136
of retranslations (ibid). Like non-translations,
worLs that are only translated once can reveal
the meéhanismsand conditions of inclusion and
exclusion of foreign worLs in a given culture.
In his study of translations of siixxvsranne's
pHyio
I+mna(2X)n
u sxWLnative perspective on retranslation that is also
characterized bar active competition. Drawing
on Bourdieu's sociology (she 8OCIOLO-GICAL
nrrnonc:rims), Hanna argues that retranslators
of Shalmspeare's tragedies into Arabic in the late
nineteenth and early twentieth cent made
use of various forms of Ylistinction’ to eet their
translations apart from earlier ones, claiming,
for example, that they had better access to the
source text, the soume culture or the author
(ibid: 208). As another form ofdistinction(in the
Bourdieusean sense), some retranslators tried to
Reviewing and criticism
In the nineteenth century, come sinologists
tried to defme the norms of translation from
Chinese by openly criticizing earlier translations (St André 2003a: es); St André ofre»
the example of Sir John Francis Davis, whose
desire to establish himself as an authority on
Chinese culture motivated his retranslation of
Han gut zhuan in ig29 (ibid: 64). Nevertheless,
individual choices are nan
embedded in
a larger social context, and as Venuti notes,
’transindividual factors inevitahly enter into
translation projects’ (2tD3: 30). The interaction
between the individual translator and the larger
context in which retranslations are pmduced
reminds us that retranslation is a function of
the dynamics of the target content, rather than
a rmponse to any inhemnt properties of the
source tezt.
diScre6it pteViOilS translations bar pointing Ol2t
various deficiencies in them (ibid: 223). Others
sought distinction by claiming that their translations served a function in the target culture
that had not been served bar earlier translations
(ibid: 227). In drawing attention to the active
struggle in which retranslators often engage as
their attempt to legitimize and distinguish their
translations frnm earlier ones, both Hanna's and
Susam-Samjevas studies foreground the retranslator's agency, an element that is not given much
attention in studies informed by norm theory.
Although retranslations, like first translations, cannot be studied outside their historiml
context, relying on a strictly social-causational model to explain them runs the risk
of overlooking the human element involved
in the pre
Brisset thus draws attention to
the importance of studying retranslations not
only from a diachronic but also a synchronic
perspective, suggesting that this would reveal
those factors that distmguish the work of
diffemnt ’translating subjects’ and highlight the
cognitive and creative aspects of translation
(2OiH: 64). Venuti similarly foregrounds the rule
of the individual retranslator and argues that
'retranslations typically highlight the translator's
intentionality because they are designed to make
an appreciable difference’ (2003: 29). He draws
attention to the fact that some retranslations
may originate purely from a translator's personal
appreciation of a text (ihi‹ : 3o). Retranslators
trim also set out to displace the prevailing translation xoaius in a given culture (this: 29).
See also:
A ifD
CHRIS’fJA24;
BIBLB
JBWTSH
TRASL
TiOi4; tiOxi+S; RBLAT.
CLASSICAL
Berman 1990, Gambier 1994; Mihon and Torres
200S; Summ-Sarajeva 2003; Venuti 2003; Brisset
2004; Browrilie 2006.
§EHNAZ TAHIR GUR\ACLAR
Reviewing and
Reviewing and criticism are distinct but related
evaluative practices concerned with liternture
in the broadest sense, of not only imaginative
writing but also non-fiction. The differences
cited convenfionally between them also hold
true for literature in translation: the reviewer
alerts a reader to new books, describing them
and panning judgement as to whether they are
worth reading and buying¡ the critic addresses
books that may or mam not be new, considering
them in detail and usually assuming a readers
familiarity with them (Berman 1986, 1995; Oates
i9so-. ozick zoo7; Leo»«rd woolf is3s: 29;
Virginia Woolf 1939: 7). Neither the reviewing
nor the criticism of literary translafions has
Reviewing and criticism
237
developed fully as a tmdition, however — unli1ø• make it difficult to identify fixed patterns and
the reviewing and crificism of literature. This
tmnΠJohn Dryden mam have spoken confican be explained only in part by the multiple
dently about ’good’ and 3›ad’ likenesses (1680),
difficulties inherent in establishing appropriate
but the distinction between them has always
criteria for analysing and passing judgement on
depended on thnoœntric approaches to the
creative activity. The general lack of value — or
task of crificism’ (Kelłjf 1979: 47). Perhaps even
Uerary capital’ (Casanova 1999f2ŒH: l6) —
more importantly, many of the evaluations that
associated with translation in the West has been
have proved most influential are, like translation
an additional factor, possibly an equally deteritself, not immediately visible. For the unwritten
minant one (Bassnett 1980: 10; Sankiyo 1985:
history of translation reviewing and criticism
2s—sa Home i988: 78; Vilikov
1988: 72).
is not onły characterized bjr the unacknowlAs Leighton (1991: xi—xix and ff.) has indicated, edged, covert, implicit and verbal acts of
translation crificism flourishes in a nafionalevaluation that occur in all evaluative practices
cultural condifion where translafion is highly
(Smith l987f199t1: 18—82), but even the ’highly
esteemed.
specialized inxtitutionefizød@rms of evaluation’
despite the challenges that evaluafion
(ib L: wi) f«›q«ently contain value judgements
presents, translators and translation scholars
made without reference to explicit criteria In
alike increasingly recognize its importance. As
addition, such judgements have oiten appeared,
a ’special kind of crifical activity’ diknvskÿ
and continue to appear, in forms not specifi1988:74), it must be distinguished from the
cally identified as evaluative, such as translators’
forms ofcrificism implicit intheactivityoftransprefàcesand annotations, complimentarypoems
lation itself (van den Broeck 1985: 61; Lefevere
and essays about the work of other translators,
1987; di Stefano 1982; Berman 1986, 1984/1992: scho ø4y writing about translafion theory and
7, 41). At least one scholar has suggmted that
practice, and appraisals embedded in fictional
translation criticism be considered a eepørate comment.
area of applied translation studies (Holmes 1988:
Translators’ prefaces and annotations often
7s). Others have stressed its importance as a
provide insightful obøervafions about transbetween translation theory and prnctice
lation practice. n rnx smmoxs, however,
(Newmark 1988:1ß4) and a 'weapon in defence
are frequently undertaken with the intent of
of the profession’ (Dodds 1992: 4). For Berman,
imprϖng or even rectifying existing versions,
criticism, when performed as rigorous analysis
and the evaluative comments they contain
or critique, offers the possibility of releasing a
must themselves be evaluated in the light of
translations ’truth’ (1995: 13-14). Translators
their possible role in a translator's own project
and reviewers of literary translation have also
(Vanderschelden 2ŒDb). The same is true
indicated a need for evaluations that discuss a
of writing by translators about the work of
translation with more than a single adjective
other translators. Such commentary is often
and refrain from trashing a translator's work
both highly metaphorical and h
motivated
on the basis of isolated errors (Douma 1972;
wãh respect to a translatofs effort or to the
Christ 1982; Maier 1990-91; Hearne 1991;
profession of translation itself. This means
PEN American Center 2004). In the case of
that comment must be read in the context
both reviewing and criticism, an interest in and
of prevailing rhetorical coiwentions, and this
concern for evaluation is leading to the study
makes the task of extracting general principles
of past evaluative practices, discussions about
of evaluation treacherous if not impossible. The
the criteria appropriate for the evaluation of
compliments found in such Renaissance poems
translations, and the ecriAiny of current trends
as Constantijn Huygens's verses on translain reviewing and criticism.
tions by Jacob Westerbaen or those bjr James
The study of past evaluative practices presents Wright on Dryden's translations were in fact a
a particular eet of challenge The absence of a deliberate stmtegy to improve the subordinate
'universal canon according to which texts may
position of translations (Herm
isgsb: 117).
be assessed’ (Bassnett 1980: 9) and the changes Commentary also provides translators with a
thA occur continually in the criteria used to vehicle for enhancing the status of their work
measure the success or value of translafions
bjr emphasizing the challenges it presents or by
238
Reviewing and criticism
asserting the superiority of their own versions
(Raffel 1992). Evaluations that prune influential
are even found in works of fiction, for example,
the comments about translafion and translators
that Cervantes included in Don Quyotr (Moner
1990: 519-22).
