Page1

TheManifestationofTranslation
Thedomainoftranslationhasalwaysbeenthesiteofacuriouscontradiction.Ontheonehand,translationisconsideredtobeapurelyintuitivepracticeinpart
technical,inpartliterarywhich,atbottom,doesnotrequireanyspecifictheoryorformofreflection.Ontheotherhand,therehasbeenatleastsinceCicero,
Horace,andSaintJeromeanabundanceofwritingsontranslationofareligious,philosophical,literary,methodologicalor,morerecently,scientificnature.Now,
thoughnumeroustranslatorshavewrittenontheirdiscipline,itisundeniablethatuntilrecentlythebulkofthesewritingshascomefromnontranslators.Thedefinition
ofthe"problems"oftranslationhasbeenundertakenbytheologians,philosophers,linguists,orcritics.Thishashadatleastthreeconsequences.First,translationhas
remainedanunderground,hiddenactivitybecauseitdidnotexpressitselfindependently.Second,translationassuchhaslargelyremained"unthought,"becausethose
whodealtwithittendedtoassimilateittosomethingelse:(sub)literature,(sub)criticism,"appliedlinguistics."Finally,theanalysesproducedalmostexclusivelyby
nontranslators,whatevertheirqualitiesmaybe,inevitablycontainnumerous"blindspots"andirrelevancies.
Ourcenturyhaswitnessedthegradualtransformationofthissituationandtheconstitutionofavastcorpusoftextsbytranslators.Inaddition,thereflectionon
translationhasbecomeaninternalnecessityoftranslationitself,aswasinpartthecaseinclassicalandromanticGermany.Thisreflectiondoesnotquitetakethe
formofa"theory,"ascanbeseenfromValeryLarbaud'sSousl'invocationdesaintJerme.Butinanycase,itindicatesthewilloftranslationtobecomean
autonomouspractice,capableofdefiningandsituatingitself,andconsequentlytobecommunicated,shared,andtaught.
HistoryofTranslation
Theconstructionofahistoryoftranslationisthefirsttaskofamoderntheoryoftranslation.Whatcharacterizesmodernityisnotaninfatuation

Page2

withthepast,butamovementofretrospectionwhichisaninfatuationwithitself.ThusthepoetcritictranslatorPoundmeditatedsimultaneouslyonthehistoryof
poetry,ofcriticism,andoftranslation.Thusthegreatretranslationsofourcentury(Dante,theBible,Shakespeare,theGreeks,etc.)arenecessarilyaccompaniedby
areflectiononprevioustranslations.1 Thisreflectionmustbeextendedanddeepened.Wecannolongerbesatisfiedwiththeuncertainperiodizationsconcerningthe
WesternhistoryoftranslationedifiedbyGeorgeSteinerinAfterBabel.Itisimpossibletoseparatethehistoryoftranslationfromthehistoryoflanguages,ofcultures,
andofliteraturesevenofreligionsandofnations.Tobesure,thisisnotaquestionofmixingeverythingup,butofshowinghowineachperiodorineachgiven
historicalsettingthepracticeoftranslationisarticulatedinrelationtothepracticeofliterature,oflanguages,oftheseveralinterculturalandinterlinguisticexchanges.
Totakeanexample,LeonardForsterhasshownthatEuropeanpoetsattheendoftheMiddleAgesandintheRenaissancewereoftenmultilingual.2 Theywrotein
severallanguagesforanaudiencewhichwasitselfpolyglot.Nolessfrequentlydidtheytranslatethemselves.SuchisthemovingcaseoftheDutchpoetHooftwho,on
theoccasionofthedeathofhisbelovedwife,composedawholeseriesofepitaphs,atfirstinDutch,theninLatin,theninItalian,thensomewhatlateragainin
Dutch.Asifheneededtopassthroughawholeseriesoflanguagesandselftranslationsinordertoarriveattherightexpressionofhisgriefinhismothertongue.
ReadingForster,itseemsclearthatthepoetsofthatperiodworkedbeitincultivatedorpopularspheresinaninfinitelymoremultilingualenvironmentthanour
ownperiod(whichisalsomultilingual,butinadifferentway).Therewerethelearnedlanguagesthe"queen"languages,asCervantesputit:Latin,Greek,and
Hebrewthereweredifferentwrittennationallanguages(French,English,Spanish,Italian),andamassofregionallanguagesanddialects,etc.Apersonwalkingalong
thestreetsofParisorAntwerpmusthaveheardmorelanguagesthanareheardtodayinNewYorkCity:Hislanguagewasonlyoneamongmany,whichrelativized
themeaningofthemothertongue.Insuchanenvironmentwritingtendedtobe,atleastinpart,multilingual,andthemedievalrulethatassignedcertainpoeticgenresto
certainlanguagesforexample,fromthethirteenthtothefifteenthcentury,amongthetroubadoursinthenorthofItaly,lyricalpoetrywasassignedtoProvencalwhile
epic,ornarrative,poetrywasassignedtoFrenchwasinpartprolonged.ThusMiltonwrotehislovepoemsinItalianbecause,asheexplainedinoneofthemtothe
Italianladytowhomtheywereaddressed,"questalinguadicuisivantaAmore."ItgoeswithoutsayingthatthesaidladyalsoknewEnglish,butthatwasnotthe
languageoflove.FormenlikeHooftandMilton,the

