Skip to main content

Week 8 Readings, or History Repeats Itself (in Translation)

As a student of history with a strong interest in translation for its own sake, I found this weeks readings particularly eye-opening. Quite often when I read history—whether primary documents or the works of historians—I ask myself how these people from various linguistic communities are communicating. Despite Julio-César Santoyo’s attestation that there are “thousands of examples [… of] documents that tell of interpreters involved in embassies and legations (both secret and official), peace and trade treaties, settlements of frontiers, royal marriages,” the fact remains that the critical role of translators and interpreters is overwhelmingly absent from historical records and narratives.1 This, no doubt, speaks to the ubiquity of translators and the notion that a good translator must remain invisible, but it also poses a problem for those who wish to study the history of translation. I would be keenly interested, for instance, to know more about the processes and power dynamics at play in the context of the early European exploration and colonization of the Americas. The people who performed this crucial function—who they were, how they found themselves in a position to enable cultural exchanges—and descriptions of the interpretative procedures themselves are largely left out of the record. Admittedly, one often hears about Doña Marina (the Nahua woman famous as the mistress of and interpreter for Hernán Cortés), but the virtually infinite number of less celebrated intermediaries are forgotten. As Santoyo remarks, this represents one of many gaps in our understanding of translation though history.

On the other hand, from my perspective as a historian it is exciting to think about all that Translation Studies has to offer to the study of history. Analyses of the people and processes involved in the successful (or unsuccessful) interactions between disparate cultures can undoubtedly add depth, nuance and greater accuracy to our understanding of the past. Consider an example from my own area of interest. In recent years we have achieved a better understanding of the Haitian Revolution by considering the production of two famous works of translation. In 1793 and again in 1801, in order to pacify the insurgent slave (and later ex-slave) population, the French government(s) issued two proclamations and had them translated into Haitian Creole to be disseminated and read aloud throughout the colony. These were the first known documents to be translated into Creole. In 2015, Annette Joseph-Gabriel (a professor of French and francophone studies at the University of Michigan) published an article in which she showed how “the anonymous translators often subverted French power and authority, producing Creole versions of these official proclamations that were often more inclusive and created space for the audience of ex-slaves to participate in debating and defining their liberty, equality and citizenship.”2 There is no doubt, in light of such discoveries, that translation history is a mutually beneficial pursuit. While translation scholars gain a more thorough understanding of how their subject has developed over time, historians get a more detailed look at the intricacies of the interactions at the heart of their research.

Matt Robertshaw
2 November, 2017


Notes:

1 Julio-César Santoyo, “Blank Spaces in the History of Translation,” in Charting the Future of Translation History, eds. Paul F. Bandia and Georges L. Bastin (Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 2006), 14.

2 Annette K. Joseph-Gabriel, “Creolizing Freedom: French—Creole Translations of Liberty and Equality in the Haitian Revolution,” Slavery & Abolition 36 no. 1 (2015): 111.


Sources:

Joseph-Gabriel, Annette K. “Creolizing Freedom: French—Creole Translations of Liberty and Equality in the Haitian Revolution.” Slavery & Abolition 36 no. 1 (2015): 111-123.

Santoyo, Julio-César. “Blank Spaces in the History of Translation.” In Charting the Future of Translation History, edited by Paul F. Bandia and Georges L. Bastin, 11-40. Ottawa: University of Ottawa, 2006.

Comments

  1. sehnaz tahir13 November 2017 at 12:12

    Thank you! It is interesting to get feedback from a historian on translation history. In translation history, there is an ongoing debate about the advantages and limitations of collaborating with historians. Your blog would prove the "advantage" side. I wish you had written a bit about the textual manipulations by the anonymous translators of the proclamations but thanks for sharing that source with me. I will make sure I take a look at Joseph-Gabriel's article.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Unknown13 November 2017 at 18:50

    Thank you for a thorough review of Julio-César Santoyo’s paper, Matt.

    I agree with the point you are making on the importance of the history of interpretation (oral translation). Although, as you are justifiably arguing “the role of interpreters is overwhelmingly absent from historical records and narratives”, interpreters often play crucial part in history, sacrificing their careers, social positions, and even lives.

    For example, during the period of the Great Purge (the Great Terror), a campaign of political repression in the Soviet Union in 1930-ties, a great number (this number is still unknown today) of Ukrainian translators and interpreters were executed for espionage. In 1938 Ukrainian translator and interpreter Veronika Chernyahivska, who was interpreting for the Ministry of Health in Kyiv from German, French, English, was sentenced to execution by firing squad after becoming demented at Lukyanivska jail due to numerous interrogations. Works of Chernyahivska and other Ukrainian translators were restricted during the Great Purge. I believe it is important for modern Translation Studies scholars and historians to turn their attention to the works of these professionals, who sacrificed their lives performing uneasy tasks of interpreters.

    Acceding to your comment that the study of translation process and translators involved in the successful (or unsuccessful) interactions between divergent cultures can “add greater accuracy to understanding of the past”, I would like to point out that it is important to investigate the reasons of the translation errors, which led to such unsuccessful interactions. Revealing these reasons may lead to more exhaustive understanding of historic events. Here it is important to turn to the example drawn by Julio-César Santoyo on the translation of the statement of Japanese Prime Minister, Kantaro Suzuki, about the value of Potsdam Declaration. Santoyo argues that the junior State Department official in charge of translating “lacked the necessary linguistic sophistication” and missed the subtle subtext of Suzuki’s reply altogether. Is it possible to state that the interpretation of this reply led to “dropping of the first two atomic bombs”? Did this translator make this error on purpose? I believe that Translator Studies may be able to answer this question. It is important to have the knowledge on the personal background of the interpreter in order to be able to discuss the error s/he made.

    Therefore, it is possible to add another blank space to Santoyo’s overview of the neglected areas in the history of translation. Interpreters’ and translators’ personal histories may supplement the broad picture of the history of Translation Studies.

    Alina Zdrazhko

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Week 7 Readings, or Polysystems from Ancient Greece to Modern Haiti

While reading about Itamar Even-Zohar’s polysystem theory and the potential centrality of translated works in a national literature, I couldn’t help but think about Haiti. The author identifies three contexts in which translation can play a central role in the development of a national literature: (1) when a literature is “young”, (2) when it is “weak” or “peripheral”, or (3) when it encounters turning points, crises, or vacuums. 1 Haiti has a strong literary tradition in French, stretching back to the nineteenth century, but its national literature in Haitian Creole (the first language of the entire population, and the only language of the vast majority), only began to develop in earnest in middle of the twentieth century. In fact, the birth of Haitian Creole literature can be positively dated to 1953, and the appearance of two important works by one highly influential author. Even-Zohar would be delighted to know that one of them was a translation. The translation in quest...
3 comments
Read more

Annotated Bibliography

Annotated Bibliography for “Aslan of the Antilles: A Commission and Skopos for the Translation of C. S. Lewis’s The Magician’s Nephew into Haitian Creole.” Source Text and Reference Texts: Lewis, C. S. The Magician’s Nephew . 1955. Reprint, New York: HarperCollins, 2002. I will be exploring the translatability of C.S. Lewis’s 1955 children’s fantasy novel The Magician’s Nephew into Haitian Creole, developing a skopos to guide the process, and using this framework to analyze certain issues that the project will present. As a work of fantasy fiction written in England in the 1950s, the novel presents several complications that will need to be addressed in order to produce an intelligible Haitian Creole version. Lewis, C. S. Konpè Lyon, Konmè Lougawou ak Amwa majik la . Translated by Hans Michel Fortunat and Matthew Robertshaw. Pompano Beach, FL: Educa Vision, 2017. The Magician’s Nephew is a prequel to The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe . I will draw ex...
1 comment
Read more

Week 3 Readings, or The Epochs of Translation

This week we looked at three ‘historical statements’ on translation: John Dryden’s “ Preface to Ovid’s Epistles ” (1680), Friedrich Schleiermacher ’s thorough investigation “On the different methods of translating” (1813) and Johann Wolfgang von Goethe’s short essay on translation (1819). Ironically, or perhaps appropriately, the latter two works were translated from early-nineteenth-century German, while the first, written in late-seventeenth-century English, presents its own challenges for the modern reader. Each of these works attempts to delineate and assess the value of different approaches to the act of translation. Dryden and Goethe both identify three kinds of translation. Dryden’s spectrum ranges from Metaphrase, or a word-for-word translation, to Paraphrase, which maintains the meaning of the text but diverges from the words themselves, to Imitation, whereby the translator assumes the freedom to diverge from the content and form of the text, to “write like one who has wr...
1 comment
Read more