When considering the relationship between original works of literature and derivative works like translations, an interesting place to start is with Walter Benjamin’s 1923 article “The Task of the Translator.” Like his earlier compatriots Goethe and Shleiermacher, Benjamin believed that translation was far more than a mere matter of conveying information. But Benjamin had a completely different goal in mind for the ultimate aim of translation. For him, translation was a way to access something profound and metaphysical. He believed in an underlying ‘kinship of languages’, a transcendent truth to which all languages strive. He believed that the main purpose of translation was to represent a relationship between languages which points toward this underlying truth, this ‘pure language.’ To do this, he recommends a translator undertake a rigorous word-for-word translation, which “For the sake of pure language […] breaks through decayed barriers of his own language.”1 The resulting work will be a cacophonous and nearly incoherent string of words, but will have the virtue of creating a new language that blurs the boundaries of syntax and semantics, ending up with a text that is representative of a greater portion of ‘pure language’ than can be contained within a single language.
It’s a lofty goal. And frankly one that I’m not particularly interested in pursuing. Benjamin’s “Task” strikes me as unapologetically elitist, a way of producing a literature for philosophers of language and no one else. By focusing on a single genre (poetry) which, in his mind, exists for a single purpose (metaphysical transcendence), Benjamin overlooks the countless and complex varieties and purposes of literature.
André Lefevere, on the other hand, is keenly aware of this diversity of purpose and genre within literature. In his article “Mother Courage’s Cucumbers: Text, system and refraction in a theory of literature” he argues for an approach to literary theory that sees literature as a system which includes objects (original works as well as ‘refractions’ such as translations, adaptation, but also anthologies, reviews, stagings and teaching) and people (from writers and translators to critics and audiences).2 For Lefevere, the translator is necessarily bound by the code of behaviour, or poetics, of the receiving culture. This poetics, by definition, differs for that which governed the production of the source text. Translation, therefore, is “a compromise between two kinds of poetics, in which the poetics of the receiving system plays the dominant part.”3 This, he contends, is not necessarily a bad thing, and does not necessarily result in “bad” translations. For him, translations help make visible the norms and interests (or patronages) that shape the possibilities for literature within a national or subnational context, and are therefore useful tools for analyzing how literatures evolve.
Both Benjamin and Lefevere deny the traditional hierarchy between original and derivative works. Benjamin sees translations as critical for the preservation of great works of literature, and envisions both originals and translations as critical parts of the greater poetic process of uncovering ‘pure language.’ For his part, Lefevere considers both originals and ‘refractions’ (including translations) to be essential for the dissemination and canonization of works and authors. Both agree that original works owe much to their derivatives, but they disagree on the ultimate purposes of the act of translation.
Matt Robertshaw
5 October, 2017
1 Walter Benjamin, “The Task of the Translator,” in The Translation Studies Reader, 1st ed., ed. Lawrence Venuti (New York; London: Routledge, 2000), 22.
2 André Lefevere, “Mother Courage’s Cucumbers: Text, system and refraction in a theory of literature,” in The Translation Studies Reader, 1st ed., ed. Lawrence Venuti (New York; London: Routledge, 2000), 235.
3 Lefevere, “Mother Courage,” 242.
Sources:
Benjamin, Walter. “The Task of the Translator.” In The Translation Studies Reader, 1st ed., edited by Lawrence Venuti, 15-25. New York; London: Routledge, 2000.
Lefevere, André. “Mother Courage’s Cucumbers: Text, system and refraction in a theory of literature.” In The Translation Studies Reader, 1st ed., edited by Lawrence Venuti, 233-249. New York; London: Routledge, 2000.
Thanks for your analytical approach to both authors and emphasizing their shared perspective on the original/translation divide. Admittedly, they come from different places altogether, so it is important to mention their divergences, as you have. I especially enjoyed reading your frankness about Benjamin's writing and the way you "quarrelled" with him.
ReplyDelete