5. ORIGEN DE LA BASE SOCIAL DEL VELASQUISMO
5.3. Partidos Políticos
Critics of imitation do not find imitation entirely devoid of worth, but rather position
imitators as erring in what the critics themselves find important in translation. For example, John
Dryden (preface to Ovid’s Epistles, 1680) alleges that while imitation best serves the imitator
himself, it does the greatest wrong to the memory and reputation of the dead (Steiner 1975: 70).58
Rather, Dryden recommends the sensum de sensu approach (his “paraphrase;” he also refers to it
as “the mean betwixt [literal translation and imitation]” [Steiner 1975: 71]). Yet Dryden’s translation is still a “close” translation; while he allows for liberty in translating expressions, he refers to the sense as “sacred and inviolable” (Steiner 1975: 71). He equates the translator with the painter of a concrete subject in that both have “no right to lop off superfluous branches, although it may make the end product better” (Steiner 1975: 71). The translator is not to improve the product; instead, he is to represent accurately the sense of the source, with however many
blemishes it may have. How well he achieves this accurate representation is the translator’s sole claim to accomplishment: “Slaves we are, and labour on another man’s plantation; we dress the vineyard, but the wine is the owner’s: if the soil be sometimes barren, then we are sure of being scourged; if it be fruitful, and our care succeeds, we are not thanked; for the proud reader will
only say, the poor drudge has done his duty” (Steiner 1975: 73). Alexander Pope (preface to the
Iliad, 1715)59 similarily suggests that the only liberties to be taken are those required for bringing
58 In similar terms the 12th century translator Burgundio of Pisa defended (preface of Homilies on the Gospel of John) word-for-word translation “so long as the phrases and idioms of the other language do not become an impediment, and one does not wish to establish one’s own glory and pretend that others’ words are one’s own” (Robinson 1997b: 42). Burgundio recognizes that the literal system was not the Roman system, for “imbued as they were with the highest wisdom, and disdaining to be slaves to the cases and figures of the Greeks, they did not adhere to the Greek words but rather by their own eloquence preserved the beauty and elegance of the original sentences in their translations” (Robinson 1997b: 42-43). Since, unlike the Romans, Burgundio is not seeking glory by means of his translations, he claims to adhere to the literal model. His concern is for the source; as translator, he is in service to the preservation of that material.
Chapter 2: Translation as Promotion 35
across the spirit and poetical style of the original. He writes that more translators have been
deluded in his time “by a chimerical, insolent hope of raising and improving their author” than in
a previous era “by a servile and dull adherence to the letter” (Steiner 1975: 91).
The idea of faithfully revealing a source text to a target audience is prominent in the
writings and theories of the German Romantics. August Wilhelm von Schlegel (Dante - über die
Göttliche Komödie,1791)60 writes that translation of poetry is directed at one of two aspects,
either the work or the author. The translator who directs his attention towards revealing the work
is free to cover up imperfections; his goal is not to represent that source as he finds it, but to
bring a suitable work to the target audience. Translation aiming at the author will represent that
author with all the characteristics of that author intact, including errors or cultural remnants.
Schlegel’s analogy explains why he prefers translations that represent the author. He observes that numismatists use the presence of “noble rust” (aerugonobilis) on coins to determine their authenticity. The noble rust is the only thing that counterfeiters are unable to duplicate, and thus
anyone who would polish this rust off the coin is an ignoramus. Schlegel sees similar rust on
authors, and concludes that “only an erstwhile Frenchman would coldly polish off that rust while describing or translating the work” (Robinson 1997b: 214). Schlegel promotes his ideal form of translation as that which preserves the foreign experience, rendering the work more authoritative.
While Friedrich Schleiermacher (Ueber die verschiedenen Methoden des
Uebersetzens,1813)61 writes as if he is largely pessimistic that a translation that perfectly
recreates the source will ever be realized since the gap between languages is too vast, he
advocates an approach that brings the audience to the foreign circumstances of the source text.
60 Excerpted in Robinson 1997b: 214. 61 Excerpted in Robinson 1997b: 225-238.
Chapter 2: Translation as Promotion 36
Schleiermacher believes that in art and scholarship, the word is an arbitrary and well-established
sign for something set by each culture to represent an idea. A certain abstract quality may not
exist in another culture, or similar ideas may have different connotations. There is no one-to-one
correspondence between two languages or cultures for these abstract qualities, which prevents
artistic and scholarly translation from being mechanical. Due to the differences in complex
languages, Schleiermacher believes that different language speakers cannot truly understand
each other. While Schleiermacher recognizes that a translator can approach understanding with
the source since the translator has some appreciation of word meaning, the target-language
reader is far removed from the thinking of the source: “If the target language readers are to understand, they must grasp the spirit of the language native to the author, they must be able to
gaze upon the author’s inimitable patterns of thinking and meaning; but the only tools the translator can offer them in pursuit of these goals are their own language, which nowhere quite
corresponds to the author’s” (Robinson 1997b: 228). Thus the matrix in which the translator must work restrains his ability to pass on understanding to the target audience.
Schleiermacher is aware of two common solutions to this issue, neither of which he
approves. The first is paraphrase.62 The second solution that he identifies is imitation, whereby
the translator creates an effect on the reader that will be as close as possible to that of the original
work on the source-language reader. The problem that Schleiermacher identifies with imitation
(Robinson 1997b:229) is that it forgoes the identity of the original in striving to recreate the
original effect. An imitation strays too much from the source text as the translator directs it
62 Paraphrase was a well-recognized tactic among translators. Pierre Huet (De Interpretatione libri duo, 1684: 14) recognizes it as a method used when the translator was concerned about the target-language audience's enjoyment. John Dryden (Steiner 1975: 68–72) associates paraphrase with the customary sensum de sensu approach. Charles Batteux (1761: 345) refused to paraphrase since he believed it to be a type of commentary, which should not be present in translations.
Chapter 2: Translation as Promotion 37
toward the target audience. The imitator focuses not on representing the source, but on affecting
the target-language reader. Schleiermacher writes that “neither approach can satisfy one who has
been pierced through with the beauty of the original, who would extend the sphere of its
influence to those who speak his language, and who conceives translation in the stricter sense”
(Robinson 1997b: 229). Schleiermacher has restricted his target audience; the person unsatisfied
with imitation or paraphrasing is the one who has read the original.63
To return to his proposed binary system, Schleiermacher rejects the idea that there can be
any mixture between the options of bringing the author to the reader or reader to author, since
they are simply too far apart. In moving the reader to the author, Schleiermacher argues
(Robinson 1997: 229) that “the translator works to compensate for his reader’s unfamiliarity with
the source language, by sharing with them the very image and impression he has gained through
familiarity with the work.” In moving the author to the reader, the “author is displayed not as he would have translated his own work into the target, but rather as he would have written as a
target language speaker.” Schleiermacher makes an important distinction here, because it is easy to think that if the source author could translate his own work into a new language, then that
version would be the authoritative version in that language.64 Schleiermacher denies this,
presumably assuming that the source author would not be properly equipped to pass on
“understanding” to the target audience.
63 Strikingly, Anne Dacier proposes the exact opposite audience, stating that her audience is not those who have read the original because they know Homer better than she: “Besides, I do not write for the learned, who read Homer in his own tongue; they know him better than I pretend to; I write for those who do not know him” (Robinson 1997: 187). There is a degree of false modesty in the declaration, but translator modesty is not uncommon.
64 As an example, Plato would not have been the best equipped to translate his works into Latin, because he was not a native Latin speaker.
Chapter 2: Translation as Promotion 38
Schleiermacher insists that “reader to author” translation exists because not enough of the
audience has sufficient knowledge of the source language. If they knew the source language,
they would read the source. As such, translation fills a particular vacuum, although it seems that
only those who have been pierced by the beauty of the original can truly appreciate it since they
would be the only ones who would be seeking an equivalent to the source.65 The other approach,
Schleiermacher supposes, has nothing to do with necessity; it creeps dangerously close to
imitations, which Schleiermacher derides as shams of art.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, in his (West-Ostlicher divan, 1819)66 is similarily
concerned with bringing a target audience closer to the source but believes that ultimately a
translation that is the perfect representation of a source is possible. He argues for a style of
translation that “seeks to make the translation identical with the original, so that one would no longer be in the stead but in the place of the other” (Robinson 1997b: 223). However, this
identical nature is not aimed at replacing the original, but instead at driving the audience to it. Or
rather, the translation is to become a new and equal version of the source in a different language,
which allows the target audience to realize more fully the original. As Goethe defines it (trans.
Robinson 1997b: 224): “A translation that seeks to be identified with the original approximates, finally, the interlinear67 version; in its attempt to enhance our understanding of the original it
leads us onward, drives us on toward the source text, and so finally closes the circle in which the
65 Schleiermacher argues that translations would not be sought if the audience could read the original. As I discuss in
Chapter Six, Cicero responded (Fin. 1.1) to the objection that translations of philosophy were not required since the interested Romans learned Greek. Cicero takes the stance that by translating philosophy he will build upon the Roman literary system. Even-Zohar acknowledges the notion of a weak literary system needing to become stronger in his polysystem theory. A literary system seeks to become complete, and the members of the literary culture would, according to his theory, not be satisified by substituting literature in a foreign language for native literature.
66 Excerpted in Robinson 1997b: 222-224
67 The interlinear version of a translation is that which goes beyond even literal translation in adhering to the source (Shuttleworth and Cowie 1997: 81-82).
Chapter 2: Translation as Promotion 39
alien and the familiar, the known and the unknown, move toward each other.” The translator bridges the gap between target audience and the foreign, in fact almost erasing the divide.
Goethe does not mean that this type of translation will literally push us towards the source text;
the audience is not to seek out the actual source text and read it. Rather, it brings the audience
closer to the source as an idea, including its vocabulary and its ideas.68
Yet if it is possible to recreate the circumstances of the source text and bring the audience
to the source, it may also be possible to bring the audience into a closer relationship with the
source author. This appears to be the ideal of the German Romantic Novalis. Novalis (the pen
name of Friedrich Leopold Baron von Hardenberg), in his work Blutenstaub (1798),69 offers
three types of translation: the “grammatical,” the “transformative,” and the “mythic.” Novalis expresses his dissatisfaction with the state of translations: the grammatical translations are
“translations in the ordinary sense of that word,” and thus require much learning but “no more than expository writing skills.” He describes transformative translations are those that “body
forth the sublimest poetic spirit”, yet these translations “verge constantly on travesty, as in Burger’s iambic Homer, Pope’s Homer, or French translations generally.” He censures
contemporary models of translation while approving the mythic modality, which he construes as
an ideal that had not yet been realized. Mythic translations “reveal the pure and perfect character of the individual work of art. The work of art they give us is not the actual one, but its ideal.”
Novalis’ mythic translation posits that a translator can look beyond the source text to the
68 Kelly’s summary (1979: 49) of the Romantic ideal of translation is helpful in clarifying what Goethe is aiming for: “If the translator sought to find what was already there, and to present it as it was, the original became present in a way the eighteenth century had found impossible.” Kelly is drawing a distinction between earlier translators who tried to produce a “French Virgil” by writing translations in regular French vernacular and those who try to make a work sound as foreign (here Latin) as possible in the target language, generally by using arcane language. Goethe’s sentiments are a response and an attempt to displace earlier translators.
Chapter 2: Translation as Promotion 40
intended message. Douglas Robinson (1991: 17) relates an anecdote that shows an example70 of
what Novalis is suggesting here with mythical translation: the poet Diane derHovanessian
worked with an Armenian scholar to translate Armenian poetry. DerHovanessian and the scholar
argued over the translation of a certain word: the scholar insisted that the word that
derHovanessian wanted to use was incorrect, but she maintained that it felt right. On a trip to
Armenia derHovanessian told the source poet about the translation. He replied that not only did
her word choice perfectly capture what he had meant but, in fact, it did so better than the word he
had used. He informed derHovanessian that he wished he had used the Armenian equivalent to
the term derHovanessian had chosen when he originally wrote the poem. DerHovanessian
succeeds in doing what Novalis can only imagine as she taps into the sentiment of the original
and presents it in perfect form.71
Whereas imitators are focused on recreating the original in the circumstances of the target
culture, the German Romantics Schlegel, Goethe, Schleiermacher, and Novalis move the
audience towards the circumstances of the original. They represent themselves as intimately
familiar with the socio-literary conditions of the source and position themselves as the only
agents capable of helping guide the audience across the gap between target and source.
Schleiermacher doubts whether that gap can in fact be bridged, but he is certain that it is the
translator who lives in the space between cultures. His appeal to pleasing the experts shows how
he seeks to recreate the source in past circumstances that only the expert knows, and he awaits
the professional judgment on whether or not he has succeeded.
70 Though not for the purpose of showing what Novalis meant.
71 That this circumstance would regularly occur seems unlikely, a fact that Novalis acknowledges. However, that it
could happen is what is important for Novalis, since its occurrence means that a translator can, through the process of translating and by having other points of knowledge with the source culture and author, reach beyond the words to the ideas that motivated the writing of the source text.
Chapter 2: Translation as Promotion 41
I end the historical survey of translators at this juncture to emphasize a particular point:
despite the warnings about the shortcomings of literal translation that Cicero, Horace, and
Jerome present, it is not the case that literal translation was always viewed as inferior.
Translation styles came in and out of fashion and, in fact, Matthew Arnold (On Translating
Homer, 1861) supports ad sensum translation shortly after the Romantics claim ad uerbum as the
superior form in a debate with his fellow countryman and rival translator Francis Newman. Since
Cicero and Horace provide the most succinct statements about their programs of translation, they
dominate the discussion surrounding Roman translation.72 As a result, it appears as if Roman
translation theory was in favour of ad sensum and derisive of ad uerbum translation. A study
spread over a longer period of time finds that the position of Cicero and Horace is not
representative of every Roman translation. Indeed, although I do not label the translation
modalities as ad uerbum or ad sensum, many of the sentiments and positions of the translators
above are echoes of Roman translators. Translators make appeals to the target audience in an
effort to sway the audience into accepting their translation, and this process often includes
privileging one style of translation over another.
All of the translators in this chapter refer to the practice of the Church in one way or
another even where their works are secular in nature; as their background, they all have the idea
that a translator serves to preserve the source for a new audience. The arguments amongst
themselves are about who and what style best joins audience to source author. This thinking is a
development of Church translation, particularly of the Bible, since translation of the Bible
included a source author whom the translator could never hope to overtake. God’s role as the
72 Cicero and Horace occupy primary positions among Romans in particularly in historical reviews of translation
that treat the Romans as precusors to translation theory in continental Europe and the United Kingdom (see, for example, Rener [1989]).
Chapter 2: Translation as Promotion 42
source author of the Bible resulted in the translator’s dogma “Do not go beyond the source” that
even imitators such as Cowley and Dacier dared not betray. Romans were not under the same
compulsion to represent the source, although Roman translators could take advantage of