By examining the judgements of critics and
reviewers from the past, current translation
scholars have begun to document the often
complex contexts in which evaluation ocmirs.
This work brings to light both the motivation
of individual critics and the fact that their
assessments were oiten based on informafion
apparentbr unrelated to the activity of translation. Williams (1993: 187, 7S) has argued that
Alexander Pope's critics judged him as a translator of Homer in terms of his 'poetic virility'
using evidence 'only tangentially relevant to
their observations'. In his study of Matthew
Arnold's In Translating Homer’, Venuti (1995:
118-45) has shown not only that Arnolds attack
on Francis Newmans translation of the fried
(SPR BBffISH TRADI‘fIO24) 8R£V€'
ID ¥12
Newmans wnrk, but also the extent to which a
polemics about acceptable translation seen.'rnoirs can be simultane lady about cultural
politics. May's discussion ahout Constance
Garnett reveals that the long-lived popularity
of Gametes many translations from the Russian
did not rmult from critical acclaim of her wnrk.
Rather, it was due to Garnetfs ability to make
Russian wnrks readable to the English-language
public and to the unquestioning acceptance on
the part of critics and readers alike once her
re¡nitntion was established (May 1994: 30—42).
From Alexander Tytler (see zarrisii
zBADI‘fIox) to George Steiner and others
writing more recently, critics have described
translations as 'good' or 'bad' without eeriouidy
ability of value judgements and question the
possibility of’pure descripfion’ (Dodds 1992: 3),
but those who tend to eschew value judgements,
preferring not to prmJaim one translation better
than another, are more numemus (Hatim and
Mason 1990b: 1). Concerned less withtmditional
concepts of quality than with understanding
the translated texts work (van den Broeck
isgs: ssh), they speak instead of defining a
tmnslator's methods (VilikovsY 1988: 7s) and
purpose (Newmark 1988: 186); these are to be
discussed with respect to a given translation
and, in come instances, also to a critic's own,
individual purpose (Newmark 1988: 186—9).
The majority of critics expect that both
description and criticism will involve originals as
well as translated texts, even when they advocate
varying degrees of comparison, seek to answer
different questions, or document the possibility
of more than one competent translation (Nida
isib). v
« model, for example, is based
on an understanding of translafion criticism as
an instrument for describing the observational
facts of interliterary contact’ (1988: 74). This
model consists of three principal relationéhips¡
one is limited to the 'literarjr context' of the
tmnslation, but the other two relationships —
between the original and the metatext’ and
between 'the two literarycontexts’— involve both
the original and the tmnslation. A description of
the translator's methods and a discussion of
the translafion's
of adequacy' and 'level
of equivalence' pertain to the first relationship
(ibkL: 74, 77, 7S). NewmarHs five-part model
also includes the analysis of the eource language
tent, a comparison of it and the translation,
and comments about the translation's potential
role as a translation; the compamtive study is
the 'heart' of this mode (issu: ias). Dod‹n
(1985: 191) describes the translation critic as
yync win: 13-14; Steiner 1975: 596). At the
same time, however, thoughtful efforts to bring
increased attenfion to bear on evaluation and
establish systematic evaluative criteria do exist.
The error identification and highly subjective
appraisals that chamcterize much translation
criticism have no doubt been largely responsible for both critics who argue exclusively for
linguisfics-based evaluafions and those who
adopt more eclectic approaches for evaluafions
grounded on thorough analysis and descripfion
(eee quxrrrv). Some critics uphold the desir-
a 'text analyst whose threefold analysis must
encompass the language of the source text, that
of the target text and a comparison between
the twn. Hatim and Mason (l99ob: 10) outline
a eet of compamtive parameters that can be
used to analyze and compare translations Their
principal interest lies in the cultural semiotics
of language’; they focus not on individual words
but on a ’thread of discourse which is sustained
through a communicative transaction'
Other comparative models include de
Beaugrandes discussion of translating room ,
239
Reviewing and criticism
in which the critic is urged to establish criteria
for evaluation that address the 'presuppositions
and expectations about texts' shared bjr readers
and writers in each language (1978: 122). Van
den Br e k(isgs: s6) posits as the starting point
of his description a comparative analysis of the
source and target
that includes both ’text
structumf and 'systemic of texts'. Wilss (lsg2:
220) argues for a principally empirical, linguistic
approach that rests on a comparison of source
and target language texts, and Simpson (1975:
255) similarly recommends a linguistic appmøch
that is primarily compamtive-, Kirknv (198ß:
231) suggests more comprehensive 'amtheticlinguistic criteria' but still considers both
translation and original The seven features of
textuality proposed by Neuhert and Shreve
(1992) also pmvide a framework that could be
used for comparative analysis and evaluation, as
do Snell-Hornby’sanalyses (ised).
