DAMHNAIT DENNIS Centro de Idiomas, Universidad del Istmo Oaxaca, México

Transcription

1 DAMHNAIT DENNIS Centro de Idiomas, Universidad del Istmo Oaxaca, México The translator s task: the transfer of literary texts into the Target Language: with reference to the English translations of Cervantes El Ingenioso Hidalgo Don Quijote de La Mancha Introduction Throughout history translation and translated texts have been central to the development of literature, culture and science by the transmission of both literary texts and knowledge between language systems. The transfer of religious texts (Jewish scriptures, the Bible) contributed to the development of the discipline of translation. The translations into Arabic of Greek philosophical and scientific works, which were later translated from Arabic into Latin contributed to the development of European scholarship. Despite this contribution to literary, cultural and scientific progress and innovation, translation, translation practitioners and translated texts have a low status in receptor literary canons and cultures in general, and in Anglo-American cultures and literatures in particular. The marginal status of the translator and of translated texts in English-speaking cultures and literary canons may be attributed to the translator s invisibility and the domestization of foreign texts: domestization of the foreign or source text is defined by Laurence Venuti as the forcible replacement of the linguistic and cultural difference of the foreign text with a text that will be intelligible to the target language reader. (Venuti 2004:18) Defining Translation How then, given the low status of translation in target cultures and literary systems and the invisibility of the translator as a translation ideal, can the act of translation be defined? In Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach, Mary Snell-Hornby defines translation as ( ) cross-cultural communication ( ). (Snell-Hornby 1988: 40) She states that language does not exist in isolation but is rather ( ) an integral part of culture. (Ibid: 40) and therefore translation takes place between two languages and two cultures. Culture in the context of an integrated approach to translation studies is defined as ( ) a totality of knowledge, proficiency and perception ( ). (Ibid: 42) The integration of language and culture in translation studies has implications for translation practice, the closer the cultures of the language pairs involved in the translation process, the higher the degree of translatability. The greater the distance between the cultures of the language pairs involved in the translation process, the higher the degree of untranslatability. Snell-Hornby states that: Literary texts, especially those embedded in a culture of the distant past, tend to be less easily translatable than those texts dealing with the universals of modern science. (Ibid: 41-2) Following Snell-Hornby s rationale, the translation of early 17 th century Spanish texts like Cervantes El Ingenioso Hidalgo Don Quijote de La Mancha, created at a distant point in the source history, language and culture and at a significant distance from the point of transfer into the target literary system must contain high levels of untranslatables. In A Textbook of Translation, Peter Newmark argues that untranslatables can be translated indirectly by transferring the source item and explaining it if no parallel item can be found in the target language and no compensatory effect may be produced within the same paragraph. (Newmark 1989:17) Consequently, every variety of meaning in a source text can be translated either directly or indirectly into a target language, and therefore everything is translatable. In A Linguistic Theory of Translation JC Catford indentifies two types of untranslatability, linguistic untranslatability and cultural untranslatability: he defines Linguistic untranslatability as when no lexical or syntactical substitute exists in the target language for a source language item, and Cultural untranslatability as the absence in the target language culture of a relevant situational feature for the source text. (Catford 1965:50) Defining the task of the translator Susan Bassnett in Translation Studies Revised Edition (Routledge, London, 1991) states that the French scholar and translator, Etienne Dolet in 1540 established five principles for the translator: (1) The translator must fully understand the sense and meaning of the original author, although he is at liberty to clarify obscurities (2) The translator should have a perfect knowledge of both SL and TL (3) The translator should avoid word-for-word renderings (4) The translator should use forms of speech in common use (5) The translator should choose and order words appropriately to produce the correct tone La Manière de bien traduire d une langue en aultre (How to Translate well from one Language into Another) Etienne Dolet, 1540 in (Bassnett 1991: 54) 599