Page3

conceptionoftranslationmusthavebeendifferentfromours,aswastheirconceptionofliterature.Forus,selftranslationsareexceptions,asarethecaseswherea
writerchoosesalanguageotherthanhisownthinkofConradorBeckett.Weeventhinkthatmultilingualismordiglossiamaketranslationdifficult.Inshort,theentire
relationtothemothertongue,towardforeignlanguages,towardliterature,towardexpressionandtranslationisstructureddifferentlytoday.
Towritethehistoryoftranslationistopatientlyrediscovertheinfinitelycomplexanddeviousnetworkinwhichtranslationiscaughtupineachperiodorindifferent
settings.Anditistoturnthehistoricalknowledgeacquiredfromthisactivityintoanopeningofourpresent.
AnAncillaryCondition
Inthefinalinstance,theissueistoknowwhattranslationmustmeaninourculturalsettingtoday.Thisproblemisaccompaniedbyanotherone,ofanalmostpainful
intensity.Iamreferringheretosomethingthatcannotnotbementionedtheobscured,repressed,reprieved,andancillaryconditionoftranslation,whichreflects
upontheconditionofthetranslatortosuchanextentthatitishardlypossiblethesedaystomakeanautonomousdisciplineofthispractice.
Theconditionoftranslationisnotonlyancillaryitis,intheeyesofthepublicaswellasintheeyesofthetranslatorsthemselves,suspect.Aftersomanysuccessful
accomplishments,masterpieces,theovercomingofsomanyallegedimpossibilities,howcouldtheItalianadagetraduttoretradittorestillremaininplaceasthelast
judgmentontranslation?Andyet,itistruethatinthisdomain,fidelityandtreasonareincessantlyatissue.Translating,asFranzRosenzweigwrote,"istoservetwo
masters"thisistheancillarymetaphor.Thework,theauthor,theforeignlanguage(firstmaster)havetobeserved,aswellasthepublicandone'sownlanguage
(secondmaster).Hereemergeswhatmaybecalledthedramaofthetranslator.
Ifthetranslatorchoosestheauthor,thework,andtheforeignlanguageasexclusivemasters,aimingtoimposethemonhisownculturalrealmintheirpureforeign
form,herunstheriskofappearingtobeaforeigner,atraitorintheeyesofhiskin.AndthetranslatorcannotbesurethatthisradicalattemptinSchleiermacher's
words,"toleadthereadertotheauthor"willnotturnagainsthimandproduceatextleaningtowardtheunintelligible.Butiftheattemptissuccessfulandthe
accomplishmentperhapsrecognized,thetranslatorcannotbesurethattheotherculturewillnotfeel"robbed,"deprivedofaworkitconsideredirreduciblyitsown.
Herewetouchuponthehyperdelicatedomainoftherelationsbetweenthetranslatorand"his"authors.

