Like anything else when it comes to history, it is impossible to cover all the numerous significant works that have impacted world culture and litertaure throughout the ages in the course of just a few weeks, and so only a few select pieces have been chosen for this course, but it goes without saying that there are many, many more.

So please bear in mind that the history of translation goes  all the way back to Mesopotamia, the Egyptian scribes, The Septuagint, and the Buddhist Sutra translations, etc. Again, we will have to skip several centuries due to the nature of this course.

 

In his book, Searls discusses the notion of the two words originally used for translation: ”translatio” and ”traducere.” In the 15^th century, a debate had arisen between the two translators, the Florentine humanist,  Leonardo Bruni and the Spanish scholar Alfonso de Cartagena. Bruni accused Cartagena of not translating correctly enough (from Greek to Latin, more specifically, Aristotle’s Ethics) which he explained in his book De interpretatione recta. (On Correct Translation).   Interestingly, Seules explains, “recta” in Latin means not only  ”correct” but ”straight.” It seems that in the medieval world translation and the act of drawing maps, cartography, were intrinsically  linked due the fact that they were both new and important disciplines used at that time to determine and create the world in terms of space.  In fact, a ”translatio” was really used in relation to cartography – the act of translating an environment down onto a piece of paper, an environment that was thus susceptible to being ”interpreted” a certain way by whoever had the power to translate and transcribe it onto paper. In much the same way, translation was seen as an act of transferring the text of a foreign or unfamiliar territory or civilization into a familiar language and down on paper – both instances require the act of ”reducing,” reducere, or ”translating” foreign information into a familiar scale or familiar space, which, according to Bruni’s conviction, equivocated to a familiar, stylistic version of Latin.  For Bruni, it was of the utmost importance that the stylistic features of Latin, which he considered more beautiful and superior to Greek, be retained. Cartagena, on the other hand, did not agree with Bruni, in that he supported the idea of incorporating the ”foreignness” or even ”foreign” words of a given text and perceived translation to be more the act of transferring the ”form and content” or ”the soul” of the text and was less concerned with the outcome or impact that that transference might have on the target language.

There were many other aspects and details in connection with the argument, but the main idea of their dispute is one that emerges throughout the history of translation, namely, the extent to which a translation  must flow naturally and smoothly in the T.L, and not contain or reflect any of the foreign features which a translator might be tempted to transfer from the original S.L text. In other words, when translating a text, a translator may approach it in the following two ways: by ensuring the translation itself reads as a text that was originally written in the T.L and hence never translated which is known as ”domesticizing” the translation, or by deliberately allowing the foreign features of the original S.L text to emerge, even if those features throw the reader off or seem disturbing in some way or other, which is known as ”foreignizing” the translation. Just like seeing translation as a form of ”hyper-reading” can help you to discover and try out the tools used by authors of the original S.L text, deciding how you want to approach the translation, by either foreignizing it or domesticizing it, is also a way of exploring different styles which might force you to push the T.L, and by extent, your own creative writing,  in ways you hadn’t thought of before.

Verkefni:

Try translating the following text twice (again, I have provided an English and a Danish text, choose whichever one you feel most comfortable working with). In the first translation allow the translation to sound foreign or quirky and emphasize the transference of content. In the second translation focus more on transferring the aesthetic style of the T.L and less on the actual content itself. 

 

English text:

4

Congratulations, Ruth and Helge

Now

As many of you probably know, I have known Helge since our years of apprenticeship. What I remember best is the sense of calmness Helge always emitted, even when things had gone to hell.

Already on the first day we met, he said that as soon as we were done, he was going to find a nice girl and settle down. And then he met you, Ruth, and by golly you’ve stuck together ever since. Way to go!

Anyway, back then, at the very beginning, there was something about Helge that made me want to seek him out and introduce myself. It was as though I could sense that we could use each other in some way. I mean, I know this is going to sound somewhat cynical, so don’t get me wrong, but there was some indefinable something or other. I could sense that this was an ambitious young man. So I introduced myself, and he said, ”Hi, name’s Helge,” and both of us knew that we were both lying.

But we toiled away, didn’t we? And after a while we got noticed. Many tried to get in with us, but we knew what we wanted. We wanted to go to Sachsen. Of all the vassals back then, Prince Gervase Hasenkopf interested us the most. And so we shook hands on it, vowing to each other that we wouldn’t give up, and, lo and behold, in 1351 we entered the Prince’s castle. It was a lot of hard work, of course, but it was well worth it (From R.Hastrup’s ”Ur”).

 

Danish text:

 

Vi kørte på, gjorde vi, og det var tydeligt, at vi nød større og større anseelse hos fyrsten og hans nærmeste. En gang imellem gik vi til ro sent om natten med blødende fingre og smertende øjne, men vi var så dedikerede til det projekt. Men altså, det var jo ikke, fordi vi var ude efter berømmelse, vel? Vi ville sgu ikke i historiebøgerne. Vi havde slet ikke den dér … ambition. Eller jo, naturligvis havde vi ambitioner, men de gik mere på at udføre arbejdet godt. Vi trivedes i baggrunden, ikke også, Helge? Så kunne de andre sgu få æren. For vi vidste godt, at hvis det går galt, så er det også dem i forreste række, der får slagene. Fandme er det så.

         Og vi kan sgu stadig se resultaterne, ikke? Og skal vi kalde det bivirkningerne, for dælen da, alle de småting, som gør det hele sjovere. Ringe i vandet, ikke, det var jo også det, vi snakkede så meget om dengang, fordi vi ikke rigtig vidste hvor meget og hvor længe og alt det dér. Men altså, det stoppede os sgu aldrig. Alt det dér med sommerfuglens vinger og stormvejret, det var sgu os! Vi fik sat nogle svingninger i gang. Og vi ville da se, hvad der kunne komme til at ske. Og jeg mener både i det store perspektiv – det var jo vores job, ikke – og det små. Og for fanden, hvor er det blevet fedt, det meste af det, de fleste af ringene. (From R.Haatrup’s ”Ur”).

 

In the first translation allow the translation to sound foreign or quirky and emphasize the transference of content. In the second translation focus more on ensuring the aesthetic style of the T.L, for example, by making it flow naturally, and less on the actual content itself.  

Which approach do you prefer? Why? Consider the version that you don’t prefer, list the elements that you don’t like, try to describe and specify in your own words what they are– was there still something that you were able to take away from the exercise? Can you think of any modern day examples of both approaches? Is there a specific trend right now in literary translation that you have noticed? Write down your thoughts.