Compamtive models, however, do not
represent the only approach to translation
criticism, despite an insistence on the part of
some scholars that translation criticism must not
be performed without taking the original into
tmt (Vllikovskÿ 1988: 75; de Beaugrande
1978: 121). Nor are the critics who study only
the translated text and its context nece
the reviewers and editors who overlook the fact
of translation entirely. On the contrary, Lefevere
(1981: s5, s9) has explained the roLTćíTćí
hypothesis and its focus on the product of
translation in the context of the target culture
rather than on the translation process. Toury's
Ørk
Wİłll translabonal tiORHS dIsO SuggeSt
evaluative criteria centred on the target system
alone (ised. i aob). Although Toury argues
that compamtive study might have come role in
translation criticism, he notm that comparisons
between translations and originals often lead
to an enumerntion of errors and a reverence
for the original (1978: 26). His comments are
echoed, albeit in diffemnt frameworks, by Jorge
Luis Borges and Tom Conley. Borges points to
the crippling effect that bilingual editions can
have on a reader's ability to read, and implicitly,
to evaluate a translation (Alifano l9ß4: 5l), and
coup (ices: 4s) saes that 'critics fabricate
”something [to be] lost in translation" at the
very instant they place their eyes between two
verSİOns Of a CdØonical text'. BezTnan eidÒO-
rated and argued for a 'pmductive critique'
in which the 'confrontafion' of a translation
and the original is a decisive, but not the sole
component of an ethiml and aesthetic evaluation that considers a translation in relafion to
İtS OWfl ldnguage dØd literary ÍTdÒibOn (U95:
83-96) and to the experience of the foreign it
makes possible in them (1999: 74—S).
Recent work in literary criticism and
theory, linguistics, anthropology, philosophy
and cultural studies has direct, albeã at times
contradictory implications for the evaluation of
literary translations. On the one hand, not only
the 'deconstructionists' entire project (Gentzler
199Sf2O01:
146;
SØR
DBCOł4S'røuc:riot)
but
also the entire range of chańenges presented by
post-structuralism to prevailing definitions of
textual authority and integrity have rendered
obsolete conventional evaluative terms, putting
in question even the notion of &tween’ in the
context of translafion (Tymoczko 2m3). On the
other hand, the work of postcolonial scholars
has documented the entent to which translations can go 'wrong', even 'respectfully' (Spivak
1992b: 18S) when inequalifies and power
relationships between culture are not understood and aćkriowledged appropriately (see
POS‘fCOLOi4iAL APPROACHBS). IR bOłÎŁ inStEnGeS
the prnctice of translafion becomes newlyvisible
and the role of the tmnslator is scrutinized;
in both instances value judgements are made
acmrding to new and shifting criteria.
Despite the unquestionable freedom that the
radical decentring associated with postructuralism offers translators, the very requirement
of decentring itself carries a set of expectations and implicit evaluative criteria. For if
post-structuralism granted a new agency to
translators (Venuti 1992: 11), it also imposed
on them an increased burden of responsibility.
In the absence of universal definitions, translators have been called on to make explicit the
strategies and goals that gpvern their practiœ
(eee, for example, Arrojo 1998). They are also
encouraged to write prefaces, alterwords, and
other forms of commentary. Especially in the
case of innovative, transgressive texts, they are
expected to translate transgressively, and their
work has been measured against criteria such
as abusive’ (Lewis 1985: S6) or 'destructive'
(Conley 1986: 49) fidelity. In this measurement,
words like aa:urate and inmrrecf are not
relevant. Instead, failure is associated with an
Reviewing and cziticism
inability to continue the linguistic momentum
of a text, with an 'excess of reverence’ that can
make it impossible for a translator to Jake the
necessary distance from the original’ — which
must function not as an absolute but as a point
of departure (Sartiliot 1988: 28). Consequently,
translations are often measured as well in the
light of the translators’ owri words about their
work or in terms of the context in which the
work appears. Such criticism, in addition to
concerning itself with new translations, implies
the re-evaluation of translations performed in
the past (Conley 1986; Porter 1991). It also
implies the acceptance of multiple versions
and the evaluation of individual versions with
respect to the purposes for which each version
is intended — the different values behind what
makm a ”gpod" translation’ (Cohen 1988: 111).
4he simultaneons agency and rmponsibility aecorded the translator by contemporary
theories of literature and translation also
characterize the translator's work as defined by
translators and critics who position themselves
with respect toa specific Location or ideology. For
when tmnslation is defined in terms ofa 'site for
raising questions of representation, power, and
historicity’ (Niranjana 1992: 1), the expectation
is that those questions will be raiseA This is a
definition that challenges translators to rethink
the conventional use of equire mce, di ercnce
and communicefion. In the face of not memly
diffemnce hut decided inequalities between
languagm and cultures, translators have been
asked to construct a'site’in which there is'overlap
without equivalence’ (Bhabha 1994a: 186) and
urged to maketheir work not ßuent and readable
but 'thick’ (Appiah 1993) with the factors that
can male smooth intemction an illusion on the
part of the more powerful party. This can occur
in texts theinselves or in the varions commentaries that accompany them as mbat weapons’
against time (Mukherjeee 1994: 73), but also
against transparency on the part of the translation. Consequently, a translation may not be
evaluated on the basis of its readibility and the
mmunication’ it makes possible but in terms
of a newly defined literalism (Robinson 1993:
124; Gaddis Rose 1995: ß4), the extent to which
it promptsa crisis in communication,or eventhe
extent to which translation is withheld (Spivak
1992a: 192-5,1992b:792).Translatorsthemselves
tung je evalunted in terms of their qualifications
to represent 'another’ identity — nationality, race,
religion, unnoza (Voldeng 198d; de LotbiniereHarwood 1991: 139-91; Spivak 1992a: 178-92).
In a similar way, translations can be judged in
terms of the (mis)representations and the’exotic
and essentializing stereotypes’ their perpetuate
(Payne 1993: 3).
The co-existence of such numerous and
diverse evaluative criteria and approaches offers
a challenge to contemporary critics, readers and
translators. Whether critics work to evaluate
contemporary translations or those performed
in the past, they find themselves obliged to
inform themselves about the cultural context
of a given translation and also to be cognizant
of their own evaluative criteria and the context
within which they apply them. Likewise, readers
and translators must formulate evaluative
criteria that will enable them to assess divergent,
even contmdictory critical evaluations. For
emmple, Venuti has discussed the innovative,
subtly ’foreignizing’ scores in the translations of the work by writers such as Argentine
Julio Cortâzar that during the 1960s altered
both the 'canon of foreign fiction in AngloAmerican culture’ and british and American
fiction’ (Venuti 1995: 266). Payne, on the other
hand, finds that translations of the ’Fig four"
of the Latin American boom’ have reinforced,
rather than challenged, North American stereotypes about Latin America (1993: 3B—3l, 33).
An additional example is pmvided by recent
evaluations of the work of Sir William Jones,
whose translations into English of Indian
literature were highly in8uential in the late
elghteenth century (eee mDIA24 'rnxoI‘fIOi4).
Cannon praises Joness work without qualification, particularly his translation of Kalidasns
Sehintefe (1789), stating that his work prompted
Europeans to have a new respect for Indian
literature (1986: 181). Figueim, however, finds
that Jones's translation, like those of other translators of the Se nfoio, was ofien ’erroneous’,
genernting misrepresentations of the Indian
work (1991: 198—9). Niranjana (1992) and
Sengupta (l99S) offer still harsher evaluations
Sengupta emphasize the oversimplification of
Kalidasas wnrk that occurred as Jones shaped
an ’image’ for it that Eumpeans wnuld find
acoeptahle (1995: 161-2); Niranjana details his
pamcipation, thmugh his translation, in the
construction of the English-language Hindu
Rewrlting
241
character, psyche and way of life (1992: 13-14,
6o).
Looking towards the future, it is possible to
note two trends in evaluative practices. Translators and translation scholars are devoting
increased attention to reviewing, criticism,
the study of reception (see, for example,
Bush 200df2O05; Cohn 2006; Fawcett 2000;
Munday 1998b, 2007; Vanderséhelden 2tO0a)
and the effectiveness of the alienating strategies advanced by Venuti and others (eee, for
example, Abel 2005; Leppihalme 2000); the
proposal of more comprehensive approaches to
reviewing (Tymoczko 2O00b); and the advomcy
for reviews of translations that addrms the
translator's work (PEN). In addition, the rise is
well underway of an interactive, international
discumion on the Internet that includes general
readers and bloggers as well as critics, scholars
and professional reviewers. One hopes that these
exchanges will raise the level of commentary
ahout the evaluation of literature in translation
and counter, at least to an extent, the cursory,
and in some places significantly decreased
coverage of litemture in translation found in the
print media.
B o:
kfIBKARYTRANSkATION;PDBTRK,QUAkfFY.
Woolf 1959; Houma 1972; de Beaugrande 1978;
van den Broeck 1985; Newmark 1988; Smith
1987/1990-, Vilikov 1988; Hatim and Mason
1990b-, Maier 1990-91; Hearne 1991; Munday
1998b-, PEN American Center 2004¡ Bush
2004/2005.
CAROL MAIER
Rewriting
The theory of rewriting proposed bar André
Lefevere (1945-96) draws on systemic/
descriptive approaches and treats translation as
a discursive activity embedded within a system
of literary conventions and a network of institutions and social agents that condition textual
BOOM (S€€ POkYSYETBM; DBSCRIPTIYE
VS.
COHHI‘f‘fBD
APPBOACHBS).
TrdfiSlEtiSlg,
according to Lefevere, is one of several types of
practice that result in partial representafions of
reality. These forms ofrewriting include editing,
reviewing and anthologizing — with translation
being a particularly effective form of rewriting
that has been instrumental thmughout the
ages in the circulation of novel ideas and new
literary trend Rewriting and refraction (the
latter a term used in Lefevere's earlier work)
refer to the projection of a perspectival image
of a literary work (novel, play, poem) (Lefevere
isgii2O00: 234—5, 1992a: lo). Lefevere nevertheless questions the concept of originality (see
DBCONS‘fBUC‘fIO24), arguing that the notion of
authorial genius and the idea that there can be
access to an author's intenfion stem from the
poetics of Romanficism and are untenable given
that no original’ is sacred and that all originals’
draw on prior sources (l982f2tXD: 234). As
Hermans(1999: 124) puts it, the picture Lefevere
draws ’does not quite amount to a postmodern
hall of mirrors and simulacra without a trace of
any ”originals", but it certainly highlights both
the quantitative and the qualitative significance
of these ”refraction for the perception and
tmnsmission of cultural goods*
Rewriting issubject to certain'intra-systemic’
constraints: fengucige, die wiiverse of discourse
and potties; it is also subject to the in8uence
of regulatory forces, namebr, tire pm innols
within the literary system, and potmncigc
opemting from outside the system. Both types
of constraint opernte as control factors’ in
Lefeveres model. Under language, Lefevere
discusses differences between the eource and
target language and linguistic sinrzs of various
1dnds that are dictated, for emmple, by the
dominant aesthetic criteria and IDBOinuv of
the time (Lefevere 1992a: 103-9). Universe
of discomse refers to the knowledge, the
learning but also the objects and the customs
of a certain time, to which writers are free
to allude in their work’ (Lefevere 1985: 233),
in other words, to ’cultural scrip (l992a:
87; see
). Poetics refers to aesthetic
precepts that dominate the literary system at
a certain point in time. Poetics consists of two
components, an im'cnfmy component (a repertoire of genres, literary devices, motifs, certain
symbols, pmtotypical chamcters or situations)
and a Jncfionot component, which concerns
the issue of how liternture has to or can function
wiihin eo<ieiy (Leisvere isa2/2ooo: z3a, iss2a: