Response Paper on Part 3 of Douglas Robinson's Translation and Empire.
Translation as Empire: The Theoretical Record
In part three of his book Translation and Empire, Douglas Robinson traces back roots of postcolonial approaches in the history of translation theory in order to get a grasp of the imperial themes that have been pushed into the periphery or kept underground all along. For Robinson, translation’s relation with political issues of domination and submission came to be neglected for so long due to scholar’s great emphasis on treating it solely as a technical and linguistic entity. (1997:50) Then he sets out to draw the rather fuzzy contours of backgrounding of empire through an analysis of Cicero and Horace’s quotes, the tradition of translatio studii the imperii in ancient and medieval world, and the metaphor of ‘taking the original captive’. (1997:50)
Although Cicero and Horace came to be seen as the first theorists of translation, Robinson does not think that this designation is appropriate since Cicero “was only to formulate something that most people today consider the right approach to translation” (1997:47) Robinson goes onto argue that Cicero’s notion of sense-for-sense, coined by Jerome, along with Horace’s warning against word-for-word have almost always been taken out of context and misread as theories. When read between the lines, Robinson thinks that Horace’s writings give the first clues of imperial line of thought, in which he does not actually refer to the translator but to the writer, in other words the translator as a rewriter. Taking Horace’s advice on appropriating the tale of Troy for the Roman culture as an example, Robinson maintains that “Horace is calling upon Roman writers not only to establish their originality vis-à-vis the original text …. but to appropriate Greek culture for Imperial Rome” (1997:51), concluding that the main agenda here was not to achieve an ideal in terms of translation but to “conquer”. The notion of conquest, Robinson argues, also underlines the implicit imperial contexts in the translations of other ancient writers. By drawing largely upon the widespread medieval trope of translato studii et imperii (translation of learning and empire), which entertains the idea that both knowledge and imperial control of the world move in a westerly direction, the Christian idealization of transforming the “pagan” into a “believer of God” could justify the assimilative translations of great classics of prechristian era. Here, Robinson gives the example of Ovid transformed into a Christian author with a concern of “medieval Christian reader’s doctrinal needs” (1997: 53), which also meant that Ovid was now a property of the Christian world.
Robinson also draws attention to the “captivity metaphor” in translation, quoting Jerome , 'like some conqueror, he marched the original text, a captive into his native language’ (1997:55) In a way, the translator turns into a captivator while the original text, thus its author turns into his captive, which puts the translation into the realm of power struggle. Robinson also relates this thinking to the imperialistic tendency to regard the target culture to be superior over the source culture or feeling threatened by the rich cultural hegemony of the source culture. Just like in German Romantics case, where the German resisted to the growing French hegemony and resorted to realizing their, in Robinson’s words, “imperial dreams” (1997: 60) through keeping their texts foreign in order to feed the cultural veins of the German literary field. Robinson’s conclusion shows that as opposed to the assimilative translations, foreignization in literary works, as advocated by German Romantics like Schegel or Scheleimarcher, were not actually elevated for the sake of giving a “taste of the foreign” but conquering/capturing the foreign’s best qualities to create an ideal nation state.
As a final thought, I think that Robinson's quote from Nietzsche makes up the essence of Robinson's main argument in this chapter and throughout the book. Nietzsche says that “Indeed, translation was a form of conquest. Not only did one omit what was historical, one also added allusions to the present and, above all, struck out the name of the poet and replaced with one’s own – not with any sense of theft but with best conscience of the imperium Romanum.”(1997:62). In the light of these words, I think it is relevant to conclude that the idea of “conquest” becomes the leitmotif in the evolution of post colonial approaches, with the language being its most important weapon.
Translation as Empire: The Theoretical Record
In part three of his book Translation and Empire, Douglas Robinson traces back roots of postcolonial approaches in the history of translation theory in order to get a grasp of the imperial themes that have been pushed into the periphery or kept underground all along. For Robinson, translation’s relation with political issues of domination and submission came to be neglected for so long due to scholar’s great emphasis on treating it solely as a technical and linguistic entity. (1997:50) Then he sets out to draw the rather fuzzy contours of backgrounding of empire through an analysis of Cicero and Horace’s quotes, the tradition of translatio studii the imperii in ancient and medieval world, and the metaphor of ‘taking the original captive’. (1997:50)
Although Cicero and Horace came to be seen as the first theorists of translation, Robinson does not think that this designation is appropriate since Cicero “was only to formulate something that most people today consider the right approach to translation” (1997:47) Robinson goes onto argue that Cicero’s notion of sense-for-sense, coined by Jerome, along with Horace’s warning against word-for-word have almost always been taken out of context and misread as theories. When read between the lines, Robinson thinks that Horace’s writings give the first clues of imperial line of thought, in which he does not actually refer to the translator but to the writer, in other words the translator as a rewriter. Taking Horace’s advice on appropriating the tale of Troy for the Roman culture as an example, Robinson maintains that “Horace is calling upon Roman writers not only to establish their originality vis-à-vis the original text …. but to appropriate Greek culture for Imperial Rome” (1997:51), concluding that the main agenda here was not to achieve an ideal in terms of translation but to “conquer”. The notion of conquest, Robinson argues, also underlines the implicit imperial contexts in the translations of other ancient writers. By drawing largely upon the widespread medieval trope of translato studii et imperii (translation of learning and empire), which entertains the idea that both knowledge and imperial control of the world move in a westerly direction, the Christian idealization of transforming the “pagan” into a “believer of God” could justify the assimilative translations of great classics of prechristian era. Here, Robinson gives the example of Ovid transformed into a Christian author with a concern of “medieval Christian reader’s doctrinal needs” (1997: 53), which also meant that Ovid was now a property of the Christian world.
Robinson also draws attention to the “captivity metaphor” in translation, quoting Jerome , 'like some conqueror, he marched the original text, a captive into his native language’ (1997:55) In a way, the translator turns into a captivator while the original text, thus its author turns into his captive, which puts the translation into the realm of power struggle. Robinson also relates this thinking to the imperialistic tendency to regard the target culture to be superior over the source culture or feeling threatened by the rich cultural hegemony of the source culture. Just like in German Romantics case, where the German resisted to the growing French hegemony and resorted to realizing their, in Robinson’s words, “imperial dreams” (1997: 60) through keeping their texts foreign in order to feed the cultural veins of the German literary field. Robinson’s conclusion shows that as opposed to the assimilative translations, foreignization in literary works, as advocated by German Romantics like Schegel or Scheleimarcher, were not actually elevated for the sake of giving a “taste of the foreign” but conquering/capturing the foreign’s best qualities to create an ideal nation state.
As a final thought, I think that Robinson's quote from Nietzsche makes up the essence of Robinson's main argument in this chapter and throughout the book. Nietzsche says that “Indeed, translation was a form of conquest. Not only did one omit what was historical, one also added allusions to the present and, above all, struck out the name of the poet and replaced with one’s own – not with any sense of theft but with best conscience of the imperium Romanum.”(1997:62). In the light of these words, I think it is relevant to conclude that the idea of “conquest” becomes the leitmotif in the evolution of post colonial approaches, with the language being its most important weapon.
References
Robinson, D., Translation and Empire, St.Jerome, Manchester:1997
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder