Comparative literature and translation have not had
a very concrete foundation for they have each overlooked or disregarded the
other. Lefevere tells the story of the coming together of these two disciplines
from the point of view of translation that hasn’t always been given its say. As
translation is considered to be generally inferior to the original. There is a
gloss or halo around a work labeled ‘original’ whereas a translation is merely
a copy of it so why should it win laurels over the original? However, Andre
Lefevere believes that a different relationship is possible where both can help
the other to grow and grow themselves as well.
It is easier to understand the negative feelings
comparatist held towards translation by studying the historical context of its
origin. When comparatist were first exposed to it during the shift from first
generation of Romantic writers and thinkers to the second in Europe. The first
generation were cosmopolitan in outlook unlike their successors with figures
like Madame de Stael. The second generation were more constrained within the
boundaries of national literature. When faced with the concept of national
literature one must consider the fact that translation is not of such
importance as there won’t be such a wide variety of languages presented. It is
on doing away with boundaries that translation forms such an important part of.
The second generation of Romantics
Cosmopolitism was replaced by a sense of national identity.
Affiliation to this identity was decided by birth and so the individual was not
at liberty to choose which country he could serve. In Romantic lingo; ‘he’ is
the most commonly used pronoun as ‘she’ did not exist unless it is in praise of
the beauty of some lady for women did not write poetry. It is but natural that
due to this thrust on national identity,
an individual always wanted to belong to the ‘superior’ culture and so, the
national language was not the means in which to read world literature in
translation; instead it was ‘the’ language of the culturally elite. It was a
showcase of natural talent and works in it were the true classics while those
by foreign authors were relegated to second place.
Due to the university needs of having world
literature in curriculum, though translation was inessential in theory it
flourished in practice. But this too had to contend with the age old study of
the classics. How could the glory of the classics be demeaned by letting them
be translated? And yet, students have been using glossaries and bilingual
editions over the centuries but the fact is this was an unacknowledged use of
them. No one could proudly say ‘Yes, I read so-and-so classic in translation’.
Comparative literature and translation
Considering the fact that comparative literature was
a discipline that consisted more of methodology and was still not widely
accepted, for it to embrace translation openly would cause it to be
academically ostracized. Thus, as the others did so did they comparatist; they
denounced the merits of translation in theory though later translation began to
be indispensible.
As long as comparatist focused on Europe doing away
with translation was plausible though difficult as one needed knowledge of
several languages which was also a prerequisite of the comparative approach.
Once, this Eurocentricity was challenged, a new problem occurred. How many
languages can one person fluently know?
“As soon as comparative literature tried to go
beyond Europe, however, translations became necessary… as soon as comparative
literature tried to compare different kinds of poetics, and not just different
variants of European poetics in its historical evolution, it could no longer
avoid confronting translation.”
One must also be aware of the conservatist attitude
towards literature that strives to maintain the ‘purity’ of a text which
translation according to it may taint instead of enrich. This feeling is more
dominant in the Western schools of thought were ‘originalism’ is seen as a sign
of genius. To substitute a word or to leave out a word or in some way to
refrain from ‘word-to-word’ translation is what these scholars feared.
The Platonic ‘logos’ where the truth cannot be
changeable means that a word cannot be successfully substituted by another. A
text like the Bible was ‘the word of God’ and thus, it would be sacrilegious if
not translated word-for-word. The original in truth is an imaginary concept for
indeed can be the original? The ‘real’ that Aristotelian logic speaks about
exists in the mental plane and what is created in the physical plane is a mere
‘imitation’ or copy of that original. Translation does away with this hierarchy
of the original and so was seen as a post-Babilian necessary evil.
Can translations be word-by-word?
For the translation not to replace the text in a
‘purist’ sense, one would have to resign oneself to agrammatical works and the
translation would then serve the purpose of being read along with the text
where they are both placed side-by-side in a sort of dictionary use. The
translation thus, would be an interpretation of the text and not a work in its
own right.
Accuracy was what was found most in fault in
translated works. The phenomena of translation was never truly reflected on as
the ‘word’ was of prime importance and not the culture from where the text was
stemming from. The sacred argument that prevented Bible translations from being
viewed as permissible was extended by the Romantics to canonized works of
literature. How can one add, subtract or find another word to equal what was
written in these texts? The critic was seen as a priest interpreting the text
whereas the translator was massacring the sacredness by disfiguring a complete
work of art.
