The Translator’s Invisibility A history of translation Second edition Lawrence Venuti R Routledge Tore Fnoup ONDON AND NeW YonFirs published 1995 by Rowedge ‘Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14-4RN Roprinead 2002 Second edition published 2008, by Rowedge ‘Park Square, Mion Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 48N Reprinted 208, 000, Simuleaeously published nthe USA and Canada by Routledge ‘ho Madison Ave, New York, NY 10016 Routed san iprint of the Taylor & Francs Group. on informe (© 1995, 2008 Lawrence Vent ypeset in Times New Roman by HWA Tent and Data Managemen, Tunbridge Wells Printed and bound in Gret Britain by Pr Antony Rows, Chippenham, Wilshire [Ail ight reserved. No pat ofthis book may be reprinted Ce reproduced or vad in any form or by any electronic, mechanical or ether means, now known oF hereafter invented Inclaing photocopying and recording or In any information ‘Storage or rtrievt system, without permission in writing from ‘he publishers. ici brary Catelguing in Publication Dato ‘Aeatalogue record for this book is avalabl fom the British Library Library of Congress Catlogingn-Pulction Date Vent Lawrence "Yao eeanaatar's nv history of eranlation/ (Ghrance Venue Routledge: — 2nd ed Pm. Includes bbiographial references and index Translating and ncerpreting-Mutory. 2 Engl anguage— ansting. | Tide. 06 2v48 2008 ‘41810209—-de22 2007036668 IsBNI0: 0-415-39453-8 (0h) ISBNIO: 0-415-39455-4 (4) N23: 978-0-415-39453-6 (nok) ISBNI3: 976-0-415-39455-0 (9) For M.T.H. Veis lo que es sin poder ser negado veis lo que tenemos que aguantar, mal que nos pese.xii Preface endured the absences necessitated by my work on the second edition and filled ‘my moments away from it with great pleasure. The lines inthe dedication, drawn, from a poem in César Vallejo's Tifce, record a debt that can never be repaid. Lawrence Venuti ‘New York City and Barcelona Jamuary 1994 August 2007 Chapter | Invisibi 1 see translation asthe attempt fo produce a text so transparent that it doesnot teemio te tan. A good wasn be te of as Yor oy aE that i's there wien there ar ite imperfections ~ scratches, bubble, Ideally, there shouldn't be any Itshould never call attention to itself Norman Shapiro I The regime of fluency “visibility” is the term I will use to deseribe the translator's situation and activity in contemporary British and American cultures. I refers to atleast two sutually determining phenomena: one i an ilusioniste effect of discourse, of the trenslator’s own manipulation of the guage, Tghish i this case; the oter isthe practice of reading and evaluating translations that has long, prevaled in the United Kingdom and the United State, among other cultures, both Anglophone and foreiga-language. A translated text, whether prose ot poetry, fiction or nonfiction, is judged acceptable by most publishers, reviewers and readers when it reads fiuenily, when the absence of any linguistic ‘peguliarties makes it seem transparent, giving the appearance the foreign writer's personality or ntetion or the essential meaning ofthe foreign text the pearance, in other words, that the translation isnot in fact translation, ‘atthe “orginal The illusion of transparency isan effect ofa fuent translation strategy of the translator's effort to insure easy readability by adhering to ‘sage, maintaining continuous syntax, xing « precise meaning. But feade also play a significant role in insuring that ths illusory effect occurs because of the general tendency to read translations mainly for meaning, to reduce the ‘Stylistic features of the translation to the foreign text or writer, and to question any ‘Vanguige use that might interfere with the seemingly untroubled communication ‘the foreign writer's intention. What is so remarkable here is that the effect transparency conceals the numerous conltions under which the translation staring withthe translator's ercil intervention. The more fuedt the ition, the more invisible the translator, and, presumably, the more Visible ie ~2 nvsbiiy “The dominance of fiuency in English-language translation becomes apparent in ‘a sampling of reviews from newspapers and periodicals. On those rare oocasions Avhen reviewers address the translation at all, their brief comments usualy focus ‘its style, neglecting such other possible questions as its accuracy, its intended ‘udience, ls economic value in the current book marke, its relation to literary ‘tends in English, its place in the translator's carer. And over the past sixty Seats the comments have grown amazingly consistent in praising fluency wile Zdamning deviations from it, even when the most diverse range of foreign texts is considered : "Take fiction, for instance, the most translated genre worldwide. Limit the ‘choices to Buropean and Latin American writers, the most translated into English, Snd pick examples with different kinds of naraives ~ novels and short stories, Tealistic and fantastic, lyrical and philosophical, psychological and political Here is one possible list: Albert Camus's The Stranger (1946), Fransoise Sagan's Bonjour Trstesse (1955), Heinrich BOIl’s Absent Without Leave (1965), Kalo Calvino's Cosmicomics (1968), Gabriel Garcia Mérquez’s One Hundred Years of Solitude (1970), Milan Kundera’s The Book of Laughter and Forgetting (1980), Mario Vargas Losa’s In Praise ofthe Stepmother (1990), Gianni Celati's “Appearances (1992), Adolfo Bioy Cesares's A Russian Doll (1992), Ana Maria ‘Molx's Dangerous Virtues (1997), Michel Houellebeoq's The Elementary Particles (2000), Orhan Pamuk’s My Name is Red (2001), José Saramago's The Double (2008), and Ismail Kadare's The Successor (2008). Some of these translations tnjoyed considerable critical and commercial sucess in English; others made an ‘nitial splash, then sank into oblivion; stil others passed with litle or no notice. Yet in the reviews they were all judged by the same criterion: fluency. The following selection of excerpts comes from various British and American periodicals, both Iiterary and mase-audience; some were written by noted crities, novelists, and reviewers It is not easy, in translating French, to render qualities of sharpness or vividness, but the prose of Me. Gilbert is always natural, riliant, and exisp, (Wilson 1946: 100) “The style is elegant, the prose lovely, and the translation excellent. (New Republic 1955: 46) InaAbsent Without Leave, novella gracefully ifnot always lawless translated by Leila Vennewitz, Bali continues his stem and sometimes merciless probing ‘of the conseience, values, and imperfections of his countrymen. (Potoker 1965: 42) “The translation is a pleasantly fuent one: two chapters of it have already appeared in Playboy magazine. (times Literary Supplement 1969: 180) Invisibiley 3 ‘Rabassa’s translation is triumph of ent, gravid momentum, al stylishness and commonsenscal virtuosity (West 1970: 4) His first four Books published in English didnot speak with th , speak with the stunning lyrical preinon of this ne (he invisible wasn s Michel Henry Hein). (Michener 1980: 108) Helen Lane's translation ofthe ttle of tis bock is faithful to Mario Vargas LLlosa's ~ “Elogio de la Madrastra” — but not quite idiomatic. (Burgess 1990: 11) Jn Stuart Hood's translation, which fows crisply despite its occasional disconcerting British accent, Mr, Celati’s keen sense of language is rendered with precision. (Dickstein 1992: 13) Cen wooden, oesonally caress rine sows all he eso ‘hurried work and inadequate revision. (Baderson 199215) ‘Moix’s language, seamlessly translated by Margaret E. W. J jones, invites the reader to teeter on the emotional precipies of the hostess’s mental landscape. Gaftney 1997: 7) ‘The wansation by Frank Wynne is fuent and natural-sounding, though 1 potc tit Wyn hsnow alten cll ec ofthe cay as (Berman 2000: 28) Tema with id ges b rag M. Gok he ov tin te 16 (Eder 2001: 7) ‘The novel's translation from the Portuguese by Margaret Jul Be sguese by Margaret Jll Costa breezes (Cobb 2004: 32) ‘Even in this clunky translation (from the French as opposed tothe original nian), Kadare stands with Orwell, Kafka, Kundera ar it case i Orwe, Kaa,Kondr and Solheim at (Publishers Weekly 2005: 43)4 visibly “The critical lexicon of literary journalism since World Wer IL is filled with so many terms to indicate the presence or absence of a fucnt translation strategy: “crispy “elegant “lows?“gracefully,”“wooden,”*seamlessly.”“ftuid,"*ctonky.” ‘There is even a group of pejorative neologisms designed to criticize translations that lack fluency, but also used, more generally, to signify badly written prose: “transatese” “translationese,” “translatorese.” In English, fluent translation is recommended for an extremely wide range of foreign texts ~ contemporary and archaic, religious and scientific, fiction and nonfiction. ‘Translationese in a version from Hebrew is not always easy to detec, since the idioms have been familiarised through the Authorized Version. (Times Literary Supplement 1961: iv) _Anattempthas been made o wsemodern English which s lively without being slangy, Above all, an effort as been made to avoid the kind of unthinking “transationese” which has so often inthe past imparted to translated Russian literature a distinctive, somehow “doughy.” style ofits own with litle relation to anything present inthe original Russian, (Bingley 1964: x) He is solemnly reverential and, to give the thing an authentic classical smack, has couched it in the luke-warm translatese of one of his own more unurgent renderings, (Corke 1967: 761) “There isevenarecogaizable variant of pidgin English known as “translatorese” (ransjargonisation” being an American term for a particular form of i) (Times Literary Supplement 1967: 399) PParalysing woodenness (‘I am concemed to determine"), the dull thud of translatese (“Here is the place to mention Pirandello finally”) are often the price we more o less willingly pay for access to grat thoughts. (Brady 1977: 201) |A gathering of such excerpts indicates which discursive features produce ‘fuency in an English-language translation and which donot, A fluent translation is ‘written in English that is curren (“modern”) instead of archaic, that is widely wsed instead of specialized (Jargonisation”), and that is standard instead of colloquial (Cslangy"), Foreign words or English words and phrases imprinted by a foreign language (‘pidgin’) are avoided, as are Britishismas in American translations fand Americanisms in British translations. Fluency also depends on syntax that js not so “faithful” to the foreign text as to be “not quite idiomatic,” that unfolds ‘continuously and easily (“breezes right along” instead of being “doughy”) {noure semantic “precision” with some rhythmic definition, a sense of closure (aot Invisibility 5 ee ee een aa aae “SARS Ae isi ei, “in om re race for amen ences mee poco Sc eee ask crac Ming lene Sea ‘The dominance of fluency in English-language translation reflects comparable vrata ph nges mi rs een emi ci in oe ean en cl ty a are a Se 8 se gc roe ae emma, Soe Ty teste ore cara ee Seas eee eg ms ace cs mc gly ot fe rer i fergie na en earns Ree eee re the fac that the overwhelming majority of steady paid employment fr writing involves using the authoritative pain styles, iit is not explicitly advertising; involves writing, that is, filled with preclusions, is a measure of why this is not simply a matter of stylistic choice but of social governance: we are not free to choose the language of the workplace or ofthe family we are bom into, hough we ar fre, within limits, to rebel against it. (Bemstein 1986: 225) ‘The authority of “plain styles” in English-language writing was of course chive over several entris, wtat Boman deere a6 "he Kral ‘movement toward uniform spelling and grammer, with an ideology that emphasizes nnidiosyncratc, smooth transition, elimination of awkwardness, &c. = anything that might concentrate attcction onthe language itsl” (ibid: 27). In Govipoary Bish and Ameen eau, hs moenen as made reali a and fre, prose-like verse the most prevalent "in conrastt, sy, Steme's work, whers the ook extare—h : textre~the opacity — of lexis everywhere preset act ransperent ree yl ha developed ‘certain novels where the words seem meant to be looked through ~ to depicted word beyond the page. Likewise, in current mile ofthe road ‘ve see the elimination of overt rhyme & alteration, with meric ‘retained primarily for their capacity to officialize as “poetry.” (ia?6 nvsiiy Jn view ofthese cultural trends, it seems inevitable that Sueney would become the authoritative strategy for translating, whether the foreign text was literary or Seientifitechncal, humanistic or pragsuatic, a novel ora restaurant ment. The ‘Bitsh ranalator 1M. Cohen noticed this development as early as 1962, when he femarked that *twentieth-century translator, influenced by sience-teacing and the growing importance attached to accuracy [..] have generally concentrated fon prove-meaning and interpretation, and neglected the imitation of form and tame” (Cohen 1962 35) Cae io noted he damestzatn noe hte “te risk of reducing individual authors’ styles and national cks of speech to a Dinin prose uniformity” but be fel that this “danger” was avoided by the “best” Tanlations (ibid: 33). What be failed t0 see, however, was thatthe etteson for determining the “best” was sill radically English. Translating for “prose- freaning and interpretation,” practicing translation as simple communication, Tents the foreign text according to such English-language values as fuency anu the accompanying effect of transparency, but entirely eclipses the translator's ddomesticatng work ~ even in the eyes of the translator. "The translator's invisibility is also party determined by the indviduaistic, conception of authoship-thatconinies to pre in British and American Cituree, Acceing to this conception, the author freely expresses his thoughts Sid feelings in writing, whichis hus viewed as an orginal and transparent self Crmediated by tansindividul determinants (inguisti, cultural, Sova) that might complicate autora orgialiy, This view-of auorstin Caries two disadvantageous implication for the translator. On the one-ha transladon is defined as a socond:-order representation: only the foreign text ‘an be original, an authentic copy; true tothe author's personality or intention, Svieeas the translation is derivative, fake, potentially a false copy. On the other Tand, translation is required to efface its second-order status with the effet of transparency, producing the ilusion of authrial presence whereby the translated. text ean be taken asthe original, To point out these implications is not to argue thatthe translator should be seen as comparable othe foreign author: translations fre diferent in intention and effect from original compositions, and this generic distinction is wort preserving a a means of deseibing diferent sorts of writing fpctices, The points athe that the precise nature ofthe translator's authorship Tennaine unformulated, and so the, notion of authecal originality continues. 0. «-igmatize the translator's work (see Venut 1998: chap. 2) “However much the individualistic conception of authorship devalues transation among publishers, reviewers, and readers C8 30 pervasive that it also shapes ‘ranslatos' self presentations, leading some to psychologze their relationship f0 the foreign ext asa process of identification with he author. The American Willard ‘Task (1900-80), a major twenteth-century translator in terms of the quantity and fulturl importance of his work, drew a clear distinction between authoring and translating, When asked in ate interview whether “the impulse” to translate “is the same a tha of someone who want to writa novel” (a question that clearly individualistic in its reference to an authoral“impulse"), Trak replied: Iovisibilty 7 a seo ont rears ere other, but what you are essentially doing is expressing yourself. Whereas when sStace aireregea teed etree a iauecm nce kind of talent. What they both do is to take something of somebody else's SS aoe oa cioe saat ones Ee eee operat oct enmcy eae can 1n (Gask°3 analogy, translators playact as authors, and translations pass. for sk-idkts, Some translators are aware that any sense of authoril — ina translation isan illusion, an effet of transparent discourse, comparable to “stun” but they nonetheless assert that they participate in a “psychological” relationship with the author in which they repress their own “personality.” “I {guess I consider myself in akind of collaboration with the author” says American translator Norman Shapiro; “Certainly my ego and personality are involved in ‘tanslating, and yet Ihave to ty to stay fithfl tothe basic text in such a way that ry own personality doesnt show” (Kratz 1986: 27). ‘The translator’sinvs weindsel-annihilaton, away of conceiving ‘and practicing translation that undoubtedly reinforces its marginal stats in British [Amen elt, For although he pst ity yeas have seen the ation of translation eenters and translator traning programs at British and American universities, as well asthe founding of translation committes, associations, and awardsin teary organizations lke the Society of Authors in London andthe PEN “American Center in New York, the fact remains that translators receive minimal feeopion for heir work — aching translators of writing that i capable of publicity-becaise it is bestselling, prize-winning, controversial, Ee Te cd meno of te rain oe ts fen of fa brief aside in which, more often than not, the flueney or transparency of the translation is gauged. This, however, isan infequent occurence. Ronald Christ has described the ng practice: “many newspapers, such as The Los Angeles Tines, do not Tis the translators in headnotes to reviews, reviewers often fil to mention books translation (while quoting from the text as though it were written ), and publishes: almost uniformly exclude translators from. book Sand advertisements" (Chris 1984: 8). A particularly egregious example of occured in 2001 with Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsy’s ‘Tolstoy's Anna Karenina: Penguin Classics ran an ad that quoted ‘raising the ransation for its transparency (Allan Massie in the eads so naturally that you forget it sa tanslation”), but nowhere samed (Times Literary Supplement 21 Dec. 2001: 7). Even8 nvisibly ‘when the reviewer is also a writer, «novelist, say, ofa poct, the fact chat the text linder review isa translation may be overlooked. In 1981 the American novelist Son Updike reviewed two foreign novels for The New Yorker, talo Calvino's If ‘Om a Winter's Night a Traveller and Ginter Grass’s The Meeting at Teste, but the lengthy essay made only the barest reference to the wanslators, Theit names appeared