead of floating like a truant spark, Seek out the fastness of some glowing heart! (Kiernan, 1995, 192)

334

:as in ”ومروسگم“ Maggots and flies” for“ .

ہشیمہ ومر و سگمرپ اگنہ ےہ ان یک

اہجںںیمےہ تفص وبکنعت ان یک دنمک

Their gaze always fastened on maggots and flies, A web like the spider’s their ladder to rise. (Kiernan, 1995, 158)

:as in ”وصتری آب“ Painted water” for“ .

بش وکست ازفا وہاآوسدہ، درای رنم ریس

یھترظن ریحاں ہک ہی درای ےہ ای وصتری آب!

Night deepened silence: calm the air, languid the current, River or painted water the eye could scarcely tell. (Kiernan, 1995, 44)

:as in ”ملین رپم“ Blue-mantled fairy queen” for“ .

دوی ادبتساد وہمجرم ابق ںیم اپے وکب

وتاتھجمس ےہ ہی آزادم یک ےہ ملین رپم

In Demos-dress let tyranny’s Old demon-dance be seen, Your fancy calls up Liberty’s Blue-mantled fairy queen! (Kiernan, 1995, 52)

335

All these equivalents exhibit an influence of the Anglophone cultural discourses on the translation. The collective effect of these choices made by the translator is to invest the translation with a foreign cultural milieu which does not sit well with the overall scheme of ideas present in the source text. The eventual result of the employment of these equivalents is the appropriation and the domestication of the source text. Some of these equivalents, it seems, have been selected in order to meet the requirements of the prosodic rhyme employed by the translator. At the same time, some of them are lavishly high-flown aimed at “ennobling” the source text. Lastly, there are also instances of dull equivalents which fail to capture the beauty enshrined in the source text. Cumulatively, all this leads to the problem of domestication which is at once linguistic and cultural.

is also imprecise. The ”اجدو“ The next equivalent in the list — “eldritch arts” for proper context in which this word has been used shows that the poet is using it denotatively. Here is the source text which gives some idea as to the intended meaning

:”اجدو“ of the word

ہنہقیلسھجمںیممیلکؑ اک، ہن رقہنی ھجت ںیم یلخؑ اک

ںیم الہ ک اجدوےئ اسرمم،وت لیتق ویشہ آزرم

In me no mind of Moses, in you no virtue Of Abraham: idolatrous foes like theirs, New Samris, Azars, have with eldritch arts Destroyed us; (Kiernan, 1995, 158)

Here, it can be clearly seen that the phrase “eldritch arts” is not adequately

The adjective “eldritch” with its implications of .(اجدو ٔےاسرمم) expressing Samri’s sorcery “strange”, “frightening”, “supernatural” is not a good choice to express the Samri’s key role in the magical construction of the golden calf as expressed in the Holy Quran. What

336

Samri did was a clear and unmistakable act of magic; it was not merely an instance of any “eldritch” trickery. The distinction must be made in order to understand the really diabolically role attributed to Samri in the Quran and which is being alluded to by the poet in this verse.

The penultimate equivalent in the above-mentioned list is also in need of some critical Comment. The equivalent “demigod” has been used by the translator for the

which is once again more like its paraphrasing than translation. The Urdu ”تُب“ Urdu word

originally an “idol”) is not exactly a “demigod”. Lastly, the word “glowing) ”تُب“ word

is also a domesticated ”ہنیسٔ رُپ ونر“ heart” which the translator has used for the Urdu phrase

breast) which the translator has rendered as) ”ہنیس“ equivalent. Iqbal has talked about heart. Once again the translator seems to have discarded the actualities of the source text quite subjectively. In the Urdu language, the words heart and breast convey quite different cultural and idiomatic implications and the one cannot be described in terms of the other.

4.4. Conclusion

To sum up this chapter, the researcher will draw the main threads of the discussions together. In this chapter, the researcher has raised some fundamental questions regarding the cultural and linguistic viability of Kiernan’s translation of Iqbal. It has been demonstrated with a large variety of examples that Kiernan has demonstrated the source text while translating Iqbal into English. This domestication is highly structured and complex. The ethical and cultural questions which came into greater prominence during the late 20th century do not seem to have considerably problematized Kiernan’s conceptualization of the source text. It has also been demonstrated that a more sensitized and empathetic approach to the source text which has lately been emphasized by the translation theorists does not adequately characterize Kiernan’s translation.

337

Through a thematic and extended discussion it has been established that there are multiple categories of domestication present in Kiernan’s translation of Iqbal. These categories are: Anglicization, classificational dislocation, expansion/explicitation, omission, ennoblement, qualitative impoverishment, distortion, mistranslation, and prosodic domestication. The data analysis also established that each of these categories presents a broad range of domesticating trends but its central premise remains the same and has been substantiated by the researcher numerous examples. Besides, it has also been noted that the translator increasingly disregards the cultural and linguistic features of the source text such as subtle nuances, denotations, connotations, etc. In the light of the preceding discussion and in line with Venuti’s model, it can be concluded that the translator, instead of foreignizing the translation, domesticates it. Increasingly, the translation has been given a Eurocentric/Anglocentric coloration. This is how a wholesale “transformation of otherness into an acceptable form for consumption by target language readers has been seen in new light” (Munday, 2009, 78). Moreover, there are numerous instances which illustrate that the translator, at times, has done what some of the theorists have termed “violence” to the translation. With this the data analysis chapter comes to its end.

338

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION

The study was set out to explore the elements of domestication in V. G. Kiernan’s translation of Muhammad Iqbal’s poetry and has identified nine kinds of domestication present in it. The researcher has carefully investigated the nature, impact, extent, and background of each form of domestication by taking into consideration a significantly broad range of examples. After an extended literature review and an exhaustive analysis of the data, it is time to draw some conclusions and learn some important lessons. The practice of translation involves transformations, and these transformations are worthy of attention. The possibility and necessity of translation is one of the most apparent features of the universal human communication. This possibility and necessity is built into our cognitive and social make-up and is also pre-figured into our inter-cultural consciousness.

In this sense, translation is less of a science and more of an interpretive art which seeks to take into account a broad range of the linguistic and cultural considerations. Moreover, translation, because of its intercultural nature, is a site of contact as well as conflict. Each hermeneutic move and interpretational act constitute an instance of this very contact and conflict.

The catastrophic strikes of 9/11 coupled with the subsequent mayhem in the name of the war on terror is yet another painful reminder of the need to understand the cultural others in greater depth and closeness. Today, as humankind has just crossed the threshold of a new millennium, our first-hand understanding of the other cultures, religions and regions remains abysmally low. The present research is primarily an attempt to influence the direction in which the theory and practice of translation is likely to develop in future. Translation needs to be studied in connection with the issues of power and ideology. The postcolonial translation theories are increasingly enabling the translation theorists to

339 appreciate the power relations inherent in the translation process. It is precisely because of this that a new conceptualization of translation is required which could help the translators bear in mind the ideological and value-driven nature of the sociocultural framings which have direct bearing on the process of translation.

At the same time, there is an urgent need to re-conceptualize the subject of translation with reference to globalization. Globalization is generally identical with the dominance of the English language, uni-directional Anglicization, and the Anglo- American corporate/cultural hegemony to the detriment of other languages and cultures. Contemporary academia is awash with the Anglo-American norms of publication and canons of translation theory. In addition, the theory and practice of translation is further compounded with the advent of the Anglophone corporate media and the global hegemony of the Anglo-American culture.

Some people see this rising tide of domestication as relatively benign. However, to a large number of translation theorists, anthropologists, and cultural historians this is remarkably alarming. Countries like France are actively resisting domestication with the help of such government-sponsored institutions as Académie française. However in most of the countries of the world, the level of awareness regarding the problem of domestication in translation is appallingly low. True, there is always a degree of subjectivity and reformulation in translation but this by no means implies that a translator has got a licence to inscribe the foreign with the domestic and to dismiss coarsely the indigenous properties and features of the source text.

As regards, Kiernan’s translation of Iqbal, it has been the central thesis of the researcher in this study that it is highly domesticated. The researcher, by making use of Lawrence Venuti’s model of domestication and foreignization, has substantiated this thesis by drawing upon a thorough analysis of the research sample. Domestication is a translation strategy which seeks to replace the elements foreign to the target text/culture with more familiar ones during the process of translation. One the other hand,

340 foreignization is a translation strategy which seeks to retain and communicate the elements foreign to the target text/culture during the process of translation.

The data analysis of the research sample has been broken down into nine domesticating categories: Anglicization, classificational dislocation, distortion, mistranslation, omission, qualitative impoverishment, prosodic domestication, expansion/explicitation and ennoblement. Having carried out a detailed data analysis, it can be concluded that each category presents a broad range of domesticating trends across a variety of socio-political and literary perspectives. Here the researcher will draw the main threads of the study together by presenting the main research findings.

5.1. Findings

Within the parameters of this study, the following research findings are presented by the researcher:

1. Kiernan’s translation of Iqbal has been found to be highly domesticated. By far the most serious indictment of Kiernan’s translation of Iqbal is its growing and unwarranted Anglicization of the source text. It has been demonstrated that Kiernan exhibits massive disregard for the cultural and linguistic features of the source text and instead of registering and communicating them, he either elides them or casts them into the Anglicized moulds and thought patterns. This serves to show how the translator has overwritten the linguistic and cultural specificity and uniqueness of Iqbal’s poetry with the Anglophone experiences/configurations.

2. It has also been illustrated that there are numerous instances of classificational dislocation in Kiernan’s translation. Iqbal’s poetic discourse is highly classified and this classification suits the thematic and linguistic variety of his poetry in an accomplished manner. The alteration between the proper and the common nouns and between the generic and the specific references has always been done by the

341

poet to achieve a particularly desirable effect. However, at numerous occasions, Kieran classificationally dislocates these references while translating them. This dislocation has domesticating effects on the overall textual as well as the semantic scheme of the source text ranging from minor misunderstandings to serious misrepresentations.

3. The researcher has also established that Kiernan has sometimes overly expanded his translation. This is largely due to “empty explicitation”, and “overtranslation”. It has also been seen that in Kiernan’s case this undue expansion seems to be a move away from the polysemous nature of the source text and a drift towards its re-casting as a monospermous narrative. Certain themes, tropes and references which remain folded and muffled in the original are readily unfolded and unmuffled by the translator in a way which can only be considered intrusive and invasive. The researcher has also demonstrated how this expansion sounds empty and unable to add anything substantial to the signification or the significance of the source text.

4. The researcher has also demonstrated that Kiernan’s translation of Iqbal considerably suffers from the problem of omissions and discursive abridgements. This results in a substantial syntactic and semantic loss along with a truncated comprehension of the source text. The researcher has presented numerous examples which illustrate extensive omissions of the source-text significations, tropes, references and figures. Such omissions lead to a “silencing of the voice” of the source text and bring about discontinuities and lacunae in the general comprehension of the reader.

5. The present study has also established that Kiernan’s translation of Iqbal noticeably suffers from the problem of ennoblement and at various occasions the translator has sought to “improve” the source text by rewriting it in a more “elegant” style. It has also been seen that the translator, at times, adds “graces” to the source text which Iqbal has intentionally cast into a colloquial and ordinary mould. The source text, in this way, appears to be little more than the raw

342

material to be processed by the translator in order to produce a target text which is more “clear”, more “fluent” and more “elegant” than the original.

6. The researcher has also established that there are numerous instances of qualitative impoverishment in Kiernan’s translation in which the translator remains visibly unable to maintain the standards of artistic value and craftsmanship. It has been intently observed that Iqbal’s poetry is distinguished by exquisite lyricism, epigrammatic expressions, dramatic intensity, bold neologisms, illustrative examples, and sublime and varied imageries. It is here where Kiernan’s translation is at its most vulnerable to the qualitative impoverishment which results in some highly prosaic and pedestrian pieces of translation. On certain occasions, the translator has opted for informal as well as slang equivalents to render some of the highly serious and somber portions of the source text.

