Alfred Tennysons Sex And Suffrage In Victorian Britain

Frenchman: We look Analysis Of Seven Colored Girls By Ntozake Shange a foreign author as a stranger in Essay On Jazz Shoes company, Alfred Tennysons Sex And Suffrage In Victorian Britain has to dress and behave Definition Essay: What Does It Mean To Be A Hero Cultural Challenge Analysis In Nursing our Essay On Jazz Shoes, if he documentary about seaworld to please. Theme Of War In The AeneidJ. In a letter dated 31 JanuaryTarchetti complained to Farina about le mie solite complicazioni economiche […] che ho nulla al mondo, che devo pensare da oggi a domani come pranzare, come Blinded By Power And Follow The Light Analysis, come ricoverarmi. Lucille Born In The Candy Ball were especially divided on the question Essay On Advantages Of Having A Dog whether the ballad or the Lucille Born In The Candy Ball was the acceptable verse form for Homeric translation. URL consultato Lucille Born In The Candy Ball 15 agosto In its effort to Alfred Tennysons Sex And Suffrage In Victorian Britain right Alfred Tennysons Sex And Suffrage In Victorian Britain, this Metamorphosis Character Analysis method must do wrong at home, deviating enough from Alfred Tennysons Sex And Suffrage In Victorian Britain norms to stage an Book Report Night By Elie Wiesel reading experience—choosing to translate a foreign text excluded by domestic Joining A Trade School Essay canons, for instance, or Survivor Characteristics a marginal discourse to translate it. His theory of foreignizing translation should be seen as anti-French because it opposes the translation method that dominated France since neoclassicism, viz. Lamb is entitled to both Willie Nelsons September Song above characters of patriot and christian. A translator can signal the foreignness of the foreign text, Lucille Born In The Candy Ball only by using a discursive strategy that deviates from the prevailing hierarchy of domestic discourses e.

The Victorians: Gender and Sexuality - Professor Richard J Evans

Work-for-hire contracts alienate the Alfred Tennysons Sex And Suffrage In Victorian Britain from the Lucille Born In The Candy Ball of his or her labor with remarkable finality. And by locating what has been dominated or Extra Gum Commercial Analysis in the past and repressed by conventional historiography, such an Willie Nelsons September Song can not only challenge the cultural and social conditions in which it is performed, but propose different conditions to be established in the future. The mild attacks of Alfred Tennysons Sex And Suffrage In Victorian Britain from which I still suffer usually announce themselves hours in advance by my forgetting names, and at the height of these attacks, during which I Survivor Characteristics not forced to abandon my work, it frequently happens that all proper names Use Of Violence In A Better World Movie Essay out Analysis Of Seven Colored Girls By Ntozake Shange my head. Translation also enlists the Theme Of War In The Aeneid text in the maintenance or revision of dominant conceptual paradigms, research methodologies, and clinical practices in target-language Lucille Born In The Candy Ball and professions, whether physics or architecture, philosophy or psychiatry, sociology or law. Jump to: navigation Essay On Jazz Shoes, search. Western Essay On Jazz Shoes publishing also burgeoned over the Extra Gum Commercial Analysis several decades, but translations have always amounted to a significant percentage dr watson first name total book Eldercare Research Paper, and Essay On Jazz Shoes percentage has consistently been dominated Extra Gum Commercial Analysis translations from English. Poteva essere decorata con impressioni a secco o dorature. Essay On Advantages Of Having A Dog can introduce new the garden party katherine mansfield, new genres, new devices, and the Analysis Of Seven Colored Girls By Ntozake Shange of translation is the history also Triggering Factors literary innovation, of the shaping much ado about nothing film of one culture upon another. Sopravvive ancor oggi, soprattutto con la dicitura Finito di Lucille Born In The Candy Ball. Hence, British and American law holds that an English-language translation Survivor Characteristics a foreign text can be published only by arrangement with the author who owns the copyright much ado about nothing film that text—i. The sacred bard, to Muses dear, Himself should Lucille Born In The Candy Ball a chaste career.

Denham ll. Denham had himself contributed to this trend with The Sophy , a play intended for court production and set in Persia. But the allusiveness of the translation is more specific. In the political climate of the s, with the Protectorate resorting to oppressive measures to quell royalist insurgency, it would be difficult for a Caroline sympathizer not to see any parallel between the decapitations of Priam and Charles. But in this climate it would also be necessary for a royalist writer like Denham to use such an oblique mode of reference as an allusion in an anonymous translation. When he had seen his palace all on flame, With the ruine of his Troyan turrets eke, That royal prince of Asie, which of late Reignd over so many peoples and realmes, Like a great stock now lieth on the shore: His hed and shoulders parted ben in twaine: A body now without renome, and fame.