it parentheses after the first mention of the English-language tiles. Reviewers who may be expected to have a writerly sense of language are seldom inclined to discus translation as writing. ‘The translator's shadowy existence in British and American cultures is further registered, and maintained, inthe ambiguous and unfavorable legal status of translation, both in copyright law and in actual contractual arrangements British and Americen law defines translation as an “adaptation” or “derivative ‘work based on an “original work of authorship” whose copyright, including. the exclusive right “to prepare derivative works” of “adaptations,” is vested in the “author”? The translator is thus subordinated to the author, who decisively Controls the publication ofthe translation during the terey’of the copyright for the “origiml” tex, curently the authors lifetime plus seventy years. Yet sinee futhorship here is defined as the creation of a form or medium of expression, fot an idea, a5 originality of language, not thought, British and American aw permits translations {6 be Copyrighted in the translator's name, recognizing that the translator uses another language for the foreign text and therefore can be understood as creating an original work (Skone James eal, 1991; Stracher 1991). In copyrigat law, the translators and isnot an author:* ‘The translator's authorship is never given full legal recognition because of ‘Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, the United Kingdom and the United States agroe to teat nationals of other member countries like their own nationals for purposes of copyright (Searles 1980: 8-11). Hence British and American Jaw holds that an English-language translation of a foreign text can be published only by arrangement with the author who owns the copyright for that text — that {Br the foreign writer, or, asthe case may be, a foreign agent or publisher. The inanslator may be allowed the authoral privilege to copyright the translation, but he or she is excluded from the legal protection that authors enjoy a citizens of the UK 0: US in deference to another author, a foreign national. The ambiguous {egal definition of translation, both original and derivative, exposes a limitation in the translators citizenship, a8 well a the inability of current copyright law to think trarslation across national boundaries despite the existence of international treaties. The Bere Convention (Paris, 1971) at once assigns an authoral right the translator and withdraws it: “Translations, adaptations, arrangements of musi fand other alterations ofa literary ot artistic work shall be protected as original ‘orks without prejudice to the copyright in the original work” held by the frei “guthot” who “shall enjoy the exclusive right of making and of authorising te Invisbiity 9 translation” (articles 2(3), 8)* Copyright law does not define a space for the translator's authorship that is equal to, rin any way restricts, the foreign author's rights, And yt it acknowledges that there isa material basis to warrant some such restriction. ‘Translation contracts sinee World War II have in fact varied widel ves of the anigues cop lv, bt also because of oe ts like changing book markets, a particular translators level of expertise, and the difficulty of a particular translation project. Nonetheless, general trends can be detected over the couse of several decades, and they reveal pablisers exer {i tanslaor from any rights in the translation. Standard British conracts require the translator to make an out-and-out ass gnment ofthe copyright to the publisher. Inthe United States, the most commor contractual definition of the translated text has aot been “original work of authorship.” but “work made for hire,” a category in American copyright law whereby “the employer or person for whom ‘the work was prepared is considered the author ...] and, unless the parties have expressly agrood otherwise ina written instrament signed by them, owns al the rights comprised in the copytight” (17 US Code, sections 101, 201[6)). Work- forchire contacts alienate the translator fom the product of his or her labor with remarkable finality. Here isthe relevan elause in Columbia University Press's standard contract for translators ‘You and we agree thatthe work you will prepare has been specially ordered and commissioned by us, and is a work made for hire as such term is used ‘and defined by the Copyright Act. Accordingly, we shall be considered the sole and exclusive owner throughout the world forever of all rights existing therein, free of claims by you or claiming through you or on ‘anyone claiming through you or on your “his workforhire contact embodies the ambiguity of the tansator’s legal staueby including ancter, equal stanard clans that impiily recognizes the” fatalior san autor, he creator of anorgna” wor: "You warrant your Work will be original and that it will not infringe upon the copyright or violate any. fay peor pay wise amie anaes to esa the co that define wera mde fr he, crloutive in he avon af xing Tatlation are compensated by «at fee per hound words of te language regardless ofthe peat income om he sale of Bonk nd ‘Tights (¢.g. a periodical publication, a license to a paperback publisher, by a film production company). An actual case will make clear how ats ston Or? ay 15 he Aner oar work frre anangement wi aseon in Which $15.00 per thousand words” for his translation of End of the Game, hari yh patna le Coa Blt 1200 for producing an English-language translation that filled10 visibility 277 pages asa printed book; Cortizar received a $2000 advance aguinst royalties, 75 percent of thelist price forthe frst 5000 copies. The “poverty level” set by the Federal goverament in 1965 was an annual income of $1894 (for a male). Blackburn's income as an editor was usually $8000, butto complete the translation hae was forced to reduce his editorial work and seek a grant from arts agencies ‘and private foundations which he failed to receive. Ultimately he requested an txtension of the delivery date forthe translation from roughly # year to sixteen months (the contracted date of | June 1966 was later changed to 1 October 1966). His translation, meanwhile, has been continuously in print since 1967, earning royalties for Cortizar’s estate (he cid in 1984) anda profit for Pantheon which 0 call “handsome” would no doubt be a gross understatement. ‘Blackburn's difficult situation has been faced by most freelance English- Janguage translators throughout the twentieth century: below-subsistence fees force them either to translste sporadically, while working at other jobs (ypicaly editing, writing teaching), or to undertake multiple translation projets Sinmultancously, the number of which is determined by the book market and sheer ‘hysical limitations. By 1969, the fee for work-for-hire translations increased to §20 per thousand words, making Blackbura'sCortizar project worth $1600, while the poverty level was set at $1974; by 1979, the going rate was $30 and Blackburn ‘would have made $2400, while the poverty level was $3689.” According toa 1990 Survey conducted by the PEN American Center and limited to the responses of nhineigen publishers, 75 percent of the translations surveyed were contracted on & ‘work-for-hire basis, with fees ranging from $40 to $90 per thousand words (Keeley 1990. 10-12; 4 Handbook for Literary Translaiors 1991: 5-6), An estimate made in the same year put the translation cost of a 300-page novel between $3000 and ‘$6000 (Marcus 1990: 13-14; ef, Gardam 1990), The poverty level in 1989 was set ‘at $5936 for a person under 65 years. In 2004 Jeremy Munday and I circulated @ (questionnaire to which approximately 60 English-language translators responded Sith details regarding their fee. Although hardly representative, the sample Suggests tha the average rate had climbed to $100 per thousand words, bringing the translation cost of a 300-page novel to roughly $9000. The poverty level in 2004 was set at $9310 fora single person. Because this economic situation drives freelance translators to fur out translations as quickly as humanly possible, it inevitably limits the Iiterary invention and critical reiction applied t0 a project ‘while piting translators agains exch other — often unwittingly in the competition ‘or projects and the negotiation of fees. ‘Contracts since the 1980s show an increasing recognition of the translator's crucial role in the production of the translation by referring to him or her asthe “Suthor” of “translator” and by copyrighting the text in the translator's name: ‘This redefinition has been accompanied by an improvement in financial terms with experienced translators receiving an advance against royalties, usually 8 percentage of thelist price or the net proceeds, as well asa portion of subsidians Tights ales. The 1990 PEN survey indicated that translators’ royalties were * the area of 2 to 5 percent for kardcover and 1.5 to 2.5 percent for paperback Invisibility 11 ‘and for some translators these rates have continued into the twenty-first century (Handbook 1991: 5). But such increments are clearly small. While they signal 1 growing awareness_of the translator's authorship, they do not constitute a significant change in the economics of translation, and it remains difficult for a freelance translator to make a living solely from translating. typical fist printing fora literary translation published by a trade press is approximately 5000 copies (less for a university press), so that even with the trend towards contracts offering royalties, the translator is unlikely to see any income beyond the advance. Very few translations become bestsellers; very few are likely to be reprinted, whether in hardcover or paperback. And, pethaps most importantly, very few translations are published in English. British and American book production has increased more than tenfold since the 1950s, but the number of translations has remained roughly between 2 and 4 percent of total annual output ~ notwithstanding a marked surge during the early 1960s, when the number of translations ranged between 4 and 7 percent of the {otal Over the past decade the figures have edged even lower. In 1995, according to industry statistics, American publishers brought out 113,589 books, of which 3252. were translations (2.85 percent), while in 2004 a total of 195,000 books {included 4040 translations (2.07 percent). In 2001 British publishers brought out 119,001 books, of which 1668 were translations (1.4 percent). Publishing practices in other countries have generally run in the opposite direction, Wester European publishing has also burgeoned over the past several decades, but translations have always amounted to a significant percentage of {otal bok production, and this pereentage has consistently been dominated by ‘ransltions from English. The translation rate in France has varied between 8 ‘and 12 percent of the total. In 1985 French publishers brought out 29,068 books, ‘of which 2867 were translations (9.9 percent), 2051 from English (Frémy 1992), ‘The translation rat in Italy has been higher. In 1989 Italian publishers brought out 3,895 hooks, of which 8602 were translations (25.4 percent), while in 2002 a total ‘954,624 Italian books included 12,531 translations (22.9 percent; in both years than half the translations were from English (Lottman 1991: $5; Publishers ehly Daily 2005). The German publishing industry is somewhat large than its ‘counterpars, and here too the translation rate is considerably higher. 930 German publishers brought out 61,015 books, of which 8716 were (144 percent) including about 5650 from English (Flad 1992: 40). the numberof new titles in Germany rose to 74,074, of which 5 406 were (7.3 percent), more than half from English (Emmerling 2006). Since Yar TI, English has been the most translated language worldwide, but it lish throughout the wold, followed by 6670 from French, 6204 fom #52 from: Italian, and 1973 from Spanish. : ation pattems point to a trade imbalance with serious cultural British and American publishers travel every year to international12_Inviibiley ‘markets lke the Frankfurt Book Fair, where they sell translation rights for many English-language books, including the global bestsellers, but rarely buy the rights to publish English-language translations of foreign books. These publishers have ovoted more atention to aoquring bestsellers, andthe formation of multinational publishing conglomerates has brought more capital to support this editorial policy (an advance for a predicted bestseller is now in the millions of dollars) while Timiting the aumber of financially risky books, like translations (Whiteside 1981; Feldman 1986, Schiffrin 2000), The London trary agent Paul Mast confirms this trend by urging publishers to concentrate on selling translation rights instead fof buying them: “any book with four or five translation sales in the bag at an arly stage stands a good chance of at least nine or 10 by the end of the process” (Marsh 1991: 27). Marsh adds that “most translation rights deals are done for fa modest return,” but the fact is that British and American publishers routinely eocive lucrative advances for these deals, even when a foreign publisher or agent pressures them to consider other kinds of income (viz. royalties). The Milan- based Antonella Antonelli is one such agent, although the figure she once cited fs an imprudent Italian investment in an English-language book ~ “If you pay 42 $200,000 advance, you can’t make it back in Italy” ~ actually suggests how profitable translation rights can be for the publishers involved, foreign as well ee British and American (Lottman 1991: S6). In 2000 French translations of ‘American bestsellers by authors like Danielle Steele and Patricia Comwvell were selling over 200,000 copies on publication (Publishers Weekly 2000), ‘The consequences of this trade imbalance are diverse and far-reaching. By routinely translating large numbers of the most varied English-language books, foreign publishers have exploited the global drift towards American political and economic hegemony since World War Il, actively supporting the international ‘xpansion of British and American cultures. British and American publishers, fn'tum, have reaped the financial benefits of successfully imposing English= language cultural values on a vast foreign readership, while producing cultures in the United Kingdom and the United States that are aggressively monolingual, d to fluent translations that invisibly the narcissistic experience of recognizing their own culture in a cultural other. The prevalence of fluent domestication has supported these developments because of Ts economic value: enforced by editors, publishers and reviewers, fluency results in tanalations that are eminently readable and therefore consumable on the book market, assisting it their commodification and insuring the neglect of foreina texts and English-language translation strategies that are more resistant to ¢25) “The translator's invisibility can now be seen as a mysification of toubh proportions, an amazingly successful concealment of the multiple determin find offects of English-language translation, the multiple hierarchies ‘exclusions in which its implicated. An ilusionism fostered by fluent transla {he translator's invisibility at once enacts and masks an insidious domestication Invisibility 13 foreign texts, rewriting them inthe transparent discourse that prevail in Engl tot ste eile regs ena ent rlating nsi 2 the effect of transparency effces the work of translation it contributes tothe ‘cultural marginality and economic exploitation that English-language translators ‘have long suffered, their status as seldom recognized, poorly paid writers whose ‘work nonetheless remains indispensable because of the global domination of British and American cultures, of English. Behind the translator's invisibility is'a trade imbalance thet undorwrtes tia domination, but also deernece the Calta capital of foreign valves in English by limiting the number of foreign texts translated and submitting them to domestcaing revision. Th translator's invisibility is symptomatic of a complacency in Bish and American relations vith cultural eters, a complacency that canbe described ~ without to much Soggcaton-ss imperial ead ad eoptobie thom. concep ofthe translator's “invisibility” is already a cara eritgue, a éiaghosis that opposes the situation itrepresents pay aS from below, fiom the standpoint of the contemporary English-language translator, although one who has been driven to question the conditions of his work because fof various developments, cultural and social foreign and domestic. The motive fof this book is to make the translator more visible so as to resist asd change tions tinder which translation is theorized, 'stdied, and practiced today, specially in English-speaking countries, ence the fist stop will be to present 2 theoretical basis from which translations canbe read as translations, a8 txt in their own right, permitting transparency to be demystified, seen as one discursive (Etectamong others. | 2 The violence of translation Arnsltion is a process by which the chain of signifier that constitutes ‘ext is replaced by a chain of signifiers in the translating inguage which etn povie on te sregh of m nerretion, Beene meaning isan frelations and differences among signifiers along a potentially endless chain pena nex yo sina) aay dir ans ever preset as en originality (Dera 1982). Both frcign ext and both consist of diverse linguistic and Gara iaichals eg wie sr the elt ria nd ht dete of signiiation, inevitably exceeding and possibly concting with ms Asa elas xi he sf may lire sani a ly provisionally in any one translation, on the i dons and interpretive choices in specific social ce. Appeals to the foreign text cannot finally ad « ly adjudicate translations in the absence of linguistic error, because canons14 Invisibility of accuracy in tansltion, notions of “deity” and “freedom” ae historically ‘utcunned categories. Eve te notion of linguistic error” x subject variation, sermons, expecially in tray texts, canbe sot merely inteigible ‘but significant in thé receiving culture. The viability of a ‘translation is established ‘by its relationship to the cultural and social conditions | under which it is produced and read. “Mis relationship points to the violence that resides in the very purpose and activity of tanaaton the reconstitution ofthe foreign text in accordance with ‘Glue boleh and representations that exist tin the translating language and Tans, always configured in hierarchies of dominance and marginal, always {etermining the production, circulation, and reception of texts (ef. the notion