Introduction

INTRODUCTION

TransIatiOn studies:an emergi"g disCi卩 Ⅱne

T∶ J。￡ f∶ ∶∵ 品 d∶ 兢旒 ∷ r括甘W∷ n11∶ 瞿 FsT∶ i乱 i找Γ 弘: present。 It ConCentrates on approaches that have been deve|oped during the t、 ^/entieth century`focusing ρartiCu|ar|y On the past thirty years。 It llvas`‖ during thls periOd that trans|atiOn studies emerged as a neⅥ /acadenη ic ne|d`at once internationa|and interdiscip"nary, The need for a reader is thus part|y institutiona|` created by the rapid gro、、/th of the discip"ne` especia"y as evidenced by the pro"feratiOn Of trans-

|ator training ρrograms Ⅵ/or丨 dⅥ/ide。 Recent surveys indicate mOre than250`offering a variety of certincates and degrees` undergraduate and graduate`training not on|y professiona| trans|atOrs` but a|so scho|ar-teachers of trans丨 ation and Of foreign |anguages and "teratures (Canη inade and Pym 1995/ periodicaHy updated at

www。 fut。 es/~apym丿 H arr丨 s1997)。 This groⅥ/th has been accompanied by diverse forms Of trans|ation research and commentary` some oriented toⅥ /ard pedagogy` yet most faHing、 ^/ithin-or crossing _traditiona|acadenη ic discip"nes`such as|inguistics` |iterary criticisΠ η `ph"osOphy` and anthropo|ogy. The principa丨 aim of the reader is tO bring together a substan-

But recognition must nOt be construed as mirror reneCti。 n。 The intention 丨s a|so to cha"enge any discip"nary cOmp|acency`tO produce a conso"dation that inter- rogates the xA/ays in、 ^/hich trans|ation is current|y researched and taught by revea"ng -even 丨f imp"c it|y_the "nη itatiOns of scho|ar丨 y knolv edge and pedagogica| practices` to sholv what trans|ation studies have been and to suggest what they might be. Perhaρ s the most effective、 ^/ay to issue this cha"enge is to enab|e a historica| perspectiVe, \、 A trans|ator Ⅵ/ithout a historica| cOnsciousness`〃 Ⅵ/rote the French trans|ator and trans|ation theorist Antoine Berman/ remains \、 a prisOner to h丨 s Or her representation of trans|ating and to those representations that Convey the、 socia| ′ discourses′ of the rnoment′ (Berman1995∶ 61`my trans ation),In assemb"ng this reader/ I am suggesting that scho|ars of trans|ation` as Ⅵ/eH as trans|ators` can signi吊 cant|y advance their kA/ork by taking into accOunt the historica| contexts in Ⅵ/hich translation has been practiced and stud丨 ed, The readings are organized 丨ntO siX Chrono|ogica| sections丿 the date of pub"- catiOn for each reading aρ pears at the foot of its币 rst page,The docunη ents gathered in the品 rst section` a" predating the tv√ entieth century`have exel'ted such a p0、、 ^/erfu| innuence on|ater practices and cOnη mentary as to、 foundationa|〃 ^/arrant the term、 The next five sect丨 ons are divided into decades of the tlventieth century。 ˇ∨hether a decade stands on its OxAln or is Combined vvlith others depends` in the 6rst instance` on the vo|ume of trans|ation connmentary pubhshed\∧ /ith"η it` sheer b丨 b"ographica| quantity (cf。 the bib"ographies in N1organ 1959` steiner 1975` Schu|te and Biguenet 1992). But there is a|so a qua"tative standard∶ as the readings n1ove towards the ρresent` the |eve| of soph丨 st丨 cation and 丨nventiveness does in fact rise` and new concepts`methods/and research pr0ects are deve|oped`justifying separate sections for the 1980s and the 199Os and beyond, The sections are each prefaced by introduCtory essays xlvhich describe |η ain trends in trans|atiOn studies/ estab"shing a context for cOnc丨 se eXpOsitions of the readin9s and caH"η g attention to the XlVork of innuentia| vAyriters` theorists` and scho|ars lArho are not represented by a reading.The section introduCtions are historica| narratives that refer to theoretica| and methodo|Og丨 ca| advances and occasionaHy offer critica| eva|uations, Yet the stories they te" avOid any evO|u- tionary Iη ode| of progress` as weH as any systematiC critique。 I 、Ⅳanted to out"ne` hoⅥ/ever rapid|y` the history of the present moment in trans|at丨 on studies, And to some degree this meant asking questions of the past raised by the |atest tendencies in theory and research, The map Of trans|ation studies drawn here` its centers and peripheries` admis- s丨 Ons and exc|usions` renects the current fraglmentation of the 雨e|d 丨nto sub- specia ties` some empiricaHy oriented` some hermeneutic and "terary` and some 丨nnuenced by various forms of "nguistics and cu|tura| studies \∧ /hich have resu|ted 丨n produCtive syntheses, The effort to cast a Ⅵ/ide net has not encOmpassed certain areas of trans|ation research` 、、/hOse Vo|ume and degree Of specia"zation demand INTRODUCTION separate cOverage regard|ess of their importance to trans|ation studies (e。 g. interpreting and lmachine trans|atiOn)。 And breadth of coVerage has "mited depth of representation for particu|ar theories and approaChes。 The section introductions airn` in brief space`to supp|y some omissions and tO sketch a histOrica|sett丨 ng。 And the bibⅡ ography not on|y identines parenthet|ca| references made thrOughout the bOok` but|ists additiona| pub"cat|ons by particu|ar|y inΠ uentia|or pro"nc authOrs. It Ⅵ/iH be C|ear that I have tried to cover much_for some` no doubt`too muCh- in an effort tO suggest the variety of trans|ation studies. The irnage Of the ne|d fashioned by this reader re佴 ects the contemporary scene a||the mOre c}Ose|y because it has been produced in consu|tation with many|eading XA/riters and trans|atOrs`theorists and scho丨 ars,They cOmmented on various versions of the tab|e of contents` responded to questions about particu|ar trans|ation traditions and for|η s of research` suggested speci币 c texts` made "sts of names` and CritiCized my rationa|e and princip|es Of se|ection and organization.Any authOr or text that received a re|ative|y |arge number of recOmmendations earned some sort of representation here. In some cases` my cOnsu|tants encouraged me tO cOHect research that feH Outside their speGia|ty,And sOme he|ped s"mp|y`but rη ost tangib|y/ by a"owing their wOrk tO be reprinted、Λ/ithout Gharge. Their names and|ocatiOns∶ Kwame AnthOny Appiah(USA)`ROsemary ArrOjo (∪ sA)` IsabeHe Ber|man (France)` Annie Brisset (Canada)` Peter Bush (Spa丨 n)` AndrexA/Chesterman(Fin|and)` Kath|een Davis(∪ sA)` Dirk De|abastita(Be|gium)` Jacques Derrida(FranGe)Ìtamar Even-Zohar(IsraeD` Peter FaⅥ /cett(∪ K)` Peter FranCe (UK)/ Sean GO|den (Spain)/ Jean-Rllarc Gouanvic (Canada)` BasH Hatim (∪ nited Arab Enη irates)` hllichae| Henry Heim (∪ sA)` Ju"ane H Ouse (Germany)` David Katan(Ita|y)`suzanne Ji" Levine(∪ SA)` PhHip E LeWis(USA)Ìan NqasOn (UK)`Rache|R/lay(USA)Èugene Nida(Be|gium〉 `Christiane NOrd(Germany)Àb(ˉ V ar|< N Ornes(∪ sA)À|exis NOuss(Canada)Ànthony Pynη (Spain)` E|ena Reeves (USA)` |

Ⅵ"terary/ith }arge critiCism differences_theoretica1 and cu|tura| studies, meth0d0|Ogica1 lA/e began xvith pedagogica}, some shared lA/hat、 ideas` butⅣe hada|so in INTRODUCTION common、 that trans|ation studies constitutes an emer- ^/as a set of basic assumptions∶ gent academic discip"ne丿 that research and cOmmentary on trans丨 atiOn frOm other discip"nes might be usefu}to trans|ation studies` but does not neCessarHy faH Ⅵ/ithin it氵 that many cu|tures have strong trans|ation traditions in the tⅥ /entieth century` but that tO be innuentia丨 internationaHy` Ⅵ/rit丨 ng about trans|ation needs to be XA/ritten in or trans丨 ated 丨nto an internationa"zed |anguage such as Eng"sh (cf.the rich traditions Of trans|ation cOnη mentary in Russian`Chinese` Braz"ian POrtuguese` and Cata anàmong many other anguages`malor and minor).These assumptions did not make any easier the difncu|t pr。 cess of se|ecting texts。 On the cOntrary` they|ed to an effort to |imit the inevitab|e drift toⅥ /ard Eng"sh-丨 anguage traditions by cOnsidering various untrans|ated materia|s` by gathering previous|y pub"shed trans|ationsànd by presenting ne\∧ /and improved trans|ations of c|assic documents。 In the end` this reader shoⅥ /s that native speakers of Eng"sh、、/rote re|atiVe|y "tt|e of the ˇ∨estern trans|atiOn theory that has proved innuentia| during the tlVentieth century and certain|y before it, The differenCes between me and my advisOry editor were equaHyìf not more` signinGant because they resu|ted in many debates over the range of current approaches to trans|ation. These differences and debates reneGted the institutiona| divisions of acadenaic |abor`testing the notion of interdiscip"narity by sho、、/ing that many interdiscip"nes are pOssib|e in trans|ation studiesànd that even if disciρ do nOt share cOnceptua| paradigms and research methods` they might nOnethe|ess"nes be jOined together to advance a ρrOjeCt on trans|ation,The nrst edition of the reader Ⅵ/as the fruit of such a co"aboration` a|though its 6na| form remained |η y so|e responsib"ity, FOr the second edition` I have\^òrked a|one.

What is a translation theOry?

The increasing|y interdiscip"nary nature of trans|ation studies has mu|ti p"ed theories of trans|ation。 A shared 丨nterest in a topic` however/ is no guarantee that Ⅵ/hat is acceptab|e as a theory in one ne|d 0r approach \^/"| satisfy the conceptua| requirements of a theory in others。 In the West` fronn antiquity to the |ate nine~ teenth century/theoretica|statements about trans|ation fe"into traditiona"y de吊 ned areas of thinking about|anguage and cu|ture∶ rhetoric` |iterary theory` ph"osophy. And the most frequent|y cited theOrists Comprised a fair|y "mited group. One such cata|ogue might inC ude∶ Cicero`H Orace`Quinti|ian`Jerome`Augustine`Dryden` Goethe` sch|eiermacher` Arno|d` N ietzsche, Tl/ventieth-century trans ation theOry revea|s a much expanded range of f讠 e|ds and apprOaches renecting the differen- tiatiOn Of modern cu|ture∶ not on|y Varieties of "nguistics` "terary criticism` ph"osOphica| specu|atiOn`and Gu|tura|theOry` but experirη enta|studies and anthropo|Ogica{ ne|dⅥ/ork` as xA/e" as trans|ator training and trans|ation practice. Any accOunt of theoretica| cOncepts and trends must acknoⅥ/edge the disCip"nary sites in、 At the same time` ^/hich they emerged in order to understand and eva|uate them。 it is possib|e to |Ocate recurrent themes and ce|ebrated topoi` if not broad areas of agreement. INTRODUCTION

tions。 Before they can cOntribute to any exp|anation or 丨nterrOgation of trans|ation theories and practices` they require ana|ysis in specinc historica| contexts。 In the section introductions they have been used as heuristiC deVices to describe and

dist丨 nguish among different theoretica| texts and trends. INTRODUCTION

εrassr口 o″,a卩卩″caf'o″s

The pr丨 mary audience imagined for this reader is acadenlic∶ instructors and students in adVanced undergraduate or graduate cOurses in trans丨 atiOn theory` as llve" as theorists and scho|ars of trans|ation and practitioners Ⅵ/ith a theoretica| 丨nc"natiOn, The 丨nstitutiona| sites of such cOurses vary xtlide|y today` 丨nc|uding not on|y trans- |ator training programs` but Various other departments and progralms` such as studies,"nguistics` Instructors forei9n Ⅵ|anguages`/H| of cOurse cOmparative haVe their "terature` oⅥ /n ideas ph"Osophy` about hoxlv and to cu|tura| use a book they decide to require or recOmllnend In se|ecting and muHing over the texts that compOse the reader` I thought often about potentia| uses in the c|assroo m, Here are a feⅥ/suggestions.

Read幻 o厂庀a/ly

`s古 The chrono|ogica| organization encOurages historica| surveys of theoretiGa| trends by focusing on ρarticu}ar traditions`discip"nes`or cOnceptua|discourses se|ections spanning decades xvithin the tⅥ /entieth century can be grouped to show the irnportant 丨mpact of the German trans ation tradition(Benjamin`steiner`Berman)`Czech and Russian fOrma"sm(JakobsOn` Even-Zohar`TOury` Lefevere)`senη iOtics(Jakobson` Lewis)` |inguistics (B|um丬

Read晌 elI,afta/ly

The chrono|ogica| organization can a|so be set aside in favor of tracing specinc thelales in trans|ation studies。 se|ect丨 ons can be grOuped to exp|ore assumpt丨 ons INTRODUCTION about|anguage use(instrumenta| ∨s hermeneutic)`theoretiCa| concepts(trans|ata- b"ity and re|ative autonomy` equ丨 va|ence and shifts` reception and function)` trans|ation strategies (free vs. |itera` sense-for-sense vs。 Ⅵ/ord-for-Ⅵ /ord` domesti- cating vs。 fOreignizing)` particu|ar genres or text types (humanistic` pragmatic)` and various cu|tura丨 and po"tica| issues(identity and ideo|ogy`poⅥ /er and minority` discip"nes and institutions) A ρarticu|ar theme Ⅵ/"| bring together a spectrum of differing approaches。 The 9enre of poetry`for examp eìs at the center of the texts by Benjam丨 n`POundànd Nabokov/but a|so those by Dryden and Goethe,Sch|eiernη acher` LexA/isànd Derrida address the trans|ation of ph"osophy A theme can a|so provide a Cross-seCtion of 、、/ork in a speci币 c period. Po"tica|agendas for trans|ation are described and theor- ized in the 199os frOm different perspectives and situations (Brisset` spivak` Appiah` H arvey` N Ornes). se|ections can be made contrapunta"y`bringing together diverging treatments. BOth D′ Ab|ancourt′ s practices and ∨inay and Darbe|net′ s methodo|ogy raise ethica| questions when juxtaposed tO Berman丿 Chamber|ain inG丨 udes a fennin丨 st critique of steiner氵 Rll ason′ s eXamination of European ∪nion documents suggests that Vermeer′ s functiOna"sm becomesideo|ogica"y cOmp"cated in pO"tica| 丨nstitutions。

t/se st//9/’ /emel,古 a-/read`rTgs

Any approach to this reader xvi|| be strengthened by a fu"er historica| or theoretica| cOntext, H istor丨 es of trans|atiOn theory and practice noⅥ / exist for lmany

|anguages`traditions and periods(e。 g。 BaHard1992`Cope|and1991/cronin1996` Pym 2000` star|

Antho ogies are a|ways judged by what they exc|ude as we丨 |as inc|ude.This reader` given its space|imitations and se|ection criteria`Ⅵ /i|| prove no exception, I am keen` therefore`tO hear from instruCtOrs Who have adopted it for c|assroom use`whether successfu"y or lAyith frustration, InformatIon conCerning actua| reading assignments` the he|pfu|ness of the introductory materia1 and the usefu|ness of ρarticu|ar texts xA/iH be inva|uab|e in cOnsidering revisions for subsequent editions, P|ease direct any comments to me care Of Rout丨 edge。 Chapter 7

Waker Be丬 amin

THE TASK OF THE TRANSLATOR∶ AN INTRODUCTION TO THE TRANSLATION OF BAUDELAIRE′ S

Γ/⒋ ￡3LE/⒋ t/XP/⒋ fPfSf￡F/VS

Trz刀 s/a‘ed by〃arry zo/l刀

eJ上 1[∶lJ∶l:)c、l`∶暹FJJ∶ l1∶ :Jt浔 ;.\、:土品1∶ 丨|;l:1FΙ Ι ∶F∶ ∶:l∶去 l∶ or its rcprcscntatiⅤ cs rnisleading,but cⅤ cn thc conccpt ofan“ idcar’ rcccivcr is dctri- mcntal in thc thcorctical considcration of art,sincc all it P° sitS iS thc cxistcncc and naturc of l1,an as such Art, in thc samc、 vay, Posits lnan’ s Physical and sPiritual cxistcncc,but in n° ne。 f its、v。 rks is it conccrncd、 Vith his rcsPonsc, No Pocnn is intendcd for thc rcadcr,n。 Picturc for thc l)eholder,n。 symPhony fc)r thc listcncr Is a translati° n meant f。r rcadcrs 、vho d。 n° t undcrstand the ori:inal? This Ⅵ:。 uld scclm to cxPlain adequately the divergence° f thcir standing in the rcaln△ °f art M° rcOvcr,itsccms to be the° nly concciⅤ ablc rcason for saying“ thc samc thing” ‘ rCPCatCdly。 For 、vhat does a litcrary 、vork‘ say” P What d。 cs it con△ n1unicatcP It ‘‘ ’ tclls’ Ⅴcry littlc to th。 sc、vho undcrstand it, Its cssential quahty is n。 t statcmcnt or thc imparting of in忆 rmation Yet any translau。 n whch htcnds t。 Pcrbrm a transIlaitting function cannot transrllit anything l)ut inf°rmati° n-ˉ hencc,sonrlcthing inesscntlal,This is thc hallmark of bad translati° ns Butd。、Ⅴc not gcncrally rcgard as thc csscntial substancc° f a litcrarⅤ 、vork、vhat it c° ntains in additi° n to information as cⅤ cn a Poor translator、vill adn1it__thc unfath° mable,thc rnystcrious,thc “ Poetic/’ Somcthing that a translat°r can rcPr° ducc。 nly if hc is als° aP。 et?This, actually,is thc causc。 f anothcr charactcristic of infcrior translati° n,、vhich consc- qucntly vvc rnay dcHne as the inaccuratc transrnission of an incsscntial contcnt This

、vill bc true、vhcncvcr a translation undertakes t° scrvc thc rcader, H° 、vc、 Cr,if it 、Ⅴcrc intended f° r thc rcader,thc same、 vould have to aPPly t° thc。 rigina1,If the

1923 76 Ⅵ/ALTER BENJAMIN original d。 es n。 t cxist for thc rcadcr’ s sakC,h。、vc。uld the translation bc undcr~ st。 °d°n thc basis。f this Prcn1isC?