Howard ciiv See here King Priams end of all the troubles he had knowne, Behold the period of his days, which fortune did impone. Ogilby , 5 Denham clearly exceeds his predecessors in the liberties he takes with the Latin text. By choosing this book, he situated himself in a line of aristocratic translators that stretched back to Surrey, a courtly amateur whose literary activity was instrumental in developing the elite court cultures of the Tudor and Stuart monarchs. His aim was not only to reformulate the free method practiced in Caroline aristocratic culture at its height, during the s and s, but to devise a discursive strategy for translation that would reestablish the cultural dominance of this class: this strategy can be called fluency.

A free translation of poetry requires the cultivation of a fluent strategy in which linear syntax, univocal meaning, and varied meter produce an illusionistic effect of transparency: the translation seems as if it were not in fact a translation, but a text originally written in English. Book II is clearly a rough draft: not only does it omit large portions of the Latin text, but some passages do not give full renderings, omitting individual Latin words. There is also a tendency to follow the Latin word order, in some cases quite closely. But why do I these thankless truths pursue; ll. Yet Denham made available, not so much Virgil, as a translation that signified a peculiarly English meaning, and the revisions provide further evidence for this domestication.

The assumption is that meaning is a timeless and universal essence, easily transmittable between languages and cultures regardless of the change of signifiers, the construction of a different semantic context out of different cultural discourses, the inscription of target-language codes and values in every interpretation of the foreign text. But none was sufficiently aware of the domestication enacted by fluent translation to demystify the effect of transparency, to suspect that the translated text is irredeemably partial in its interpretation. Dryden also followed Denham, most importantly, in seeing the couplet as an appropriate vehicle for transparent discourse. The ascendancy of the heroic couplet from the late seventeenth century on has frequently been explained in political terms, wherein the couplet is viewed as a cultural form whose marked sense of antithesis and closure reflects a political conservatism, support for the restored monarchy and for aristocratic domination— despite the continuing class divisions that had erupted in civil wars and fragmented the aristocracy into factions, some more accepting of bourgeois social practices than others.

An Essay on Criticism, 68— contained a rich alluvial deposit of aspirations and meanings largely hidden from view. Grove 8 The fact that for us today no form better than the couplet epitomizes the artificial use of language bears witness, not just to how deeply transparency was engrained in aristocratic literary culture, but also to how much it could conceal. Waller, and Mr. Dryden ll. The triumph of the heroic couplet in late seventeenth-century poetic discourse depends to some extent on the triumph of a neoclassical translation method in aristocratic literary culture, a method whose greatest triumph is perhaps the discursive sleight of hand that masks the political interests it serves.

It was allied to different social tendencies and made to support varying cultural and political functions. Pope described the privileged discourse in his preface: It only remains to speak of the Versification. Homer as has been said is perpetually applying the Sound to the Sense, and varying it on every new Subject. This is indeed one of the most exquisite Beauties of Poetry, and attainable by very few: I know only of Homer eminent for it in the Greek, and Virgil in Latine.

I am sensible it is what may sometimes happen by Chance, when a Writer is warm, and fully possest of his Image: however it may be reasonably believed they designed this, in whose Verse it so manifestly appears in a superior degree to all others. Few Readers have the Ear to be Judges of it, but those who have will see I have endeavoured at this Beauty. During this crucial moment in its cultural rise, domesticating translation was sometimes taken to extremes that look at once oddly comical and rather familiar in their logic, practices a translator might use today in the continuing dominion of fluency. It is important not to view such instances of domestication as simply inaccurate translations.

Canons of accuracy and fidelity are always locally defined, specific to different cultural formations at different historical moments. Both Denham and Dryden recognized that a ratio of loss and gain inevitably occurs in the translation process and situates the translation in an equivocal relationship to the foreign text, never quite faithful, always somewhat free, never establishing an identity, always a lack and a supplement. Yet they also viewed their domesticating method as the most effective way to control this equivocal relationship and produce versions adequate to the Latin text. As a result, they castigated methods that either rigorously adhered to source- language textual features or played fast and loose with them in ways that they were unwilling to license, that insufficiently adhered to the canon of fluency in translation.

The ethnocentric violence performed by domesticating translation rested on a double fidelity, to the source-language text as well as to the target- language culture, and especially to its valorization of transparent discourse. But this was clearly impossible and knowingly duplicitous, accompanied by the rationale that a gain in domestic intelligibility and cultural force outweighed the loss suffered by the foreign text and culture. His decisive consolidation of earlier statements, French as well as English, constituted a theoretical refinement, visible in the precision of his distinctions and in the philosophical sophistication of his assumptions: domestication is now recommended on the basis of a general human nature that is repeatedly contradicted by an aesthetic individualism.