of sein it Touy 1995: 55-69). My use ofthe term “violence” bere has been quested by # profesional translator who works between such dissimilar Argus as Hebrew and English (Green 2001: 85), Yet iby tis erm we mean vNtage” or “abun” then my use ofits either exaggerated nor metaphoric, but Jrclsly descriptive: a translator i forced not only fo eliminate aspects ofthe, ignifying chain that coisttutes the foreign text, starting with ts graphematic and_ ‘acoustic features, but also to dismantle and disarrange that chain in. accordance shite structural differences between languapss, so that bot the foreign txt a erations to other texts inthe foreign cultre never remain intact afer ihe translation proces. Tansaion is the forcible replacement of he linguistic alta diferences ofthe foreign text with atet that is inteligible to the ‘Rhhltng language reader. These differences can never be entirely removed, tut they necesaly undergo a reduction and exclusion of posibiites ~ and Gn exorbtan gain of other possiblities specific to the wansating language. Whatsverdiferenc the tansltion conveys is now imprined by the receiving Silane tsimiated to ts postions of intelligibility, its canons and taboos, is isto bring back a cultural other asthe, : always risk 2 wholesale \ Gomestication of the foreign text, often in highly self-conscious projects where ‘translation serves an appropriation of foreign cultures for agendas in ‘the: ‘eating stun, cultural, economic, pial Translation snot an untroubled “Communication ofa foreign txt, but an interpretation thats always mie by i “Gites to speciic audiences and by the ctrl or institutional situations whee the uanaluted texts ntended to circulate and fnction “Tne violent effects of translation arc fet at home as well as abroad. On te cong hand, tanlation wilds enormous power in the constuction for foreign cultures, and hence potentially figures in ethnic die eoplivalconontions colonials teri ware Rafal 1 ne Moos 2002: Mason 2008; Baker 2006). On the other ban, Elst the foreign tex in the maintenance or revision of literary canon GRehing colar, inseribing poetry and fiction, for example, with the Toate native and ideological discourses that compete fr cultura ds rhe uanaating language (eee Lafevere 1992s; Lyne 2001; Damrosch ‘Translation also enlists the forcign text in the maintenance or revision of dominant conceptual paradigms, research methodologies and clinical practices that inform disciplines and professions in the receiving culture, whether physics cor architecture, philosophy or psychiatry, sociology or law (See Ornston 1982; Montgomery 2000; Lotinger and Cohen 2001). I is thee socal affiliations and effect ~ writen into the materiality ofthe wansated text, into its discursive strategy and is range of allusiveness forthe anslating language reader, but also into the very choice to translate it and the ways it is published, reviewed, and taught ~ all these conditions permit translation to be called practice, constructing or eritiquiig”Wedlogy-stamped cles, affirming or transgressing discursive values and insitutona iit fie recivng cute. The violence wreaked by traadaton is pay ineviable, =a in anton ces, ely oil, emg ay pi in ion and reception ofthe translated text, varying with specific ee! he most urgent question facing the translator who possesses this knowledge {sc What o do? Why and how do I translate? Although Ihave construed translation 4 te sito of many determinations and effets — linguist, cultural, economic, ideological I also want to indicate thatthe frelance literary translator aways exercises a choice conceming the degree and dtectin ofthe violence at work fn ay teanslating. This choice has been given various formulations, past and preset, but perhaps none so decisive as that offered by the German theologian 4nd philosopher Friedrich Schleermacher. In an 1813 lecture on the diferent “methods” of translation, Schleiernacher argued that “thor are only to: Either the wanslator leaves the author in peace as much as posible and moves the reader, ‘ovat him ore leaves the reader in peace, as muchas posible, and moves the ‘suthor towards him" (Lefevere 1977: 74). Admitting (with qualifications like “as ‘utas possible”) that ranslation can neverbe completely adequate othe foreign iar vals roi he nguic an ela cao of sending the reader abroad. tae clear tat his choice was foigizing transition, and dh ooh as and anon rt Atte Domi © et cher argument as an eis of tansation, conceoed wil making {text a place where a cultural other is manifested | ranhough, cose that can never be manifested in ts ow terms, ony in thse ofthe ings ods aye sent ecoded (cman 19886791) nin frignirngwasiation snot a asparent presentation of esis inthe frig ext and is valabl intel bt a strategic ‘ales comings on the cunt station ie veeiing atl pier frees ofthe flog et Yet tural odes tht eval inthe ranting languages16 Invisibility ee effort todo right abroad, this translation practice must do wrong athome, deviating enough from native norms to stage an alien reading experience ~ choosing 10 Canslate a foreign text excluded by literary canons in the receiving culture, for instance, or using a marginal discourse to translate i T wan to suggest that insofar as foreignizing translation seeks to restrain the thnocenti¢ violence of translation, itis highly desirable today, strategic cultural crervention in the current state of world affairs, pitched against the hegemonic English-language nation and the unequal cultural exchanges which they €ngs8e their global others. Foreigoizin translation in English canbe a form of resistance fgainst ethnocentrism and racism, cultural narcissism and imperialism, in the interests of democratic geopolitical relations. As atheory and practice of transition, foreignizing is specific t ceeain European counties at particular historical moments: formulated first in German culture during the clasical and romantic periods it was revived ina French cultural seene characterized by postmodern evelopment in philosophy, literary criticism, psychoanalysis, and social theory thot have come to be known as posstructuralism,” British and American cultures, Incontrast, have long been dominated by domesticating theories that recommend ‘Bocnr trenalating, By producing the illusion of transparency, fluent translation Thasquerades as a true semantic equivalence when itn fact inseribes the freien Tat with a partial interpretation, partial to English-language values, reducing if fot simply excluding the very differences that translation is called onto convey “This ethnocentric violence is evident inthe transation theories put forth by the prolife and influential Eugene Nida, tasiation consultant tothe American Bible Society. ere transparency is enlisted inthe service of Christian humanism. ty a footnote added to a later edition ofthe German text and inched in. the English translation: This book sof an entirely popular character: it merely ins, by an accumulation of examples at paving the way forthe necessary assumpion vr econsclous yet operative mental processes, and it avoids all theoretical considerations on the nature of the unconscious” (Freud 1960: 272m). James Strachey himself unwittingly called attention to the inconsistent diction in his preface to Alan Tyson's taslation, where he elt itnevesary to provide aration for the use of * Hin German ‘Feklleistung,’ “faulty function. It is & Curious fc tht before Freud wrote his book the gene ne SST not to have existed in psychology, and in English anew tobe invented o cover it" heud 1960: vin), Ica ofcourse be objected (aginst Betelhcim) that he tninture of specialized scientific terms and commonly used diction is characteris of Freud's German, and therefore ( translation in itself ‘very much in agreement with that even a comparison between, ‘demonstrates the inconsistency in kinds of diction pastage: “id” vs “unconscious”; “athexis” vs. “charge,” “energy” ‘Betteheim suggests some of the determinations that shaped the scien tranlation strategy of the Standard Edition. One important consideration i the intellectual current that has dominated Anglo-American psychology an phileophy since the eighteenth century: “In theory, man opis with which Teal permit both a hermeneatic-piitual and a postvistc-pragmatic apn ‘When ths is 80, the English translators nearly always opt for the latter, posit sh philosophical tradition” (Bettelheim 1983: esearch and teaching io American universities are cit br physiologically oriented and concentrate almost exclusively on what dhensored or observed from the ouside” (ibid: 19). For psychoanalysis this that its assimilation in British and American cultures entailed a Invisibility 23 which it “was perceived in the United States asa practice that ought to be the sole prerogative of physicians” (bid. 33), “a medical specialty” (ibid: 35), and th non acrid on at ofan pts eg stot tion by state assemblies and certification by the psychoanalytic profess but the scientistc translation ofthe Standard Edition: tae Wen Feo appro either moras or mae dgnaticin Eg Vaslui tine ogi Goman tsps abou shat cops ‘ethan st ead hin an Soa ans nd aes an ot Ss oa be potable culation la mio or ates on heuer bts lb iho pete ud sty wii framework of medicine. : = (ibid: 32) ‘me domestcating practice at work in the wanslations of the Standard Eaton sought to assimilate Freud’s texts to the dominance of positivism in British and ‘American cultures so as to facilitate the instituionalization of psychoanalysis in the medical profession and in academic psychology. __Betchein’s book is ofcourse couched in the most judgmental of terms, and ‘tishis negative judgment that must be avoided (or perhaps rethought) if we want tounderstand the manifold significance ofthe Standard Edition as a translation ‘Betttheim views the work of Strachey and his collaborators as a distortion and a ‘betrayal of Freud’s “essential humanism,” a view that points toa valorization of concept ofthe transcendental subject in both Bettetheim and Freud. Bettlheim’s assessment ofthe psychoanalytic project is stated in his own humanistic versions forthe Standard Edition’s “ego; “id,” and “superego”: “A reasonable dominance vero tan shove hs was Pend ga fal of "(Bec Belt) Tsao cope donimaceconcveore nbjenarhepataly bea sarc oa cigs el scons, at payout 09 dad sca Capp" dtcmansons ov wh iano fermi The une asnpon can fen banned Geman his emphasis on social adjustment, for instance, as with the concept Ply pipet ao ms oped we of ew experience Beto pee! sect hang cermin pt nfs own test Yin os Fe anos pie model aid eC etcmintons concise he eno we as ‘subject, to remove it from a transcendental realm of freedom and_ aie dri rec opey ean ail cs yond is as primarily therapeutic, what Bettlheim calls a potentially dangerous voyage of self-discovery [...] so that we be enslaved without knowing it to the dark forces that reside in determinate subject, on the other hand, leads to a definition of24 Invisibility pychoanalysis as primarily hermeneutic, a theoretic! apparatus with Shee yee rigor to analyze the shifting but always active fores chat consti anc boman subjectivity Freud's texts are thos marked by a fundamen aoe munity, one which is “resolved” in Betelbcim’s humanistic represetation Sreapehoannyss a compasioat therapy, but whichis exacerbates by Te aaarereaategy of he English translations and their representation of Freud as weet analyzing physician.” The inconsistent diction inthe Standard Edition, ty seteting the posite redefinition of psychoanalysis m Angle faves oe aries another, altemative reading of Freud that eightens the ‘contradictions in his project. translations discloses interpretive cho siestaovements, some (ike the speci inttationalzation of psychoanalysis) ceed by the wanslaton, oers (like the dominance of positivism, and daearcontguiies in Froud’s texts) remaining dimly perceived or entiely we nscious during the translation process. The fact that the inconsisi=acke aera unnoticed for so long i perhaps largely the result of two munity vacetining factor: the privileged status accorded the Standand Edition song rls lnguage readers and te enrenchment of» posivstic reading of FM eee hglo-Ameriean psychoanalytic establishment. ence, a diferent cH aac rh diferent set of assumptions becomes necessary fo peesve 6 ‘of translation that assumes a bf reading can be said to foreignize a domestics a Ssonetinuous a translations dependence on dominant values in the reese icisdre becomes most visible where it departs from them. Yet this reading Cmeovers the domesticating movement iavolved in any foreignizing tan ty ahowing where its construction of the foreign depends on receiving cul materials. Symptomatic reading can thus be useful in demystifying the Moves ‘nacontemporary English-language translation. Insome rans tanereontnuities ae readily apparent, unintentionally disturbing the Suny the language, revealing the inscription ofthe receiving culture; othe Wa raenmfaces that announce the translator's strategy and alert che readet (0 Frecence of noticeable stylistic peculiaites, A cae in point Reve cre of Sustonius’s The Twelve Caesars. Graves's preface offered 2 I [account of his domesticating translation practice: ating translation by showing. For English readers Suetonius’s sentences, and sometimes even entenves: must often be tumed inside-out. Wherever his referene {ncomprebensible to anyone not closely familiar with the Roma ane also brought up into the text a few words of explanation that Invisibility 25 normal fave peared ina foto Dat ave ween fees epg te Cine ta one f Svcd where fey a toe fn the coon eer he Ges one ad ‘sums in sesterces reduced to gold pieces, at 100 to a ic (of wenty ms denarii), which resembled a British sovereign. coueanta (Gees 19578) Graves’ vigorous revision of the foreign text, sin alms to assite the foreign Iangunge cute per! Rone) to that ofthe talating eaguage he nied ‘Kingdom in 1957). The work of assimilation depends not only on his extensi knowledge of Suetonius and Roman culture during the Empire (e.g. the monetary syste, but ls on his knowledge of eontemporary Bish culture a manifested. By bngi aati forms and what eke eth ncn ois ramon le vesion he wrote inthe preface, wasnt intended to serve a “school rb” Seto be rebel ening would be lot wri” Cid: 5) me ze too closely tothe Lata tet, even to the Latin word Graves sought to make his ransation extreme : extremely fen, and itis important o Geet ws bh ee he ind cy specific, detemined contenpory Englsh-languge values and aot by any means absolute or aignting wih Gres in dae ay, On cone, proc Ei ein, gig ihe vey ce of he ta * e's textual moves and te decision fo publish the translation ene by factors like the decline inthe study of classical Tagguages among educated readers, the absence of anoer alti on the shea ppt Be nc dat Gives ii ea fi Roman historians like Sueonits - 1, Claudius and Claudius the God, en since 1934, Graves’s version of The Twelve Caesars fed as one of the “Penguin Classics,” a mass market imprint designe ‘or students and general readers. — SFM. Caen as ose, he wats in Penguin Chis were of wansparetdicourss, “pain prose uniformity” largely aims to make everything plain, though without the use ee res ane aie a ee ae aceite eae Be «ita irra yr ie ti Sabet Seed Rees ol (Cohen 1962: 33)26. tnviibilicy Gravevs version of Suetonius reflects the cultral margnaity of clases! oreship inthe post-World War period andthe growth of @ mass mark Gpetback iterate including te bestselling historia novels by whic Be made arate many yours. His tansation was so effe=ve ia responding otis vin att to became a bestsler, reprinted ie times within « decade of eaves indicated in an essay on “Moral Principles in Translation,” aarvadinary” reader ofa clasical text (Diodorus is his example) “wants mes epat information, laid out in good order for his tasty eye to catch” (Graves Fes, S1), Although Apuleius “wrote a very omate North Afican Latin” Graves the foreign text “plain” means ddomesticating: it requires not mere! {ervpeenption ofthe foreign ext with values tat ae not only anachronistic =n cer anecnti, but dominant in the receiving culture. Inthe preface to his Suetonis Gree image cleat that he deliberately moderized and Anglcized the Lon, Serre Point, he considered adding an introductory essay that would ial He some nd historical differences ofthe text by describing Key political conics se Republican Rome, But he fally omited it "most readers he fel. “Wi sa hapeqeefer to plunge staight into the story and pick up the treads a 6} aerntyg™ (Graves 1957: 8) allowing his Hunt prose to tur anspaent ands Conceal the domesticating work of the translation. narrative, Graves’ Teading 0 with the ‘academic reception Michael Grant has pointed out, Suetonius gathers together, and lavishly insets, information bah for and agai sartof Rome, usually without adding ay personal judgment in one dire aeeeekthes and above all without introducing the moraizations which hs so frequently characterized Greek and Roman biography and bistony ‘Sceaslonally conficting statements are weighed. In general, however, & indisriminat.(..] the author's own opinions a intrude, and indeed he himself, in collecting all this rernaang material, appears to make Tite eet to reach a decision bed the personalities he is describing, or to buildup their characteristic erat acoount. Perhaps, he may feel, that show people are: they Pos Gissordant elements which do not add upto aharmonious unity. (Geant 19805 Grants account suggests that the Latin text does not offer @ coherent crjeetiviy for the reader to occupy: we are unable 10 identify wit the author ("the author's own opinions are rarely wre ters (the personalities” are not given “a coherent account”. AS 2% Invisibility 27 Sector east ny a topo seit i evi ns sss eli high ere of objet” iia int tt pe re pena see cl dijon and scat ton cna ose (E75 Graves! 