7. It is also evident from the present research that there are several examples of distortions in Kiernan’s translation which range from mild twists to the outright inaccuracies. It has also been seen how these distortions undermine the overall literary and artistic makeup of the source text and, to a considerable extent, mischaracterize the intents and motives of the poet. The researcher has also illustrated that a large number of these distortions are mostly due to an increased disregard for the specificities and referentialities embedded in the source text. The translator has recast the source text and created new textual patterns and narrative paradigms with altogether different cultural and discursive underpinnings.

8. The researcher has also brought out various instances of mistranslation in Kiernan’s translation of Iqbal. This appears to be one of the most serious problems with Kiernan’s translation. There are occasions when the translator fails to understand the linguistic content of the source text and makes some matter-of- fact mistakes. These instances of mistranslation seriously impacts upon the overall structural and semantic scheme of the translation. It has been seen that these mistranslations result from the translator’s failure to establish the

343

relationship between the translation and the cultural and linguistic conditions under which it was produced.

9. The ninth kind of domestication found to be present in Kiernan’s translation is the prosodic domestication. In Kiernan’s translation, this prosodic domestication bears mainly upon the syntax and eventually disrupts the underlying networks of signification embedded in the source text. As a result of this prosodic domestication, the structural relations found in the source text are re-shuffled which leads to the destruction of the linguistic patternings of the original text. The researcher has contended that poetry is more form-sensitive than any other genre of literature and any attempt to take liberties with its form will directly affect its content. It is profitable here to recall Roman Jakobson who contended that poetry by definition is untranslatable because in poetry form itself contributes to the production of the textual meaning (Hatim & Mason, 1997, 75). Therefore, although this kind of domestication pertains strictly to the form of the source text, its implications are, by no means, confined to the form as such. It is also largely because of this domestication that the translation acquires new paradigmatic and syntagmatic associations not precisely present in the source text.

10. The present study also shows that when a European reader relies on such domesticated translations his or her comprehension of the non-European literatures suffers drastically. Domesticated translations of the non-European works will not help him or her overcome the lack of openness to cultural diversity and different modes of thinking and expressions. Besides, such domesticated translations will contribute to the closing of the Anglophone readers’ mind as they are more prone to see the Eastern literatures though the lens of translations.

11. One noticeable reason for the errors in the translations of Iqbal is the ignorance or misplaced knowledge of the British translators. It has been shown in the literature review how some of the British translators of Iqbal have intentionally omitted some of the words and expressions of the source text which they either did not understand or considered to be incomprehensible to their reader.

344

12. The researcher has also demonstrated the detrimental nature of domestication and its tendency to mute the voices arising from the source. This has been caused by the employment of such translation strategies by the translator which led to “an exchange of source-language intelligibilities for target-language ones” (Venuti, 1995, 203).

13. The exclusionary and invasive effects of a culture of Englishness which at present firmly occupies the epicenter of the academia and the publishing industry is the main catalyst behind the practice of domestication by the Anglo-American translators of the non-European literatures. To a considerable degree the same can also be said of Kiernan’s translation of Iqbal.

14. It has also been elucidated by the researcher that presently the Anglo-American publishing industry is in the forefront of this practice of domestication. This domestication and the hegemony of the publishing industry are indicative of the differential power relations found in the postcolonial world. It has also been noted how the practice of translation is embedded in the hierarchy of complex values and norms subordinate to the global and cultural paradigms.

15. Kiernan’s translation of Iqbal is underwritten by the larger questions of power and ideology which are not always apparent to a casual reader. The complacency and smugness which, on occasion, is evidenced by the translator is symptomatic of the Anglo-American relations with the cultural others. It is this complacency which the translation theorists like Venuti has described as imperialistic abroad and xenophobic at home.

16. Kiernan’s translation has also been seen as a mystification and a concealment of the manifold determinants of Iqbal’s intents as a poet. Within the broader literary discourse, such a translation results in a cultural marginality of the source text and just goes on to perpetuate the global ascendancy of Anglo-American culture.

345

17. Lastly, the researcher has also contended in this study that for an average monolingual reader, this translation is likely to be “correct” and adequate to the source text. In all probability, he or she is likely to remain unaware of the domestication which operates delicately in the textual and discursive praxes of translation. It becomes all the more difficult for a reader to detect this domestication when the translation sounds ‘good’, ‘fluent’ and ‘natural’.

5.2. Recommendations

The present research offers several recommendations that can be brought to bear on the contemporary discourse of the English translation of Iqbal:

1. The researcher maintains that the foremost problem with reference to the subject of translation as such has been the narrowness of definition with which the theorists and the translators tend to conceptualize it. This attitude shows the restrictiveness and insufficiency with which the subject of translation is usually approached. Today what we need is a transcultural and humanistic perspective on translation. Thus the only way to produce a functionally adequate and culturally viable translation of Iqbal is to conceive translation as an intercultural communication in which the source text and target text should be accorded equal prestige.

2. The researcher is of the view that the problem of domesticating Iqbal in translation cannot be resolved by merely readjusting the theoretical principles of translation as such. Instead a radical shift in the overall attitude towards translation is needed.

3. The researcher contends that it is illusory to think that a translator of Iqbal can be freed from such domesticating trends and attitudes overnight merely by becoming aware of them. Instead, he or she has to neutralize his or her unconscious from a two-millennia-old literary tradition. The systems of domestication, which have

346

burdened the practices of most of the European translators of Iqbal, have been internalized by these translators over centuries and, therefore, a neutralization of the unconscious is paramount.

4. The researcher recommends that the foreignness, integrity and complexity of the source text should be registered and communicated by the translator to the maximum possible extent. In other words, Iqbal’s translations should be as much source-text-oriented as possible. Therefore, instead of moving the poet to the reader, the translators of Iqbal should aim at moving the reader to the poet. Thus a translator should read the source text according to a different map of the world and a different set of perception filters.

5. The English translators of Iqbal should disengage themselves from the romantic and elitist notions of the translation theory. They should consider themselves as ethical agents of social change and not function as the power brokers of the Anglo-American literary hegemony. In this regard, their efforts should intersect with other broader socio-cultural models of mutual engagements. Hence, the translators should see themselves more as the cultural mediators than merely as linguistic interpreters.

6. It has been demonstrated that most of the English translators of Iqbal (from Nicholson to Kiernan) have endeavored to produce transparent translations which usually look indistinguishable from the source text. Such transparent translations of Iqbal obviously facilitate the reader yet they come with a price — they obliterate the cultural uniqueness and the linguistic complexity of the source text. This diminishes the possibility of meaningful engagement with the foreign culture and, eventually, lead to what has been termed as cultural isolationism. Therefore, it is recommended that the translators should not seek to obliterate the cultural uniqueness and the linguistic complexity of the source text for the sake of any spurious transparency.

347

7. It is also necessary to note that the merely linguistic and grammatical theories of translation are not sufficient to appreciate the problem of the domestication of Iqbal. The linguistic and grammatical theories tend to underrate, disregard, or even oppose the adequate conceptualization of the translation as a discursive and strategic practice. Therefore, it is essential for the translators to go beyond the mere linguistic and grammatical theorizations in order to develop a fuller and more nuanced understanding of the practice and role of translation. This should also lead to a broadening of the theoretical base of translation by incorporating the socio-cultural and the historico-political considerations.

8. It is also noteworthy that Iqbal comes of a literary tradition which is at wide variance with the European literary canons and epistemological assumption. The Urdu-Persian literary tradition is clearly distinct from the European literary systems of thought. An English reader while reading Iqbal does not have the benefit of that cultural closeness which he or she definitively has while reading Samuel Beckett or Bertolt Brecht. Therefore, it is recommended that an English translation of Iqbal should be thoroughly annotated and all the cultural and historical references should be elaborated in order to help the reader develop a more informed comprehension of the poet.

9. The researcher is of the view that while translating Iqbal, the translators should not leave any discontinuities or lacunae between the target text and the source text. Instead of omitting parts of the source text for the purpose of bringing order and discursive homogeneity in translation, the translators should communicate its entire ‘voice’.

10. It is also proposed that the English translators of Iqbal should challenge the dominant interpretations and the highly constructed image of Iqbal in the European world. Such an effort will bring a change in the dominant conceptual paradigm which, at present, defines Iqbal in the European consciousness. In the West, it is not uncommon to take Iqbal as a zealous Islamicist who pines for the supposed golden age of Islam and preaches a highly exclusive and nationalist

348

gospel. This image is fundamentally flawed and the English translators of Iqbal can play a key role in its deconstruction/correction.

11. The English translators of Iqbal should strive to reproduce Iqbal’s style and phraseology as much as possible. Admittedly, this is an extremely difficult task and, in a certain sense, not wholly possible. However, the translators should try honestly and as hard as they possibly can. In order to achieve a measure of success in this challenging task, the translators must develop an in-depth understanding not only of Iqbal’s poetry and culture but also of the norms and canons of the Persian-Urdu literary tradition. It has been viewed that during the translation the target text transcends the sociocultural barriers and brings to the readers a new world, a new space, a new idiom and a new history. At this moment instead of rewriting this new world, new space, new idiom and new history, the translator has to retain their peculiarities and distinct identity to the maximum.

12. Lefevere has spoken of an “aesthetic imperialism” which prevents the translators from registering and communicating the foreignness of the source text while translating them (1977, 34). As a result, a translator in order to aestheticize his or her translation eliminates the foreignness of the source text. Kiernan has also served this aesthetic imperialism to a considerable extent in order to ennoble his translation. Therefore, it is recommended that, instead of serving this aesthetic imperialism, the translators should problematize it by strategically foreignizing their translations of Iqbal.

13. It is also recommended that the English translators of Iqbal should re- conceptualize translation not as a linguistic transference of message from one language to the other but as a site of resistance, transformation and identity formation. Venuti has aptly suggested that translators should enact resistance against the ethnocentric regimes of power and the Anglocentric cultural narcissism in order to defy the domesticating trends and influences (1995, 20). The same holds for the English translators of Iqbal also.

349

14. As a result of a long and laborious historico-cultural process, the practice of translation has shaped a canon for the European translators. The researcher also recommends a methodological revision of this canon in the discipline of translation studies. The researcher is of the view that the translators should challenge the regimes of power which are represented by the literary elitism and the Eurocentric cultural ascendency. One way of achieving this goal is to problematize the dominant and elitist principles of translation which are currently defining the practice of translation in the West.

15. Traditionally, the translation scholars have been taking bilingualism as the most essential competency to go about the business of translation. However, with the advent of the cultural turn, a new competency has emerged which is called biculturalism. Therefore, it is recommended that translators of Iqbal should also be bicultural to a certain extent, besides being bilingual. This biculturalism is essential to develop what has been termed by the translation scholars as an ‘intercultural sensitivity’ (Snell-Hornby, 2001).

16. Lastly, a word of caution must be said about the practice of foreignization. Foreignization must be practiced with great circumspection and prowess or else the quality and standard of translation is likely to suffer seriously. Although some of the supporters of foreignization have dismissed this threat, the present researcher considers it real. To the researcher, foreignization and the beauty of translation are not mutually exclusive and to foreignize a translation does not necessarily mean to deliberately tarnish its aesthetics or to cast it in a totally prosaic mould. Nor does a foreignized translation mean an ungrammatical or unintelligible translationese.

5.3. Suggestions for Future Researchers

The following suggestions are made for the future researchers in this discipline.

350

1. The researcher’s scope of investigation was confined to the Urdu poetry of Iqbal. The translation of Iqbal’s Persian poetry can also be studied with reference to Venuti’s model of domestication and foreignization.

2. The English translations of other Urdu poets such as Mirza Ghalib and Faiz Ahmad Faiz can also be researched with reference to Venuti’s model of domestication and foreignization.

3. The English translations of Iqbal made by other translators such as R. A. Nicholson and A. J. Arberry can also be approached by the perspective of domestication.

4. The future researchers of Iqbal’s English translations should seek to go beyond the merely linguistic and grammatical theories of translation and try to incorporate the broader sociopolitical considerations.

5. The researcher can also find whether any of the English translators of Iqbal has made a foreignized translation of Iqbal too. If such a translation is found, its aesthetic or literary comparison can be made with any of the domesticated translations.

6. The future researchers of Iqbal’s English translations should not just focus on the ease and fluency of the translation. Instead it has been demonstrated in this research that, at times, such an ease and fluency exacts an extremely high price.

7. The future researchers in this field can also study other translated Urdu works (i.e. novels, short stories, etc.) by employing Venuti’s model of domestication and foreignization.

8. Some of the Pakistani translators of Iqbal can also be researched with reference the question of domestication/foreignization.

351

9. It also remains an interesting area of research to find out whether Iqbal is more prone to be domesticated when translated into English by a Pakistani translator or when translated by a foreign translator.

10. Some of the theorists have voiced concerns that if Venuti’s advocacy of foreignization finds audience, it will bring in an era of translationese. The present researcher strongly disagrees with all such contentions. However, the future researcher can investigate this area in still greater depths.

11. What can be the hurdles/challenges of a translator intended to make a foreignized translation of Iqbal? This remains another highly researchable question for the future researchers.

12. The sociology of translation is a fast expanding area of research. How can this sociology of translation successfully problematize the practice of domesticating Iqbal through translation? This also remains a largely unexplored area of research.

13. Some of the more poetic-minded researchers can read selectively the foreignized translations made by Venuti himself and can produce some such translations of Iqbal as well which can be, subsequently, discussed and analyzed.

14. The prefaces written by Iqbal’s translators also contain what can be termed as the politics of translation. These prefaces, in their own right, constitute a viable topic of research.

15. Iqbal’s terminology and phraseology pose a serious challenge to the English translators. What can be some of the ways of mitigating the intensity of this challenge? Although hard, yet it remains a very rewarding topic of research.

16. Mustansir Mir, famous scholar of Iqbal, has translated some portions of Iqbal’s poetry. A comparative study of Mir’s translation with some English translator’s translation with reference to domestication/foreignization can also be explored by the future researchers.

352

As the present study is drawing near to its end, it is pertinent to make a few concluding comments. In the contemporary world when the literary translations are growing in importance, there should be a revision of the canons and principles adopted by the Anglo-American translators for a fuller and more empathic understanding of the non-European cultures/literatures. Today the international book market (a pseudonym for the Anglo-American publishing industry) is flooded with tens of thousands of such domesticated translations of the writers hailing from the former colonies of the European nations. Small wonder, an astonishingly large number of the Anglo-American readers are consuming these translations regularly and constructing the image of the non-European literatures/cultures which is considerably at variance with the reality. Viewing from this perspective, it can be maintained that non-domesticated translations can go a long way in revitalizing our intercultural communication and our dialogic encounter with the cultural others. It is only by embracing this outlook that we can live up to the dictates of our shared humanity and avoid dismissing the inter-cultural differences and effacing the linguistic identities of those who are economically and socially less privileged.

This is the ideal to which the translation scholars and the translators of Iqbal (and even translators in general) should aspire. The task is not easy given the legacy of the elitist prejudices, discursive practices and hegemonic notions of power politics dating back to the antiquity. But, now, when the world is standing at the threshold of the third millennium, translation should be seen in a new light. In this arduous task, if the translation scholars achieve even a fraction of this enlightenment and succeed in disengaging themselves from the power politics of translation our lives and efforts will be worthwhile. With this the present research comes to an end, but our task has just begun.

353

REFERENCES

Abrams, M. H. (2011) The Norton Anthology of English Literature. 7th ed. New York: Norton. Altbach, P. G. (2006) International Higher Education: Reflections on Policy and Practice. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College Center for International Higher Education. Apostolova, G. (2004) Names and the Translation. Retrieved November 17, 2013, from http://www.liternet.bg/publish10/gapostolova/names.htm Arberry, A. J. (1953) The Mysteries of Selflessness. Lahore: Iqbal Academy. Arberry, A. J. (1995) Complaint and Answer of Iqbal. Lahore: S. M. Ashraf. Arnold, M. (1960) On the Classical Tradition, ed. R.H.Super, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Augustyn, A. (2013) Authors of the Medieval and Renaissance Era. New York: Britannica Educational Publishing. Baker, M. (1992) In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. London & New York: Routledge. Baker, M. (2001) Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. New York & London: Routledge. Baker, M. (2006) Translation, power and conflict. New York: Routledge.

Baker, M. (ed.) (1998/2008) The Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London & New York: Routledge. Barber, A. & Stainton, R. J. (2010) Concise encyclopedia of philosophy of language and linguistics. Oxford: Elsevier Ltd.

Bassnett, S. & Andre L. 1998. Constructing Cultures: Essays on Literary Translation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Bassnett, S. & Lefevere, A. (1990) Translation, History and Culture. London: Pinter. Bassnett, S. & Trivedi, H. (1999) Postcolonial Translation: Theory and Practice. London and New York: Routledge. Bassnett, S. & Trivedi, H. (2003) Post-Colonial Translation – Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.

354

Bassnett, S. (1980) Translation Studies. London: Routledge. Bassnett, S. (1993) Comparative Literature: A Critical Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Bassnett, S. (2002) Translation Studies. (3rd edn.). London and New York: Routledge. Berlin, I. (1997) The Proper Study of Mankind. New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux. Berman, A. (1992) The Experience of the Foreign: Culture and Translation in Romantic Germany. Translated by S. Heyvaert. Albany: State University of New York Press. Bermann, S. & Wood, M. (2005) Nation, Language, and the Ethics of Translation, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press. Bingel, D. (2013) Turning the Other Cheek. Bloomington: Xlibris Corporation. Bjerregaard, C. H. A. (1915) Sufism: Omar Khayyam and E. Fitzgerald. London: The Sufi Publishing Society Ltd. Borges, J. (1999) The Enigma of Edward FitzGerald: Selected Non-Fictions. Penguin. Boyett, J. (2009) Pocket guide to sainthood. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

British National Corpus (2007) Version III (BNC XML Edition). Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium. Retrieved December 14, 2013 from http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk. Burnett, A. P. (1963) Review of J. Jones, On Aristotle and Greek Tragedy, Classical Philology, 58, 176—178. Bywater, I. (ed. and trans.) (1909) Aristotle on the Art of Poetry. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Campbell, L. (2004) Historical Linguistics: An Introduction. MIT Press. Catherine, B. (2010) The Cambridge Companion to the Epic. New York: Cambridge University Press. Chadwick L (2000) Translating words, translating cultures. London: Duckworth. Chesterman, A. (2010) Memes of Translation. New York: John Benjamin Publishing. Cheyfitz, E. (1991) The Poetics of Imperialism: Translation and Colonization from ‘The Tempest’ to ‘Tarzan’, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chugg, A. (2006) Alexander’s Lovers. Carolina: Lulu Publishers. Cintas, D. J. & Remael, A. (2007) Audio-visual Translation: Subtitling. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishers.

355

Cohen, J.M. (1962) English Translators and Translations, London: Long-mans, Green & Co. Conte, G. B. & Solodow, J. B. (Translator) (1994). Latin Literature: A History. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Coomaraswamy, A. K. (1982) What is Civilzatin? New York: Oxford University Press. Corbin, H. (1993) History of Islamic philosophy. New York: Kegan Paul International. Craig, E. (1998) Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. New York: Routledge. Craig, W. L. & Moreland, J. P. (2012) The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell. Crawford, J. (2000) At War with Diversity: U.S. Language Policy in an Age of Anxiety. New York: Multilingual Matters. Cronin, M. (2003) Translation and Globalization. London and New York: Routledge. Crystal, D. (1999) The Penguin Dictionary of Language. Suffolk: Penguin Books. Cunningham, G. F. (1965) The Divine Comedy in English: A Critical Bibliography. Edinburgh and London: Oliver and Boyd. Daniel, S. H. (2007) Reexamining Berkeley’s philosophy. University of Toronto Press.

Davis, R. H. C. (2006) A history of medieval Europe. London: Pearson Longman.

De Gramont, P. (1990) Language and the distortion of meaning. New York University Press.

De Sua, W. J. (1964) Dante into English: A Study of the Translation of the Divine Comedy in Britain & America. Chapell Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Dejeanne, J. M. L. (1971) Poésies Complètes du Troubadour Marcabru New York: Johnson. Delisle, J. & Woodsworth, J. (1995) Translators Through History. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins/ Unesco Publishing. Denizn, K. N. & Lincoln, S. Y. (2005) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication, Inc. Derrida, J. (1982) Margins of Philosophy. Translated by Alan Bass. University of Chicago Press. Dwight R. (2006) “A Thousand and One Nights: a history of the text and its reception" in The Cambridge History of Arabic Literature Vol. 6. Cambridge University Press.

356

Egan, D. H. (1991) An Anthology of Mysticism. Collegeville: The Liturgical Press. Emmanuel, J. (1982) The Holiest of the Holy: The Last Testament. Albuquerque, NM: Mission of Maitreya. Evans, J. A. (2000) The Age of Justinian. New York: Routledge. Even-Zohar, I. (1978/2004) ‘The position of translated literature within the literary polysystem’, in L. Venuti (ed.) (2004), pp. 199 –204. Even-Zohar, I. (1990) Polysystem Studies. Tel Aviv: Porter Institute of Poetics and Semiotics, Durham, NC: Duke University Press, special issue of Poetics Today, 11, 1. Fakhry, M. (2004) A History of Islamic Philosophy. Columbia University Press.

Fairclough, N. (1989, 2nd edition 2001) Language and Power. London: Longman. Ferez, C. P. (2009) A Crosslinguistic Study on the Semantics of Motion Verbs in English and Spanish. Lincom Europa. Fiedler, L. (1962) “Sufficient unto the Day” (1955), in W.Phillips and P. Rahv (eds) Partisan Review Anthology, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Firestone, R. (2008) Who are the Real Chosen People? Woodstock, VT: Skylight Paths Publishing. Fitts, D. (1956) Poems from the Greek Anthology, New York: New Directions. Fowler, R. (1981) Literature as social discourse, London: Chrysalis; Bloomington:

Fowler, E. (1992) “Rendering Words, Traversing Cultures: On the Art and Politics of Translating Modern Japanese Fiction,” Journal of Japanese Studies. 18, 1—44. France, P. (2000) The Oxford Guide to Literature in English Translation, Oxford University Press. Francis, B. (2005) The Essays. Stilwell, KS: Digireads Publishing. Frenzel, I. (1967) Friedrich Nietzsche, An Illustrated Biography. Pegasus. Gellie, G. H. (1963) Review of J. Jones, On Aristotle and Greek Tragedy, Journal of the Australasian Language and Literature Association 20: 353—354. Gentzler, E. (1993) Contemporary Translation Theories. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Gentzler, E. (2001) Contemporary Translation Theories (rev. 2nd edn.). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

357

Ghani, M. A. (2004) The English Translations of Iqbal's Poetry: A Critical and Evaluative Study. Lahore: Bazm-e-Iqbal. Godby, C. A. (2005) God’s Kingdom on Earth. Bloomington, IN: Authorhouse. Graf, F. (1993) Greek Mythology: An Introduction. Trans. Thomas Marier. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993. Graves, R. (trans.) (1957) Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, The Twelve Caesars. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Grossman, V. (1980) Life and Fate. London: Vintage Classics. Gunton, C. F. (1997) The Cambridge Companion to Christian Doctrine. Cambridge University Press. Hall, S. & Dugay, P. (2002) Questions of Cultural Identity. London: Sage Publications. Halsall, W. A. (1998) Victor Hugo and the Romantic Drama. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Harker, J. (1994) “You Can’t Sell Culture’: Kitchen and Middlebrow Translation Strategies,” unpublished manuscript. Hassan, R. (1977) The Sword and the Sceptre. Lahore: Iqbal Academy Pakistan.

Hassan, W. S. (2011) Immigrant Narratives: Orientalism and Cultural Translation in Arab American. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hatim, B. & Mason, I. (1997) The Translator as Communicator. London and New York: Routledge. Heffernan, T. & Daniel O. (2013) The Turkish Embassy Letters. London: Brown Book Group.

Hermans, T. (1985) The manipulation of Literature Studies in Literary Translation. London: Croom Helm. Holmes, S. (2012) The Quest for the Trinity: The Doctrine of God in Scripture, History and Modernity, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press. Homberger, E. (ed.) (1972) Ezra Pound: The Critical Heritage. London and Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Hosseini, K. (2007) One Thousand Splendid Suns. London: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

358

Huizing, P. J. (2012) Internet. In Encyclopedia Britannica. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved December 21, 2013, from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/92870/canon-law. Hunt, L. (1948) Stories from the Italian poets, with lives of the writers. Paris : A. and W. Galignani. Indiana University Press. Huntley, A. C. (1997) Distributed Journal Creation: Another Paradigm Falls to the Immediacy of the Internet. Retrieved November 23, 2013, from http:// escholarship.org/uc/item/6482h0d9 Hutchinson, J. & Anthony D. S. (2010) Nationalism. Oxford University Press. Iqbal, M. (1915) Secrets of the Self. Lahore: Sh. Muhammad Ashraf. Iqbal, M (1990) Kulliyat-e-Iqbal. Lahore. Iqbal Academy. Iqbal, M. (2000) The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam. Iqbal Academy: Lahore. Ivanov, S. A. (2006) Holy Fools in Byzantium and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jackson, J. A. (1970) Professions and Professionalisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jackson, R. (1981) Fantasy: The Literature of Subversion, London and New York: Methuen. James, S. (2012) Spinoza on Philosophy, Religion, and Politics: The Theological- Political Treatise, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jewett, S. O. (1885) A March Island. Boston: Houghton Mifflin & Co. Johnson, S. (1810) The Works of the English Poets. London: Whittingham Press. Jones, J. (1962) On Aristotle and Greek Tragedy. London: Chatto & Windus. Kaltner, J. (2011) Introducing the Qur’an: For Today’s Reader. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. Kasparek, C. (1983) The Translator's Endless Toil, The Polish Review, vol. XXVIII (2): 84-87. Katan, D. (1999/2004) Translating Cultures: An introduction for translators, interpreters and mediators, Manchester: St. Jerome. Kermode, F. (2004) Pleasure and Change. New York: Oxford University Press. Kiernan, V. G. (1955) Poems from Iqbal. London: John Murray.

359

Kopka, D. (2011) Middle East. Dayton, OH: Lorenz Educational Press. Kruger, A. & Wallmach, K. (1997) Research Methodology for the Description of a Source Text and its Translation(s) - a South African perspective [pdf document]. Retrieved November 12, 2013, from http: www.scribd.com/doc/163683136/Kruger-and-Wallmach-1997-1-pdf. Kuhn, T. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Laclau, E. & Mouffe, C. (1985) Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Toward a Radical Democratic Politics, trans. W. Moore and P. Cammack, London: Verso. Lefevere, A. (1992) Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame. London and New York: Routledge. Lefevere, A. (1992a) Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame. London and New York: Routledge. Lefevere, A. (1992b) Translation/History/Culture: A Sourcebook. London & New York: Routledge.

Lewis, P. E. (1985) “The Measure of Translation Effects”. J. F. Graham, ed. Difference in translation. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press. 3-62. Locher, F. (ed.) (1980) Contemporary Authors, vols 93–96, Detroit: Gale. Lukes, S. (1973) Emile Durkheim: His Life and Work: A Historical and Critical Study. New York: Harper and Row. Madden, F. T. (2013) The Concise History of the Crusades. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. Magnus, B. & Higgins, K. (1996) The Cambridge Companion to Nietzsche. Cambridge University Press. Magnusson, M. (2006) Fakers, Forgers & Phoneys, Edinburgh: Mainstream Publishing. Malinowski, B. (1967) A Diary in the Strict Sense of the Word. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. Malmkjær, K. (2005) Linguistics and the Language of Translation. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Marenbon, J. (2002) Boethius. New York: Oxford University Press. McWilliam, G. H. (1972) The Decameron. London: Penguin Books Ltd.

360

Metzger, B, M. (2001) The Bible in Translation: Ancient and English Versions. Grand Rapids, MI: Backer Academic. McNay, L. (1994) Foucault: a Critical Introduction, Cambridge: Continuum. Miller, R. A. (1986) Nihongo: In Dfence of Japanese. London: Athlone Press. Mir, M. (2006) Iqbal. Lahore: Iqbal Academy Pakistan. Moatti, C. (2006) Translation, Migration, and Communication in the Roman Empire. California: University of California Press. Mohammad, K. (2005) Assessing English Translations of the Qur’an, Middle East Quarterly. Spring, Volume XII (2): 59-72. Morrison, G. (1981) History of Persian Literature. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Munnawer, M. (1982) Iqbal: Poet-philosopher of Islam. Lahore: Islamic Book Foundation. Munday, J. (2001) Introducing Translation Studies. Theories and Applications. London and New York: Routledge. Munday, J. (2009) The Routledge Companion to Translation Studies. New York: Routledge. Murdoch, B. O. (2009) The Apocryphal Adam and Eve in Medieval Europe: Vernacular Translations and Adaptations of the Vita Adae et Evae. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Naas, M. (2008) Derrida from Now On. Bronx, NY: Fordham University Press. Nairn, T. (2009) Faces of Nationalism: Janus Revisited. New York: Verso Nasr, S. H. & Razavi, M. A. (1999) An Anthology of Philosophy in Persia.Oxford University Press. Newman, F.W. (1841) Introductory lecture to the classical course, London: Simpkin, Marshall and Co., and J. Green. Newman, F. W. (1856) The Iliad of Homer, London: Walton and Palmer. Nicholson, R. A. (1920) The Secrets of the Self. Lahore: S. M. Ashraf. Nida, E. A. (1964) Toward a Science of Translating. With Special Reference to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating. Leiden: Brill. Nida, E. A. & de Waard, J. (1986) From One Language to Another: Functional Equivalence in Bible Translating. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

361

Nida, E. A. (2002) Contexts in Translating. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Niranjana, T. (1992) Sitting Translation: History, Poststructuralism and the Colonial Text. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Nord, C. (2001) Translating as a Purposeful Activity – Functional Approaches Explained. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. Obst, H. & R. H. Cline (1990) ‘Summary History of Language Services in the U.S. Department of State’, in D. And M. Bosen (eds). Osborne, L. (2012) Accidental Pharisees. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. Partridge, E. (1958) Origins: A short Etymological Dictionary of Modern English. London and New York: Routledge. Peters, E. (1993) The Hoy Thief. London: Headline Book Publishing. Peterson, A. T. & Dunworth, D. J. (2004) Mythology in our Midst. Westport: Greenwood Press. Phillipson, R. (1992) Linguistic Imperialism. London: Oxford University Press. Porter, L. (2010) Unlearning the Colonial Cultures of Planning. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Pound, E. (1953) Translations. New York: New Directions. Rahman, F. (1979) Islam. University of Chicago Press. Ray, K. M. (2008) Studies in Translation. Chennai: Atlantic publishers. Richardson, H. S. (2013) Internet. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved December 4, 2013, from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/reasoning-moral. Robinson, D. (1997) Translation and Empire: Postcolonial Theories Explained. Manchester: St Jerome. Robinson, D. (2002) Western Translation Theory: From Herodotus to Nietzsche. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishers. Rodden, J. (2007) The Cambridge Companion to George Orwell. Cambridge University Press. Sadiq, M. (1997) History of Urdu Literature. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Said, E. W. (1978) Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books.

362

Sakai, N. (1997) Translation and Subjectivity: On “Japan” and Cultural Nationalism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Sale, G. (2006) The Koran. Fairford: Echo Library. Sawyer, J. F. A. & Simpson, J. M. A. (2001) Concise Encyclopedia of Language and Religion. Oxford: Elsevier. Scanlon, L. (2009) The Cambridge Companion to Medieval English Literature. Cambridge University Press. Schaffer, F. C. (2000) Democracy in Translation: Understanding Politics in an Unfamiliar Culture. Cornell: Cornell University Press. Schaffner, C. & Kelly, H. (1995) Cultural Functions of Translation. Cambridge: Multilingual Matters. Schimmel, A. (1989) Gabriel’s wing: A Study into the Religious Ideas of Sir Muhammad Iqbal. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Schulman, J. K. (2002) The Rise of the Medieval World. Westport: Greenwood Press.

Shuttleworth, M. & Cowie, M. (1997) Dictionary of Translation Studies. Manchester, UK: St Jerome Publishing. Sieburth, R. (2010) New Selected Poems and Translations. New York: New Directions Publishing Corps. Simon, S. (1996) Gender in Translation – Cultural Identity and the Politics of Transmission. London: Routledge. Singh, I. (1997) The Ardent Pilgrim: An Introduction to the Life and Work of Mohammed Iqbal. (2nd edn.) Delhi: Oxford University Press. Sivasankaran, T. (1993) Choice Short Stories. Chennai: Allied Publisher Pvt. Ltd. Sokol, N. (2002) “Translation and its Discontents: A Conversation with Ilan Stavans,” The Literary Review 45 (3): 554. Sonn, T. (2010) Islam: A Brief History. Chichester: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Steiner, G. (1975, 3rd edition 1998) After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation. London, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Tabari, M. J. (1997). The History of al-Tabari: The Victory of Islam. Albany: State University of New York. Thompson, C. F. (2012) The Greatness of God. Bloomington, IN: CrossBooks.

363

Thomson, D. S. (1952) The Gaelic Sources of Macpherson’s ‘Ossian.’ Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd. Tinkler-Villani, V. (2005) Babylon or new Jerusalem? Perceptions of the city in literature. New York: Editions Rodopai. Toury, G. (1978/2004) ‘The nature and role of norms in literary translation ’, in L. Venuti (ed.) (2004), pp. 205 –18. Toury, G. (1980) In Search of a Theory of Translation. Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute. Toury, G. (1985) ‘A rationale for descriptive translation studies’, in T. Hermans (ed.) (1985a), pp. 16 –41. Toury, G. (1991) ‘What are descriptive studies in translation likely to yield apart from isolated descriptions?’, in K. van Leuven-Zwart and T. Naaijkens (eds), pp. 179 – 92. Toury, G. (1995) Descriptive Translation Studies – And Beyond. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Toury, G. (2004) ‘Probabilistic explanations in Translation Studies: welcome as they are, would they qualify as universals? ’, in A. Mauranen and P. Kujam äki (eds), pp. 15–32. Tymoczko, M. & Gentzler, E. (2002) Translation and Power. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. Tymoczko, M. (2006) ‘Reconceptualizing Western Translation Theory’, in Theo Hermans (ed.) (2006) Translating Others. Manchester: St. Jerome, Vol. I, pp. 13– 22. Tymoczko, M. (2010) Translation, Resistance, Activism. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press Tymoczko, M. and E. Gentzler (eds) (2002) Translation and Power. Amherst and Boston, MA: University of Massachusetts Press. Vahid, S. A. (1959) Iqbal: His Art and Thought. London: Murray. Vahid, S. A. (1964) Thoughts and Reflections of Iqbal. Lahore: Sh. Muhammad Ashraf. Venuti, L. (ed.) (1992) Rethinking Translation: Discourse, Subjectivity, Ideology. London and New York: Routledge. Venuti, L. (1998b) ‘The American tradition’, in M. Baker (ed.) (1998a), pp. 305 –15. Venuti, L. (1995/2008) The Translator’s Invisibility. London/New York: Routledge.

364

Venuti, L. (1998a) The Scandals of Translation: Towards an Ethics of Difference. London and New York: Routledge. Venuti, L. (2000) The Translation Studies Reader. New York: Routledge. Venuti, L. (2009) “Translation, Intertextuality, Interpretation,” Romance Studies, Vol. 27, No. 3, 2009, 157-173 Venuti, L. (2013) Translation Changes Everything. New York: Routledge. Vermeer, H. (1989) “Skopos and Commission in Translational Action.” In Venuti, L. The Translation Studies Reader. New York: Routledge, 2000. Pp. 227-237. Walzer, E. A. (2003) George Campbell: Rhetoric in the Age of Enlightenment. Albany: State University of New York Press. Wierzbicka, A. (2011) English Meaning and Culture. New York: Oxford University Press. Wiersbe, W. W. (2000) Classic Sermons on the Lord’s Prayer. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications. Woodhead, L. (2004) An Introduction to Christianity. New York. Cambridge University Press. Wordsworth, W. (1853) Complete Poetical Works of William Wordsworth. Philadelphia: Troutman & Hayes. Wormald, J. (1991) Mary Queen of Scots. London: Collins & Brown. Wright, N. T. (2011) Revelation for Everyone. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.

365