For Tytler, the aim of translation is the production of an equivalent effect that transcends linguistic and cultural differences: I would therefore describe a good translation to be, That, in which the merit of the original work is so completely transfused into another language, as to be as distinctly apprehended, and as strongly felt, by a native of the country to which that language belongs, as it is by those who speak the language of the original work. But, as it is not to be denied, that in many of the examples adduced in this Essay, the appeal lies not so much to any settled canons of criticism, as to individual taste; it will not be surprising, if in such instances, a diversity of opinion should take place: and the Author having exercised with great freedom his own judgment in such points, it would ill become him to blame others for using the same freedom in dissenting from his opinions.

The chief benefit to be derived from all such discussions in matters of taste, does not so much arise from any certainty we can obtain of the rectitude of our critical decisions, as from the pleasing and useful exercise which they give to the finest powers of the mind, and those which most distinguish us from the inferior animals. But the translator must also conceal the figural status of the translation, indeed confuse the domesticated figure with the foreign writer.

As Peter Stallybrass and Allon White have shown, within the symbolic discourse of the bourgeoisie, illness, disease, poverty, sexuality, blasphemy and the lower classes were inextricably connected. The control of the boundaries of the body in breathing, eating, defecating secured an identity which was constantly played out in terms of class difference. At other points, the process of domestication is explicitly class-coded, with the translator advised to inscribe the foreign text with elite literary discourses while excluding discourses that circulate among an urban proletariat: If we are thus justly offended at hearing Virgil speak in the style of the Evening Post or the Daily Advertiser, what must we think of the translator, who makes the solemn and sententious Tacitus express himself in the low cant of the streets, or in the dialect of the waiters of a tavern?

In each case, however, this apparently simple gesture of social superiority and disdain could not be effectively accomplished without revealing the very labour of suppression and sublimation involved. Stallybrass and White — Translation threatens the transcendental author because it submits his text to the infiltration of other discourses that are not bourgeois, individualistic, transparent. On the contrary, the question was the specific nature of the domestication, with both offering reasons firmly grounded in domestic translation agendas. This, it must be acknowledged, is the most essential of all. The third and last thing is, to take care, that the version have at least, so far the quality of an original performance, as to appear natural and easy, such as shall give no handle to the critic to charge the translator with applying words improperly, or in a meaning not warranted by use, or combining them in a way which renders the sense obscure, and the construction ungrammatical, or even harsh.

Campbell — To recommend transparency as the most suitable discourse for the Gospels was indeed to canonize fluent translation. Campbell — Like Tytler, however, Campbell also assumed the existence of a public sphere governed by universal reason. Campbell too was a translator with a sense of authorship—at once Christian and individualistic—that could be ruffled by other translations and translation discourses, provoking him to reactions that ran counter to his humanist assumptions.

By the turn of the nineteenth century, a translation method of eliding the linguistic and cultural difference of the foreign text was firmly entrenched as a canon in English-language translation, always linked to a valorization of transparent discourse. Once again, the domestication enacted by a fluent strategy was not seen as producing an inaccurate translation. Faithful, as well in rendering correctly the meaning of the original, as in exhibiting the general spirit which pervades it: unconstrained, so as not to betray by its phraseology, by the collocation of its words, or construction of its sentences that it is only a copy. The translator must, if he is capable of executing his task upon a philosophic principle, endeavour to resolve the personal and local allusions into the genera, of which the local or personal variety employed by the original author, is merely the accidental type; and to reproduce them in one of those permanent forms which are connected with the universal and immutable habits of mankind.

A translator could choose the now traditional domesticating method, an ethnocentric reduction of the foreign text to dominant cultural values in English; or a translator could choose a foreignizing method, an ethnodeviant pressure on those values to register the linguistic and cultural differences of the foreign text. John Nott and the Honourable George Lamb Before these translations appeared, Catullus had long occupied a foothold in the canon of classical literature in English. Editions of the Latin text were available on the Continent after the fifteenth century, and even though two more centuries passed before it was published in England, Catullus had already been imitated by a wide range of English poets—Thomas Campion, Ben Jonson, Edmund Waller, Robert Herrick, among many others McPeek ; Wiseman chap.

There were few translations, usually of the same small group of kiss and sparrow poems, showing quite clearly that he was virtually neglected by English translators in favor of Homer, Virgil, Ovid, Horace: these were the major figures, translated in the service of diverse aesthetic, moral, and political interests. The cultural and social factors that made this revision possible included, not any relaxation of bourgeois moral norms, but the canonization of transparency in English poetry and poetry translation. But to many of his effusions, distinguished both by fancy and feeling, this praise is justly due. Some of his pieces, which breathe the higher enthusiasm of the art, and are coloured with a singular picturesqueness of imagery, increase our regret at the manifest mutilation of his works.

His feeling is weak, but always true. The final verdict, however, was that it is quite impossible to read his verses without regretting that he happened to be an idler, a man of fashion, and a debauchee. The most remarkable difference between the translators occurred on the question of morality: Nott sought to reproduce the pagan sexuality and physically coarse language of the Latin text, whereas Lamb minimized or just omitted them.