Translatlon is a rnode To c。 mPrChCnd it as rnodc° nc rnust g。 back t。 the°rigˉ inal, f° r that c。 ntains thc la、v 8° Ⅴerning the translation∶ its translatabⅡ ity, The qucstlon °f、vhcther a 、v° rk is translatable has a dual meaning. Eithcr∶ Will an adcquatc translat° r cⅤ cr bc f° und am。 ng thc totahty ofits readcrsP Or,rnorc pcrti- ncntly: Does its naturc lcnd itsclf t。 translati° n and, thcreforc, in vic、 v of thc signiHcancc。 fthc m° dc, call for itP In I)rinciPlc,thC hrst questi。 n can bc dccidcd only contingcntly; thc sccond, ho、 vcⅤ cr, aPodictically only suPerscial dainking v√ ill dcny thc indcPcndent meaning of the lattcr and declarc both qucstions to be of cqual signiHcancc It should be Pointcd out that ccrtain correlative conccpts rctain thcir n△ eaning, and possibly thcir forcmost signincancc, if thcy arc rcfcrrcd cxclusivcly t° man, ()nc n1ight, for cxamPlc, sPCak of an unf° rgcttablc hfc 。r 1nomcnt cVcn if all mcn had f° rgotten it If the nature of such a lifc Or momcnt rcquircd that it bc unforgottcn, that Predicatc Ⅵ广0uld not irnPly a falschood but lncrcly a clain1n。 tR】 lnllcd by mcn, and probably als。 a referencc to a rcahn in 、vhich it 1s ful丘lled: God’ s remcmbrancc Analogously, the translatability of linguistic crcations ought to bc considcrcd evcn if n△ cn should proⅤ e unable to trans_ latc then△ Given a strict conccPt of translation,、 v。 uld thcy n° t rcally bc translatablc to sOn1e dcgrecP Thc qucsti° n as to 、vhcthcr thc translation °f ccrtain linguistic creations is called f° r ought to bc PosCd in this sense For this th° u8ht iS Ⅴahd here∶ If translation is a modc,translatabⅡ ity must be an csscntial fcaturc° f certain、 vorks Translatability is an csscntial quahty of ccrtain、 Ⅴorks,、 vhich is n° tt° say that it is csscntial that thcy bc translated; it mcans rathcr that a sPeciJ⒈iic signincancc inhcrcnt in thc Original manifcsts itsclf in its translatability, It is Plausil)lc that no translation,h°、vcⅤ er good it rnay l冫 c,can havc any Signihcancc as rcgards thc Origˉ inal, Yct, by Ⅴirtuc of its translatability thc original is cl° scly connected Ⅵ1th thc translation;in fact,this conncction is all thc closcr sincc it is no longcr。fimP。rt~ ancc to thc original 、Vc rnay call this connection a natural onc,。 r,rnorc sPcci丘 caⅡ y, a Ⅴitd connccuon.Just t· S the mamkstati。 ns of hfc arc indmatdy connectcd with the Phen° menon of hfc、 vithout being° filnportance to it,a translation issues from

thc。 h垫 nal-not s。 muCh△ 。m its hk as△ 。m its aRedik F° ra订 ansl敲i° n comes

latcr than thc Original,and sincc the ilnPortant、v。 rks of、v° rld litcraturc ncver⒔ nd thcir ch。 scn translators at thc thnc ofthcir。 rigin,their translation1narks their stagc

°fc° ntinucd lifc Thc idea。 f hfe and aRcrhfc in、 v。 rks of art sh° uld bc rcgardcd with an entirely unmetaPhorical° bjccdⅤ ity EⅤ cn in umcs。 f narr。 w|Pr句 udicCd thought therc、vas an inkhng that lifc、 vas n。 t lirnitcd to organic corPorcahty But it cannot bc a rnatter of cxtcnding its don1ini。 n undcr the feeb1c sccPtCr ofthc s° ul,

as Fcchner tricd t° d° , °r, c。 nvcrscly, of l)asing its dcnniti。 n 。n thc cvcn lcss conclusiⅤe factors。 f anin△ ahty,such as scnsation,、 vhich charactcrizc lifc Only。 cca~ sionally.Thc concePt° f hfC is giⅤ en its cluc only if eⅤ crything that has a hist° ry of its o、vn,and is not rnercly thc sctting for hist。 ry,is credited、 vith lifc.In thc hnal analysis,thc rangc()f hfc rnust bc dctcrn1incd by hist。 ry rathcr than by naturc,lcast °f all by such tcnu。 us fact。 rs as scnsation and soul,Thc PhilosoPhcr’ s task c° nsists in comprchcnding all of natural life thr° ugh thc more cncomPassing life of history And indecd, is n° t thc continucd lifc。 f、vorks of art far casier to rccognizc山 an the continual liF辶 Of anin1al sPcciCsP The hist° ry of the grcat、 vorks of art tclls us THE TASK OF TH∈ TRANsLATOR 77

ˉ al)。 ut thci】 antcccdents, thcir rcahzation in thc agc of thc a1·tist, thcir P。 tentiaⅡ y ctcrnal aRcr"fc in succcCding gcncrations 、Vhcre thjs last n1anifcsts itself,it is callcd hmc TraI1slations that are morc than Jal、 smissions of subicd mattcr comc into being、vhcn in the coursc of its surⅤ ival a、 vork has 1· cac11ed thc agc ofits famc, Contrary, theref° rc, to tbc clailns 。f bad translat° rs, such translations do not so much scrxc t11e Work as oxxe thcir cxistcncc to it Thc l"、 of thc oH要 nals att缸 ns iI1thcn1to its ever-renc、 vcd latCst and mOst abundant n°、vcri118 Bcing a sPccial and high for1n。 f lif辶 , this Πo、veri11g is govcrncd by a spccial, high Purposivcncss Thc rclati° nshiP bct、 ′ˉcCn lifC and PurP° sefulncss, scCn△ ingly

。bⅤ i。 us yCt al1nOst bcyond the grasp of the intellcct,rcⅤ cals itsclf only if thc ulti- matC Purposc to、 ·ard、Vhich all singlc functions tcnd is sOught not in its oⅥ n sPhere butin a highcr onc All PurP° Scft11rnanifestations oflifc,including thcir vcry PurP° ~ sivcncss, in thc⒔ nal analysis haⅤ c thch· end n° t in lifc,but in thc cxPressi。 n ofits nature, in thc rcPrcscntation of its signiHcance Translation thus ulti1natcly serⅤ cs the Purposc of exPrcssing thc ccntral reciProcal rclati。 nshiP bct、vccn languagcs It cannot Possibly rcvcal or estabhsh this hi(ldcn relati° nsh")itsCl凡 but it can rcpre~ sent it by 1· cahzing it in cn1bryonic or iI1tcnsivc form T11is rcPrcsCntation of hidden signiicancc through an cn1bry。 nic atten△ pt at n1akiI】 g it 、isil)lc is °fs° singular a naturc that it is rarcly met`Ⅳ id1in the sPhCrc of n° nhnguistic lifc This, in its analogics and symbols, can draⅥ /on other、vays of suggcsting mcaning than intensive-— that is,anticiPatiⅤ C,inti1natin8 -reahzation,As f° r thc positcd central kinshiP° f languages,it is11narked by a disti11ctiⅤ c convergcncc Languages arc not strangers to onc anothcr,but arc,a Priori and aPart9orn all11istorica】 rclationshiPs, inter1ˉ clatcd in vvhat thcy lsˉ ant to cxPress Wid△ this attemPt哎 an cxplication our sttldy aPPears t。 r㈣ oln,aRcr htile dctours, thc traditi。 nal thcOry of translation If thc kinship of languagcs is to bc dcm。nstrated by translations,hovv clsc can this be d。 nc but by conveying thc form and lneaning of thc o1· iginal as accuratcl)as P。 ssiblc?To bc surc,that the° ry、 ˇould bc11ard Put tO dCnnc thc11ature of this accuracy and thcrcF。 rc c。 uId shcd11° light °n、vhat is important in a translation, Actually,h° Ⅵ厂Cvcr,thc kinshiP of languages is br° u8ht()ut by a translati° n far1norc Profoundly and clearly than im thc suPcr⒔ ~ cial and i11dc丘nablc shunarity 。f tⅥ·o 、v0rks of literaturc To grasp tl△ c gcnuinc rclatlonshil)bct、 vcCn an original and a translation rcquircs an inⅤ cstiεation analo- gous t。 thc argumcntation by `vhich a critiquc of cognition、 :° ukl have t° oⅤ c l)lˉ thc in1possibdity° f an iluagc thcory T11e1ˉ c itis a n△ atter of sh。、ving that in c° gni- tion thcⅡ could bc no objediⅤ ity,not evcn a daim to k,if k dcalt with images of rcahty;hcrc it can be de】 nonstratcd that no translati。 n、vould bc P° ssiblC if in its ultin1atc csscncc it strove f° r likcness to thc °riginal For in its aRerhfe~ 、vhich could n。 t bc callcd tl)at if it、 vere not a transf° rmation and a rene、 val of son1cthing livi11g ~ the original undcr思 oCS a changc Evcn 、·ords 、ith Hxcd n1caning can · undcrgo a rnaturin{::ProcCss 「hc obvious tcndcncy of a、 ritcr’ s literary style luay in tiluc 、vither a、 :ay, 。nly to giⅤ c rise to hnmanent tcndcncics in the htcrary crcation What sOundcd flesh oncc may sound hackncycd later; 、Ⅴhat 、vas oncc current rna〉 somcday sound quaint T。 scck thc cssence of suCh changcs, as vvell as thc cqually constant changcs in mcani11g, in the subicctiⅤ ity of Postcrity rad1cr than in thc、 cry lifc of langua8c and itS、 vorks,、 voul(ln1can~ even allo、 ving l。 r the crudcst I)sych。 logism~to confuSe thc1· oot causc of a thin思、vith its Csscncc.More 78 WALTER BENJAMIN

Pertinently,it、vould mcan dcnying,by an imP。 tCncc of thought,one ofthe n1ost po、vcrful and fruitful historical Pr° cesses And even if。 ne tricd to turn an author’ s thc ccluP d召 cc。 f his、v° rk, this still、 voul(ln° t saⅤ c last strokc of the Pcn int° Jr犭 that dcad thc° ry of translati。 n,F。 rjust as thc tcnor and thc signiicance。 f the grcat ss Orks 。f litcraturc undcrgo a con1Pletc transforluati° n ovcr the ccnturics, thc n10thcr t。 nguc oft11c translat° r is transforn1cd as vvcll 、、厂11ilc a P。 ct’ S、Ⅴ。rds endurc i11his o、 vn langua8e,e′ en thc grcatcst t1· al)slati。 n is(lcstincd to bec° mc Part ofthC gro、 vd1ofits。、vn language and cvcntuaⅡ y t° be absorbcd l)Ⅴ its rcnc、 val Translati° n is so far rcn△ ovcd fr。 n11)cing the sterile cquation。 ft、 vo dcad languages that of all hterary forms it is thc Onc chargcd Ⅵ:id1thc sPecial rnission of、 vatching ovcr the maturing Process of thc Original languagc and thc birth Panε s of its0、 vn If thc kinshiP °f languagcs manifcsts itsc】 f in traI1slati° ns, this is not accorn- PhshCd thr° ugh a Ⅴaguc ahkcncss bct、 vccn adaPtation and()riginal It stands to rcason that kinshiP docs not ncccssarⅡ y involvc likcness Thc c°nccPt of kinshiP as usCd hcrc is in accord、 vith its rnOre restricted con11non usagc:in b。 th cascs, it cannot bc dc⒔ ncd adcquatcly by idcntity of origin,although in dc‖ ning thc m° rc rcstricted usage thc concePt。 f°ri8i11rCmains indisPcnsablc· Whcrcin rcsklcs thc rclatcdncss of t、 v。 languagcs,aPart frorn hist。 1· ical considcrations7Ce1ˉ tainlv not in t11e silnilar- itv bct、 vccn 、Vorks of litcrature or 、Ⅴords Rathcr, all suPrahist° rical kinshil, of languagcs rcsts in thc intention undcrlying cach language as a、 Ⅴhole ˉ an intcntion, ho、vcver,、vhich n。 single languagc can attain by itsclf but、 Ⅴhich is rcahzcd()nly by thc totahty of thcir intcnti。 ns supplcmcnting cach od△ cr:Purc language WhⅡ e all indiⅤ idual clcmcnts oF forcign languagcs- “ords,sentences,structurc_ are mutu- ally exclusive,these languages suPPlement onc another in thcir intcntions X/Xlithout (listinguishing the i11tendcd° bject ion1t11em。 dc° f intcntioI),no⒔ rm εrasP oftllis basic la、 v of a PhilosoPhy °f languagc can bC achicⅤ cd. Thc 、vords Bror and`口 jn “ intcnd” thc same obj〈⒉ct,but thc modcs° f this intcntion arc not the same It is :ing to these modcs that thc w。 (l Broε o、 1· mcans sOmcthing ch∏ trcnt t° a German than thc vv° rd PcIin t。 a Frenchman, that thesc、 Ⅴords arc not intcrchangcable for thcn1, that,in fact, thcv st1· iⅤ C to cxcludc cach othcr As to thc intcndcd objcct, ho、vcvcr, tbc t、 v° 、v° rds mean thc、 er、 same thing 、、「11ile thc l))° dcs°f intcntion in thcsc tw° Words a1ˉ c in conHict,intcnJon and oblect of intcntlon complcmcnt ccach of tl△ c two languagCs分 om which tl△ ey arc der卜 ed;thcrc tllc° 匀ed iS c° mPlc mcntarⅤ to thc intcntion,In thc individual,unsuPPlCmcntcd languages,1ncaning is ne、 er Found in rclative indcPendcnce,as in indiⅤ idual、v。 rds Or scntcnccs;rather, it is i11a constant statc· of flux-until it is ablc t° emergc as Pure languagc frona thc harluonv oF all thc、 arious luodcs of intcnti。 n until thcn,it rcn1aiI1s hiddcn in thc languages If,ho、vc、 cr,these languagcs c。 ntinuc to gro、 v in this manner until thc cnd。f thcir tirne,it is translation、 vhich catchcs⒔ rc on the eternal hfe of thc Ⅵc° rks and thc PcrPctual renc、 val of langua8e Translati。 n kccPs Puttin8 thc halloⅥ ˉed gro、 vtl△ of languages to thc tcst∶ How hr rcm。 Ⅴcd is the△ hiddcn meaning△ om rcⅤ elati。 n,hovv cl。 sc can it bc brought by thC kno、 vledge° f this rcm° tcness7 This,t° bc surc,is to adn1it that all translati。 n is° nly a sOnlc、 vhat Pr° visi° nal 、vay of corning to tern1s、 vith thc f° rcignness oflanguagcs 卢kn instant and丘 nal rathcr than a temP° rary and ProⅤ isi° nal soluti。 n of this f° reignncss rcmains out of tbc rcach of lnankind; at any rate, it eludcs any dirCct attcmPt Indirectly, ho、 vcⅤ er, thc gro、vth 。f rcligions ripcns thc hiddcn sccd imt。 a higher dcⅤ cloPment of THE TAsK OF THE TRANsLATOR 79 langua8c. Alth° ugh translati° n, unhkc art, cannot Clairn Pcrmanence for its Prod- ucts,its goalis undeniably a Hnal,c° nclusivc,decisiⅤ c stagc of all linguistic creauon In translation thc original riscs into a higher and Purcr linguistic air, as it、 vcrc It cannot liⅤ c thcrc pcrmancntly,t° bc surc, and it ccrtainly docs not rcach it in its cntlrcty Yct,in a singularly imprcssiⅤ c manncr, at lcast it points thc vvay to this region∶ thc Predestincd,hithcrto inaccessiblc rcalrn° f rcconcⅡ iation amd fulhlln△ cnt of languagcs The transfcr can ncⅤ cr be total, but、 vhat rcaches this rcgion is that elcmcnt h a translati。n which gocs beyond transmittal° f sublect mattt· r,This nuclcus is bcst de⒖ ncd as the clcment that d° cs not lcnd itself to translati。 n,EⅤ en 、vhcn all the surfacc c。 ntcnt has bcen cxtractcd and transn1ittcd, thc Pri1nary conccrn ofthc gcnuine translat° r remains clusiⅤ c unhke the vv° rds of the original, it is not translatablc,bccausc thc rclati。 nshiP bctvvCen content and languagc is quite (hffcrcnt in thc original and thc translati° n Whilc contcnt and languagc form a ccrtain unity in thc original,likc a6· uit and its skin,thc languagc of thc translati° n cnveloPs itS c。 ntcnt hke a r。 yal robc、 vith amPle f°lds F° r it signi丘 cs a rn° rc cxaltcd languagc than its o、 vn and thus rcmains unsuitcd to its c° ntcnt,ovcrPo′vCrin8and ahen This disjunctl。 n PrCvCnts translati° n and at thc st△mc tirllc1nakcs it suPc1ˉ Huous For any translauon。 fa、vork originating in a sPecisc stage of hn:uiStic history rePresents, in rcgard to a spcci⒖ c asPcct °f itS content, translation into all othcr langua思 cs Thus translation, ironically, transPlantS the° riginal into a morc dcnni~ tiⅤ c linguistic rcahn sincc it can no longcr be disPlaced by a sccondary rcndcring The。 riginal can° nly bc raiscd there aneⅥ 厂and at° thcr P。 ints° f ti1nc,It is no lllcrC ‘‘ coincidcnce that thc 、Ⅴord ir° nic” hcre brings thc Romanticists to n1ind Thcy, morc than any°thcrs,wcrc giRcd with an insight int。 the li、。f hterary w。 rks 、vhich has its hiε hest tcstimony in translation. T。 bc surc, thcy hardly rcc。 gnizcd translation in this scnse,but dcⅤ 。tcd their entirc attcntion to criticis∏ 、another,if a lesscr, fact。 r in the c。ntinued hfe 。f litcrary 、vorks But evcn though thc Romanticists virtually ign。 rcd translati° n in tbcir thcOrctical 、Ⅴritings, thcir。 ˇvn ,to thCir scnse of thc csscntial naturc and thc dignity of this 8rCat translations tcsti、 hterarⅤ luodc, Thcrc is al)undant cvidencc that this scnsc is not ncCcssarilⅤ most Pron。 unccd in a PoCt;in fact,hc lnay bc lcaSt oPCn to it Not c、 cn litcrary history suggcsts thc traditi° nal noti° n that grcat pocts havc bccn cn1incnt translators and ˉ lcsscr P° ctS haⅤ c bccn imdi± fcSrcnt translators,A nun△ 1)cr°ft11c1n° st eluincnt° ncs, such as Luthcr,、厂。ss,and SChlcgcl,arc incomParably morc important as translators than as crcativc、 vritcrs;soluC ofthc grcat among thcrll,such as H。 ldcrhn and stc%n George, cannot bc sirnPly subsumcd as poets, and quite particularly not if`vc consi(lcr thc∏1as translators. As translation is a mode of its° 、vn, thc task of thc translator,t° °,n△ ay bC rcgardcd as(listinct and clcarly di〔 fcrcntiatcd frolll the task °f thc poct The task of thc translat° rc° nsists in丘 nding that intcnded cffcct[JnrcnFj。 nl uPon thc languagc int° 、Ⅴhich he is translating、 vhich pr° duccs in it thc cch。。f the。 ri~ ginal,This is a fcature of translad° n、vhich basically diffcrcntiatcs it fi° m the P° et’ s vv。 rk, bccausc thc cff° rt。 f thc lattcr is ncvcr(lircctcd at thc lan:uage as such, at its totahty, but solely and iFnn1ediately at sPccisc hnguistic contextual asPccts unhkc a 、Ⅴ。rk of litcraturc, t1ˉ anslation docs not ⒔nd itsclf in thc ccntcr 。f thc languagc forcst but。 n thc outsidc facing thc、 voodcd ridgc;it calls int° it、vith° ut cntcring, ain1ing at that single sPot 、vhcrc thc echO is ablc to givc, in its o、 vn 80 Ⅵ/ALTER 8ENJAMIN

languagc,thc rcⅤ crbcrati。 n ofthe、 v° rk in thc ahcn onc Not。 nly(locs thc ahn° f translation diffcr from that。 f a litcrary、 vork— it intcnds languagc as a、 vh° lc,taking an indiⅤ idual、v。 rk in an ahen languagc as a Point° f deParture~but it is a diffcrcnt eff° rt alto8cthcr ThC intcntion of thc P° ct is sPontanCOus,pri1nary,graPhic; that 。f the translator is dcrivatiⅤ e,ulti1natc,idcational,For thc grcat rn° tif of h1tcgrating many tongues into onc truc lan8uage is at、 vork,This language is° nc in“·hich the indePcndcnt scntences,works ofliterature,critical ju(lgmcnts,will nc、 cr c。 mmunicatc— —for thcy rcmain dcpendent on translation;but in it thc languagcs thcmsclvcs, suPPlCmcnted and rcc。 nciled in thcir rnodc of signi丘 cati° n,harm° nizc If thcre is such a thing as a languagc of truth,thc tcnsi° nlcss and eⅤ en silcnt deP° sitory of the ulti1nate truth、vhich all thought strives for,thcn this languagc of truth is~_thc truc language. And this Ⅴery lan:uage, 、Ⅴhose divinati。 n and descriPti° n is thc only

PcrfCcti。 n a philosoPhCr can hoPe f° r,is conccalcd in c。 ncentratcd fashion in translati。 ns Thcrcis no musc ofPhⅡ 。soPhy,nor iS thCrc。 nc of translation.But desPitc the clairns of scnthη cntal artists, thcsc t、 v。 arC not banausic, For thcrc is a Phil° _ SoPhical gcnius that is charactcrizcd l)y a ycarning for that language、 Ⅴhich manifests itself in translatlons.“ Ιcs Fdnfucs1mP口 jF乙 ircs cn ccfd que PF1Isicu心, mdnquc Fd s1IPrε mc∶

Pcnser犭 rdnr莒 crⅠ rε sdns dcccssoir召s,ni cJluchor召 menr IlltIis FtIc1Fe cnCor召 F’ imilaorrCFFe P￠ ro′ c,f口 d1Γcrsir犭 ,sur'rrc,dcs1dion,召 s召 IllPε chc Pc阝 °nnc dc Pr?∫ 犭rcF′ cs I,,ors q1Ι i,sinon sc″ @LIΓ Cr口 ienr, ” dP`召 unΙ qu色召ff← mεmc m'泌ri召 fFcmcI,F Fd ΓJⅡ 泌米If what Mallarmo eⅤ 。kcs `drhcrc uncJ。 is fully fathomablc to a Phil。 s° Pher,translati。 n,、vith its rudilncnts of such a languagc, is n1id、 vay bCtvvcCn p° etry and doctrinc. Its products arc less sharPly dcnncd,but it lcavcs no lcss of a lllark。 n history lf thc task of the translat° r is vic、 vcd in this light,thc roads t。、vard a soluti。 n seen1to l)c all thc1η °re obscurc and impcnctrablc Indccd,thc problcn1of riPcning thc sccd of Pure languagc in a translati° n seen△ s to bc insolublc,(lctern1inablc in no soluti° n F。 r is not the ground cut fr。 m undcr such a soluti。 n if the repr。 duction of thc scnsc ccases to bc(lccisiⅤ c?Vic、Ⅴcd ncgatiⅤ ely, this is actually the mcaning 。f all thc forcgoing, The traditi。 nal conccPts in any discussi。 n of translati° ns arc ⒖dchty and liccnsc~thc frccd° n)of faithful rcpr° duction and,in its servicc,⒔ dchty t。 the、 v。 rd Thcsc idcas seen1to bc no l° ngcr scrviccable to a thc° ry that looks f° r othcr things in a translati° n than rcproducti° n° f1ncaning To bc surc, traditional usage makes thcsc tcrms apPcar as if in constant conHict、 vith each° thcr

What can sdchty rcally(l。 f° r the rendcring of rncaningP Fidchty in thc translation 。f indiⅤidual vvords can ahnost ncvcr fully rcproducc thc lucaning they haⅤ c in thc original F°r scnsc in its Poetic Signincancc is not lhnitcd t。 meaning, but dcriⅤ cs fr° rll the c°nnotations convcycd by thc、vord ch° scn to cxprcssit VVc say of、 vords that thcy have cm° tional c。 nnotations A htcral rcndcring of thc syntax complctcly dcnnohshcs thc thcory of rcproduction。 f rneaping and is a direct threat t° comPrc- hcnsibility Thc nineteenth ccntury considered H。ldcrhn’ s translations of soPh° clCS as rnonstrous cxamPlcs of such litcralncss Finally, it is sel土 cⅤ ident h。、v grcatly sdchty in reProducing thc form irnpcdes thc rcndcring of the scnse.Thus n。 case f° r litcralncss can bc based° n a dcsirc to rctain thc tlncaning Meanin:iS Servcd far better——and litcrature and languagc far worsc~by thc unrestrained liccnse of bad tmnslat0邝 Of ncccs“ ty,tlaσ cfo父 ,tllc dcmand for hterahⅡ s,wh“ e ju虻 Ⅲcadon is。 bvi。 us,、vhosc legiti1natc ground is quitc° bscure,rnust be undcrst° 。d in a1norc mcaningful contcxt. Fragmcnts of a vcsscl 、Vhich arc t。 bc glued t° gcthcr must THE TAsK OF THE TRANsLATOR 81 n1atch one anothcr in thc slllallCSt dctails, although thcy nccd n。 t bC hkc °nc anothcr In thc samc vvay a translati° n, instead。 f rcscmbhng thc mcaning of thc

。ri思 inal,must lovin81y and in dctailincorP° rate thc Originars1n。 dc of signi⒔ cati。 n, thus making both the °riginal and thc translation rccognizablc as fragments of a grCatcr languagc,just as△ agmen“ are pa⒒ of a vcssel For this Ⅴcry rcas°n trans lati° n mustin largc mea~sure rc⒏ ain分 °m wanting to communicatc somcthing,△ om rendcring thc scnsc,and in this thc° riginal is imP。 rtant to it only insofar as it has already rchcvcd thc translat° r and his translati。 n °fthe e【 F° rt °f asscmbhng and

CxPrCSSing 、vhat is t° be conveyed In the reahn °f translati。 n, t° o, thc 、v。 rds 宫v aQxη nv♂ λoγ og Iin thc beginning was thc worcl]aPPly,On tlac Othcr hand,as rcgards thc mcaning, thc language° f a translation can~in fact, must ~let itself go, so that it giⅤ cs voicc to thc iz,rcnFio of the o1ˉ iginal n。 t as rcProducti。 n but as harm° ny, as a supplcmcnt to thc languagc in、 vhich it cxpresses itsclf, as its o、 vn kind of inFenF1o Thcrcf° rc it is not thc highcst PraisC° f a translation,Particularly in thc a8c ofits origin,to say that it rcads as ifit had originally bcen、 vrittcn in that lan8ua:e Rathcr,the signincancc。 f⒔ dchty as cnsurcd by litcralncss is that thc、 vork re∏ ccts the grcat longing for linguistic corllPlcmcntation '1rcal translati。 n is trans- Parcnt;it d。 cs n。t covcr thc original,docs n° t black its light,but all° 、vs the Pure language,as though reinforccd by its° vvn luedium t。 shinc uPon the° riginal all the m。re fully This may bc achicⅤ cd, aboⅤ c all, by a litcral rcndcring of thc syntax 、vhich Pr° ves、 v°rds rather than scntcnces to be thc Prirnary clcmCnt of the trans_ lat° r For if tbc scntcncc is the、 vall bef° re thc language。 f the° riginal, litcralncss is thc arcade, Fidchty and frccdom in translation haⅤ c traditi。nally becn rcgardcd as c。 nnicting tcndcncics, This dcePcr intcrpretation of the one aPParcndy doCs n。 t ˇ serve to reConcilc thc t、 °;in%ct,it see∏ 1s to dcny the。 thcr all justincauon F。 r ⒖·hat is lueant by frccdom but that the rendcring。 f thc sensc is no longer to bc rcgardcd as all important7(Dnly if thc sensc of a linguistic crcation may bc cquatcd 、Ⅴith thc inf° rmation it conveys docs some ultiIη atc,dccisiⅤc clcmcnt rcmain bcy。 nd all c° Π1Inunication - quite closc and yct in⒔ nitcly remote, conccalcd or distin_ guishablc, fragmcntcd or po、 vcrful In all languagc and hnguistic crcations thcrc rcluains in additi。 nt0、vhat can bc c。nⅤ cycd sOmething that cannot be co∏ 11nuni- catcd;dcpcnding on thc contcxtin、 vhich it aPPCars,it is somcthing that symbohzCs or son1cthin思 syn△ b。hZcd It is thc f° rmcr only in thc⒔ nite products° f language, the lattcr in thc cⅤ °lving ofthe languages thcmsclⅤ cs And that vvhich sccks t° rcPrC^ scnt, to Producc itsclf in the cv° lving of languagcs, is that Ⅴcry nuclcus 。f Purc language Though concealcd and iagmcntary, it is an actiⅤ c forcc in hf辶 as tl△ c syn△ bohzcd thing itsclf, 、vhercas it inhabits linguistic creations only in syn△ 1)ohzed /hilc that ulti1uatc csscncc, Pure languagc, in the various tongues is tied f° rm, 、、。nly t。 linguistic clcmcnts and their chan8cs, in linguistic crcations it is、 vcightcd Ⅵˉith a heavy,ahen mcaning To rchcⅤ c it ofthis,to turn the symbohzing into the sylnb° hzed,t。 rcgain Purc languagc fully f° rmCd in thc linguistic flux,is the tremen~ d° us and° nly caPacity of translation,In this Purc language— hich n。 longcr lncans `Ⅴ °r CxPresses anything but is, as cxPrcssionlcss and crcativc Word, that、 vhch is 1ucant in all languagcs— —all inf° rn1ation,all scnsc,and allintention Hnally enc° umtcr a stratum in、 vhich thcy arc(lcstincd to be extinguishcd This vcry stratum furnishcs a ncw and highcr justi⒔ cati° n br△ ce△anslation;this justi6cadon d。 cs not dchⅤ c 82 Ⅵ/ALTER BENJAMIN

f1· °m the scnsc of what is to bc con、 Ⅰcyed,ft,r thc cmanciPati° ni。m this scnse is thc task of⒔ dehty Rather, f° r thc sakc of Purc languagc, a flce translati° n bascs thc test。 n its oxl'n language It is thc task of the translator to rclcasc in his

°、vn Ianguagc that Purc languagc、 vhich is under thc spcll。 f an° d△ cr,to liberatc thc languagc imprisoned in a 、vork in his rc~crcation of that 、vork, For thc sakc °f PurC language hc brcaks thr° ugh dccaycd barriers ofhis。 sx n languagc.Luthcr,Ⅴ °ss, H♂ ldcrhn, and Gcorgc havc cxtcndcd the b° undarics of thc Gcrman languagc ~ And、vhat°f thc sense in its imPortancc for thc rclati° nshiP bet、 vCCn translati。 n and o1· lginalP A s山 nile may hclP here.Just as a tangcnt touches a c△ cle hghtly and at but one l)° int,vvith this t。 uch rathcr than、 vith thc P° int setting the laⅥ f according to

、vhich it is t。 c° ntinuc on its straight Path to in丘 nity,a translation touchcs thc。 ri_ 思inal lightly and only at thc in⒔ nitcly small Point° f thc scnsc,thcrcuPon Pursuing its oⅥ /n coursc accordh】 g to t11c laⅥ ∶s of idchty in thc frccd。 n1° f linguistic flux 、Vid△。ut cxPhcitly nan1ing or substantiating it, Rudoll’ Pann、vitz has cha1ˉ actcrizcd thc truc signi⒔ cancc°f this frcedom.⒈ Iis。 bscrvations arc containcd in D1e Kr1sis dcr euroP。 isc/lcn KuJrur and rank、 vith Gocthc’ s N。 tes to thc "%sFⅡ FFichεr D1Ⅰ `dr, as the bcst con1ment on thc thc° ry of translation that has bccn Pubhshed in Gcrluany “ Pannwjtz 、vritCs: Our t】·anslatl° ns, cVcn d1c bcst oncs, ProccCd Ⅱ。m a 、T°ng

PremisC· Thcy want to turn Hindi,Gl^cck,English into Gcrman instead oF′ turnin思 Gcrluan into Hindi, G1· cck, Enghsh Our translat。 rs ha、 c a hr greatcr Iˉ c、 crcncc f° r thc usagc of thcir。、vn languagc than f° r thc spirit° t thc f° rcign、vorks . Thc basic crror of the translator is that hc PrcsCrⅤ es thc statc in Ⅵ厂hich11is ovvn langua:e happcns to be instcad of alloxx:ing his lan思 uagc to l)cP。、vcrfully affcctcd by tbc f° rcign t。 nguc Pa1ˉticularly、 vhen translating f⒈ 。m a lanεuage、 cry l~cn10tc fro1u his。、Ⅴn hc n1ust go l)ack t° thc prirnal clements of languagc itself and Pcnc- tratc to the P° int、 vhcrc 、Ⅴ。rk, image, and tonc converge He must cxpand and dccpcn his language by means of thc forcign languagc. It is n° t generally reahzcd t° 、Ⅴhat cxtent this is l)ossiblc, t0、 vhat extcnt any language can bc trans丨。rlllcd, h°、∴ language differs ∫i° n△ 1anguagc ahnost thc 、Ⅴay dialect diffcrs 分。】n dialcct; ho、vevcr, this last is truc o111) if one takcs languagc scriously cn°ugh, n。 t if° nc ’ takes it lightly′ Thc cxtcnt to、Ⅴhich a translati° nn1anagcs to bc in kccping、 vith thc naturc° f this m(妃 c is dctcrmhcd o匀 cctivCly by thc translatabni” 。f tl· C°r砘要nal· Tlk l。 wcr thc quahty and distincti° n of its languagc, thc largcr thc cxtent to 、vhich it is information, thc lcss fcrtilc a Hcld is it f° r translati。 n, until the uttcr PrCP°ndCr~ aI1ce of contcnt,hr△ 。ml,cing thc lcⅤ cr忆 rat1ˉanslati。 n Of distinctiv(J Iuodc, renders it imPossiblC Thc highcr thc lcvcl of a、 v。 rk,t11c111。 rc docs it rcn1ain translatablc cⅤ cn if its rncaning is touchcd uP° n。 nly ncetingly This,of coursc,aPPhcs to originals only Translations, °n thc Othcr hand, Pr。 Ⅴc t。 bC untranslatablc n° t bccausc° f any inherent difnculty,but bccause of the l。 °scncss、Ⅴith vvhich n1caning · attachcs t° them Con⒔ r】 nation of this as、Λell as。 f evcry other imP。 rtant asPcct is suPPlicd by Holdcrhn’ s translations, Particularly thosc 。f thc t、vo tragcdies by soPhoclCS· In them thc11arm° ny ofthe languagcs is so Prof。 und that sense is t。 uchcd by languagc only thc`vay an acohan harP is t。 uchcd by thc、 vind H♂ldcrhn’ s translati。 ns arc PrototyPCs()f thcir kind; thcy are to cⅤ cn thC mOst Pcrfect rcndcrings 。ftheir tcxts as a PrototyPc is t。 a modcl This can l)e dcn)° nstratcd by coluParing H♂l(lcrhn’ s and Rud。 lf Borchardt’ s translations。 f Pindar’ s1冂 1ird Pvthian()dc F° r THE TASK OF THE TRANSLATOR 83

dⅡ s vcry rcason H♂ ldcrhn’ s translati° ns in particular arc subjcct to thc cnorn1ous dangcr inhcrent in all translations∶ thc gatcs of a languagc thus cxPandcd and modi_ ncd luaⅤ slan△ shut and cnclosc thc translator vvith sⅡ cncc I1♂ klcrlin’ s translations · fr。 n1 s。 Ph。 cles、 verc11is last、vork; in thcn1111caning PlungCs⒒ on1abyss to abyss until it threatens to bccome lost in t11c bottornlCss dcPths °f languagc, T11crc is, h° Ⅵˉcvcr,a stoP Itis、。uchsafed t° Holy Writ al。 nc,in、 hich lncaning has ccascd t° bc thc、 Ⅴatcrshcd for thc rl。、Ⅴ。f languagc and thc fl。、v()f rcⅤ clati° n, Whcrc a tcxt is idcntical、 Ⅴith truth。 rd° gma,、Ⅴhere it is suPP。 scd t。 l)c“ thc truc language” in all its literalncss and 、vith° ut thc mcdiati。 n of lncaning, this tcxt is unc° ndi- tionallⅤ translatable In such casc translations arc callcd f。 r 。nlⅤ becausc of thc Plurahty of1an思 uagcs JuSt as, in thc °riginal, language and rcⅤ clati° n arc 。nc 、Ⅴithout any tcnsion, so thc translation Illust bc onc、 vith thc original in d1c⒒ )rm °f thc intcrhncar Ⅴcrsion,in vvhich litcrah)css and frccdorll arc unitcd For t° somc degrcc all grcat tcxts c0ntain thcir P。 tcntial translation bctⅥ 厂ccn the lincs; this is truc to the highcst dcgree of sacrcd 、`t1tings Thc interhncar Ⅴcrsion of thc ScrilDturcs is thc Prot。 typc or ideal of all translati。 n

A note on IIarry zohn’ s translation

s‘cvcn Rendσ FΙ

In1968Harry Z° l△ ll lDtlbhshc· d a uonce1· tng订 anslauc,nt,f Wakerl3cnjamh’ s“ Dk Au唿 alDC ” des Ubc1ˉ sctzCrs,” entidcd“ Thc Task。 f thc Translatoi∷ Bccausc of coPyright rcstrictions, · Z° 111)’ s、 crsi()n col`ti11ucs to bc the maln ll)1· m in“ hich Bclllan1iI1’ s hmous essay is△ 1own to Enghsh languagc 1ˉ cadcrs Thcsc notes exan、 inc ccrtain ProblCms raiscd by Zohn’ s

Thc n10st obⅤ ious arc R)ur glaring o1nissions C)11c ofthcse has been n° ted by a numbcr of critics∶

gc、 nsb(、 g【1竹:Jlrc11gutcn,ja Ⅱcllcicht bcstcn Sinn bchalten,wcnn `'issc Relati° sie nicht vo11、 °rne berein ausschhcsshch auf dcn Mcnschen bczogcn Ⅵ/crdcn (Benjamin192⒊ 10)

certain corrclatiⅤ e conccPts rctain their n1eaning, and P° sSj1)ly thcir f° remost

signi丘 cancc, if thc〉 arc rcfcrrcd cxclusi、 ely to n1an (BCnjaluin1968:70)

Herc tllc omissi° n ofd,e ncgati、 c cOI1△ Pletcly in、 erts Bc11jamin’ s mcaning and n1akcs it in1Possil)lc to foll。 Ⅵ·thc logic of his argun1cnt at this Point Paul(lc Man,in his c。 n1n1cn- tary on Z。 hn’ s translatl° n,regardcd this。 n1ission as particularly crucial bccausc it conccals ,as BenjaΠ 、vhat dc Man saⅥ 1in’ s asscrtion ofthc inhuman,1neChanical° peratio11oflanguagc, of thc cssentlal jn乃 vm口 ni, of languagc(de lMan1986) A sccoI1d omission I11a、 c11ot sCCn mcntioncd l)v critics()ccurs Iater in the essaⅤ ∶

、Vcnn abcr dicsc derart bis ans111cssianischc Ende ihrcr Gcschichtc Ⅵ·achscn (Benjamin1923:1+l

If,ho、 vcⅤcr,thCsc languagcs continuc to gr。、v in d△ is n1anner until thc end of their tilnc (BClllamin196⒏ 74) 84 \^/ALTER BENJAMIN

e印 e,∶ Ⅵ “ j:n∶ 骂 uⅢξ扩占t1W【 ”I瑟 FllFc111∶ :袈1翌\∶∶∶I`茫琛∶∶ n1cssianism in Bc犭 an1in’ s th°ught in gencral and in this essay in palticular, The third on1ission, xx=hich als° sccms to haVe Passcd unnoticed, occurs in thc crucial

PaSsage whcrc Bcl△ lan1in is discussing d`c“ wesenhaRc Kcrn” that is thc truc translator’ s chicf ‘ Conccrn, and xx!hosc ripening Points to、、fards thc (mCssianic)‘ rcalnl of reconciliation and fulhllment° f languages” 、vithout cⅤ cr quite reaching or reahzing it:

Den erre|Fht CS lllCht mit sttlmPf u11(l sticl,aber in ihm stcht dasjcnigc,was an cincr ubersetzung mehr ist als Nlitteilung Gcl`aucr10sst sich dieser wcscn- haftc Kcrn aIs dasjcnigc bcstimmen,was an ihr sdb虻 nicht、 vicdcrum tIbcrsetzbar is (BC11jami11192⒊ 15)

Thc transfcr can never bc t。 tal,but xk hat rcachcs this rcgion is that clcn1ent h、

a translati。 n、「hich gocs bcyond t1· ansmittal。 f sul冫 jcct n△atter This nuclcus is bcst dcnncd as the elen1cnt that d。 es n。 t lcnd1tself t。 translation (BCnjamin196⒏ 75) ’ In this casc,Zohn fails to translatc the、 v° rds“ an ihr” and“ 、Ⅴicdcrun1’ in the second sentence, · Ⅵith thc r邙辶】lt that it seems Bcltlamin is suggesbng tllat thc ot,lect of thC translator’ s chief Conccrn lics comPlCtCly outsidc his reach Although in()nc sensc this ll,ay l)e truc(as Paul dc卜Ιan I1as argucd),the Point here is surely that、 vhate、 cr asPcct of thc“ 、vcsenhaRc Kcrn” is cchocd in a translatlon(“ an ihr” clcarly rcfcrs l)ack to“ die Llbcrsctzung” in thc Preceding “ scntcn ce) canl)。 t be translatcd again This PresuPPoSC′ , of(∶ oVrse, that thc 、vesenhaftc Kcrn” can bc translatcd a Hrst tirne Thc reason it cannot bc translated a8ain-that is,thc

a;∶ FΙ ∶s梵菡I:;℃ i翼 |l;∶ us∶ &扌 l∶ ∶ 丨 ⒒ 扌妻泵 ;c∶∶∶刂丨l、 JT只J∶ ∶I/}l;号;甚 ea瑟 1r找 T∶ yl1∶ 翌累 :愚喙:∶ T:甯 }‘ 砝:∶l∶〗 ∶;,∶ 秕拌 a泔、甯捕

舞lil嚣肼蝌I凳时丨擀槭蝌滩骅 A ft)urth(,n1ission,飞 VhiCh alsO secn】 s to have gonc tlnnoticcd,c× ∴(∶ urs in a PasSagc、 vhcrc Bcnjal△lin is discussil)g the traditional conccPts° f frccdom and丘 dchty in translation∶

Trcuc und Freihcit ~ Frciheit dcr sinngclv莶 ssen 、Vicdergabc und in i11rem

Dicnst T】 ℃ue gsgcn das、 Ⅴort~sind die akhergcbrad1tcn Bcg1· l∏ 、in jcdcr Diskussion von Ubcrsctzungen (Bcnjamin192⒊ 17)

The traditional conccPts in any discvssion of translations arc hdclitv and liccnsc

~thc△ ccd° m° f hith凡 hˉ cPr° dutti° n,and ll△ lts scrXlcc,⒔ dclity忆 tl△ cw。rd (BCnjami1】 1968:77~78)

Zohn’ s translatlon o】 ηits the words si氵 lnεemJss召 n 111cJ召叨口卜c(‘icndcring in accord with thc meanlllg” ),tllus maklng lt h扩 d杨 r thc rcader t。 sce that thc“ l1· ecdom” Bcnjamh rc宓 rb t。 is tbe frccdom~dc111aI1dcd bⅤ translation thcorists fron1Horacc to Drvdcn and bcⅤ ond- to deviate ion1thc lettcr of the tcxt in ordcr to rendcr its sPirit This °n1ission is apparcndy conncctcd Ⅵˉith a Rlndan1ental n1isunderstanding of Benjan1in’ s text reΠ cctcd in zohn’ s translati° n of thc follo、 vin8Passage∶ k THE TAsK OF THE TRANsLATOR 85

、、严enn Trcuc und Freihcit dcr Llbersctzung scit jehcr als xslderstrebcndc Tcndcnzcn betl^achtet、 vurden,so schcillt auch dicsc ticfere Dcutung dcr eincn bcidc nicht7u、 crsl,hncn, sondcrn inl Gcgcntcil alles Rccht(ler andern abzu~ sprcchcn Denn vvorauf bezicht Frciheit sich,、 ·enn nicht auf die、 Vicdcrgabe dcs sinnes,die aulhorcn s。 ll,gesetzgcgcbcnd zu heissen? (Bcl△ lamin192⒊ 18-19)

Fidchty and frccdon1haⅤ e traditionally l)een regarded as c° nflicting tcndcncics This(leeper intcrPrctation of thc()nc aPParcntly docs not serVe to reconcile the t“ °;in hct,it sccms to dcny thc。 thcr alljusu丘 cati。 n F。 r whatis mcant by frecdom but that thc rendcri11g ofthe se11se is no longer to be rcgarded as all in△ Portant? (Bcnjamin196⒏ 79)

Zohn’ s rcndcri11gn△ akes it aPPcar that thc rcintcrPreted conccPt is frecdon1,and that thc rcintcrPrctation clepriⅤ es thc c°nccPt of ndChty。 f any justi丘 cation This is precisely thc reverse of vvhat Bcnjamin’ s tcxt says The Prcccding Passage has offt· red a rcintcrPrctation of丘dchty t° the、v° rd(II0rr′ jc乃芡eir)that disc° nnccts it froll1the translatjon of rncaning,and lt is clcarly this rcintcrPretati° n to which Benjall△ ln is rckrllng hcrc Thus thc concept that is dePrived° f any justi且 cati° n by this rcinterPrctatlon is frccd° rn, and thc last sentcnce “ sh° uld rcad∶ For、vhat ca11thc Point of frccdon1bc,if n° t the repr° duction of Fucani11g, ’ 、vhich is n° l。 ngcr to bc rcgarded as n。 rmatiⅤ c?’

Notc

“ The imPcrfCcti。 n of languagcs consists in thcir Plurahty,thc suPrcmC° ne is lacking∶ thinking is 、vriting 、vithout acccssOrieS or cvcn 、vhisPcring, thc ilnmortal 、Ⅴord still remains silcnt;thc divcrsity of idioms° n earth prcvcnts cvcrybody fr。 n1 uttering thc 、vords 、vhich 。ther、 visc, at one singlc str° kc, 、vould matcriahzc as truth,” Chapter 32

Lawrence Venuti

TRA NSLATION'COM M U NITY'UTOPIA

Langua:e is a rcPosit。 ry of ancicnt errors and a trcasury of Potential truths, Jean-JacquCS Lecerclc

An antinomy in thcOry

ⅤEN THOuGH No oNE seemsbkelvt° dcnv that communication is E thc Primdy alm tlrld hncd。 n of a tlanslatcd text,tclday wc泸 c%r iom thinkln8 that translating is a siIη Ple conununicative act In contcmPorary translati。 n thc° ry inf° rmed by Contincntal Phil° s。 phical traditions such as cxistcntial Phcn。 mcn。logy and PoStStructurahsln, languagc is constitutivc of thought, and meaning a sitc of n△ ultiPlc(lCtCrn1inati。 ns,s° that translation is readily sccn as inⅤ esting thc forcign~ languagc tcxt、 vith a domcstic signihcancc(scc,f° r cxamPlC,HCidcggcr1975,LcⅥ is this Ⅴolume, Bcnjan1in 1989). Translauon ncⅤ cr co∏ 11nunicatcs in an untroublcd

〗;;1fT∶ l∶;∶ :刂:∶1nl讠|丨:fⅠ {∶lJ|△ :∶ l∶ t【 (抵秽毙 ;:虫占;讠圭庄: (拄凇irT崴扌变f熙λ￡t:y∶ 点,s&【l∶∶F(渫找廴f∷∷f is totahzing, cⅤ cn if nevcr total, ncⅤ cr sean11css。 r⒔nal It can bc said to° Pcrate

2000/'evised 2oo4 TR苎 ANsLATION` COMMUNITY` UTOPIA 483 in every、 vord of thc translation l。 ng beforc thc translatcd tcxt is furthcr Pr° cessed by readers, madc t。 bcar other d。 mcstic mcanings and t。 scrⅤc Othcr domestic intcrests seen as don△ cstic inscriPtion,ncⅤ cr quitC cr° ss-cultural con11nunicatiom,translation has m° vcd thc° rists t0、 Vards an cthical reflection 、vhcrcin remcdies are brmul敲 cd tc,K虻 0re or PⅡ SC"c thC bre唿 nncss ofthc忆 m唿 n text(sCc,忆 r exam~ Ple, BCrn1an, this volumc, and Venuti 1995, 1998) Yet an cthics that c。 unters the domcsticating cffccts of thc inscriPtion can only bc f° rmulatcd and Practiccd

Prin1arily in domcs芒 iC tCrms,in domestic dialccts,rcgistcrs,discourses,and styles And this rncans that thc linguistic and cultural direrenccs ofthc f° rcign text can only bc signallcd indirectly,by their disPlacement in the translati° n,thr° ugh a domestic diffcrencc introduced into Ⅴalucs and institutions at home This ethical attitude is thcrcf° rc siluultancOus、 vith a Pohtical agcnda∶ thc d° mcstic terms of the inscriPtion bccomc the focus° frcvcriting in thc translation,discursivc stratcgics、 vhcre thc hicr_ archics that rank thc 、:alucs in thc (l。 mcstic culturc arc disarrangcd to sct 8oing

Pr。 cCsSCs of dCfan△ iharization,canon rcforIuation,idcol。 gical critiquc,and institu- tional changc /`translat° r may Hnd that thc Ⅴcry conccPt of thC domcstic mcrits intcrrogation f° r its conccaIlaacnt。 f hctcrogcnCity and hybridity、 vhich can comPh- catc cxisting stcrcotyPcs,can。 ns,and standards aPphCd in translati。 n 、、/hcn n1° dvatcd by this cthical Pohtics。 f(liffcrcncc, thc translat。 r seeks to build a comn1unity、 vith forcign culturcs, to sharc an understanding、 vith and of thcm and to c。 llal)。 ratc on ProjCcts hunded on that understanding,going so hr as :it to rcvisc and(lcⅤ to all。 Ⅵ cl° P(l。 mestic Ⅴalues and institutions Thc Ⅴery imPulse to seek a community abroad suggests that thc translator 、vishcs t。 cxtcnd or complctc a Particular d。 mcstic situation, to compcnsatc f。 r a dcfcct in thc trans~ lating languagc and litcrature,in thc translating culture As Maurice Blanch。 t ar8ues, thc vcry n。 tion。 fc° n11nunity ariscs、 Ⅴhcn an insuf丘 ciency Puts indiⅤ idual agcncy int。 qucstion(Blanch。 t1988∶ 56) ThC cthicaⅡ y and Pohtically m° tivated translat。 r cannot faⅡ to see the laCk°f an cqual f。 oting in the translation proccss,stilnulatcd by an intcrcst in the foreign, but incscapably leaning to、 vards the recePtor ThiS translator kn0、ˉs that translations ncver simPly communicatc f° rcign tcxts bccausc thcy makc P° ssil)lc Only a domCsticatcd undcrstanding,hoxxcⅤ er much defan1ihar~ izcd,h° 、·cvcr much subvcrsiⅤ e or suPPortivC of the don1cstic

In thc abscnce of crOss~cultu1ˉ al comn1unicau。 n11na;:cctcd bⅤ d。 n】 cstic intclli~

8ibilitiCS and intcrcsts, 、Ⅴhat kinds of c。 n△ munitics can translation P。 ssil)ly fostcrP XVhat con11nunitics can bc bascd 。n thc domcstic inscriPtion of the f° rcign that hn1its and rcdirccts thc c。 mmunicativc airn of translationP

Con△ 1nunication in translation

In thc 1970s, thc f° rmahst thc° rist Gideon T° urⅤ tried to dc丘 nc translati。 n as a CoΠ1FnuniCatiⅤ c act、vhilc ackn° 、dcd8ing thc domcstic valucs that con1c into Play, the tar:ct n。 rms that constrain co∏ 11uunication,Translation,hc、 vr° tc,

is comΙ l,unicdFion Jn rrtins′ drCd mcss口 cs VVithin a ccrtain cultural lin8uiStic 召 systcIn,witb all rdcⅤ ant c。 nscqucnccS龙 r thc dcc。 mPosidon of thc 484 LAⅥ /RENCE ∨EN UTI

source1ncssagc,thc cstabhshment° f the invariant,its transfer acr° ss thc cultural-hnguistic border and thc rcc。 mPositi° n° f thc targct Fnessagc (T。ury1980∶ 17;his cmPhasis)

“ Thc cstabhshmcnt。 f thc invariant’ n11munication in translati。 n is de丘 ncd as thc transn△ission of an inⅤ ariant, docsn’` if c。t thc Ⅴcry nccd to cstabhsh thc inⅤ ariant mean that translating docs somethln8m。 rC and PCrhaPS。 tbCr than communicateP Thc s° urcc mcssagc is alxxays intcrprcted and rcinvcntcd, csPecially in cultural forms oPen to intcrpretation, such as literary texts, Phil° sophical trcatiscs, ⒔l1n subtithng,advcrtising copy,confcrcncc Papcrs,legal testim° ny I△ o、Ⅴ can the sourcc ’ ‘ mcssagc cⅤ cr bc inⅤ ariant ifit undcrgocs a Pr。 ceSs。 f“ cstabhshmcnt’ in a‘ ccrtain” targct lan8uage and culturcP It is al、 .ays rcc。 nstructed acc°rding to a diffcrcnt sct °f valucs and al、 Ⅳays variablc according to different langua思 es and culturcs T°ury ultiInatcly rcckoncd、 Ⅴith thc ProblCm 。fc。 mmunicauon by sidestcPPing it alto- gcd△cr: hc shiftcd thc cmphasis a、 vay from cxPl°ring an equiⅤ alcncc bct、 vccn thC translation and thc forcign tcxt and instcad f° cuscd°n thc acccPtabⅡity ofthc trans~ lati° n in thc targct culturc, Thinking about thc f° rcign is thus prccmptcd in faⅤ °r of rcscarch that dcscribcs domcstic cultural n° rms But lct’ s Pursuc this prccmptcd hnc of cnquiry. What formal and thcmatic fcaturcs° f a forcign noⅤ cl,f° r instancc,can bc dcscribcd as invariant in thc translati° n Pr° cCSs? Sincc canons of accuracy vary according to culturc and hist。 rical momcnt, de丘 niti° ns of、Ⅴhat c。 nstitutes the inⅤ ariant、vill likcⅥhse Ⅴary Lct’ s ask thc qucsti°n of currcnt translation PracticCS Today,translators。 f novcls int。 lllost lan8uages scck to maintain unchangcd thc l)asic clemcnts of narratiⅤ e form Thc :ritten to altcr cvcnts or thcir scqucnce, And none° Plot isn’ t re、 f the charactcrs’ actions is dclctcd。 r rcⅤ ised Datcs,historical and gcograPhical rnarkers,thc char~ acters’ names~cvcn whcn d)c names are rathcr comPhcatCd and fclreign sounding ~ these arc gcncrally not altercd °r 。nly in rarc cascs (c,g, Russian namcs) Contcmporary canons of accuracy are based on an adcquacy to thc foreign text∶ an accuratc translation of a noⅤ cl rnust n° t only reProducC thc basic clemcnts° f narra~ tivc f° rn、 but sh°uld do so in r° u:hly thC same number of Pagcs, In 1760, h° 、vcvcr, Abb忐 Pr誉 Ⅴost clai1ned that accuracy governcd his Frcnch

Ⅴcrsion of samucl Richards° n’ s Pdmcrd cⅤ cn th。 ugh hc rcduccd the seven En:hsh “ Ⅴ。lun△ cs t。 four in French I havc not changcd anything Pcrtaining to thc auth° r’ s intention`’ thc Abb。 asscrtcd,“ nor haⅤ c I changcd much in thc rnanncr in、 Ⅴhich hc ’ Put that intcntion into、vords’ (LCfCvCrc 1992a: 39) To us, such statcmcnts don’ t merely substitute a(hffcrcnt canon of accuracy (foundCd on notions ()f authorial intcnti° n and stylc); d· ey alSo sccm t0 CXcccd thc vcry gcnrc of translati° n Pr忐 vost’ s tCXt involvcd abridgcmcnt and adaPtation as、 ⅤeⅡ In currcmt Practiccs, a translation of a novcl can and must con11nunicatc thc basic clcmcnts of narratiⅤc f° rrn that structurc thc f° reign langua:c tcxt But it is stⅡ l n。 t truc that thcse elcmcnts arc frcc f⒈ on1variation Any language use is likely to Vary飞hc standard dialcct by samPhng a(liⅤ crsity of subStandard。 rn△ in° rf° rma- tions:rcgional。 r grouP dialCctS,jargons,chch芑s and slogans,styhstic innovations, archaisms,neolo要 sms Jean Jacques Lccσ dc∞lls thcse varhtions thc“ lem汪 nder” bccausc dacy cxccCd c° n1111unication of a univocal rncaning and instcad dra、 v attcn- u。n t。 the c。 nditi° ns ofthe c° n1Inunicative act, conditions that arc in thc ⒔rst TR‘ ANsLATION` COMMUNITY` U TOPIA 485 instancc hnguistic and cultural, but that ultilnatcly cmbracc social and P° htical fadors(LccCrdc1990) ThC rcm缸ndcr in htcrary tt,xtsis muCh morc comPlict△ tc(l, °f coursc,usually a scdirncntation of formal clcmcnts and gcncric disc。 urscs,PaSt as wdl as PrcsCnt lJamcs° n198⒈ 140-1), Any c° Ⅱ)rnunication thr° ugh translating, thcn, 、vill inⅤolⅤ c the release of a d。 mcstic rcmaindcr,cspccially in the case° f htcraturc Thc foreign textis rcvvrittcn in d。 mestic dialccts and disc。 urscs, rcgistcrs and stylCs, and this rcsults in thc ˉ ˉ 阝odttmon o± tcxttlal c腚 ∝s th波蚯p心 od” n thC hi丈o” o± thC rc画 “吒lallguagc and culturc,Thc translat° r may Producc thcsc cffccts to c。 Π `1nunicate the forcign tcXt, trying to inⅤ cnt domestic analogucs for f° rci8nf° rms and thcmcs But thc rcsult vvⅡ l al、 Ⅴays go bcyond any communication to rclcasc targct-orientcd P° ssi~ bⅡ itics of rncaning Considcr a rcccnt Enghsh translati° n ofan Itahan n° Ⅴel,DecFd'es Pc'eird,Patrick

Crcagh’ s 1995 Ⅴcrsion °f Antonio Tabucchi’ s sosFicnc PereⅠ rd (1994), Crcagh’ s Enghsh consists mostly of thc currcnt standard dialcct But hc cultiⅤ atcd a noticc_ ablc strain of coll° quiahsm that s。 mctin1cs vcCrs into undcrvv。 rld argot, Hc ‘‘ ’ ‘‘ ’“ ‘ f° rcndcrcd taccva” (“ silCnt’ ) as gaggcd,’ quattr° uon1ini dall’ aria sinistra” (‘ ur “ mcn with a sinistcr air” )as“ bur shadyˉ lookng characters,” stare con gh occhi ‘ ’ ‘ “ apcru” (‘ stay、vith your cycs oPcn’ kcCp your cycs pcclcd/’ un PCrs。naggio ) as‘ “ dcl rcglmc” mC” hgw唿 sCn⒛ p诬 am矿 (“ with° ut C%丘gurc in thc rc垫 )as“ ,” 要 Pyjam灬 → as hn hiS b订 tllday stllt,” and′ aa(lc,rm沁 c” (“ g° t。 slceP勹 as“ bCddy bycs” (TabucclⅡ 1994∶ 13, 19,43, 73, 108, 196; Crcagh 1995: 5, 9, 25,45, 67, 127).Crcagh also mixcd in s。 llle distincuvcly Br⒒ lsh words and Phrascs He “ rcndcrcd“ orrcn(lo” (“horr山 lc勹 as“bl。 ody awhl,” una cr⒒ ica molto ncgatiⅤ矿Ca ’ “ ‘ ’ Ⅴcry negatiⅤ c criticisl△ l’ slating/’ ncina” (‘ little b° arding house’ )as“ httlC “ )aS“’ ’ Pcnsi。 ’“ ‘ doss~h° use/’ sOno nci guai’ (‘ 叮lu in troublc” )as“ Γrn jn a pick1c氵 (‘ thCy ’ ‘ ‘ ’ ”Parlano” talk’ )as“nattcr/’ and‘ a vcdcrc” (‘ t° look’ )as“ to takc a dekk° (Tabucchi 1994∶ 80, 81,84, 104, 176; Crcagh 1995: 50, 51, 54,64, 115) Within Parcnthescs I havc inserted altcrnatiⅤ c rcndcrings to highlight thc rangc and inⅤ cntiⅤ eness of Crcagh’ s translating, The altcrnatiⅤ cs should n°t bc rcgardcd as someho、 i rn。 rc accuratc than his ch° iccs In cach casc,b。 th rcndcrings estabhsh a lcxic。思raPhical Cquivalcnce,a si1nilarity to the Ita1ian tcxt Consistent、 vith clicti° n~ ary dc6niti° ns Crcagh’ s choiccs c。 ∏11nunicatc mcanings that can be callcd ‘‘ ’ inⅤ ariant’ only insofar as thcy arc rcduccd to a basic1ucaning sharcd by l)oth thc Itahan and thc Enghsh CrCa型rs订anu耐。rl,l.lDwσσ,xa"Cs ths mcaI△ l℃ ,Tl△ C Ⅴa11ation mi吵 t be ‘ ’ callcd a‘ shift’ as that c° nccpt has bccn(lcvcloPcd in translati。 n studics sincc thc 1960s(see,for cxamPlc,Cat忆 “11965;Blt】m~Kulka th“ volumc;Toury1995) If Crcagh’ s En思 hsh is juxtaPoscd to Tal冫 ucchi’ s Italian, lcxical shiRs can indccd l)c dctcctcd, shiRs in registcr fron△ dlc current standard(lialcct。 f Itahan t。 vari。 us colloquial dialccts in British and A1ncrican Enghsh In resPonsc t。 my qucrics,

