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