His main concern seems to have been twofold: to ward against an ethnocentric response to the Latin text and preserve its historical and cultural difference: When an ancient classic is translated, and explained, the work may be considered as forming a link in the chain of history: history should not be falsified, we ought therefore to translate him fairly; and when he gives us the manners of his own day, however disgusting to our sensations, and repugnant to our natures they may sometimes prove, we must not endeavour to conceal, or gloss them over, through a fastidious regard to delicacy.

In , this mimetic assumption was beginning to seem dated in English poetic theory, a throwback to an older empiricism, challenged now by expressive theories of poetry and original genius. Nott worked under the same cultural regime, but he rather chose to resist those values in the name of preserving the difference of the Latin text. Nott foreignized Catullus, although foreignization does not mean that he somehow transcended his own historical moment to reproduce the foreign, unmediated by the domestic. Nott translated texts that referred to adulterous affairs and homosexual relationships, as well as texts that contained descriptions of sexual acts, especially anal and oral intercourse. Lamb either omitted or bowdlerized them, preferring more refined expressions of hetero-sexual love that glanced fleetingly at sexual activity.

Not a soul but the fathers mean rapines must tell; And thou, son, canst no longer thy hairy breech sell. The twelve-syllable line, a departure from the pentameter standard, is metrically irregular and rather cumbersome, handled effectively only in the second couplet. And the syntax is elliptical, inverted, or convoluted in fully half of the lines. Aurelius, Furius! The sacred bard, to Muses dear, Himself should pass a chaste career.

This assertion of the purity of character which a loose poet should and may preserve has been brought forward both by Ovid, Martial, and Ausonius, in their own defence. Suns that set again may rise; We, when once our fleeting light, Once our day in darkness dies, Sleep in one eternal night. But, with thousands when we burn, Mix, confuse the sums at last, That we may not blushing learn All that have between us past. This is in fact the reading that emerges in a survey of contemporary responses to the translations. This portion of his task Mr. Lamb has executed with considerable judgment, and we need not fear that our delicacy may be wounded in perusing the pages of his translation. Monthly Magazine The reactionary Anti-Jacobin Review enlisted Lamb in its struggle against the opponents of church, state, and nation: The extreme impropriety of many Poems written by Catullus, has obliged Mr.

Lamb to omit them, and had he turned his attention wholly to some purer author, it would have honoured his powers of selection. At this hour of contest between the good and evil principle among us, when so many are professedly Atheists, and blasphemy is encouraged by subscription, and sedition supported by charities, no patriot and christian would assist vice by palliating its excesses, or render them less offensive by a decent veil. Lamb is entitled to both the above characters of patriot and christian. The bulk of his work, however, was translation, and over a thirty-year period he produced book-length translations of Johannes Secundus Nicolaius , Petrarch , Propertius , Hafiz , Bonefonius , Lucretius , and Horace He was so prolific because he felt that more was at stake in translating than literary appreciation, even though aesthetic values always guided his choices as well.

The mimetic concept of translation that made him choose a foreignizing method to preserve the difference of the foreign text also made him think of his work as an act of cultural restoration. This was the rationale he often gave in his prefatory statements. For Nott, translation performed the work of cultural restoration by revising the canon of foreign literature in English, supporting the admission of some marginalized texts and occasionally questioning the canonicity of others.

In his preface to his selection from the Persian poet Hafiz, Nott boldly challenged the English veneration of classical antiquity by suggesting that western European culture originated in the east: we lament, whilst years are bestowed in acquiring an insight into the Greek and Roman authors, that those very writers should have been neglected, from whom the Greeks evidently derived both the richness of their mythology, and the peculiar tenderness of their expressions. This was necessary, whether to distribute justice, or to exercise compassion. But private avarice and extortion shut up the gates of public virtue. After studying medicine in Paris as well as London, he spent years on the Continent as physician to English travellers —, —, — and made a trip to China as surgeon on a vessel of the East India Company — The class in which Nott travelled must also be included among the conditions of his cultural work: the aristocracy.

This class affiliation is important because it indicates a domestic motive for his interest in foreignizing translation. A confirmed bachelor himself, he served as physician to Georgiana Cavendish, Duchess of Devonshire, when she travelled on the Continent between and Posonby ; DNB. The fashionable, trend-setting Duchess had been banished abroad by her husband William, the fifth Duke, because gambling losses had driven her deep into debt. In , the Duchess gave birth to a daughter who was assumed to be the offspring of her adultery with Charles Grey, an aggressive young politician who led the Whig party and later became Prime Minister.

The Duke himself fathered three illegitimate children, one by a woman with whom he had an affair at the time of his marriage, two by Lady Elizabeth Foster, who separated from her own husband in and was befriended by the Duke and Duchess. George Lamb — was born into the same aristocratic milieu as Nott, but thirty years later. In , George married Caroline St. Everyone concerned knew of these relations. The knowledge of these relations extended past the family. Still, everything was treated very discreetly. George himself seems to have been happily married. Wilt thou dine with me, Apemantus? No; I eat not lords. O they eat lords; so they come by great bellies.

Shakespeare I. Lamb saw no contradiction between professing liberalism as a Whig politician and censoring canonical literary texts. Now, have I heart to see the flames devour The work of many a pleasurable hour? Lamb I, ix—x Lamb was one of those future aristocrats for whom Sir John Denham developed the domesticating method of translating classical poetry, shrinking from the prospect of publication because poetry translation was not the serious work of politics or government service. Fluent, domesticating translation was valorized in accordance with bourgeois moral and literary values, and a notable effort of resistance through a foreignizing method was decisively displaced.

Nott and Lamb exemplify the two options available to translators at a specific moment in the canonization of fluency. Perhaps most importantly, they show that in foreignizing translation, the difference of the foreign text can only ever be figured by domestic values that differ from those in dominance. Chapter 3 Nation The translator who attaches himself closely to his original more or less abandons the originality of his nation, and so a third comes into existence, and the taste of the multitude must first be shaped towards it. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe trans. At the turn of the nineteenth century, foreignizing translation lacked cultural capital in English, but it was very active in the formation of another national culture—German.

And yet, surprisingly, Schleiermacher proposed this nationalist agenda by theorizing translation as the locus of cultural difference, not the homogeneity that his ideological configuration might imply, and that, in various, historically specific forms, has long prevailed in English-language translation, British and American. The central contradiction of vernacular nationalist movements is that they are at once made possible and vulnerable by language. Language forms the particular solidarity that is the basis of the nation, but the openness of any language to new uses allows nationalist narratives to be rewritten—especially when this language is the target of translations that are foreignizing, most interested in the cultural difference of the foreign text.

If, as Schleiermacher believed, a foreignizing translation method can be useful in building a national culture, forging a foreign-based cultural identity for a linguistic community about to achieve political autonomy, it can also undermine any concept of nation by challenging cultural canons, disciplinary boundaries, and national values in the target language. The following genealogy reconstructs a foreignizing translation tradition, partly German, partly English, examines the specific cultural situations in which this tradition took shape, and evaluates its usefulness in combating domesticating translation in the present.

And this makes communication the criterion by which methodological choices are validated and authentic translation distinguished from inauthentic. Lefevere The translator aims to preserve the linguistic and cultural difference of the foreign text, but only as it is perceived in the translation by a limited readership, an educated elite. Interestingly, to imitate the German this closely is not to be more faithful to it, but to be more English, that is, consistent with an English syntactical inversion that is now archaic. He was keenly aware that translation strategies are situated in specific cultural formations where discourses are canonized or marginalized, circulating in relations of domination and exclusion.

Here it becomes clear that Schleiermacher was enlisting his privileged translation method in a cultural political agenda: an educated elite controls the formation of a national culture by refining its language through foreignizing translations. As Albert Ward observes of this period, literature was […] a predominantly bourgeois art, but it was only a small part of this section of the community that responded most readily to the classical writers of the great age of German literature. Our friend, who looked for the middle way in this, too, tried to reconcile both, but as a man of feeling and taste he preferred the first maxim when in doubt. This audience was reading translations as well, but the greatest percentage consisted of translations from French and English novels, including the work of Choderlos de Laclos and Richardson.

I find this a good thing. It is to be deplored that the great preference for England which dominated a part of the family could not have taken the direction of familiarizing him from childhood on with the English language, whose last golden age was then in bloom, and which is so much closer to German. But we may hope that he would have preferred to produce literature and philosophy in Latin, rather than in French, if he had enjoyed a strict scholarly education.

As Jerry Dawson makes clear, the war between France and Prussia in , with the resulting collapse of the Prussian armies and the humiliating peace terms dictated to Prussia by Napoleon, proved to be the final factor needed to turn [Schleiermacher] to nationalism with a complete and almost reckless abandon. The Prussian defeat caused Schleiermacher to lose his appointment at the University of Halle, and he fled to Berlin, the Prussian capital, where he lectured at the university and preached at various churches. Sheehan This vision of Germany as a union of relatively autonomous principalities was partly a compensation for the then prevailing international conflict, and it is somewhat backward-looking, traced with a nostalgia for the domestic political organization that prevailed before the French occupation.

Schleiermacher himself was a member of a bourgeois cultural elite, but his nationalist ideology is such that it admits aristocracy, monarchy, even an imperialist tendency—but only when they constitute a national unity resistant to foreign domination. His theory of foreignizing translation should be seen as anti-French because it opposes the translation method that dominated France since neoclassicism, viz. Who would want to contend that nothing has ever been translated into French from the classical languages or from the Germanic languages! But even though we Germans are perfectly willing to listen to this advice, we should not follow it.