2 In Bassnett s opinion the translator is far more than a competent linguist, and translation involves both a scholarly and sensitive appraisal of the SL text and an awareness of the place the translation is intended to occupy in the TL system. (Ibid: 54) Either the translator leaves the author in peace, as much as possible, and moves the reader towards him; or he leaves the reader in peace, as much as possible, and moves the author towards him Friedrich Schleiermacher in (Lefevere 1977:74) In Schleiermacher s opinion the translator is faced with a choice when translating a text, s/he can domesticate -produce a translated text that reads like an original text -or foreignize -retain the foreign elements, either cultural or linguistic. For Schleiermacher, once the translator decides on whether to domesticate or to foreignize then the task of translating is relatively uncomplicated, all choices-whether lexical, structural, or grammar-based-should be coherent with the decision to foreignize or to domesticate. Few contemporary theorists have looked in detail at the concept of equivalence in the context of the translation of literature. Equivalence takes many different forms; it may refer to finding target equivalents at the level of lexis (for example, the translation options available to the English translator of Don Quixote when transferring the source noun hidalgo ). This single source item presents an interesting translation problem; how can the English translator produce a similar effect in the target text that Cervantes use of hidalgo produced in the source language text? Snell-Hornby defines translation as a cross-cultural event and the translator as an individual who ( ) needs not only proficiency in two languages, he must also be at home in two cultures. In other words, he must be bilingual and bicultural. The extent of his knowledge, proficiency and perception determines not only his ability to produce the target text, but also his understanding of the source text. (Snell-Hornby 1988: 42) The process of transferring literary texts from Source Language (SL) to Target Language (TL): What is literary translation? One of the earliest essays on translation is Alexander Tytler s Essay on the Principles of Translation (1791). Tytler outlines 3 basic principles of translation: (1) Translation should give a complete transcript of the idea of the original work (2) The style and manner of writing should be of the same character with that of the original (3) The translation should have all the ease of the original composition (Bassnett 1991 p ) It may seem that the principles outlined by Tytler in 1791 are outdated; a brief analysis of contemporary reviews of translated texts suffices to understand that most translation criticism continues to be based on the principles outlined by Tytler over 200 hundred years ago. If Tytler s principles are applied to the translation of literature, the task of the literary translator seems impossible. How can the 21 st century translator of Cervantes El Ingenioso Hidalgo Don Quijote de La Mancha (1605, 1615) reproduce the style and manner of the original? If the contemporary translator of Don Quixote into English does not fulfill these principles, is the translation invalid? Are Thomas Shelton s translations (1612, 1620) the only valid English translations? Tradutore Tradittore, is a cliché in the evaluation of literature in translation; it is assumed that the translator, in attempting to recreate the original text in the target text must be a traitor to the intent, content, style, creativity and originality of the source text author. In this paper, the translation of literature is defined as the process of interpreting the source text and producing a target text. The process of translating literature is defined as a work of literary creation; the translator is identified as the author of the target text. It is accepted that the target text differs from the source text. It is acknowledged that a definitive translation of a literary text does not exist; multiple translators of a single source text can produce multiple valid target texts. The status of translated literary texts in the target literary system A translated text, whether prose or poetry, fiction or nonfiction, is judged acceptable by most publishers, reviewers, and readers when it reads fluently, when the absence of any linguistic or stylistic peculiarities makes it seem transparent, giving the appearance that it reflects the foreign writer s personality or intention or the essential meaning