's fluent translation smooths out these features of the Latin text, inst ae tnligibliy,contetnga more coherent positon fom which the Cosas can ‘be judged, and making any judgment seem true, right, obvious = omits pesage fom hei of ulus Caen Stipe ria in Asa it Mar Te rl Te pacientes: qo scenic Byam mis est oe ‘icone non fe ramen poses rp pute; quem ramon sua poe Co dere typ cs prin ue ‘cuidam libertino clienti suo. reliqua militia secundiore fama fuit et a "Thermo in expugnatione Mytilenarum corona civica donatus est = {Bate nd Cary 1927 1-2) Ceca fit lity sevice in Asi, were he went “ ts sie deca Maou Tham, the Forti gover, When Then wet Cat fea fet ini, he wasted so mich tines King Nicomede court tht homosexual satonhip betwen the was spe, and spicion fpr plaeto scandal when soon ae is retin o betdquarrs, be revisited Brayi:neanbly collecting dt cured the by on of i eed Hons Canesten red he ag, wen Tr ude im he ce crown ofc es ‘saving a fellow soldier's life. senha file tme tae (Graves 1957: 10) sages reston innuendo instead of explicit judgment, on do tr ad of exc ‘on doubtful hearsay Gf moe wale evidence (rumorem” "wuspicin”). Yet the English Sent ain tht os more cin about Cass motes shout Suetonius's own estimation: the translation is not just acs bat hmapobie. This stapes in an ieasiseney Graves’ use of “homosexual relationship” to render “prosta (Coen his modest tothe ig?) an acronis, my sci em at digs seme sox activity as al and is therefore inappropriate for an ancient culture in which sexual stented according othe parspnt’ sx (OED; Wiseman is hen nde ho nettle tht is sonshp did Dut ny does be increase the innuendo by wing “upicin sve rane “rumorem auxit” ("the rumor spread”, but he insets bly” entirely absent from the Latin text. Graves's version mosey wih perversion, but sine the relationship ona there are ao pled mpiatons, heh of which the ambitious Caesar is concealing and which he may28 Invisibility aor eplitin abd for power: the passage immediately preceding this on has ihe aaa sna Sulla associating Caesar with his archenemy Marius. Because the passees cea ged with hid accusation, even the concusive force ofthat “howeyes” + Spining rehabilitation of Caesar's image, ify subverted by the Possible gestion of another sexaleationship saving a fellow soldier's fe Saran later touches on Caesars sexual reputation, and here too Graves's version is marked by a homophobic bias: ‘Padictiae eius famam nihil quidem praeter Nicomedis contuberium ies, (Butler and Cary 1927: 22) “The only specific charge of unnatural practices ever brought aginst him was (Graves 1957: 30) that he had been King Nicomedes’ catamite. “Where the Latin text makes rather general and noncommittal eferencesto Caesar's aersniy, Graves chooses English words that stigmatize same-sex sexual 2's srverera question raised aboutus is famam’ ("his sexu repaaton’) Pecverecaspecifecharge of unnatural practices," while “contuberium” sharing adm teat” “companionship.” “intinacy”) makes Caesar a “eatamite,” aterm ae faoe in the early modem period for 20ys who were the sexual objects of med (OED. As an archuism, “catamite” deviates from the modem English eset coe eughoat this and other Penguin Classics, a deviation that is symaptomatie aaa Jomaticating process in Graves’s version His prose i 0 Tucid and upp Grae ccch symptoms can well be overlooked, enabling the translation to x 98 ‘perpretain while presenting that inepretatin as authoritative, issuing fom oe aaral postion that transcends linguistic and cultura ferences to addres English language reader. Graes's intespretation, however, assimilates om can text to contemporary British vales. He punctures the myth of Cacsat ‘uatng the Roman dictatorship with sexal perversion, end this ests PO Famophobia that linked homosexuality with a fear of totalitarian aunism, and politcal subversion tough espionage. “Inthe Cold Was Saupeld notes, “prosecutions for homosexual ‘offences rose five times ovet in 1 years from 1939," and “communist homosexual teacher, was wich TE SeAE ihe heart of the high-cultura: establishment” (Sinfield 1989: 66, ‘Graves's fluently translated Suetonius participated in this sit stigmatizing Caesar's sexuality, but by presenting the stigma as In the preface, Graves remarked that Suetonius “seems trustworthy: suggested inadvertently that this Roman historian sary currently prevailing in Britain: “his only prejudice being in wild rule, with a egard forthe human decencies” (Graves 1957; 7) Foreignizing wanslations that are not transparent, that eschew Suency ‘are equally partial in thei inter Invisibility 29 of the foreign text, bu thay tend to Raunt the ‘ . ir partaltyinstad of conceal {Whereas Graves’ Suetonius fcass on the signied.ceatng anion of spray in whch nus and cat lence we emesis aa translations oflen focus onthe signifier, crest : tenon cl and dings be tensor bt Tom boi ex ned 3 transition both from tM fom ring vals in he ensigns a crs 6 work, fregaiaton sometimes takes the form of arch s Pond wrk form of archi. His seo Tie See (6 ap mn gah fing cll ale Ste a, nang compan vrs ito dasa meter, ven resorting fo calque renderings that echo Anglo-Saxon ‘Ree estra'Miter tect" “mecoupr nce se elt com of fe coe “footw oo wa “hel earum fea’? “aa es" signde fo ence mew ng al my departures from moder English ls ine espera a ne enig bleomega feasceaig fr frefran mea Forpon him gelyfe It, se bea lifes wy acbiden in burgum, bealsipa hwon, ‘lone ond wingal, hu ic weig of inbrimladebidansccolde. (Krapp and Dobbie 1936: 144) Not any protector May make merry man fering needy. This he litle believes, who aye in winsome lise | Abides: ae ‘some heavy business, Bead vie fued, how wen of (Pound 1954: 207) “aye” (“always”) is a Middle English : ot sre we rr eee Se tra en as oe Sree eee ee I eet cso mg =e ae ine Pes, ‘Pound's knowledge of English literature t is modernist poetics, by his favoring, notably elliptical, fragmentary verse in which subjectivity is split and30. Invisibility “determinate, presented as a site of eterogencous cultural discourses (Eashope sey chap3) Te peculirtis of Pound’ translation ~ the gnared synthe aa vilteration, the densely allusive achaism ~ slow the movement of eae arlene, resisting assimilation, however momentarily, to coberent sbjest (Geter “author” or “seafrr”) and foregrounding the varios English dees titra discourses that get cided beneath the illusion ofa speaking Voice sins disorsive strategy produces a foreignizing effect through its resistance ra far pul in cutemporey Beitish and American cltres - the canon oF Teny in tanltion, the dominance of transparent discourse, the individualistic ilusion of authorial presence. AnaiesPound'stansltionreinseribes its ownmoderistbrandofindividuaisns tpyaltng the Anglo-Saxon text. AS the medivalist Christine Fel has ema, Bi stont contains “two traditions, the heroic, if we may so define it, preoeeupaien aa weMruival of bonour after 1ss of life ~ and the Christian hope for suri wie is in Heaven" (Fell 1991: 176). However these conflicting values ented “hc ext whether present in some inal orl version of introduced during» ter see nate transcription they project two contradictory concepts of subject, one sacreshcalad the seafarers his own person alinated from mead-hall as Wel sea. the ober eolectve (he Seafarer asa soul in « metaphysical erst Serta of other souls and dominated by God), Pound’ translation resales Ws copefction by omitting the Christan references entirely, highlighting the at 10 “seek stricken exile, broken Aislation strategy interferes withthe individualistic illusion of tans. ashe revisions intensify the theme of heroic individualism, and hence 13 arent gibes at the “bargher” who complacently pursues his financial ewe seen not [what some perform/Where wandering them widest ra ‘Pound 1958, 208). The revision are symptomatic ofthe cultural pola Gpevanimates Pound's freignzing translation, «peculiar ideological conta‘ ‘hat distinguishes modemist literary experiments: the development of ext teats that decenter the transcendental subject coincies with arecupeenie sriheugh cerain individualistic motifs like the “strong personality” Ui thir contradiction constitutes a response to the crisis of human subjestill that modemists perceived in social developments like monopoly capi particulary the cretion ofa mass workforce andthe standardization of he process (Jameson 1979: 110-14), "The examples from Graves and Pound show thatthe sim of a symp reading is nt to assess the “freedom” or “fidelity” of a translation, it reading lye canons of accuracy by Which the translator produced and ju ise cannot be construed a8 mere semantic equivalence: on the one Fescign text is susceptible to many different interpretations, even a he Invisibility 31 indi nore eran tana de ner tence stn ard avy ete erin Ths das tint mon osc esaiol eo rc ‘canons of accuracy are cut ly specific and historically variable. o Gin i ee nb bo aon, i hs none ged hl and accoptdas tho standard Englishanguae enering by ‘Sada pei ke Grit 1979, Grant published an ted version of Graves’s translation that pronounced it accurate, if not “precise”: ° icons te pct f Suetonius snetods nd 3 characte be fo) wr ruslion Why, fn ve een sed "ei Because ot Graves (who explicitly refrained from catering for students) did not sina pigs prev min eng ims os etn onsen orig pe wh det oem Be th saws nd taming sesso and somites een group fetes, inside ut [-] What have ied, hereforeistomakesichadjustnents sgn nee gf ttm eral prey fomtierclcnnd inilememet ns oeersing (Grant 1980: 89) In the twenty-two years separating Graves’s intial ne yess initial version from the revised ‘edition, the canons of accuracy underwent a change, requiring a translation to be "bath uent and exact, o make for “vivid and compulsive reading” (iia: 8), but eee a ee ee seer cer = en rae eres can prose by replacing at archuism with a more familiar contemporary tetision i Obvious too small io minimize the homophobia in the selon of "The Sie” lo at ingly twins 8 Bs ron yh aly renin of Agen epee 13-2) et mock devaton ome text pres fo mich a deviation Bon rn cmeriaton at espa oa tyquson in hsorcal the poem be erccved shaving «Chin mesage aan rar the Cirinian stmt adios tat sit neal over the (Basset 980; 96), In gis Lerner the Begining fr example, Sted Boks sro a" haste the ay aaron th ey rit up a prof he original poe” B) Fondant coe mtd cs sing je siandard, tanto thats simlancosly32 Invisibility 4 piasble edition of the Anglo-Saxon tex His departures from te Pst Book aaa calla situation in which Anglo-Saxon was stil very much sadist ald therefore be expected to appreciate the work of historical jm his version ofthe poem. “The spmplomatiereaing is historic approach tothe sudy of tandation, arvateeanons of accuracy ia her specifi cultural moments. Critical aeteguries Ike “fucney” and resitaney,”"domestiaing” and “foreigniing caer es aly by refering to the formation of coltural discourses in which the atom is produced, and in which cern translation theories and practices ore ‘rata ower others At the sare time, however, applying these eiical eateRorss ate gy of tasting is anachronistic: they are fundamentally determined agenda in the present, an opposition to the contemporary scours, to the privileging of a fluent domesticating tect hat masks bth the translators work andthe asymmetries slots raat, economie, political ~ between English-language nations and their caneretige Although a humanist theory and practice of translation i equal wena onisti,insribing the foreign-language text with values that are curs it aanerrejing cular, tis also dehistorczing: the varios conditions of transite erred of their reception are conceled beneath concepts of transcendent ‘Shjoctvty and transparent communicaion. A symptomatic reading, in Oma, aaoccpncwing: it assumes a concept of determinate subjectivity that exposes tani ethnocentric violence of translating and te interested nature of its own historcit approach. 4 The genealogical method “The project ofthe present book isto combat the translator's invisibility wih Hey of and in opposition to ~ corteraporary English-language transision mraoral history with a professed politcal agenda, it follows the genealogical method developed by Nietzsche and Fovcault and sande {he evo principles that gover much conventional historiography: tlca98 Shjeetivity. Genealogy isa form of historical representation that doPics ciet tinuous progression from a united origin, an inevitable development 2 ich the past Axes the meaning of te present, but a discontinuous soess vesision and hierarchy, domination and exclusion, which destabilizg 0 seeming unity of the present by constituting a past with plural heterog=n recings, Te a genealogical analysis, writes Foucault, “what is found rere beginnings of things isnot he inviolable identity oftheir origins air a ee hee ings Tis dspaty” (Foucault 1977: 142). The posibl isseraperating these “otber” meanings explodes the pretense of objoos er corography: ts teledogical emphasis betrays a complicit) saenettjnuance of past domination and exclusion into the present. Thus, emi o bea cultural political pactic, a partial (Le. at once selene vs spoie) representation ofthe past that actively intervenes into the PEE Invisibility 33 coven ifthe interests served by that intervention are nt aways made Etiming the interested nate of historical representation, in aking a stand ‘i-th plea stgles fi tution, And by lenght bon inated or excluded inthe past and repressed by convention historiography Soccer eomenes ‘ih iti performed rope lent onions to eee in he ture. History informed by genealogy, Foucault suggests “should become a differential knowledge of energies and failings, heights ard dogencratc pons nd ands. Is as isto brome acaraive scence 156), By Constructing a differential representation ofthe h cogs SStrcontfutral dite sd nora! conics end develops sluons at oct opin sas ce ‘he Translator's isi intervenes against the transltr's suai acy cmp Bh ad Aven ates Wy ofting se of that write the history of present. I traces the rise of BR msec hile searching the pat for exits, altemative theories and practices in Brits, ns ore Sir ena as Geomen, Prec Inn "The aps fm sume prd coolly, wing te in of Austasingein vr Lin fat doninaton and il, uso ar autn an oe ore damon gh nh he ore jecies are eoveredand the prvling fens sot simpy etisoned bt Fee Tete ofrecer and eis hat consis guest et on Ears reser, ringing to ight froin o epee esas biting an alertive dion hat somewhat rei with ut mosh the current canon of British and American iterates. : ookismotvaedy tongue documentary of El fation o uncover Tongabscure rans end aston hei publication and reception, and io aris sigan iss. The documentary impulse, however, serves the skepticism of readings that interrogate the process of domestication in translated sarc an mari nd renin he wis ncotepory an culties. The historical naratives in each chapter, grounded on diagnos of caren anon ary and racic, ess ‘values inthe rocciving culture has transparent discourse at nd mastd in forint during ong doin How hs © shaped th canon of focgn terres in ng and te eal OF Foglia inguage nations? Why has transparency preva ever on strategies in English, ike Victorian archaism (Francis Newnan, S) and modemist experiments with heterogexeous discourses io eet the proces of domes 3 of domesicaton by choosing fee om tap dasoune snd by ting th 2034 Invisibility signal thei linguistic and cultural diferences? Would this effort establish pore ‘Semel atie cultural exchanges? Would it change receiving cultural values? Or ‘would it mean banishment to the finges of British and American cultures? "Throughout, the emphasis ison humanistic transaton, trary in the broadest sense (including not only coaventional Iiterary genres such as poetry end ton, tat also biography, history, philosophy, and psychology, among other genres vy disciplines in the human sciences), a& opposed > technical translation ‘Commercial, diplomatic, legal, scienfic).This emphasis not due to the fct hat (eoinvate translators today are any more invisible or exploited than theirtechnial Freelance or employed by translation agencies, are not ‘permitted to sign royalties Fischbach 1992: 3). Rather, humanistic translation is emphasized ndard applied in echnical translation (vz. fluency), ad most importantly for ‘event purposes, it has traditionally been the fd whereianovative thers and practices emerge. As Schleiermacher realized long ag, the choice of whether 6 rwvestieate o foreignize a foreign text has been allowed only to translators of era and scholarly texts, ot to translators of technizal materials, Technical ttaasletion is fundamentally constrained by the exigencies of communication ‘Snee World War I it has supported scientific research, geopolitical negotiation, Sod ceonomie exchange, especially as multinational corporations seck the Expansion of foreign markets and the creation of ovesias workforces and tins sameaxingly requie fluent, immediately inteligible trssatons of international inane, legal contracts, technical information, and instraction manuals (Lev, 1991: £5) Although in sheer volume and financial wort technical translation f= cReceds the translation of literary texts (a recent estimate values the workdwide Trnolation industry at $26 billion: Downey 2004), humanistic translation remains Trealtural practice where the translator can experiment in the choice of foreign vents and inthe development of discursive strategies, constrained primarily by ‘current situation in the receiving culture, “The ultimate aim ofthe book isto force translators and their readers to con he ethnocentric violence of translation and hence to write and read trans Gea in ways tbat recognize the linguistic and cultual differences of fo ‘eas. What am advocating is not an indisriminate valorization of every for culture ora metaphysical concept of foreign text is privileged in a foreignizing a disruption of receiving cultural codes, so that its value is always sualdl ‘Jeponding on the cultural formation into which iis trnsated. The goal is fcvelaborate the theoretical, critical, and textual means by which translation & be studied and practiced asa locus of difference, instead of the bomogenci widely characterizes it today. Chapter 2 Canon ‘Words in One Language Elegantly us'd Willard in another be excus'd, ‘And some that Rome admis‘ in Caesars Time ‘May neither suit Our Genius nor our Clime. ‘The Genuine Sence, Inellgibly To, Stews a Translator both Discret and Bold Earl of Roscommon Fluency emerges decisively in English-language translation during tee ptf faint Here cule in sven sory ‘and over the next two hundred years itis valued for diverse reasons, tnd social, in accordance with the vicissitudes of the hegemonic classes. same time, the illusion of transparency produced in fluent translation Soronshsingdoestcaton hat mass the mail conon ofthe its exclusionary impact on foreign cultural values, but also on home, elimiating translation strategies that resist transparent discourse, elites. The dominance of fency in E s in English-language translation nt geting of te cots dela fntervene agsinst the contemporary phase ofthis dominance. genealogy aims to trace terse offueey as canon of Engish- rsltion shoving how i achieved canonical sats, eopsing ays on the canon of foreign eres i agli and the culural and social values that itexcludes at home. In and royalist cultural politics Denham published a transation with p 7 wih the running tly The Yn Ese won te Second Bok of Pig eee tie pgs ene among many reat things abou Sign of suborhip in favor oft bold reference to the