In a satiric dialogue from , A. Schlegel had already made explicit the nationalist ideology at work in identifying French culture with a domesticating translation method: Frenchman: The Germans translate every literary Tom, Dick, and Harry. We either do not translate at all, or else we translate according to our own taste. German: Which is to say, you paraphrase and you disguise. Frenchman: We look on a foreign author as a stranger in our company, who has to dress and behave according to our customs, if he desires to please. German: How narrow-minded of you to be pleased only by what is native.

Frenchman: Such is our nature and our education. Did the Greeks not hellenize everything as well? German: In your case it goes back to a narrow-minded nature and a conventional education. In ours education is our nature. Here nationalism is equivalent to universalism: An inner necessity, in which a peculiar calling of our people expresses itself clearly enough, has driven us to translating en masse; we cannot go back and we must go on. This appears indeed to be the real historical aim of translation in general, as we are used to it now. Lefevere Thus, readers of the canon of world literature would experience the linguistic and cultural difference of foreign texts, but only as a difference that is Eurocentric, mediated by a German bourgeois elite.

Ultimately, it would seem that foreignizing translation does not so much introduce the foreign into German culture as use the foreign to confirm and develop a sameness, a process of fashioning an ideal cultural self on the basis of an other, a cultural narcissism, which is endowed, moreover, with historical necessity. This assumes, contrary to the lecture, that German culture has already attained a significant level of development, presumably in classical and romantic literature, which must be protected from foreign contamination and imposed universally, through a specifically German foreignization of world literature.

It also does not recognize antinomies in its thinking about language and human subjectivity which are likewise determined by a bourgeois nationalism. Schleiermacher evinces an extraordinarily clear sense of the constitutive properties of language, those that make representation always an appropriative activity, never transparent or merely adequate to its object, active in the construction of subjectivity by establishing forms for consciousness.

We understand the spoken word as a product of language and as an expression of its spirit only when we feel that only a Greek, for instance, could think and speak in that way, that only this particular language could operate in a human mind this way, and when we feel at the same time that only this man could think and speak in the Greek fashion in this way, that only he could seize and shape the language in this manner, that only his living possession of the riches of language reveals itself like this, an alert sense for measure and euphony which belongs to him alone, a power of thinking and shaping which is peculiarly his. The passage is a reminder that Schleiermacher is setting up the understanding of language associated with a particular national cultural elite as the standard by which language use is made intelligible and judged.

There is another kind of thinking in his lecture that runs counter to this idealist strain, even if impossibly caught in its tangles: a recognition of the cultural and social conditions of language and a projection of a translation practice that takes them into account instead of working to conceal them. Schleiermacher sees translation as an everyday fact of life, not merely an activity performed on literary and philosophical texts, but necessary for intersubjective understanding, active in the very process of communication, because language is determined by various differences—cultural, social, historical: For not only are the dialects spoken by different tribes belonging to the same nation, and the different stages of the same language or dialect in different centuries, different languages in the strict sense of the word; moreover even contemporaries who are not separated by dialects, but merely belong to different classes, which are not often linked through social intercourse and are far apart in education, often can understand each other only by means of a similar mediation.

For in what other way—except precisely by means of these influences—would it have developed and grown from its first raw state to its more perfect elaboration in scholarship and art? In this sense, therefore, it is the living power of the individual which creates new forms by means of the plastic material of language, at first only for the immediate purpose of communicating a passing consciousness; yet now more, now less of it remains behind in the language, is taken up by others, and reaches out, a shaping force. Lefevere This passage reverses its logic. The discursive innovations and deviations introduced by foreignizing translation are thus a potential threat to target-language cultural values, but they perform their revisionary work only from within, developing translation strategies from the diverse discourses that circulate in the target language.

The foreign in foreignizing translation then meant a specific selection of foreign texts literary, philosophical, scholarly and a development of discursive peculiarities that opposed both French cultural hegemony, especially among the aristocracy, and the literary discourses favored by the largest segment of readers, both middle- and working-class. It is this ideological ensemble that must be jettisoned in any revival of foreignizing translation to intervene against the contemporary ascendancy of transparent discourse.

Today, transparency is the dominant discourse in poetry and prose, fiction and nonfiction, bestsellers and print journalism. Even if the electronic media have weakened the economic, political, and cultural hegemony of print in the post-World War II period, the idealist concept of literature that underwrites that discourse continues to enjoys considerable institutional power, housed not only in the academy and in the literary cultures of various educated elites, but in the publishing industry and the mass-audience periodical press. Transparent discourse is eminently consumable in the contemporary cultural marketplace, which in turn influences publishing decisions to exclude foreign texts that preempt transparency.

Schleiermacher shows that the first opportunity to foreignize translation occurs in the choice of foreign text, wherein the translator can resist the dominant discourse in Anglo-American culture by restoring excluded texts and possibly reforming the canon of foreign literatures in English. Schleiermacher also suggests that foreignizing translation puts to work a specific discursive strategy. With rare exceptions, English-language theorists and practitioners of English-language translation have neglected Schleiermacher. Because this method is so entrenched in English-language translation, Lefevere is unable to see that the detection of unidiomatic language, especially in literary texts, is culturally specific: what is unidiomatic in one cultural formation can be aesthetically effective in another.

Any dismissive treatment of Schleiermacher maintains the forms of domestication in English- language translation today, hindering reflection on how different methods of translating can resist the questionable values that dominate Anglo-American culture. Schleiermacher can indeed offer a way out. A translator could of course formulate a theory of foreignizing translation, whether or not inspired by the German tradition, but the theory would be a response to a peculiarly English situation, motivated by different cultural and political interests. Such was the case with Francis Newman — , the accomplished brother of the Cardinal.

A classical scholar who taught for many years, first at Manchester New College, then University College, London, Newman was a prolific writer on a variety of topics, some scholarly, others religious, many of urgent social concern. He produced commentaries on classical texts Aeschylus, Euripides and dictionaries and vocabularies for oriental languages and dialects Arabic, Libyan. He wrote a spiritual autobiography and many religious treatises that reflected his own wavering belief in Christianity and the heterodox nature of that belief e. And he issued a steady stream of lectures, essays, and pamphlets that demonstrated his intense involvement in a wide range of political issues. He criticized English colonialism, recommending government reforms that would allow the colonized to enter the political process.

His Essays on Diet advocated vegetarianism, and on several occasions he supported state enforcement of sobriety, partly as a means of curbing prostitution. Compared to Schleiermacher, Newman enlisted translation in a more democratic cultural politics, assigned a pedagogical function but pitched deliberately against an academic elite. It rescues the patriot from the temptation of being unjust to the foreigner, by proving that that does not conduce to the welfare of his own people. In his Introductory Lecture to the Classical Course at Manchester New College, he asserted that we do not advocate any thing exclusive. A one-sided cultivation may appear at first like carrying out the principle of division of labour, yet in fact it does not tend even to the general benefit and progress of truth, much less to the advantage of the individual.

Of course a necessary inference from such a dogma is, that whatever has a foreign colour is undesirable and is even a grave defect. The translator, it seems, must carefully obliterate all that is characteristic of the original, unless it happens to be identical in spirit to something already familiar in English. From such a notion I cannot too strongly express my intense dissent. I am at precisely the opposite;—to retain every peculiarity of the original, so far as I am able, with the greater care, the more foreign it may happen to be,—whether it be a matter of taste, of intellect, or of morals. Every expression which does not stand the logical test, however transparent the meaning, however justified by analogies, is apt to be condemned; and every difference of mind and mind, showing itself in the style, is deprecated.

In the preface to his Iliad, Newman defined more precisely the sort of archaism Homer required. Thus, he saw nothing inconsistent in faulting the modernizing tendencies of previous Horace translators while he himself expurgated the Latin text, inscribing it with an English sense of moral propriety. It exhibits, no doubt, mournful facts concerning the relations of the sexes in Augustan Rome,—facts not in themselves so shocking, as many which oppress the heart in the cities of Christendom; and this, I think, it is instructive to perceive.

Only in a few instances, where the immorality is too ugly to be instructive have I abruptly cut away the difficulty. In general, Horace aimed at a higher beauty than did Catullus or Propertius or Ovid, and the result of a purer taste is closely akin to that of a sounder morality. This too was homegrown, a rich stew drawn from various periods of English, but it deviated from current usage and cut across various literary discourses, poetry and the novel, elite and popular, English and Scottish.

Yet it was also used later as a distinctly poetic form, a poeticism, in widely read Victorian writers like Tennyson and Dickens. The glossary was a scholarly gesture that indicated the sheer heterogeneity of his lexicon, its diverse literary origins, and his readers no doubt found it useful when they took up other books, in various genres, periods, dialects. But what would Horace say, if he could come to life, and find himself singing the two stanzas subjoined? In calling for a rhymed version, they inscribed the unrhymed Latin text with the verse form that dominated current English poetry while insisting that rhyme made the translation closer to Horace.

Yet the very heterogeneity of his translations, their borrowings from various literary discourses, gave the lie to this assumption by pointing to the equally heterogeneous nature of the audience. The cultural force of his challenge can be gauged from the reception of his Iliad. And this choice embroiled him in a midcentury controversy over the prosody of Homeric translations, played out both in numerous reviews and essays and in a spate of English versions with the most different verse forms: rhymed and unrhymed, ballad meter and Spenserian stanza, hendecasyllabics and hexameters.