of the foreign text the appearance, in other words, that the translation is not in fact a translation, but the original. (Venuti 2004:1) Venuti describes the attitudes of the target text readership to literature in translation. He identifies one of the central issues in the transfer of literary texts; if the translation is judged acceptable it should read as though it had been created in the target language. The task of the literary translator is to faithfully reproduce the source text in the target text; the translator is not free to create but must recreate the original. These attitudes and expectations do not reflect the reality of the literary translator engaged in a process of interpretation and creation. Landers explains why the source text and its author retain their status within the target and source literary systems. While the source text and author gain canonical status in the source and target literary systems, the target text is continually revised and updated: The half-life of a translation, it has been said, is from 30 to 40 years; every 30 years the translation loses half its vitality, its freshness, its ability to communicate to the reader in a contemporary voice. If this is true, it follows that major works of literature must be retranslated periodically if they are to retain their function as a bridge between cultures and eras. (Landers 2001: 11) The English translations of Cervantes El Ingenioso Hidalgo Don Quijote de La Mancha 1605, 1615 James Fitzmaurice-Kelly explains that Britain was the first foreign country to mention Don Quixote, the first to translate the book ( ), the first ( ) in Europe to present it decently garbed in its native tongue, the first to provide a biography ( ), the first to publish a commentary, and the first to issue a critical edition of the text. (Stavans 2008: Vol. 8 No. 5) 600

3 The following table shows the translator and year of publication of the English translations of Don Quixote from Thomas Shelton s in 1612 and 1620 to Tom Lathrop s in 2005: Translator Year of Publication Thomas Shelton 1612 (Part I),1620 (Part II) John Philips 1687 John Stevens (after T. Shelton) Edward Ward 1711 Peter Motteux 1712 Charles Jarvis 1742 Tobias Smollett 1755 Charles Henry Wilmot 1774 Mary Smirke (after Charles Jarvis) 1818 Alexander James Duffield 1881 John Ormsby 1885 Henry Edward Watts 1888 Samuel Putnam 1949 JM Cohen 1950 Walter Starkie 1964 Burton Raffel 1996 John Rutherford 2000 Edith Grossman 2003 Tom Lathrop 2005 Source: The Cervantes Project: In Spain and Portugal Anthony Pym points out that from 1790 to 1900 Cervantes is the most translated author from Spanish into English with 27 translations (Pym 2003:4). He mentions that Charles Jarvis 1742 translation ran to 79 editions, Smollett s to 20 editions, while the 19 th century translations such as Ormsby s only ran to 10 editions and Alexander J. Duffield s had no second edition. (Ibid: 4) The first translation into any language of Cervantes Don Quijote was Thomas Shelton s English translation of Part I, published in London in Ormsby s Introduction to his 1885 translation is a valuable source of criticism of the previous renditions of Cervantes novel. Ormsby writes: Shelton had the inestimable advantage of belonging to the same generation as Cervantes; Don Quixote had to him a vitality that only a contemporary could feel; it cost him no dramatic effort to see things as Cervantes saw them; there is no anachronism in his language; he put the Spanish of Cervantes into the English of Shakespeare. (Ormsby 1922:3) Thomas Shelton is also credited with English translation of Part II, published in London in Ormsby remarks: In 1687 John Phillips, Milton s nephew, produced a Don Quixote made English, according to the humour of our modern language. His Quixote is not so much a translation as a travesty, and a travesty that for coarseness, vulgarity, and buffoonery is almost unexampled even in the literature of that day. (Ibid: 4) In 1712 Peter Motteux s English translation appeared. Motteux described it as translated from the original by several hands. In 1742 Charles Jervis (Jervas) translation was published posthumously. Jervis version is described by Ormsby as ( ) by far the most faithful, and yet nobody seems to have a good word to say for it or for its author. Ormbsy also alludes to Pope s accusation that Jervas translated Don Quixote without understanding Spanish. However Ormsby defends Jarvis Spanish scholarship and states that Jervis version is singularly free from errors and mistranslations. (Ibid: 7) In 1755 Tobias Smollett s translation was published. Ormsby describes this translation as having been ( ) robbed of ( ) chief merit of fidelity. He concludes that Smollett drew heavily on Jarvis earlier work and in his opinion the translation was produced with ( ) very little or probably no heed given to the original Spanish. (Ibid: 7) In his translator s note Smollett writes the Translator s aim ( )to retain the spirit and ideas, without servilely adhering to the literal expression, of the original: from which, however, he has not so far deviated, as to destroy that formality of idiom, so peculiar to the Spaniards, and so essential to the character of the work. (Smollett 1998 Edition: XLIV) The late 19 th century English translations include Alexander Duffield s in 1881, John Ormsby s in 1885 and Henry Edward Watts in The 20 th century has produced its share of English translations of Don Quixote : Samuel Putnam (1949), JM Cohen (1950) and Walter Starkie (1957) are probably the most widely-read English translations of Don Quixote to date. Burton Raffel produced the last English translation of the 20 th century, published in 1996 in New York. There are already three new English translations of Don Quixote in the 21 st century, John Rutherford (2000), Edith Grossman (2003) and Tom Lathrop (2005). 601

4 An evaluation of a selection of the English translations of Cervantes El Ingenioso Hidalgo Don Quijote de La Mancha Nadie imaginará que del Quijote pueda pensar lo mismo el ingenioso español, el humor británico, la metafísica germana, que más bien quiso confirmar que negar el espíritu caballeresco, o la burla ligera, a veces inverecunda, del esprit galo, que hace de Dulcinea una moza del partido. Y así hemos de hallar una extensa gama de interpretaciones ( ) Espinós quoted in (Santana Burgos 2009: 7) Now that 400 years have passed since the publication of Part I of Miguel de Cervantes masterpiece, do we have today the English translations we need to appreciate Don Quijote? (McGrath 2006:2) It seems to me that translating from one language into another, except from those queens of languages, Greek and Latin, is like viewing Flemish tapestries from the wrong side, when, although one can make out the figures, they are covered by threads that obscure them, and one cannot appreciate the smooth finish of the right side. (Don Quixote, Part II, chapter LXII) In this section a selection of the English translations of Don Quixote is evaluated by the comparison of the translations of the title of the novel which includes a selection of cultural-specific markers- forms of address, toponyms and proper nouns. The English translations cited are Motteux s, Smollett s, Putnam s, Starkie s, Rutherford s and Grossman s. Translating the title of the source text Why is the translation of the title of the source text important? The title should fulfill several important functions; it should provide the prospective readers with some information about the content and/or main themes of the text. It should attract the readers attention and trigger their curiosity. The title may also include some information about the text s main character/s. Target text titles: SL title: El Ingenioso Hidalgo Don Quijote de La Mancha TL title I: The History of the Renown d Don Quixote de la Mancha (Peter Motteux, 1712: 2000 Edition) TL title II: The History and Adventures of the Renowned Don Quixote (Tobias Smollett, 1755:1998 Edition) TL title III: The Ingenious Gentleman Don Quixote of La Mancha (John Ormsby, 1885: 2007 Edition) TL title IV: The Ingenious Gentleman Don Quixote de La Mancha (Samuel Putnam, 1949) TL title V: Don Quixote of La Mancha (Walter Starkie 1964) TL title VI: The Ingenious Hidalgo Don Quixote de la Mancha (John Rutherford, 2003) TL title VII: The Ingenious Gentleman Don Quixote of La Mancha (Edith Grossman, 2005) The source title conveys information about the novel s central character. The use of the source adjective ingenioso, the title Don, the proper noun Quijote, the source toponym La Mancha transmit information about the social status, and origin of the novel s main character. How much of this information can be communicated to the target text readership? What information is lost in transfer? How does this loss impact on the target text at macro- (text-as-a-whole) and micro- (at-sentence) levels? How does the translator compensate for the lack of lexical and/or cultural equivalents? The translators choices and the impact of these choices on the target readers understanding of the target text are assessed. To begin this assessment, the following culture-specific lexis is identified in the source title: ingenioso, hidalgo, Don Quijote, La Mancha. Peter Motteux (1712) translates the source adjective ingenioso as renown d. This target adjective can be defined as famous, well-known, eminent. In the Introduction to his 2000 English translation, Rutherford describes Motteux s 1712 translation as ( ) of interest ( ) but inaccurate (Rutherford 2000: xiv) The Diccionario de la Real Academia Española offers the following definitions of the source noun ingenio : 1. m. Facultad del hombre para discurrir o inventar con prontitud y facilidad. 2. m. Individuo dotado de esta facultad. Comedia famosa de un ingenio de esta corte. 3. m. Intuición, entendimiento, facultades poéticas y creadoras. 4. m. Industria, maña y artificio de alguien para conseguir lo que desea. 5. m. Chispa, talento para ver y mostrar rápidamente el aspecto gracioso de las cosa. Motteux s choice is interesting, the target adjective conveys the idea of Don Quixote s fame; but renown d does not suggest genius or brilliance. Motteux suppresses the source noun hidalgo ; he makes no explicit reference to the central character s social status. This use of the target noun history emphasizes Don Quixote s exploits. The source address Don and the toponym La Mancha are transferred directly into the target title. Motteux explains the location of La Mancha in a footnote in Chapter One, La Mancha-A small territory, partly in the kingdom of Arragon, and partly in Castile (Motteux 2000 edition: 9) Smollett s title (1755) is similar to Motteux s: he also suppresses the source noun hidalgo. Smollett s title refers to Don Quixote ; there is no explicit reference to the character s social status. How does Smollett s translation impact on the target readers understanding of the novel s central character? Is this important to the target readers interpretation of the novel? Does Smollett compensate for the lexical gap between the source and target languages? Smollett expands on Motteux s history, referring to the history and adventures of Don Quixote: he 602

5 focuses the readers attention on the novel s action. Smollett repeats renown d, emphasizing the central character s fame rather than his genius. He also transfers the source Don directly into the target title. Smollett does not compensate for this direct transfer of a source term into the target title; he also suppresses La Mancha but he does transfer it directly in the opening chapter of Part I. However, unlike Motteux and other English translators, Smollett does not explain the location of La Mancha in a footnote. He does not seem to consider the geographical origin of the novel s central character pertinent. Rutherford refers to the 19 th century translators Duffield, Ormsby and Watts as ( ) meticulous scholars who devoted immense efforts to ensuring every detail of his translation was as correct as he could make it, and Ormsby was particularly successful; but this was again at the expense of the humour. (Rutherford 2000: xv) It should be taken into consideration that at the time of Ormsby s translation the Romantic interpretation of the novel prevailed: Don Quixote in the 19 th century was not considered a funny book but rather the account of a noble hero defending his principles in a cruel world. La revolución empezó con el Romanticismo alemán. Don Quijote pasó pronto a ser el héroe trágico de la más triste de las novelas donde antes había sido el personaje más ridículo de la más cómica. (Riley 2000:227) Ormsby transfers the source adjective ingenioso as ingenious (OED definitions include clever, inventive cunning brilliant ). This target adjective seems to be a more accurate attempt to transfer the meaning of the source lexical item than either Smollett s or Motteux s. Ormsby translates hidalgo as gentleman (OED definitions include a chivalrous, courteous or honourable man, a man of good social position, especially one of wealth and leisure or also a man of noble birth attached to a royal household ). Ormsby, as previous English translators had done, transfers both Don and the toponym La Mancha directly into the target title. Putnam s title is close to Ormsby s. He also uses ingenious and gentleman, and transfers Don directly into the target title. However, unlike many of the other translators of Don Quixote-with the exception of Rutherford-Putnam transfers de La Mancha directly into the target text. What does the noun gentleman convey to the target text reader? It may communicate some information about the character s lifestyle and status but it may also be misleading, given that in the source text the discrepancy between Don Quixote s social rank and his economic reality is a source of humour. Starkie chooses to title his translation Don Quixote of La Mancha ; he suppresses most of the information conveyed in the source title and focuses the target readers attention on the novel s main character. What does this suppression mean for the target readers understanding of the novel? Does Starkie s omission indicate that he does not consider the information conveyed in the source title