Page4

Ontheotherhand,ifthetranslatorsettlesforaconventionaladaptationoftheforeignworkinSchleiermacher'swords,"leadingtheauthortothereader"hewill
havesatisfiedtheleastdemandingpartofthepublic,sureenough,buthewillhaveirrevocablybetrayedtheforeignworkaswellas,ofcourse,theveryessenceof
translation.
Nevertheless,thisimpossiblesituationisnottheinescapablerealityoftranslation:Itis,rather,basedonanumberofideologicalpresuppositions.Theletteredpublicof
thesixteenthcentury,mentionedbyForster,rejoicedinreadingaworkinitsdifferentlinguisticvariantsitignoredtheissueoffidelityandtreasonbecauseitdidnot
holditsmothertonguesacred.PerhapsthisverysacralizationisthesourceoftheItalianadageandofallthe"problems"oftranslation.Ourletteredpublic,foritspart,
demandsthattranslationbeimprisonedinadimensioninwhichitmustbesuspect.Hencethoughthisisbynomeanstheonlyreasontheeffacementofthe
translatorwhoseeks"tomakehimselfverysmall,"tobeahumblemediatorofforeignworks,andalwaysatraitorevenasheportrayshimselfasfidelityincarnate.
Timehascometomeditateonthisrepressionoftranslationandonthe"resistances"thatunderlieit.Wemayformulatetheissueasfollows:Everycultureresists
translation,evenifithasanessentialneedforit.TheveryaimoftranslationtoopenupinwritingacertainrelationwiththeOther,tofertilizewhatisone'sOwn
throughthemediationofwhatisForeignisdiametricallyopposedtotheethnocentricstructureofeveryculture,thatspeciesofnarcissismbywhicheverysociety
wantstobeapureandunadulteratedWhole.Thereisatingeoftheviolenceofcrossbreedingintranslation.Herderwaswellawareofthiswhenhecompareda
languagethathasnotyetbeentranslatedtoayoungvirgin.Itisanothermatterthatinrealityavirginlanguageorcultureisasfictitiousasapurerace.Wearedealing
herewithunconsciouswishes.Everyculturewantstobeselfsufficientandusethisimaginaryselfsufficiencyinordertoshineforthontheothersandappropriatetheir
patrimony.AncientRomanculture,classicalFrenchculture,andmodernNorthAmericanculturearestrikingexamplesofthis.
Here,translationoccupiesanambiguousposition.Ontheonehand,itheedsthisappropriationaryandreductionaryinjunction,andconstitutesitselfasoneofits
agents.Thisresultsinethnocentrictranslations,orwhatwemaycall"bad"translations.But,ontheotherhand,theethicalaimoftranslatingisbyitsverynature
opposedtothisinjunction:Theessenceoftranslationistobeanopening,adialogue,acrossbreeding,adecentering.Translationis"aputtingintouchwith,"oritis
nothing.
Thecontradictionbetweenthereductionistaimofcultureandtheethicalaimoftranslatingcanbefoundonalllevelsonthelevelof

Page5

theoriesandmethodsoftranslation(as,forexample,intheperennialoppositionbetweenthechampionsofthe"letter"andthechampionsofthe"spirit"),aswellason
thelevelofthetranslatingpracticeandthepsychicbeingofthetranslator.Atthispoint,inorderfortranslationtogainaccesstoitsownbeing,anethicsandan
analyticarerequired.
EthicsofTranslation
Onthetheoreticallevel,theethicsoftranslationconsistsofbringingout,affirming,anddefendingthepureaimoftranslationassuch.Itconsistsofdefiningwhat
"fidelity"is.Translationcannotbedefinedsolelyintermsofcommunication,ofthetransmissionofmessages,orofextendedrewording.Noristranslationapurely
literary/estheticalactivity,evenwhenitisintimatelyconnectedwiththeliterarypracticeofagivenculturalrealm.Tobesure,translationiswritingandtransmitting.But
thiswritingandthistransmissiongettheirtruesenseonlyfromtheethicalaimbywhichtheyaregoverned.Inthissense,translationisclosertosciencethantoartat
leasttothosewhomaintainthatartisethicallyirresponsible.
Definingthisethicalaimmoreprecisely,andtherebyliberatingtranslationfromitsideologicalghetto,isoneofthetasksofatheoryoftranslation.
Butthispositiveethicsinturnsupposestwothings:first,anegativeethics,thatis,atheoryofthoseideologicalandliteraryvaluesthattendtoturntranslationaway
fromitspureaim.Thetheoryofnonethnocentrictranslationisalsoatheoryofethnocentrictranslation,whichistosayofbadtranslation.AbadtranslationIcallthe
translationwhich,generallyundertheguiseoftransmissibility,carriesoutasystematicnegationofthestrangenessoftheforeignwork.
AnalyticofTranslation
Second,thisnegativeethicsmustbecomplementedbyananalyticoftranslationandoftranslating.Culturalresistanceproducesasystematicsofdeformationsthat
operatesonthelinguisticandliterarylevels,andthatconditionsthetranslator,whetherhewantsitornot,whetherheknowsitornot.Thereversibledialecticoffidelity
andtreasonispresentinthetranslator,eveninhispositionasawriter:Thepuretranslatoristheonewhoneedstowritestartingfromaforeignwork,aforeign
language,andaforeignauthoranotabledetour.Onthepsychiclevel,thetranslatorisambivalent,wantingtoforcetwothings:toforcehisownlanguagetoadorn
itselfwithstrangeness,andtoforcetheotherlanguagetotransportitselfintohismothertongue.3 Hepresents

Page6

himselfasawriter,butisonlyarewriter.Heisanauthor,butneverTheAuthor.Thetranslatedworkisawork,butitisnotTheWork.Thisnetworkofambivalences
tendstodeformthepureaimoftranslationandtograftitselfontotheideologicaldeformationdiscussedabove.Andtostrengthenit.
Ifthepureaimoftranslationistobemorethanapiouswishoracategoricalimperative,"ananalyticoftranslationshouldbeaddedtotheethicsoftranslation.The
translatorhasto"subjecthimselftoanalysis,"tolocalizethesystemsofdeformationthatthreatenhispracticeandoperateunconsciouslyonthelevelofhislinguisticand
literarychoicessystemsthatdependsimultaneouslyontheregistersoflanguage,ofideology,ofliterature,andofthetranslator'smentalmakeup.Onecouldalmost
callthisapsychoanalysisoftranslation,similartoBachelard'spsychoanalysisofthescientificspirit:itinvolvesthesameascetic,thesameselfscrutinizing
operation.Thisanalyticcanbeverified,carriedoutbyglobalandrestrictedanalyses.Dealingwithanovel,forinstance,onemightstudythesystemoftranslationthat
hasbeenused.Inthecaseofanethnocentrictranslation,thissystemtendstodestroythesystemoftheoriginal.Everytranslatorcanobservewithinhimselfthe
redoubtablerealityofthisunconscioussystem.Byitsnature,likeeveryanalyticprocedure,thisanalyticshouldbeplural.Thusonewouldbeonthewaytowardan
open,nolongersolitary,practiceoftranslation.Andtowardtheestablishmentofacriticismoftranslation,parallelandcomplementarytothecriticismoftexts.
Furthermore,atextualanalysis,carriedoutagainstthebackgroundoftranslation,shouldbeaddedtothisanalyticofthetranslatingpractice:Everytexttobetranslated
presentsitsownsystematicity,encountered,confronted,andrevealedbythetranslation.Inthissense,itwaspossibleforPoundtosaythattranslationisasuigeneris
formofcriticisminthatitlaysbarethehiddenstructuresofatext.Thissystemoftheworkpresentsthefiercestresistancetotranslation,whilesimultaneouslymaking
itpossibleandgivingitmeaning.
TheOtherSideoftheText
Inthisframeworktherewillalsoberoomtoanalyzethesystemofgains"and"losses"manifestedinalltranslations,evensuccessfuloneswhatiscalledthe
"approximating"characteroftranslation.Affirming,atleastimplicitly,thatthetranslation"potentiates"theoriginal,Novalishascontributedtoourunderstandingthat
gainsandlossesarenotsituatedonthesamelevel.Thatistosay,inatranslationthereisnotonlyacertainpercentageofgainsandlossesalongsidethis

Page7

undeniablelevel,thereisanotherlevelwheresomethingoftheoriginalappearsthatdoesnotappearinthesourcelanguage.Thetranslationturnstheoriginalaround,
revealsanothersideofit.Whatistheotherside?Thisiswhatneedstobediscernedmoreclearly.Inthatsense,theanalyticoftranslationshouldteachussomething
aboutthework,aboutitsrelationtoitslanguageandtolanguageingeneral.Somethingthatneitheramerereadingnorcriticismcanunveil.Byreproducingthesystem
oftheworkintoitslanguage,thetranslationtiltsit,whichis,unquestionably,againa"potentiation."Goethehadthesameintuitionwhenhetalkedabout"regeneration."
Thetranslatedworkissometimesregenerated"notonlyontheculturalorsociallevel,butinitsownspeaking.Tothis,inaddition,correspondsanawakeninginthe
targetlanguageofstilllatentpossibilitiesbythetranslation,whichitalone,inadifferentwaythanliterature,hasthepowertoawaken.ThepoetHlderlinopensupthe
possibilitiesoftheGermanlanguage,homologousbutnotidenticaltothoseheopenedupasatranslator.
MetaphysicalAimandtheDriveofTranslating
Presently,Ishouldliketoexaminebrieflyhowthepureethicalaimoftranslationisarticulatedalongwithanotheraimthemetaphysicalaimoftranslationand,
correlatively,withwhatmaybecalledthedriveoftranslating.BythelatterImeanthatdesirefortranslatingthatconstitutesthetranslatorastranslator,whichcanbe
designatedbytheFreudiantermdrivesinceithas,asValeryLarbaudemphasized,something"sexual"inthebroadsenseoftheterm.
Whatisthemetaphysicalaimoftranslation?Inatextthathasbecomealmostcanonical,WalterBenjaminspeaksofthetaskofthetranslator.Thiswouldconsistof
asearch,beyondthebuzzofempiricallanguages,forthe"purelanguage"whicheachlanguagecarrieswithinitselfasitsmessianicecho.Suchanaim,whichhas
nothingtodowiththeethicalaim,isrigorouslymetaphysicalinthesensethatitplatonicallysearchesa"truth"beyondnaturallanguages.TheGermanRomantics,whom
Benjaminmentionsinhisessay,andmostnotablyNovalis,havebeenthepurestincarnationofthisaim.ItisthetranslationagainstBabel,againstthereignof
differences,againsttheempirical.Curiously,thisisalsolookedfor,initswildstateasitwere,bythepuredriveoftranslatingsuchasitismanifested,forinstance,in
A.W.SchlegelorArmandRobin.Thedesiretotranslateeverything,tobeapolyoromnitranslator,isaccompaniedinSchlegelandRobinbyaproblematic,even
antagonistic,relationtotheirmothertongue.ForSchlegel,Germanisclumsy,stiffcapable,tobesure,ofbeingputto"work,"butnot

Page8

to''play."Forhim,theaimofpolytranslationispreciselytomakethemothertongue"play.Inoneinstance,thisaimmergeswiththeethicalaim,asitisexpressedby
someonelikeHumboldt,forwhomtranslationshould"expand"theGermanlanguage.Inreality,however,thetranslatingdriveleavesanyhumanistprojectfarbehind.
Polytranslationbecomesanendinitself,theessenceofwhichistoradicallydenaturalizethemothertongue.Thetranslatingdrivealwaysstartsoffwitharefusalof
whatSchleiermacherhascalleddasheimischeWohlbefindenderSprachetheindigenouswellbeingoflanguage.Thetranslatingdrivealwayspositsanother
languageasontologicallysuperiortothetranslator'sownlanguage.Indeed,isitnotamongthefirstexperiencesofanytranslatortofindhislanguagedeprived,asit
were,poorinthefaceofthelinguisticwealthoftheforeignwork?Thedifferenceamonglanguagesotherlanguagesandone',sownlanguageishierarchizedhere.
Thus,forexample,EnglishorSpanishwouldbemore"flexible,"more"concrete,""richer"thanFrench!Thishierarchizationhasnothingtodowithanobjective
statementoffact:Thetranslatortakesofffromit,hitsuponitinhispractice,reaffirmsitincessantly.ArmandRobin'scaseclearlyprovesthis"hatred"ofthemother
tongue,whichsetsinmotionthetranslatingdrive.Robinhad,asitwere,twonativelanguages:Fissel,aBretondialect,andFrench.Hispolytranslationalactivity
obviouslyspringsfromthehatredofhis"second"mothertongue,whichheconsiderstobeseverelydeficient:
AllthemoreIlovedforeignlanguages,tomepure,atsuchadistance:inmyFrenchlanguage(mysecondlanguage)therehadbeenallformsoftreason.
Init,onecouldsayyestoinfamy!

Itisobviousthat,inthiscase,themetaphysicalpurposeofsurpassingthefinitudeofempiricallanguagesandofone'sownlanguageinamessianicmomentumtowards
purespeechinRobin'swords,"tobetheWord,notwords"islinkedtothepuretranslationaldrivewhichseekstotransformthenativelanguagethrougha
confrontationwithnonnative,andthereforesuperior,languagesmore"flexible,"more"playful,"ormore"pure."
Onemightsaythatthemetaphysicalpurposeoftranslationisabadsublimationofthetranslationaldrive,whereastheethicalpurposeisthesurpassingofit.Indeed,the
translationaldriveisthepsychicfoundationoftheethicalaimwithoutit,thelatterwouldbenothingbutanimpotentimperative.Thetranslationalmimesisisnecessarily
ofthenatureofadrive.Atthesametime,however,itsurpassesthedrive,preciselybecauseitnolongerseeksthissecretdestruction/transformationofthenative
languagewhichiswishedforbythetranslationaldrive

Page9

andthemetaphysicalaim.Throughthesurpassingrepresentedbythemetaphysicalaim,anotherdesireismanifested:thedesiretoestablishadialogicrelation
betweenforeignlanguageandnativelanguage.
HistoryofTranslation
EthicsofTranslation
AnalyticofTranslation

Thesethen,arethethreeaxesalongwhichwecandefineamodernreflectionontranslationandtranslating.
TranslationandTranstextuality
Afourthaxisshouldbeadded,dealingwiththedomainofliterarytheoryandoftranstextuality.Atrulyliteraryworkisalwaysdevelopedagainstthebackgroundof
translation.DonQuixoteisthemoststrikingexampleofthis.Inhisnovel,Cervantesexplainsthatthemanuscriptcontaininghishero'sadventureswasallegedlywritten
byaMoor,CidHametBengeli.Thisisnotall:severaltimesDonQuixoteandthepriestengageinscholarlydiscussionsconcerningthetranslation,andmostofthe
novelsthathaveupsetthehero'sspiritarealsotranslations.ThereisafabulousironyinthefactthatthegreatestSpanishnovelshouldhavebeenpresentedbyits
authorasatranslationfromtheArabic,whichhadbeenthedominantlanguageinthePeninsulaforcenturies.Tobesure,thiscouldteachussomethingaboutthe
Spanishculturalconsciousness.Butalsoabouttheconnectionbetweenliteratureandtranslation.Thisconnectioncanbewitnessedthroughoutthecenturies:fromthe
fifteenthandsixteenthcenturypoetsthroughHlderlin,Nerval,Baudelaire,Mallarm,George,Rilke,Benjamin,Pound,Joyce,Beckett.
Thisisafruitfulfieldofresearchforthetheoryoftranslation,provideditgoesbeyondthenarrowframeworkoftranstextuality,andisconnectedtoresearchon
languagesandculturesingeneralamultidisciplinaryfieldwithinwhichtranslatorscouldcollaboratefruitfullywithwriters,literarytheorists,psychoanalysts,and
linguists.
Paris,May1981