Conservatism led to a certain elitism as well as an
amusing scenario where comparatist wrote about the symbolism in books of other
languages without bothering to see whether these foreign works were present in
the language they were written in. It makes no sense to talk of the beauty of
Beowulf if one can never read it for oneself.
Genius cannot be translated
The Romantics bestowed a concept of genius. Only a
genius could undertake the translation of the works of a genius much like
saying only a poet ought to critique a poet. This concept of ‘genius’ was vague
as there wasn’t any real checkpoint besides the work that ascribed it. If one
looks at translation in this light it would indeed be difficult to assume the
responsibility of being genius enough to translate a work written by a genius!
Amusingly when influences of one literature upon
another were studied it was assumed that the author had read the original work
as was the case in Byron’s influence of Faust. Bryon did not know German and so
could not read the original version by Goethe and had to make do with Madame de
Stael’s French version. This translation combined the main scenes of the play
with a plot summary at times. But the more interesting aspect is the Madame de
Stael omitted some part of the play which she felt did not suit her French
audience. Translations were seen as a shameful branch of study for they were
not the perfect substitutes for the original work which was haloed.
Shift in perceptions
It was with Walter Benjamin and Ezra Pound that
translations were elevated to the status of giving a text a new lease of life
or afterlife; and that occurred in the twentieth century. Benjamin’s work is
more elitist as it focus on how agrammaticality can lead to ‘pure’ language
while Pound on the other hand finds translation to be the ‘organon’ of
literature in a sense that it contributes to the development of literatures.
Translations that are more than just merely translations and are considered to
be separate works of literature in their own right can influence other writers
of that language to write original works on the same line.
The translator is now seen as a ‘giver of life’ as
for texts to be more widely read and passed on they need to be available in
more languages than one. Due to this, the translator did not turn traitor but
instead turned mediator.
“…translators could not only bestow life on the
originals they translated, they could also decide what kind of life they would
bestow on those originals and how they would try to inject them into the
receiving literature. In other words, they did, and do create an image of the
original for their time and their readership.”
The new approach
In the late 1970s and early 1980s the study of
literature began to focus more on the reception of texts than their mere production
and deconstruction too followed this premise. Because of this an interest was
created in the process of translation and the new reception theory focused on
the reception of a text propagated by translators. Even if it was genius that
created the work its propagation in another language is owed to the translator.
Deconstruction also brought to the forefront that translations serve as the
yardstick that demarcates the original from being merely a text and it is the
translations that are more important in the culture they focus on than the
original work example: Fitzgerald’s Rubaiyat.
Fundamental distinctions in translation
studies within the comparative perspective
·
Translating and Translation
Translating is the process while the translation is
the product. In the process of translating we move from the source language
(ST) to the target language (TT). In this it is how the translation is being
done that is the prime focus whereas in the latter, the product is the
translated work in itself and is the study of various translated works in their
cultural, social, economic, historic and the like context. The product approach
is more contemporary in nature.
·
Normative and Descriptive
The normative approach focuses on the norms or the
best way one is to do or study a translation and demarcates it on the lines of
good and bad through this. The descriptive method on the other hand eschews
such evaluation and judgment and instead is more interested in the reception –
why people consider a translated work good or bad rather than what are the
norms that can make it good or bad. This is also called DTS and
pseudotranslations too are studied in this context.
·
Analysis and Production
This is the main distinguishing feature that sets
apart the contemporary approach where the activity of producing is seen to be
very different from the theory. You may be a good critic but that does not make
you a good poet. Study of a subject may not result in the proficiency that can
make a translator practically engage with the work and do it well.
6
century AD to 1970s
|
After
1970s
|
Process
|
Product
|
Normative
|
Descriptive
|
Production
|
Analysis
|
Thus, considering the methodology of comparative
literature it would be very interesting to study the intercultural exchange in
translations through its context. The increasing acceptance and in-flow of
translated works when studied through the comparative perspective may help
boost the diminishing hold in the literary circuit that comparative literature
features today.
Your overview is so easy to understand, it makes last minute revision so easy!
ReplyDelete