essential? Rutherford (2000) chooses to transfer the source title almost completely into the target title. In his notes on the translation Rutherford states: Any translated work ought to retain marks of its origin, its otherness in time and in space, of its historicity and of its foreignness. (Rutherford 2000: xix) Despite the translator s explanation outlined above, the question remains whether the almost direct transfer of the source text s title conveys any significant information to the monolingual readers of the target text. Grossman s title (2003) reproduces Ormsby s 1885 rendering of the source title: The Ingenious Gentleman Don Quixote of La Mancha. Conclusions Don Quixote is greater today then he was in Cervantes womb. [He] looms so wonderfully above the skyline of literature, a gaunt giant on a lean nag, that the book lives and will live through [his] sheer vitality.. He stands for everything that is gentle, forlorn, pure, unselfish, and gallant. The parody has become a paragon. Vladimir Nabokov in (Grossman 2005: front piece) Edith Grossman in her Translator s Note to the Reader explains that my primary obligation as a literary translator is to re-create for the reader in English the experience of the reader in Spanish. (Grossman: 2005: xix) What can be learned from a comparison of a selection of the English translations of a single source text? The translators task can be evaluated through an analysis of their lexical, structural, grammar-based choices. Their attempts to compensate for lexical, structural and/or cultural gaps between the source and target language systems can also be examined. The target text is examined as an independent literary creation. The comparison can be extended to include iconic scenes from the novel, dialogue, speech patterns, humour, word-games and culture-specific markers. Bibliography Translation Studies Bassnett, Susan. Translation Studies Revised edition, Routledge, London, 1991 Bassnett, Susan, Lefevere, André. Translation, History and Culture, Pinter Publications, London, 1990 Benjamin, Walter. The task of the translator, Fontana Books, London, 1992 Catford, JC. A Linguistic Theory of Translation, Oxford University Press, London, 1965 Newmark, Peter. A Textbook of Translation, Prentice Hall, London, 1989 Stavan, Ilan One Master, Many Cervantes Don Quixote in Translation, Humanities, September/October 2008, Vol. 29, No. 5. Retrieved on 16/07/2010: Snell-Hornby, Mary. An Integrated Approach to Translation, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 1988 Toury, Gideon Descriptive translation studies and beyond, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam,

6 Translated Literature: System, Norm, Performance: Toward a TT-Oriented Approach to Translation Poetics Today, Vol. 2:4 p.9-27, 1981 Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator s Invisibility: A History of Translation, Translation Studies Series, Routledge, London, 1995 Miguel de Cervantes, El Ingenioso Hidalgo Don Quijote de La Mancha De Cervantes, Saavedra, Miguel. Don Quijote de La Mancha Edición del IV Centenario, Real Academia Española, Associación de Academias de la Lengua Española y Alfaguara, Madrid, 2004 De Madariaga, Salvador. Guía del lector del «Quijote», Colección Austral, Editorial Espasa Calpe, S.A., Madrid, 2005 McGrath, Michael. Bulletin of the Cervantes Society of America, 26.1 pages 7-40 Spring-Fall 2006 Riley, Edward C. Introducción al «Quijote», Biblioteca de Bolsillo, Editorial Crítica S.L., Barcelona, 2000 Santana Burgos Laura. Las traducciones del Quijote: ediciones y primeros viajes, Revista de Humanidades y ciencias sociales, Nº 5, septiembre de 2009 English Translations Grossman, Edith. The Ingenious Gentleman Don Quixote de La Mancha, Ecco Paperback Edition, New York, 2005 Motteux, Peter. The History of the Renown d Don Quixote de la Mancha, Wordsworth Classics of World Literature, Wordsworth Editions Limited, Herefordshire, 2000 Ormsby, John. The Ingenious Gentleman Don Quixote of La Mancha, Penn State Electronic Classics Series 1922 Edition, Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania, 2007 Putnam, Samuel. The Ingenious Gentleman Don Quixote de La Mancha, Viking Penguin Inc. New York, 1949 Rutherford, John. The Ingenious Hidalgo Don Quixote de la Mancha, Penguin Classics, Penguin Books, London, 2003 Smollett, Tobias. The History and Adventures of the Renowned Don Quixote, Wordsworth Classics of World Literature, Wordsworth Editions Limited, Herefordshire, 1998 Starkie, Walter. Don Quixote of La Mancha, Macmillan & Company, Limited, London, 1957 Dictionaries Nueva actualización del Diccionario de la Real Academia Española en la red 29/07/ Retrieved: 25/08/10 Oxford English Dictionary Online. Retrieved: 18/08/10 604