Crcagh adn1ittcd that“ s° mc Phrascs arc luorc colloquial in Enghsh than in Itahan/’ lnaking clcar that his shifts arc n° t rcquircd by structural diffcrcnces bct、vccn thc ‘‘ tˇ v° languages, but rathcr motiⅤ atcd by litcrary and cultural ailus: I even tried/’ ’ Crcagh stated,“ t° usc°nly idioms that vvould haⅤ e bcen currcntin1938,’ thc Pcri° d ‘ °fthe n° vcl,‘ and to hand thcm t° thc right sPcakCr,t。 lnakc shght hnguistic differ~ enccs bctwccn thc charactcrs” (PerSOnal coⅡ csp0n(lcncc∶ 8Dcccml)cr1998) 486 LAⅥ /RENCE VENUTl

Yct the n。 tion of a sh"td。 cs n。 t cntirely dcscribc the tcxtual effccts sct εoing by Crcagh’ s choiccs ⒈】is translation signiflcs beyond his litcrary and cultural intcn~ ∶ tions by rclcasing a l)ccuha1ˉ ly Enghsh rc1uaindcr∶ thc(li∏ 辶rcnt dialccts and1· cgiste1· s cstabhsh a rclation t。 Enghsl` litcrar) stylcs, genrcs^ and traditi° ns In tcrms 。f gcncric distinctions,Tabucchi’ s novclis a l)ohtical thrdlc∫ sct undcr thc P。 rtugucsc dictat。 r'\ntonio de C)hvchˉ a salazar,it rccounts h。、Ⅴ。nc Percira,thc aging cultural cdit。 r° f a Lisb。 n nc、广sPaPCr,is slo、 1y radicahzcd oⅤ cr a fc、 ·Ⅵ:CCkS``hich chmax 、vhcn he Prints an attack on thc f`scist rcgin1c Crcagh’ S Polyhngual luixturc 。f standard and c。lloquial,British and Amcrican,gi、 cs his Pr° sc an cxtrcn1cly c。 n、 cr~ sational quahty that is consistent xs=ith Tabucchi’ s prcsentation of thc thriller Pl。 t∶

Pcreira’ s narrativc takcs an° ral f。 rn1,an of丘 cial tcstilnony to an unnanlcd authority (hCncC the curi。 us titlc) Yet thc Slang) Enghsh also altcrs thc charactcrization 。f Pcrcira l,y suggcsting that11c is lcss stai(l and l)c1ˉ haPs)oungcr than thc clderly

journahst l冫 1ˉ CsCntCd in thc Itahan tcxt At thc same dmc,thc BⅡ tish and American slang rckrs to molllcnts in thc hist° ry of Enghsh languagc⒔ ction, It rccalls thrillcrs that address shnilar Pohtical tllcmcs,n°t小 Ⅱ su山 llc,wls° fG涮1am Grccne灬刀2c Coi,ndc,,rI口 F=1Jcnr(1939),

、、1】 ich,hkc Tabucchi’ s,is sct(luring the sPanish civⅡ XlVar and inⅤ 。lves an attcmPt t° aid the RcPublican si(lc against Franco By virtuc of this htcrar) rcfcrcnce, ˉ Creagh’ s translati。 n in ci￡ect inⅤ itcs thc】 cadcr t。 (listi11guish l)ct、 ⅤCCn Tabucchi’ s lcRwing oPPosition to hscism an(l Grccnc’ sm。 rc cautious hl)cralism(DiCmcrt ‘ ’ 1996: 180 1) Grccnc sa、 v11is thrⅡ lcrs as‘ cntcrtainments’ cngagcd in social and ‘ Pohtical issues,designcd‘ not to Changc things but to giⅤ e thcn、 cxPreSsion” (`llain 1983∶ 81) The linguistic rcscmblanccs bct、 `ccn Crcagh、 s transladon and Grccnc’ s n。 Ⅴcl highhght thc idcological diffcrenccs that(listinguish Tabucchi’ s and Grccnc’ s trcatn△ cnts of thc samc historical cvcnt, Thus,ald1()ugh Crcagh’ s tlanslatiou caI1be said to conlmunicatc d1c rt)rm and tbcn1e。 f Tabucchi’ sn°vcl, ncithcr of thcsc fcaturcs c`capes thc、 a1ˉ iations introduccd by t11c inscriPtion。 fan Eng⒈ sh languagc rcmaindcr Thc rcmai11dcr d。 es not just inscril)c a don1cstic set oflh`guistic and cultural differenccs in thc∫ orcign text, but supPhes thC loss。 fthc f。 rcign lan:uagC(liffc1ˉ cnccs、 vhich c。 nstitutcd that text ‘‘ Thc loss °ccurs, as Alasdai1ˉ lNIacIntvrc has obscrⅤcd, bccausc in anv tradition~ ‘ bcaring con1n1unity” thc 1anguagc-i11-usc is closcly ticd to thc cxPrcssion of thc ‘ sharcd bchc人。f that tradition/’ and this εivcs a‘ historical chmcnsion” to languagcs 、ˉhich 。Rcn ⒒⒒ls tO survivc thc translatlng Pr° ccss (MacIntyrc 1988∶ 384) N1acIntyre argucd that this Pr。 blCn1。 f untra11slatability is n10st acutc、 1th“ thc intcr_ ’ nationah'cd languagcs in~usc i11 1atc t、 vcnticth-ccntury 111odcrnity,’ likC English, ˉ 、hich“ havc1△1inilnal PresuPP。 siti。 ns in resPcct of P。 Ssil)|y riⅤ al bchef systcms” and ‘ so Ⅴ。ll‘ neut1ˉ ahze” thc hist。 rical(hmcnsi° n of thc forcign tcxt(ibid,) In Enghsh translation,thcrclorc,

a kind of tcxt xxˉhich cann。 t be rcad as Fl,c rc、 F jr js out of contcxt1s ncⅤ crtheless rendcrcd contcxtlcss, But in s。 rcndcring it, it is turncd into a tcxt、VhiCh is no longcr thc author’ s,n° r such as、 voukl bc rccogˉ nizcd bⅤ thc audiencc t0、 Ⅴhom it、 as addressed

(ibi〈 l: 385,MacI11tyrc’ s cml)11asis) TRΛ NSLATION` COM MUN1TY` UTOPIA 487

CrCa思 h’ s translati° n at oncc inscril冫 Cd an Enghsh-langua:c cultural history in 1^abucchi’ s noⅤ cl and disPlaccd thc historical dirncnsion of thc Itahan tcxt This tcxt °ccuPiCs a Placc in a narratiⅤ c tradition that includcs rcsistancc novcls during and a⒒ cr thc Sec° nd、V° dd、Ⅴar,as wcll as noⅤ cls al)° ut hk undcr hscisrn,Albcrto ’ MorcaⅤ ia’ s刀 corlformisε 口(1951;「 fle Co,,/orm^r),hr instancc,and Gior妒 oB灬 sa血 s

F′ ″山n。 d。 F,n为 ~Conrini(1962;「 llc Gdrdcn ofr乃 nz立 C。 n冖 n^),Tllt’ J】 c凡 Ⅴcry h哎 tlltat

Italian 11ist。 1· y ContaiI1s a fascist traditiO11 ensuI· ccl that Tabucchi’ s rca(lcrs 、v° uld undcrstand the salazarist regin1e in distinctivcly Itahan tcrn△ s,not n△ crcly as an allu_ sion to Muss° hnrs(hctat。 rshiP,but as an allegory of currcnt cvents sosFicne Pcrcirtz

“as Ⅵ!rittcn in 1993 and PubhshCd thc f。 llo、 ving ycar, 、vhcn a ccntcr-right coah~ ,ith thc clcction、 · tion gaincd P° 、∷cr in Italy、 Λ ictory of sⅡ Ⅴio Berlusc° ni’ s Forza Itaha ‘ · lll oVCn1Cnt As Tabucchi hil△ △sclf sakl of his noⅤ cl,‘ th° sc、 ho(lidn’ tl。 vc thc Itahan °m wit11in” (Co“ P。 liucal situation took it as a symbol of rcsistancc【 onCo199⒌ 105,rny translatiOn) InvCsted、:ith this Pccuharly Itahan siε niHcancc,sosricnc Pcrcircz s。 k1 300,000coPies、vithin a ycar。f pubhcati。 n · Although hvorabIy recei、 cd by Britis11an(lAn1crican rc、 =ic、 Ⅴc1· s,CrCagh’ s trans lati。 n hardly bccame a bcstscllCr 、Vithin t、 v。 yCars of Pubhcation thc Amcrican cdition Pubhshed by Nexx E)irections sold 5,000 c° Pics Crcagh maintained a lcxic。 8raPhical cquiⅤ alcncc, l)ut thc I· cmaindcr in his translation 、vas insuf⒖ cient to rcstorc thc cultural and Pohtical hist。 ry that n1adc thc noⅤ cl sO rcsOnant Ior

Ita⒈ an rcadcrs,as、:cll as rcadcrs in othcr EuroPcan countrics vvith si1nilar historics, such as sPain·

ConⅡmunication through inscriPtion

Can a translation evcr con△n△ unicatc to its rcadcrs thc undcrstanding of thc forcign tCxt that foreign readers haⅤ cP Ycs, I、 vant to arguC,but this co∏ 1Inunication、 ill al、 ays be Partial, b。 th inc。 n】 l,lctC and ineⅤ itably slantcd tovcards thc d。 mcstic scene It occurs 。nlⅤ 、vhcn thc d。 mcstic rcmaindcr rclcascd bⅤ thc translation includcs an inscriPtion。 fthc f° rcign contcxt in、 vhich thc tcxt nrst c1ncrgcd Thc龙 rm。 fc。 mmunication菠 work hcrc is sccon(l or(lcr,built uPα 1btlt Signi~ 勹冖ng bCy° 11cl a lcⅩ ic° graPhcal cqmⅤ alcncc,cncompassing but cxcccdlng wh【 △t 、Valtcr BcllJamh caⅡ ed`nR)rmat0n” or“ sublect matttj· F(BC巧 amin ths v。lumc) “ TmI1slati° ns dnt tarc more than tlansmis蚯 ons of mlDlcct mcltttxr,” Bclllamin wrottA, “ comc into bcing`vhcn in thc c° ursc of its surviⅤ al a xs。 ork has rcachcd thc age of ‘ its f`ln c” I understand thc term‘ famc” to mean thc ovcrall rcccPtion。 f a litcrary text,not only in its。、Ⅴn languagc and culturc,but in thc languagcs of the cultures that haⅤ c transhted“ ,and not only tlac ju(蟪 mcllts of κⅤic、 Ⅴcrs【△t homc and abroad, but thc interPretations of htcrary historians and critics and thc imagcs that an intcr- nationally hmous tcxt may comC to bCar in° thcr cultural忆 rms and pratticcs, both chtc and mass ``translati。 n。 fa忆 rcign novcl can c° mmunicatc,not sin△ Ply dictionary mcanings,not sil11Ply thC basic clcmcnts of narratiⅤ c forn1,but an inter_ “ PrCtati° n that ParticiPates in its Potentially ctcrnal aRcrhfc i11 succecding generations” And this intcrPrctation can bc onc that is sha1· cd by d1c f° reign_ ˉ languagc rcaclcrs忆 r wh°m thc tcxt was Writtcn Thc translati。 n will then± t,stcr a 488 LAⅥ /RENCE ∨ENUTI con1n1on undcrstanding xxith and of thc lorei:n cultu1ˉ c, an understanding that in — Part restorcs the historical contcxt of the f° rcign text althouJ) f° r don1cstic rcadcrs Takc, 凡r cxamPlc, Camus’ s novd I△ 红r￠ nJc厂 (1942),AS Camus himsclf ackn。、vledgcd, the Pecuharitics° f stylc, Plot,and charactcrization that distinguish thc F1·cnch tcxt 、 cd iom Amcrican ⒔ction du1· ing thc cal· ly t、、=cnticd) `/erc (lcriⅤ ccntury,csPecially thc、 Ⅴriting of Erncst Hcn1ingⅥ rc8cnCrally thc hard- `ay,but1n° b。ilcd or t。 ugh guy pr° se of writcrs hkc JamcS M Cain,Thc styliStic炙aturcs。 f

Matthc、v Ward’ s 1988translation, Tf,召 sFrt,n召召r, makC this intcrtcxtual c° nnection f° r thc Enghsh丬 an8uagc rcadcr much m° re c"cCtively than Stuart Gilbert’ s 1946 vcrsion, The dif1orcnces arc aPParCnt° n the oPCni11g Pagc∶

A叼 ourd’ h血 ,maman e呲 mo⒒c Ou Pcut&re hicr,jc ne sals p洲 ,J’ 西 ‘‘ rC~;∶ u unt〈 ∶|l〈∶∶gralnlne de l’ asilc: M〈:∶ re d造 ctidoc, Enterrcment dcmain scntin1cnts(hstingu忐 s” Ccla ne、 =eut ricn(hrc C’ 志tait pcut-:trc hicr, L’ asilc dc vicⅡ lards cst Δ N1arcngo, ⒊ quatrc~Ⅴingts kjlom志 trcs d’ Alger Jc Prcndrai l’ aut。 bus⒊ dcux heures ctj· arrivcrai dans l’ aPr心 s~ midi Ainsi,jc pourral vcillcr ct jc rcr1tlcrai dem菹 ns° ir,J’ “dcmand。 deux jours(lc con思忐吝n1。 n patron ct il nc P° uvait lDas n1c lcs refuscr

avcc unc cxcusc Pareillc M“ s il n’ tlx甜 tp灬 l’ a△ content Jc lui“ m爸mc

dit:“ Cc n’ cst Pas de1na hutc” Il n’ a pas roPondu J’ ai PCns。 alors quc

jc n’ aurais Pas dG ltll(lire ccla En sommc,jc n’ avais pas;m’ cxcusc1· ,

C’ otait Plut♂ t⒊ lui (lc lD1ˉ 忐sCntcr scs Condol芑 ances Nl【 ais il le fc1· a sans doute aPr。 s^dcmain,quand ilrnc Ⅴerra cn dcud P° ur lc n10n1cnt,c’ est un pcu con11nc si Ina11△ an n’ otait PaS m° rtc. APr。 sI’ cntcrrcmcnt, au

contrairc,cc scra unc affairc class。 ct tout aura1· cⅤ ♂tu unc allure PluS 。f6cicllc, (Can9us1942∶ 1)

M° thcr dicd today (Dr,rnaybe,ycstcrday;I can’ t bc sure Thc telegram

⒒om the Homc saⅤ s∶ YOUR rⅦ OTHER PASsED A、VAY FUNERAL TOMORRo、 V DEEPsYMPATHY 、Vhich lea、 es thc matter dot11)tfttl; it could haⅤ c bccn ⅤcstcrdaⅤ The Homc for Aged PersOns is at Ma1· cngo,s° me sRy miles i° m rith the t、 ’ Algicrs,、、 v。。cl。 ck bus I shoukl gct thcrc、ⅣcH l)cf。 rc night- fall Then I can spcBd the11ight thertˉ ,kecPing thc usual、 igd bcsidc the body,and bc back hcrc t。 n△ orro“ cⅤ cning I havc⒔ xcd uP、vid)my emPloycr for t、厂。days’ lcaⅤ c; obviously, undcr thc circumstanccs,hc c° uldn’ t rchsc still,I had an idca hc l。 okcd annoycd,and I said,、 Ⅳithout thinking:“ sorry,sir,but it’ sn。 tn1y fault, ’ v。 u kn° 、∷ ARcr、 ards it struck lnc I nccdn’ t havc said that I had no1^cason to excusc myscl凡 it、 vas uP to hirn to cxPrcss his SyIη Pathy and so forth Pr°bably hc、 Ⅴill d° so thc day aftcr t。 n1。 rro、v,vvhCn hc sccs rne in black For the PrcsCnt,it’ s alrnost asif Mother、 vcrcn’ t rcally dcad,The funeral

xi· ill bri11git home tO I11C,put an ofEcial seal on it,s。 to spcak (Gilbc欣 1946:1-2) TR^NsLATION` COM M UNITY` UTOPIA 489

ˇIaman(lied t。 day (Dr ycstcrday n1aybe,Id° n’ t kn。、v I got a tclcgrarn “ sˉ om thc homc∶ ~】 other deccased Funcraltom。rroⅥ/,FaithfullⅤ Ⅴ。urs” That docsn’ t lucan anyd讧 ng,A/Iaybc it、 'as yestcrday, ld Pe。 sh。 mc is atˇ The° Plc’ Iarengo,about ci8hty kilomctcrs from Algicrs I、 ll take thc t、、。 o’ cloCk l,us and gct thcrc in thc aRcrnoon That、vay I can bc thcre f° r thc vigil and c。mc back tom° rr° 、 night I askcd n1y boss for t、、o days o″ and thcrc xxras no vvay l】 c was going to refusc n1e、 vith an cxcusc likc that But hc、 vasn’ t too haPPy ab。 utit I ‘ cven sai(l,‘ It’ s notl11y fault” Hc didn’ t say anyt11ing 1ˉ hcn I thought I

sh。 uldn’ t havc said that Altcr aⅡ , I didn’ t havc anyt11in8t。 aP。 Iogizc for Hc’ s the。 nc、vho shoul(J have° ffcred his c° ndolenccs But hc Prob_ ably、 vⅡ l day aRcr ton10rro、 v,飞Ⅳhcn hc sces I’ rn in Ilaou1ˉ ning For no、、:,

it’ s al△n。 st asif Maman wcrcn’ t dcad ARer thc funcral,th° ugh,the casc

will bc dosed,and cvcrytbing v。 ll havc a】 uorc omcial、 cl t。 it (Ward1988:3)

Thc Enghsh in bod1vcrsio11s is cast in a fairly c° Ⅱ。quial rcgister,but° ncc thcy arc juxtaposcd,thc differcnccs bcgin to Pr° li炙 ratc Gilbert translatcd icely,Hc ad(lcd ‘ 、Ⅴ。rds for clari⒔ cati° n,cxPanding‘ jc Pou1ˉ 1ˉ ai veillcr” (“ I shall bc able t° kceP vigil” ) into“ I can spcnd thc night thcrc,kecping thc usual vigil bcside thc b。 dy'’ I△ e rcⅤ iscd “ and soRcncd thc abruptncs:ofthc Frcnch phrasi11g,turnin思 Ccla nc vcut rien dirc” ’ ‘ C‘ That does not lncan anything’ )into‘ ⅤVhich lcaⅤ cs thc lnattcr doubtfu1,” And hc ’ cnd。、vcd his pr° se`vith a for1uahty and Pohtcncss,rcndering“ n1aman” as“ Mothcr,’ “ ‘ ‘ ‘ as‘ Cc n’ as‘ sorry, sir, but it’ s not Patl^c)n” cn△PloyCr/’ and‘ cst Pas dC lua fautc” m)′ fault, you kn0、 v,” Ward,in sharP contrast,translatcd closcly I1c rcpr° duccd thc lcxical and syntactical Pecuharitics of thc Frcncb, dcParting Fron1 Gilbe1· t not ‘ ‘ ’ only l)y luaking choices likc‘ N1alnan” and‘ b。 ss,’ but als。 by adhcring to Camus’ s ‘‘ ’“ bricf, Prccisc sCntences∶ That doesn’ t1η can anything,’ It’ s not n1y fault” As a rcsult, Ward endo、、ed his Pr。 se 、△th a I;miharity and(lirectncss Whcrc Gill)ert ” rcsorted to phrascs hke“ t、vo(lays’ lcave” (“ deux j。 urs dc c。 ng。 Homc ft〉r Agcd ’ ),“ Poˉ s()ns” (η asilc dc ⅤleillⅣds勹 ,ancl“ I11ad n。 tˉ eason tl,cxCuse mysdr C、 cn’ ax· Js ’ ‘ (lays off,” “ ’ ‘ pas Δ Π1’ excuser’ ), Ward uscd‘ t、 v° old PcoPlc’ sh° mcΓ and‘ I didn· t ha、 e anything to aPoloε izc R冫 r” 、Vard hin1sclf descril)cd thc(liffcrcncc bctxxˉ ccn thc ‘ ’ t、 :0、 crsions as dialecta⒈ he callcd Gilbcrt’ sa“ Britannic’ rcnderin8,’ and saxx his own as“ 思iving thc text a morc‘ AΠ1erican’ quality” (、Vard1988:v-Ⅴi) And、 Vard knexs that hc was draⅥ ring a cultural diffcrcnce as vVcll,rclcasiL1g a litcrary I^cn△ aindcr d1at leads d)c Enghsh-languagc readcr t° an Arncrican narratiⅤ c traditi° n, to “ Hc111ingway,Dos Passos,Faulkner,Cain” (ibid). ()ilbcrt’ s Ⅴcrsi。 n, cⅤ cn though frcc in Places, cstabhshcd a lcxicograPhical cquivalcncc that dOcs in fact transnDit the disti1)ctivc Plot and characteri7ation of Camus’ s novel 1△ cncc, 11is translati° n can als。 enablc Enghsh— languagc rcaders to PCrcCiⅤ C the Arncrican litcrary ori8ins。 f thc Frcnch tcxt cven、、hcn thcy d° n’ t kn0、 v its largcr Frcnch c° ntcxt Thc lcading Arncrican critic Edmund V、 ′ilson rcvie、vcd Gilbcrt’ s Ⅴcrsion for t1△ e Nc" yorkcr d1c year it “·as PubliShcd, °ffcring ‘ a relllarkablc account of his rcsP。 nSC 【Ιc k11cv￠ that Can1us、 vas‘ onc of thc Prin~ ciPal CxP。 nCnts in litcraturc of、 vhat is callcd thc Existcntiahst Phil。 S° but hc ‘‘ Phy/’ ilnmcdiatcly addcd a confcssi。 n。 f ign。 rancc∶ l havc read、'cry little。 f sartrc and 490 LAⅥ /RENCE VENUTI

j1叶找晷tJ￡写;浪 i∶ ∷扌k耦虫∷蔬I戋 ∴∶:烈 :rJ【t扛i浅圬∷ ledgc Wllson hcaded straight1or Ⅵ'hat was hn1ihar and cmphasizcd thc d° mcstlc rcfcrcncc in GⅡ “ bcrt’ s translation∶`廴 Onc fccls surc/’ hc、vr° tc,“ that M.Can1us Inust 批然茁擀#W斟:燕晒燕f Arnerican f°r1ns to eXPl。rc Europcan Phil° SoPhical thcn△ es The abscncc 。f thc brcign c° ntcxt was suPPhcd by thc rcalisrn that has l。 ng dominatcd thc AmcHcan narratiⅤ c traditi° n,so that Carllus’ s main charactcr、 vas dismisscd as“ incrcdiblc;his bchavi。 r is ncvcr exPlaincd or rnadc PlauSiblc” (ibid.)

鞋 s诨挣盅挤燃芥谢抖群吝苜 f楼拉 ~i11thc unitcd statcs as vvcll as in many countrics、 ˉ v° rldvcide Gilbert’ s 、ersion undoubtcdly hclPcd thc n° Ⅴel t。 achieve this status f。 r En8hS1△ ^languagc readcrs, s at祆 i⒒ jt找紧岷 FFc耳嫦 c汀 r∶ ∶∶:;:∶ r叮【扯脎 :∶ 蓬 r虽 fn弦:苕 both Arncrican and Frcnch In this、 vav, Ward’ s Ⅴcrsi° n con1Fnunicatcd an undcr~ standing of thc French tcxt that is aⅤ ailablc to Frcnch rcadcrs This understanding ‘ motiⅤ ated his(lccision,for examplc,to retain thc French‘ Maman” in the oPCning sentencc∶

‘‘ In his n。 teb° 。ks Camus rccordcd thc obscrⅤ ati。 n that thc curious

弥:妆 \F铞i&i打 F觜L轼堞:亻t寥 J秽℃础 ° r∶ ll挞 :∶ ∶ T;℃ 拣∶∴:】雀∷亠:￡ i抬:F;i艹∷s∷ 絮l:、犭℃ change thc naturc of D√ 1cursault’ s curi° us fccling for h氵祗/ard1988:vii)

Ward’ s writing rclcascd a rcm“ ndcr inscⅡ bc(l with Amc1· lcan and French refl:r cnccs,and f° r thc Enghsh-language rcadcr thc rcsult、 Ⅳas truly(lcR】 rnilia1izing Not only dkl Amcrican narratiⅤ c forms acquire a PhⅡ °s° Phical (lcnsity d)cy di(l not

:∷ 【∵盅岁l氵 :∶ l;f⒒滞:ε刂1:°安IⅠ1t∶∶⒒∶Ⅰ1:l环 l=t∶1∶【Fi:C;t丨是: but aPPrcciativc n° ticc that aPPearCd,aPPr。 priatcly cnough,in thc Ncl‘ ·y。 rk召 r:

Thc cffcct of thc cl。 scr, sin△ Plcr rcndcring is to makc N】 cursault sccm

⒊l1∶ T导:iT萎 ⒒l圩;:程牒:l11s岁 l∶J:fJ叶l∶∶Ⅰ∶:tc∶ ;黹: sion】 css hed° nis1n as a Psycholo思 ical study 、vho is br。 ught, through a gratuitous, sun-dazzlcd act and its n1crciless social c。nscqucnces, to a raPP。 rt、vith his (lcad mothcr and a rccognition of his fratcrnity、 vith ‘‘ ’ the gcntIc indiffcrcncc of thc 、vorkl’ ~a PalPable huProⅤ emcnt up° n ‘ Gnbcrt9s思 randcr PhrasC‘ thc benign indiffcrencc of thc univcrsc” (Ne⒒ yo砝 σ198⒏ 119) TRA,NsLATION` COM M UNITY` UTOPIA 491

Thc“ impr° vclncnt,” jud妒ng i°m this an° nymous reviewcr’ s rcsPonSc,involⅤ cd an incrcascd Plausibility, VVard gavc Camus’ s charactcr thc psychological rcahsm that Wils° n found lacking in Gilbcrt, although for a latcr Amcrican rcadcrship, 、、厂ard’ s translati。 n 、vas morc acccPtablc t。 his rcadcrs, Partly becausc thcy knc、 v morc about Frcnch literaturc and Phil。 S。 Phy,but als。 bccausc° f his、vriting: his stylc was m°rc cⅤ ocauvC。fAmc1· lcan and French cultural忆 rms and thcrcfc)rc morc con1municativc of thc Frcnch tcxt.

Hctcrogcneous conⅡ nunities

Thc domcstic inscril)tion in translating constitutcs a unique comn1unicauⅤ c act, h。、vcⅤ cr indircct° r、Ⅴayward,It crcatcs a(lomcstic co∏ 11nunity of intcrcst around thc translatcd tcxt,an audicncc t。、Vhom it is intcⅡ igiblc and、 vh° Ⅴarious ¨ Put it t° uscs Γhis sharcd intcrcst rnay ariSC SpontancOusly、 vhcn the translation is pubhshed,

attracting rcadcrs s· 。n△ different cultural constitucncies that alrcady exist in thc translating languagc It may also bc h。 uscd in an institution、vhcrc the tIˉ anslati° n

is rnadc t° Perf° rn1differcnt functions,acadcn1ic or rehgi。 us,cultural° r Pohtical, co1η mcrcial or municiPal Any community that arises aroun(l a ttanslation is hr fr。 m hom。 gencous in language,idcntity,。 rs。 cial p° sition Its hctcr°gcncity lnight bcst be undcrsto。 d in terms of vchatlMary Louise Pratt calls a“ hnguistics of contact/’ ˉ in、 hich languagc-bascd c。 ∏1Inunitics arc sccn as dcccntcrcd acr。 ss“ hncs。 fs° cial ‘‘ ’ diffcrcntiation” (Pratt 1987∶ 60) A translati。 n is a hnguistic zone of contact’ bctⅥ广ccn thc f° rcign and translating culturcs,but als。、vithin thc lattcr, Thc intcrcsts that bind thc c° ∏11nunity through a translati° n arc not sirnPly R)cuscd on thc f° rcign tcxt,but rcHcctcd in thc d。 1ncstic values,behe人 ,and rcPrc~ scntations that thc translat。 r inscribcs in it And thesc interests arc furthcr dctcrn】 incd l)y thc 、vays thc translation is uscd In thc case of foreign tcxts that haⅤ c achievcd canonical status in an institution, a translati° n bccomcs thc sitc of intcrpretive corllmunitics that rnay support or challcngc currcnt canons and intcr~

Pretati。 ns, Prcvaning standards and idcol。 gics(cf, Fish 1980and thc c1· iticisms in Pratt 1986: 46 52) In the case 。f forcign tcxts that have achicvcd lη ass circula_ tlon,a translation bcc° mcs t11e sitc of uncxpccted grouPings,fostering colllll△ unitics °f rcaders 、vho 、厂0uld 。thcr、 visc bc scParatcd by cultural cliffcrcnces and sOcial

(li“ si。 ns yct are now joined by a common hscination A tlanslation can answcr to thc intcrcsts of a diⅤ crsc rangc of domcstic audienccs,so that the f° rn)s。 f rcccP~ tion lxill n。 tt)c enti1· cly con△ mensurablc.Bccause translating traf丘 cs in thc foreign, in the intr。 ducti。 n of linguistic and cultural diffcrences, it is equally caPable °f crossin8or reinf° rcing thc boundaries bct、、ccn don△ cstic audicnccs and thc hicr~ archics in 、vhich thcy are P。 siti° ncd Ifthc d。 mcstic inscriPtion includes Part of ,hich thc f° thc sOcial。 r hist° rical co11tcxt in、 rci8n text Fi1· st cl△ △Cr思 cd,thCn a translati° n can also crcatc a con△ munity that includcs f。 rci8n intClligibnitics and intcrcsts, a1】 undcrstandin思 in c。 1η n1° n、vith anothcr culturc,anothcr t1· aditi° n Considcr the readcrshiPs that gathcr around a Poetry translation In 1958thc Arncrican translat° r Allcn ˇ【andclbaum PubhshCd d△ c nrst l)。。k lcngth Enghsh Ⅴcrsi。 n ofthc m。 (lcrn Italian poct GiuscPPe un:arctti It was warml)wdc。med b)· Itahtl11 acadcmic sPecialiStS at Alη c1· ican uniⅤ ersitics, s。 n△ e of wholn wcrc 492 LAⅥ /RENCE VENUTI

tllcmscll cs Itallan nat卜 cs Thc rex:icwcr llc)r tl△ c journal C。 f,,P″ 虿riΓc Ιire仰 ru″ ,

Giovanni Cccchctti,、vrotc his reⅤ ic、 v in Itahan and c。 ncluded that Mandclbaun`’ s ‘ translation‘ d。 cs honor t。 Itahan studics in Amcrica and can be rcc° n11ucndcd to anyonc who wishcs t° hmiliarizc himsclf witll tllc work。 f。nc。 fthe m句 or PoCts ‘ 。f° ur ti1ne” (CecchCtti 1959∶ 268, rny translati。 n),ThC‘ 。ur” suggests thc cxtcnt 。f Cecchetti’ s estccn1for ungarctti’ sP。Ctry, an asscrtion of universal Ⅴaluc But sincc hc、vas revic、vin思 in Itahan thc hrst En8hSh translation of d)at P° etry,thc“ our” c° uldn’ t bc uniⅤ crsal bccause it didn’ t Ⅴet includc British and Alnerican rcadcrs lacking Italian,Cccchcttiimagincd a c° mmunity that was Pardy actual,Pr° 炙SSional, and Partly Potcntial Thc ungarctti Pr叻 ect also aPPliCd a stanclard of accuracy consistcnt with thc intcrPrctati。 n that prcⅤ ailed in thc Itahan acadcn1ic c° n11nunity,Mandclbaum maintaincd a fairly strict lcxic° graPhical cquiⅤ alcncc and cven imitatcd【 Jngarctti’ s syntax and linc brcaks, He rcad ungaretti’ s achicⅤ cmcnt, likc thc Itahan scholars, as an cff°rt“ t。 bury thc cadavcr° f htcrary Itahan” by deⅤ cloping a sParc,PrCcisC Poctic ’ languagc clcvoid° f“ all that was but ornament’ (lMandelbaun△ 1958∶ xi) It Ⅵ·as in tllc陡 tσ ms that thc κvicwcrs judgcd Mandelbaum’ s vσ si〈 Dlls su∝ essftll,“ If° nc is tcmPtcd to。 bscrvc that in many Places thc translation is too litcral,” ⅥTOtc Carlo

G° hn° ,“ furthcr reΠ ecti° n、Ⅴill sh。、v thatit vvould havc bccn impossiblc to d。 othcrwisc and still retaln thc Ⅱch allu“ vcncss of ungaretti’ s wor(ls” (G。 lin。 1959∶ 76), ’ Mandelbaun1’ s translati。 n、vas thus the site。 fan acadcn1ic c。 lnlnunitⅤ s intcrcst in Ungarctti’ s PoCtry, an An△ erican rcadcrshiP that nonetheless sharcd an Itahan understanding of thc tcxt and in fact includcd Itahan natiⅤ es In this contcxt the translation ultirnatcly achicvcd canonical status In 1975,ahn° st t、Vo dCCades after its6rst Pubhcation,it、 vas rcissucd in a rcviscd and cxPanded cdition from C。 rncll uniⅤ ersitⅤ Press. All thc samc, it is PossibIe t° c an aPPcal t° an。 thcr comn1unity in ’ PcrcciⅤ N1andclbaun】 s translatl。 n,a do1η cstic rcadcrs11ip that is inconuncnsurablc、、·ith the interests of thc Itahan acadcn△ ics and thc prcvailing interPrctation of Ungarctti Whilc Mandclbaun△ adhcred cl。 scly to thc tcrsc fragmentation of Ungarcttrs Itahan tcXts,hc also introduccd a P° ctical rcgistcr,a noticcablc strain of Vict° rian PoCti^ “ cism,Manddbaum rcndcrcd“ m。 rirc” (“ dic” )as“pCrish,” buttclto” (“ thr。 wn)as “ ‘‘ ‘ ’ ‘ cast,” ti basta un’ illusi。 nc” (‘ an illusi° n is cnou8hf° r)'° u’ you nccd but an “ ’ ’“ ” )aS‘ ‘ ’“ illusi°n/’ sonno” (“ slCCp’ Slun11)cr,’ riPosat° (“ 1· CStCd” rcposcdΓ p° tr♂ )as“’ )as‘ guardarla” (‘ 叮can、Ⅴatch hcr’ )aS“ I can gazc upon hcr” (lMandclbauna 1958∶ 7, 13, 25, 37, 145).Hc usc(l syntactlcdl inⅤ crsions∶ somc、、'crc a(lclc(l,whilc。 thcrs 、Ⅴcre the results of litcral translating, calques° f thc ltahan Both kinds am° untcd t° PoCtical archaisIus in Enghsh:

LonF口 n° Lontano l。 ntan。 comc un c1cco

n1’ hanno POrtato Pcr1uano

DisFdnr夕 Distantly chstantly hkc a bhnd man by thc hand thcy lcd mc, TRANSLATION` COMMUNITY` UTOP1A 493

IJIa虿 CoFon,bd

E)’ altri diluvi una c。 l° mba asc° lt° ,

△Dovc ()f othcr Π。°dsI hear a d° Ⅴc (MandClbaum195⒏ 35,53)

s。mcumcs thc pocticism dcviatcd【。m thc Othcrwisc simplc language of thc ’ contcxt,as in thc last six lincs of“ Giugno” (‘ june’ )∶

H° PCrs。 il sonno oscillo al canto(l’ una strada

comc una lucci° la

Mi morir♂ qucsta nottcP

I haⅤ c lost slurnbcr

s、vaⅤ at a street-corncr hke a nreΠ Ⅴ

XA/ill this night(lic △om mc? (MandClbaum195⒏ 39)

On。 ther occasions the Poetical registcr s、 vclls、 vith a lush R。 manticisln,usually to match a m° rc cxPanSiⅤ c PoCtic linc in ungarctti Compare N1andclbaun1’ s vcrsion ’ of the VirgⅡ ian sestina,“ Rccitativo di Pahnurn° vvith Tcnnyson’ s“ LⅡ Both ,’ ysscs” English texts werc writtcn in an Eli'al)cthan Pcntamctcr(ShakesPearCan,Marl° Ⅴian) Pitched at an cPic height:

Pcr l’ uragano all’ aPicc di furia Vicin° non intcsi farsi il s° nno;

Olio h dilagante a slnal△ lc d’ 。n(lc, APCrt。 camP。 a hbcH兮 di Pacc, Di cffusi。 nc in丘 nita il Hnto emblcma Dalla nuca Prostrandon△ im°rtale.

’ I could not,f°r thc hurricanc at furⅤ s

sun11η it,sensc thc con1ingˉ on°f slun△ bcr; An° il that oⅤ crspread the raⅤ ing brcakcrs,

Ficld。 Pcn t。 thc f1eedon△ that is PcacC, OfinHnitc Outpouring thc fcigncd cmblcm

Thrusting at thc naPc d° 、vndashed1nc ln。 rta1, (MandClbaum195⒏ 145) 494 LAⅥ /RENCE VENUTI

I cannot rcst⒒ oIη travc⒈ I will drink

LiJ(∶ i:::to thc lccs:all umcs I haⅤ e e巧 oyed Gready,haⅤ c suffercd grcady,b° th、vith thosc That lovcd mc,and al° ne;on sh。 rc,and、 vhen Through scudding driRs thc rainy Hyades Vex tllc dim sca:Iam bcc。 mc a name卜 j (TCnnys° n1972∶ 562)

、Vhat madc Lh1garetti’ s Poctry sccn△ so innovatiⅤ e in Italy 、:as thc hard~cd思 ed language,an1odcrnist PreciSi。 n that turncd a、广ay fr0n△ the ornatc,rhet。 rical stylcs dcⅤ ˉ cl。 Pcd by(lCcadcnt、vritcrs likc Gabrielc Γ)’ Annunzio Mandcll)aun1’ s 、crsion rcinscribcd thcsc stylCs in ungarctti, rcstoring 、Ⅴhat thc translator hirnsc⒒ callcd ‘ thc‘ cadavcr。 f htcrary Italian” ——alth° u8hn。 xx=transmogri⒔ cd into archaic Enghsh

P° et1· iCs In rclcasing this(lomcstic remaindcr,Mandclbaun1’ s translati。 nn。t only Posi- tioncd Ungaretti in Enghsh-language P。 etic traditions, l)ut afshated hirn Ⅵidl thc don1inant trcnds in contcmporary Poetry translation。 For thc lhct is that during thc 1950san△ ixturc of currcnt standard Enghsh、 vith poetical archaisn△ s constitutCd thc (lisc° ursc for translating Poetry hⅤ ored by lca(ling Amcrican translators Richrn° n(l

Lattirn。 rc’ s 1951 vcrsion。 f the fF1dd,、 vhich became thc most、 ⅣidclV read transla~ ‘ ’ don in thc Unitcd statcs,clai1ned to haⅤ e aⅤ °ided any‘ poetical dialcct。 f Enghs11’ ‘ ‘ bccausc‘ in 1951, 、`c clo n0tl)avc a P。 ctic(lialcct/’ and‘ thc languagc of sPcnscr ’ 。r tlac Klllg JameS Version” ℃cmc(hnaPpmP"ate to H° mσ s“ nncsF(Lc· tdm。 rc Pl“ “ 1951∶ 55) Yct1ˉ attimore’ s text is dottcd with Vict° 1ˉ ian poctlosms∶ as whcn1· lⅤ crs “ ’“ ’“ in、Ⅴinter sPate/’ sol△ c sP° kC,vauntin8,’ hC Strklcs int。 battle,’ his bcl。 vcd son/’ ‘‘ ’ that accurscd night’ (il)id ∶ 125, 131, 279, 438) J。 hn ciardi’ s 1954 、crsion of Dante’ s力巳陀rn。 ,which hr ovcr%ur dccades haq bccn c。 ntinuously a、 ailablc h a ’ n△ ass-n1arkct paPcrback,ahncd f° r“ s° mcthing likc idiomatic Enghs11’ to CⅤ okC thc anti_rhetorical character of thc Ita⒈ an;“ sParSc,dircct,and idi。 matic/’ 、vr。 tc Ciardi, ‘ Dantc’ s langua思 c‘ sCckS t0aⅤ oid clcgancc simPly for thc sakc of elcgancc” (C)iardi 1954: ix~x) YCt this l)arad° xical undcrstanding of Dantc’ s Itahan als° (lcscribcs Ciardi’ s tcxt,、ⅤhiCh,alth。 uε h mOStly in a Plain rcgister of currcnt usagc,is strc、 vn “ “ “ ’“ ’“ Ⅵ ith poctical、 v。 rds and Phrascs;“ drCar/’ flccrs/’ bcsct丿 s0rCly ‘‘ “ “ PitCOus/’ ’“ Perils,’ thy/’ ane、 it sccmcd to scorn alll)ause,’ bitc back)· 。ur sPlCCn” (f° r “PrcSSed/’ “ /’ ’ non ti crucciare” ∶don’ t bc distrcsscd’ ),“ hiS w。 °lly joxxls” (ibid∶ 28, 30, 36, 38, 39,43,44,45) Mandelbaum’ s vcrsion bri(lgc(l thc cultural gap bctwecn ungarctu’ s actual Itahan rcadcrshiP and hiS Potcntial Arnerican audiencc Translating a modcrn Itahan P。 ct i11to thc discoursc that don△ inated Amcrican P。 Ctry translation、 :as c竹 tc- tiⅤ el)=a canoni'ing gesturc,a Poctic′ Ⅴay of linking hi1n~for Amc1ˉ ican rcadcrs to canonical Pocts hkC H。 mcr and Dantc(not t。 luentlon thc ech° cs。 f Tennyson,

s1akcsPcarC,Marlowc) Yct this domcstic inscHPtion dCvicltcd iom LI11gcaretu’ s significancc in thc Itahan PoCtic tradition, thc vic、v, as Mandelbau1n Put it, that ‘‘ ’ tIngarctti purgcd thc languagc of aⅡ 。rnamcnt’ (N1andclbaun】 1958:xi),Thc° rnatc Enghsh Ⅴcrsi。 n 、vas addrcssing anod1cr audicncc, distinctly Arncrican, Poctry rcadcrs fan1ihar、 vith British and An1crican PoCtic traditiOns as、 ⅤcⅡ as rcccnt translati° ns that、 vcrc imn1cnscly PoPular TRA NsLATION` COM M UNITY` UTOPIA 495

Indced, NlIandclbaun1’ s translati。 n(liscourse、 vas so fan1ihar as to be invisible to thc reⅤ icwcr for P@cr,f magazlne,Nc(lO’ G。 rman,an Amchcan Poet wh° Pubhshed his Hrst c。 llcction of Poems in thc samc ycar C)’ Gorman f°und ’ ungaretti’ s Poetry“ truly rnagni⒔ cent,’ 、vhilc qu。 ting and c° n)mcntin8on thC t1ˉ ans- l荻ion as ifit werc thc Italian tcxt(O’ G° rman1959a∶ 330) 、Vhat O’ Gorman hkcd ab° ut(Mandclbauln’ s)Ungarctti was thc hct that it、 us Poctica⒈ hc Pra`cd thc Itahan P° ct忆 r writlng“ ofa w。dd transformcd into poctry” and Prod“ mcd“ thc

Recir虿 ∠iΓ c” as“ his丘 nest P。 cm” (ibid∶ 331) Thc P° emsin O’ G。 rman’ s Hrst book “ rcΠ cctcd thisjudgmcnt Thcy includcd“ An Art° f Poetry/’ whcrc he、 vrotc∶ Poctry ’ l)cgins whcrc rheto0cd。 cζ (O’ G° rman1959b∶ 26)

A/landcll)auΠ 1’ s rcadcrshiPs、 vcre fundan1cntally inc。 ll11ncnsurable Even though 、vrittcn in Enghsh, the translation 、:as intclligiblc to cach of thcn△ in different

hnguistlc and cultural ter∏ 1s Thc Itahan acadcmic c。 n△ 1η unity also(hd n。 t rcc。 gˉ nize the VictO11an Pocucism For thcm,howcⅤ cr,this styliStic%aturc was inⅤ isiblc l)ccausc Enghsh、 Ⅴas n。 t their nativc languagc and bccausc,as forcign-languagc acad~ clllics,they、vere1n° st conccrncd、 vith thc rclation bctⅥ 厂een thc Enghsh vcrsion and thc Itahan tcxt:lexic。 graPhical cquiⅤ alcncc,Cccchctti noticcd onc of Mandclbaun1’ s “ ctical turns,his rcn(lcring of“ smcmom” (`ol° Sc° ne’ s memo叮 to忆 rgct” P。 ’ ,” ) with d)e arch汪 sm“ disrcmcmbcr￠ (il)i(l∶ 51;cf,O￡ D) Yct thiS ch0cc was sccn as ‘ aPPropriatc to‘ the rarc and suggcstivc Havor” °f thc Itahan and indicativc of thc translator’ s“ Poetlc Scnsibility” (Cccchctti1959∶ 267) Thc f`ct that in English this sensil,ihty n1ight bc alicn t。 ungarctti’ s rnodernist Poetics seems to haⅤ c l)ccn rccognized~ in Print only l)y a British rcadcr,intcr- cstingly cnough,A rcⅤ iewer f° r thc Lond。 n乃 mes,、 vho agrccd、vith Cecchetti that ’ ungaretti、 vas“ one ofthc rnost distinguishcd P° cts ahⅤ c氵 fClt that“ N1r,NΙ andelbaun△

translatcs、 :ith a quitc exccPtional inscnsitiⅤ ity” (TJ,c Tjn,cs1958: 13C),Thcrc can ’ bc n。 doubt d1at thc rcvic、ˉcr had Mandcll)aun△ s PocticiSms in rllind, since he mmend a℃ 。。d crib,” tllc very dosc French version that Jcan PKkrrC(lt()rcc。 ” Lescurc ptll)lishcd in1953(whCrc“ D’ alth diltlxl una col° ml)a ascok。 was tur1△ cd

into‘ j’ ocoutc unc cololη bc Ⅴcnuc(l’ aut1ˉ cs(l誉 lugcs” (LCscurc 1953: 159)), Only a natiⅤ c readcr。 f Enghsh Poctry′ Ⅴh° also kneⅥ 广the Itahan tcxts and thcir position in thc Itahan poctic tradition、 ·as able to Perceive the Enghsh-languagc rcmai11der

in Mandclbaum’ s 、crsi(〉 11 Thc rcadcrships that gathercd ar。 und this Poetry translati。 nⅥˉerc liInitcd,Pro- Fcssi° nally°r institutk)nally dchncd, and detcrn1incd by their cultural kn0、 vlcdge, 、、'hcthcr()f the forciε n languaε c and litcraturc Or thc litcrary traditions in thc translating languaε e Thc translati° nl)ccame the focus of divcrgcnt communitics,R)rcign and(lomestic,scholarly and litcrary And in its ability to suPP° rt their linguistic and cultural (lif{辶 rcnces, to l)c intcⅡ igil)lc and intcrcsting tO thclll in thcir° 、vn tcrms, thc translation f° stercd its o、vn community, onc that 、vas jmdJiz’ 召c/ in Benedict Anderson’ s scnsc∶ thc men11)ers‘ I neⅤ er kn。、Ⅴ n1ost of their felloⅥ ·mcmbcrs, mcct thclnl, 。r cvcn hear ofthem, yct`vⅡ in thc n△ inds of cach liⅤ cs thc imagc of thcir comn△ union” (Andcrs。 n1991∶ 6) In thC casc Of a translati。 n,this in△ agc is(lcriⅤ cd from thc 1· cprcscntation of the foreign tcxt constructcd by the translator, a communication don1cstically inscril)cd T。 translate is to inⅤ cnt f° r thc f° rcign tcxt nc、、ˉ ˉ rcadcrshiPs、 vho arc a、飞:a】 c that thcir intcrcst in thc translation is sha1ˉ cd by other rcadcrs,f° rcign and don1cstic- cⅤ cn、vhcn th。 sc intcrcsts arc incon△ 111cnsurablc 496 LAⅥ /RENCE ∨ENUTI

Thc imagincd con11nunitics that concerncd Anders。 n、vcrc natlonahstic,bascd 。n the sensc of bclonging to a Particular nation Translations haⅤ e und° ubtcdly f° rmed such c° mmunitics by ilnPorting forcign idcas that stirnulated the risc °f largc-scalc political ln。 Ⅴcments at homc.At thc turn of the tvvcnticth ccntury,the

Chincsc translat。 r Yan Fu chosc、 v° rks0n cv°lutionary thcory by T,H,Huxley and Hcrbert Spenccr Precisely to build a national Chnese culturc Hc translatcd thc Wcstcrn conccPts of aggrcssion emb。 died in s。 cial DarⅥ :inisln to forn1an ag8res~ siⅤ e Chncsc i(lcntity that would withstand、 Vestern colonial Pr句 cc“ ,n。 tably British(schwaⅡz 1964; Puscy 1983).Hu slllh, a contcmp° rary obscrvcr,latcr ‘‘ rccalled the irnPact °f IIuxlcy’ s ￡vofur】 °n 口nd ￡rJlics in Yan Fu’ s 、:ersion: aRcr China’ s frcqucnt Inilitary rcvcrsals,Particularly aftcr dlC hurllihation° fthe B。 xcr yearS,thC sl° gan‘ SurⅤ iⅤ al of the Fittcst’ (ht.,‘ suPcrior Ⅴictorious,inferi。 r dcfeatcd, tlle nt survive’ )becamc a kind。 f clari° n call” (tranSlated and qu° tcd in sch、 vartz 1964∶ 259,n. 14) Thc irnagincd con11nunitics fostcrcd by translation Pr° ducC Cffccts that arc C0∏11nCrCial,as、 vcll as cultural and Pohtical Considcr,f° r examPlc,thC rnass audiencc that gathers ar。 und a translatcd bcstscller Bccausc of its shccr sizc, this con1111unity is an cnscmblc of thc1n° st divcrsc domcstic constitucncics,desncd by thcir sPeci⒖c intcrcsts in thc f° rcign text, yct a、 varc of belonging to a collcctiⅤ c movcment,a national markct忆 ra%reign litcrary fasonau。 n Thcse constitucncics、vill ineⅤ itably rcad thc translation diffcrcntly,and in sOme cases the differences will be incommcnsurablc Ycttl△ c gret△ tcst Communication gap here may be bctween thc f° rcign and domcstic cultures Thc domcstic inscriPtion in thc translati° n cxtends thc aPPeal° fthe f° reign tcxt to a mass audience in another culture But vvidcning thc domcstic rangc ofthat apPcal rneans that thc inscriPtion cannot include much ofthe f° reign context.A translatcd bcstsellcr risks rcducing the foreign text t0、vhat d° mestic constituencies haⅤ e in coΠ unon,a(lialcct,a cultural discourse,an

idc° l。 gy This can bc sccn in thc rcccPtion that grcctcd Ircnc Ash’ s Enghsh vcrsi° n of

:。 l’ t′ r Γrisresse(1955), Fran♀ oisc sagan’ s bcstsclling n° vc1, In France, thc Frcnch J。 tcxt had bccn acclai1ncd as an acc。 mPhshcd 、vork of art: it 、von thc Prix dcs Critiqucs and sold200,000coPics, In England and the united statcs, thc transla-

tion(lrc、 v faⅤ 。rablc c° ∏111△ Cnts on its stⅤ lc and like、visc staⅤ cd on the bcstscllcr lists

f° r manⅤ months But no rcⅤ ic、 vcr failcd t° aband° n c。 nsidcrati。 ns of acsthctic

f° rm f° rm。 rc functional standards, cxPrCssing amazcmcnt at thc youthful agc of thc auth。 r(19)and distastc for thc am° rality ofits thcmc:a17year° ld girlschcmcs

t。 PrCⅤ Cnt hcr、vido、 vcd fathcr壬 r° l11remarrying,so that he can c° ntinuc to cngagc ‘‘ in a succession of afFairs, Thc Ch1cdJ。丁ribun召、Ⅴas tyPica⒈ I adn`ired thc craRs~ manshiP,but I was rePellCd by thc carnality” (H灬 s195⒌ 6). Ths gcncral rcsPonse varicd acc。 rding to the Ⅴalues° f thc particular constitu_

cncy addrcsscd by thc rcⅤ ic、vcr,Thc Cathohc、 veekly Comm° n″ccz`sternly Pron。 unccd the novcl“ chⅡ dish and tircs° mc in its singlc rllindcd dcdicati° n to(lccadence” (Nagid yo砝 195⒌ 164),whcrc“ tl△ c soPhi虻 icatcd Nc″ 召r rc、 rrcd simPly to the“佰tl△ er’ s ‘‘ hcdonistic in1agc/’ subtly Suggcsjng that at 40 hc dcscrⅤ es Pity” (Clill 1955∶ 114 15),ln P° st sCcond VV° dd XArar America,whcrc the Patliarchal hmily assumCd ‘ nc、v importance and‘ husbands,csPccially fathcrs,、、f。 re the badge of‘ fan1ily lllan’ ’’ as a sign of virility and Patri。 tisn△ (May 1988∶ 98),sagan’ s plcasure-sccking fathcr TRA苫 sLATION` COM M UNITY` UTOPIA 497 and daughtcr`Ⅴ crc ccrtain to make her n° Ⅴcl an objcct of b。 th m° ral Panic and tltillation,Thc rcⅤ icwcr br thc Nc″ srdFcs,,,￠ n口nd NdFion was uniquc in trying to undcrstand it in distinctiⅤ cly Frcnch tcrms, describing thc youthful hcr° inc as “ a chnd。f the bcboP,the night clubs,thc cxistcntialist caf芑 s/’ comParing hcr and hcr “ htl△σ t° M Camkls’ sam° ml Ou“ i(lcr” (Raymond195⒌ 727-8),

Ash’ s Enghsh vcrsi。 n 、vas of c° ursc thc dccisivc fact。 r that cnablcd Sagan’ s n。 Ⅴclto suPP° rt a spectrun)of Vcry differcnt rcsPonSCs in Anglo-Arncrican culturcs,

Thc translati° n、vas in△ mediatcly intclligible to a、 vidc Enghsh-languagc rcadcrshiP∶ it、vas cast in the m。 st fan△ iliar dialect° f currcnt Enghsh, thc standard, but it also containcd sOmc liⅤ ely colloquialisms that1natched sin1ilar formsin thc French tcxt Ash mndcKd“ le dσ 血cr dcs salauds” °f tlac dut￠ thC m。 st awhl “ ‘ ’ CtllC la哎 ‘ )as“ ’ cad/’ l。 upo” (‘ failcd’ )as“ Πunkcd/’ and“cc fut la Hn” (‘ that vvas thc cnd’ )aS“ d· ings ctalnc to a hca(l” (Sagan1954:32,34,45;Ash1955:25,27,35),Shc ailncd1or a high clcgrcc of∏ ucncy by translating frecly, making dclctions and additi° ns to thc Frcnch to crcatc lnorc PrcciSc for1nulations in Enghsh∶

Au caf芑 ,Elsa sc lcⅤ a et,arrivoe宜 la p° rte,sc retourna vcrs nous(l’ un

air langourcux,tr志 s insPir誉 ,容 cC qu’ il1nc scmbla,du cin忐maam芑 ricain ‘‘ ct n△ cttant dans s° n intonation dix ans dc galanteric frangaisc: 、/ous Ⅴenez,Raym° nd?”

(After c。 ffee, Elsa st° od uP and, on reaching the door, turncd back towards us with a langu。 rous air,vcry insPircd~S° it sccmcd to n△ c~ by American cincma, and inⅤ esting her t。 nC、Ⅴith tcn ycars° f French “ flirtation∶ Arc you coming,Raymond?” ) (隘gan195⒋ 38,my订 anslati。 n)

ARcr coffcc, Elsa、 ⅣaIkcd。Ⅴcr t° thc clOor,turned ar° und, and struck

a langu。 r° us, moⅤie_star posc, In her Ⅴ°icc 、vas tcn ycars of Frcnch coquetry: “ Are you c° ming,Raymond?” (Ash195⒌ 30)

Hcrc thc translat。 r cut doⅥ广nf° rty、 vords。f Frcnch to tvvcntyˉ ninc in Enghsb,Thc

Ⅱc of tl△ eP。 ptll【ar“ m。 oc st茳 pos卩 (忆 r叮u choma am&kain勹 is s卩 uPt。 matk of thc drivc t° 、vard readabilitⅤ By incrcasing thc rcadabihty of thc Enghsh tcxt, such frced° ms cndo、∴cd thc narrativc、 vith Ⅴcrisimihtudc,Producing thc illusi。 n°f transParcncy that pcrn1ittcd thc Enghsh-languagc rcader t。 takc thc translati。 n for thc f° rci8n tcxt (、厂cnuti 1995∶ 12),ThC rcⅤ ic、广er【 0r thc Hr`dnFic,imPrCSsCd that“ the novcl has such a sohd

“r。 f rcality ab° ut it,” commcntcd on Ash’ s writing as ifit wc1· c Sagan’ s:“ simPle, crystallinc,and c° ncisc,hcr PrOsC flo、 vs al° ng s、viRly,crcating sccne and charactcr with striking imlncdiacy and assurance” (Rolo1955∶ 84,85) Ash’ s freedoms rnay haⅤ c bccn inⅤisible,but they ineⅤ itably rclcascd a d。 mestic rclnaindcr, textual cffccts that varicd according to the sPccinc Passagc、 Ⅴhcrc they occurrcd,but that、 verc gcncrally cngaging,cvcn ProvocatiⅤ c The revievvcr for thc Nc″ sFdresmdn dnd Ndrion was also uniquc in notlon8hcr f1ˉ Ccd°∏1s(“ shC has not 498 LAⅥ /RENCE VENUTI

’ bcen afraid t° ParC and chP thc tcxt to suit thc Enghsh readcr’ ),and hc discussed 罩衤rl111I∶芒∥芏W驷驸提:鞴虽韪 toncs of the Frcnch∶

il avait Pour cllC dcs rc￡ :ards, (lcs gestcs qui s’ adrcssaicnt⒊ la femn1c qu’ on ne conna↑ t Pas ct quc l’ on(l。 sirc c° nnaitrc~dans lc Plaisir

(忆 r hCr hc had lo。 “ [ancl]gcsttlKS tllcat are addⅡ sscd t。 the Ⅵˉoman wh°m onc docs n。 t bow yct desircs t。 kn° w~in pleasurc) (sagan 1954: 378,1uy translati。 n)

I noticcd that his cvery look and gcsturc bctrayed a sccret dcsire f° r hcr, a woman whom he hacl n。 tP。 ssesscd and wh。 m hc longcd t。 enj。卜 (ASh1955:29)

· Ash’ s transladon,h。 ⅥcⅤ er【cc in places,maintaIncd a sumcient dcgrcc of lcxic。 _ graPhical cquiⅤ alcncc to communicatc thc basic narratiⅤ c clen△cnts 。f the Frcnch ‘ ‘ ’ tcxt Yet the addij。 n Of、vords likc‘ l)ctraycd” and‘ sccret’ in this PassagC Sh° 、厂s that she madc thc narrativc availablc t° an Enghsh languagc audicncc 、Ⅴith rathcr difFcrcnt n△ oral valucs fr° n△ its Frcnch c° untcrPart, a morahty that xx。 uld restrict scxuahty to marriagc or othcr、 △sc conccal it This is a rathcr° dd cffcct in a novcl 、:here a fathcr docs not conCeal his scxual pron1iscuity from his adolcsccnt dau思 htCr :ith a domcstic intcⅡ Ash inscribcd Sa‘ S noⅤ cl、 i‘ ∶:an’ ::ibility and intcrcst,addrcssin{:: a con11nunity that sharcd littlc。 fthc f° reign contcxt、 vhcre thc n° vel⒔ rst cmergcd,

The utoPian di1mension in translation

Thc c° mn△ unitics f° stcrcd by translating arc initially potcntial,signallcd in thc tcxt, lT{ltI找 t￡ c扌 c扯三三生f谓篱捃 l咒Ft⒊ t:∶ JnI;t叮谳蕊i∶ cultural c。 nstitucncics among、Ⅴhich thc translati。 n、vill circulate T° engagc thcsc constitucncies,ho、 vcⅤ cr,the translat。 r involⅤcs thc forciε n tcxt in an asyn1n△ ctrical · act of co1η rnunication, Ⅵ厂ci8hted idC。 l° gically toⅥ ards thc translating culturc · Translatinε ays ide° l。 is al、 gical becausc it rclcases a clomcstic ren△ aindcr,an inscriP_ tion of Ⅴalues,bchefs,and rePrcscntations linkcd t° hist° rical n1on1cnts and social

Positi° ns in the rccciving culturc, In scrving don△ cstic intcrcsts, a translation Pr° vides an idc。 l。 gical res° luti° n for thc linguistic and cultural diffcrenccs(〉 f thc f。 rcign tcxt Yct translating is als。 ut。 pian Thc d° mcstic inscription is lnadc、 Ⅴith the、 cry intcnti° n to c°∏1】nunicatc t11c forcign tcxt,and so it is hlled Ⅵ=ith thc anticiPation that a c° Π11nunity Ⅵ ill bc crcatcd ar° und that text__although in translation In thc rcmaindcr lics thc hopc that thc translation、 ill estabhsh a(l。 mcstic readcrship, an ima8incd coIη munity that shaI· cs an intcrcst in thc f° rcign, Possibly a markct fr。 n1 the Pubhs11er’ s P° int 。f、ic” And it is 。nly thr。 ugh thc rcmaindcr, 、vhcn inscribcd 、ith Part 。f thc f° rcign context, that thc translation can cstabhsh a TRANsLATION` COMMUNITY` UTOPIA 499

Co∏11n0n undcrstanding bctvvcen d° 1ncstic and foreign rcadcrs In suPPlying an idcological res° luti。 n,a translation projccts a utoPian comn△unity thatis n° t yet reah7cd,

Bchind this linc of thinking lics Ernst Bl。 ch’ s the° ry ofthc ut。 Pian functi° n of culture, although revised t。 ht an aPPhcat1。 n to translati。n Bl。 ch’ s is a AIarxist ‘‘ ’ ut。 v cultural f° rms and Practiccs rclcasing a surPlus’ that n° t only Pia Hc saˇ ‘ excccds thc idc。 l° gies of thc d° n1inant classcs, thc‘ status quo/’ but anticipatcs a future“ conscnsus/’ a classlcss s° CiCty,usually by transforming thc“ cultural heritagc” °f a Pardcular class,whcthcr dominant。 r dominatc(l(Bl。 ch1988∶ 46~50), I construc Bloch’ s ut。 Pian surPlus aS thC d。 mcstic remainder inscribcd in thc forcign tcxt durin思 thC translati°n ProcCSs Translating rclcascs a surplus of mca而ngs whtll Kkr to domc蚰 c cukurd tra山 dons thrc,ugh de“ atlons i° m the currcnt standard dialcct° r othcr、 vise standardizcd languagcs一 thr。 u思 h archaisms, f° r cxamPlc, or c。 lloquiahsms ImPhcit in any translation is thc hoPc for a conscnsus,a communication and recognition ofthc f° reign text throu8h a domcstic inscription, Yct the inscriPti° n can ncⅤ er bc sO C。mprchcnsivc, sO total in rclation to domcstic c° nstituencies,as to Crcatc a con11nunity。 f intcrcst、 vithout cxclusion or hierarchy It is unhkely that a f° rcign tcxt in translati° n、vⅡ l bc intclligiblc or intcr~ esting (or b° th Sirnultane° usIy) to CⅤCry rcadCrshiP in thC rccciving situation And the asymmCtry between thc brcign and d° mestic cultures PersistS, even 、vhen thc f° reign contcxt is Partly inscribcd in thc translati° n utopias arc bascd° n ide° l。 gies, Bloch argued, on intcrcstcd rePresentations of social diⅤ isi。 ns, rcPrc- sentations that take sides in th。 sc(livisi° ns In thc casc。 f translating,thc interests are incradicably domcstic, al、 vays the intcrcsts of certain domcstic constitucncics ovcr othcrs Bl° ch also Pointcd out that thc Ⅴarious sOcial grouPs at any hiSt° rical In。 ment are non-Contcmporanc。 us or non-synchr° nous in thcir cultural and idc。 logical ‘‘ ’ dcvcl°Pment, 、vith somc containing a rcmnant of carhcr tirllcs in the prcscnt’ (Bloch1991∶ 108) Ctllturd± orms ancl Practk6aK hctcr。 gcneous,comPo⒃ d° f difftDrcnt clcments with dlll:erent tcmPoralitiCs and aⅢliatcd with dif%rcnt groups In language,thc dialccts and disc° urses,registcrs and stylcs that cocxist in a Particu~ lar Pcri。 d can bc ghmpscd in the rcmainder relcascd by cⅤ ery coΠ 11nuniCatiⅤ c act, ‘‘ ‘‘ The remaindcr is a (liachrony~vvithin~symchr。 ny” that stagcs thc rcturn 、vithin language° fthe c°ntradictions and strugglcs that rnakc uP thC s° cial;it is the Persist- cncc、 ithin language of Past contradicti° ns and strugglcs, and thc anticipation 。f httlrc Ones” (Lecerdc199⒍ 182,215).HcncC,dlc domcstic lnscrΦ tion in any translation is wht△ t Bl° ch calls an“ antlciPat° ry illtlmination” (№rsch。 n),a way。 f irnagining a f辶 ture reconciliati。 n of hnguistic and cultural dircrenccs,、 VhCthcr th° sc that cxist among domestic groups or those that diⅤ idc the f° rcign and d° mcstic culturcs, In Λ没andelbaun1’ s Ⅴcrsion of ungarctti’ s Poetry, dlc ut° Pian surPlus is thC Vict° han P。 Cticism, This Enghsh languagc rcmaindcr didn’ t just cxcccd thC con】 munication of thc Itahan tcxts;it als。 ran countcr to thc rnodcrnist cxPCrirncnt they cultiⅤ atcd in thc c。 ntcxt of Italian P° ctic traditi。 ns During thc 19,0s, h。wcvσ ,Mandelbaum’ sP° etic“ m Pr叻 ected an Ⅱcal c。 mmunio° f hteκ qt h Ungarctti by rcc° nciling the diRtrcnccs bct、vccn t、 vo readcrships, Itahan and Arncrican, scholarly and litcrary. Today, 、vc n△ ay bc morc inchncd to n。 ticc,not 500 LAⅥ /RENCE VENUTI

the idcal, but thc ide。 logies oF this con1111unity: NIandclbauIn’ s translati° n、vas an asⅤ ltl1nctrical act° f con11nunication dlat at° ncc ad∏1ittcd and excluded thc Itahan context,、vhilc suPporting incon1mcnsurablc responses among American constitucncics Yct thc idcol° gical forcc 。f thc translati。 n madc it utoPian in its o、 Ⅴn tiI1)c, h° PCRⅡ of c° ∏11nunicating thc forcign signiHcancc °f thc f° rcign tcxt through a domcstic inscriPti° n And this ut° Pian ProjCction cⅤ cntually Pr。 duccd rcal cffccts, ˉ The Arneri(lan readcrshiP latCnt in Mandc⒒ )aum’ s l)。 ctical rcn`aindcr Ⅰeflccted a d° n)inant tcndcncy in Arncrican poctry translation, hcIPing his vcrsion aCquirc cultural auth。 ritⅤ in and out° f thc acadcmⅤ TranslatiI1g that harb° rs thc utopian d】 ·can1ofa co∏1rnon undcrstanding bet、、ccn f° reign a1ld domcstic culturcs n1ay inⅤ olⅤ c litcrary tcxts,、 Ⅴhcthcr chtc or rnass But usuaⅡ y it takCs rnuch rn° rc1nundanc f° rms,scrⅤ ing technical° r pragmatic Purposcs Consider con11nunity or liaisOn intcrpreting,thc oral,t、 vo~、 Vay translath1ε done for rcfugccs and ilnllligrants、 vho lnust dcal xsith thc s° cial agcncics and institutions of thc h° st c° untry Co∏11nunity intcrpretcrs perforn)in a、 .ariety of lcgal, mcdical, and cducational situations, including requcsts for P。 htical asylun、 court aPPcar^ anccs,hospital adn1issions, and apphcatio11s for、 :cllarc, C° dcs of cthics, `vbethcr formulated by Pr。 fcssi° nal ass° ciations or by thc agencics and institutions the1△ 1- “ ‘‘ sclⅤ cs, tcnd to insist that interPrCtCrs be Pancs °f glass” 、vhich allo、v f° r the commu血cation of i(k“ ,oncc again,wit11oLlt m° dl⒔ mti。n,a曲 ustmcnt。 r misrcl) rcscntation” (schwCda Nich° ls。 n 1994: 82; sce also Gendlc, Ozolins and Vasilakakos 1996) But such codes d。 n’ t take int° acc。unt the cultural and Poht- ical hicrarchics in thc intcrPretir1:situation,thc fact that~in thc、 v°rds。 f a Britis11 ‘ intcrPreting lnanua】 ~‘ thc chentis part ofa po、verlcss cthnic1nin° rity grouP、 vh° sC

nceds and slishes arc oRen ignorcd° r rcgarded as n。 t legitirnatc by thc m句 °1· Ity ‘ group” (shackman 1984∶ 18; scc also Sanders 1992) And° fc。 ursc thc‘ panc of ’ glass’ analogy rePrcssCs thc d° n)cstic inscriPtion in any translath1:,thC rcmaindcr that PrcⅤ ents thc intcrPrcting fr° m bciI1g transparcnt conu11unication cⅤ cn vvhcn thc intcrpretcr is lilnitcd to cxact rcndcrings of foreign vvords

In Pratˉ ticc,many community intcrPⅡ tcS“ qccm to rccog1ize tl【 c灬 ylumctrics in thc interPrcting situation and make an cffort to c° mPcnsatC f° r tlη cn1through Ⅴarious stratcgics(WadCnsl♂ 1998∶ 36) Robert Barsky’ s study of reftlgce hearings in Canada dcn10nstratcs that thc intcrPretCr can Put thC refugcc on a cqual f° oting x△ ith thc adjudicating body only l)y rclcasing a distinctiⅤ cly don)estic rcllaaindcr,Thc f° rcign~languagc tcstilnony must l冫 C inscribcd Ⅵ厂ith Canadian ⅤaIucs, behcs, and rcpresentations,Producing tcxtual effc· cts that、vork。 nly in Enghsh or French Lcgal institutions 、·aluc hncar, transParcnt discoursc, but thc cxPcriCnccs that rcfugccs n)ust(lcscribe~cxilc, Hnancial hardshiP, imPris° nmcnt, torturc- arc morc than “ hkely to shakc their cxPrcssiⅤ c abⅡ ities, cⅤ en in thcir。、vn languagcs Rcstricting the interPrCtCr’ s rolc t。 rendcri11g an‘ accu1· atc’ transIation° f thc reRlgcc’ s uttcr~ anccs-ˉ 、vhich may c° ntain hcsitations,gra∏ nnatical crr。 rs and Ⅴari° us infehcities ~me“ 忆bly iCoP汀az“ tllc d“ mallt’ s chanCcs° f obt缸血ng rcfttgcc≮ atⅡ ,irrc sPCctivC of thc vahdity of thc clainl” (Barsky 1996: 52) SiruⅡ arly,thc interPrctcr must reconcⅡ c the cultural diffcrcnces bctⅥ ,ccn Canada and thc rcfugcC’ s country by adding information about thc forcign contcxt,historical,gcograPhical,P° hucal, or sociological dctails that lnay bC° n1ittcd in tcstirnony and unkn° 、Ⅴn to Canadian judgcs and la、 vycrs,“ Insisting uPon an intcrpretation lirnitcd cxclusivcly toˇ vords TR伶 NsLATION` COMMUNITY` UTOPIA 501

’’ uttcrcd cⅤ acuatcs thc cultural data、 Ⅴhich could bc csscntial to thc refugee’ s clain】 (Barsky 1994∶ 49). Barksy pr。 Ⅴidcs a tclling cxamplc of a Pakstani clairnant “'ho sPoke Frcnch during the hearing,aPParently in an cff° rt t。 lcnd、vcight to his casc、 vith thc Quobcc auth° rities But his Frcnch vvas、 vcak,and his clailn vvas previously denicd bccausc °F intcrPreting Problcms, as hc tricd t° cxplain:

M。 i dcmandcr,rn° i dcmandcr Madamc,s’ il v。 us Plait,cctte translation lui Parlc frangais 、厂ous dcmandcr, Parlc frangais Parcc qu’ elle n1’ a c° mPris, v° us qu’ est ce qu’ cllc a dit D诳 oi compris, D诬adamc nΓ a dit, dosol芑 M° nsicur,scul anglais

(LltCrally∶ Mc灬 k,mc ask Madame,plcasc tlais订 anslauon叩 cak t。 him Frcnch You ask,spcak French Becausc shc undcrst。。d lnc,you that is 、vhat she said A/Ic understand N】 ada∏ 1 said to mc, s° rry sir, °nly Enghsh,) (BarSky1996:53,his translad° n)

Thc d拉 mal△ t was tcsn幻冖ng witl△ a Pah艾ani hterPK∞ r who"ndcrcd thc br° ken French intO intelligiblc and con1PClling Enghsh:

Hc has a corl△ Plaint vvith thc interPreter thCre He sPeaks bctter Frcnch than Enghsh,but the intcrprctcr、 vas intcrprcting from urdu t。 Enghsh Hc is not too good in Enghsh,bcttcr in Frcnch,、 vhich hc could under~ stand An intcrPrctCr、 vas ProvidCd t° interPret the hearing into Enghsh, 、vhich hc did n。 t agrcc to. so hc 、vas having a hard tiFne cxprcssing himsclf° r undcrstanding the CPO, lawyCrS,hin1sclf, and thc inter~

PrCtCr, Thcrc is nO satisfacti。 n in thc hcaring And that is One reasOn 、vhⅤ Il°st thc casc

VX/hcn cFfcctivc, c。 n△ nnunity intCrprcting ProⅤ idcs a c。 n△ Phcated ide° l° gical res。 luti。 n for the linguistic and cultural diFcrcnccs of thc rcfugcc’ s or imlnigrant’ s spccch, Thc interPreting inevitably communicates the foreign text in domcstic tcrms, in thc terms of thc h° st c° untry, but thc d° mcstic inscriPtion als° nccds to includc a signiHcant Part of the f° reign context that givcs mcaning to tllc claim This s°rt °f intcrprcting, although sccn1ingly partial t。 thc chcnt, is not in fact ideol。 gically onc-sidcd∶ it serⅤ cs both f° rcign and domcstic intcrcsts Thc idcol。 gy °fthe rcs° lution is fundamentallⅤ dem。 cratic insofar as thc airll is to overcomc thc asyn1mctrics that cxist bct、 vccn thc chcnt and the rePrcscntauⅤ cs。 fthc s° cial agcncy “ˇithin and outsidc of thc intcrPrcting situation According to thc British manual, ‘‘ thc c。 Π1rnunity interPrCtCr pcrn1its ProfcsSi° nal and chcnt, vvith Ⅴcry diffcrcnt backgr° unds and PCrccPtions and in an uncqual rclationship of PoⅥ /er and kno、v~ ledgc,to communicate to thcir mlltual satishcti° n” (Shackman198⒋ 18)An im~

P°rtant rcquircment for this rnutual satisfacd。 n,clcarly,is thc idca that a c° nscnsus as to thc vahdity of the clairn, shared by the tvv° PartiCS,has cmcrged in rational communication Yctthe c° n11nunication can be seen as rational onlⅤ 、vhen the intcr~ prctcr s。 interⅤ cnes as to cnablc both thc chcnt to participate hlly and thc agcncy rcprcscntatives to arriⅤ c at an informcd undcrstanding of thc clai1n 502 LAx/yRENCE ∨ENUTI

Comn△ unity intcrPreting that takes an interⅤ cntionist aPPr° ach thus PrcsuPP° sCs 、11菠 JtlrgCn Habcrmas calls an“ ideal sPccd1蚯 tuation,” distinguis11cd by con(lid。 ns ’ that arc normally“ counterfactual’ bccausc“ ilYlPr。 bablc” :d△ cy include“ °PcnnCsS to thC Pubhc,inclusivcncss,equal rights to Participation,irnmunization against extcrnal or intcrnal c° mPulsion, as 、vcll as thc particiPants’ oricntation toⅥ `ard rcaching un(lcrsta】 1ding(d1敲 is,the“ nccrc cxPrCssi° n of utteranccs)” (Habcrmas199⒏ 367⒈ In PrCSuPPosing such conditions, the con1rnunity interPrCtCr、 vorks ultirnately t。

f° stcr a domcstic colnmunity that is rcccPtiⅤ c to forcign constitucncics,but that is not Ⅴct reahzcd~。 r at lcast its rcahzati。 n、vill n。 t bc advanccd until thc chcnt is givcn pohtical asylu1n, duc Pr° cCss, lucdiCal care, or、 Ⅴclfare l)cnc⒔ ts, as thc case may bc, EⅤ en thcn, 。f coursc, the rcccPtiⅤ C domcstic comluunity is PriFnarily a ut° Pian Prqccti。 n that d。 cs n° t din吐 natc thc social hicrarchics in which thc rchgec or in11uigrant is actually positioncd Still, it docs cxPrcSs the hoPe that linguistic and cultural differenccs xsill not result in thc exclusi° n of forcign constituencics

⒒°m thc d° n△ estic sccnc,Transladng n1ight be modvatcd by much m。 rc question~ al)le things