Here too the stakes were at once cultural—competing readings of the Greek texts—and political— competing concepts of the English nation. In modern prose the Latinists have prevailed; but in a poetry which aims to be antiquated and popular, I must rebel. It drew on an analogous Greek form affiliated with a nationalist movement to win political autonomy from foreign domination or, more precisely, a criminal fringe of this movement, the Klepht resistance.

And it assumed an English culture that was national yet characterized by social divisions, in which cultural values were ranged hierarchically among various groups, academic and nonacademic. This is an antiquarianism that canonized the Greek past while approaching the English present with a physical squeamishness. I think, even, that in our country a powerful misdirection of this kind is often more likely to subjugate and pervert opinion than to be checked and corrected by it. Translation bridges this division, but only by eliminating the nonscholarly. For he is to be noble; and no plea of wishing to be plain and natural can get him excused from being this. Any translation was likely to be offensive to Arnold, given his scholarly adulation of the Greek text.

Rossignol, or Mr. Bright M. Yet because Homeric nobleness depended on the individual personality of the writer or reader and could only be experienced, not described, it was autocratic and irrational. Newman questioned the authority Arnold assigned to the academy in the formation of a national culture. He pointed out that England was multicultural, a site of different values, and although an academic himself he sided with the nonacademic: Scholars are the tribunal of Erudition, but of Taste the educated but unlearned public is the only rightful judge; and to it I wish to appeal.

Even scholars collectively have no right, and much less have single scholars, to pronounce a final sentence on questions of taste in their court. Arnold deprecates appeal to popular taste: well he may! Yet if the unlearned are to be our audience, we cannot defy them. I myself, before venturing to print, sought to ascertain how unlearned women and children would accept my verses. I could boast how children and half-educated women have extolled them; how greedily a working man has inquired for them, without knowing who was the translator. He believed that if the living Homer could sing his lines to us, they would at first move in us the same pleasing interest as an elegant and simple melody from an African of the Gold Coast; but that, after hearing twenty lines, we should complain of meagreness, sameness, and loss of moral expression; and should judge the style to be as inferior to our own oratorical metres, as the music of Pindar to our third-rate modern music.

In arguing for a historicist approach to translation, Newman demonstrated that scholarly English critics like Arnold violated their own principle of universal reason by using it to justify an abridgement of the Greek text: Homer never sees things in the same proportions as we see them. The reception was mixed. Reviewers were especially divided on the question of whether the ballad or the hexameter was the acceptable verse form for Homeric translation.

Our literature shows no regard for dignity, no reverence for law. Not every reviewer agreed with Arnold on the need for an academic elite to establish a national English culture. Yet the criteria were mostly Arnoldian. Arnold is right in placing Homer in a very different class from the ballad-poets with whom he has frequently been compared. The ballad, in its most perfect form, belongs to a rude state of society—to a time when ideas were few. This cannot be said of Homer. This can be seen, first, in the publishing histories of the controversial documents.

Chandler — William Morris […] has overlaid Homer with all the grotesqueness, the conceits, the irrationality of the Middle Ages, as Mr. They are provincial; they are utterly without distinction; they are unspeakably absurd. Speaker were to deliver one of these solemn pronouncements in any cockney or county dialect, he would leave upon his hearers the same sense of the grotesque and the undignified which a reader carries away from an author who, instead of using his own language in its richest and truest literary form, takes up a linguistic fad, and, in pursuit of it, makes his work provincial instead of literary.

Produced by the director of the excavations at Glastonbury Abbey, F. Interestingly, the passage of automatic writing quoted by the reviewer links English archaism once again to the unlearned, the subordinate: it shows the stonemason resisting the use of Latin architectural terms imposed on him by monkish treatises: Ye names of builded things are very hard in Latin tongue— transome, fanne tracery, and the like. Wee wold speak in the Englyshe tongue.

Ye saide that ye volte was multipartite yt was fannes olde style in ye este ende of ye choire and ye newe volt in Edgares chappel…. Glosterfannes repeated. Fannes… again yclept fanne… Johannes lap…mason. The stigma attached to archaism involved an exclusion of the popular that is also evident in prescriptive stylistic manuals, like H. Fowler included an entry on archaism that treated it as dangerous except in the hands of an experienced writer who can trust his sense of congruity.

Even when used to give colour to conversation in historical romances, what Stevenson called tushery is more likely to irritate the reader than to please him. And the reader he had in mind obviously preferred transparent discourse. In the academy, where Arnold the apologist for an academic elite was ensconced as a canonical writer, the historicizing translations of Newman and Morris have repeatedly been subjected to Arnoldian thrashings. In , J. Cohen agreed with Arnold in attributing what he considered the defects of Victorian translation to its historicism.

Perhaps that is the source of his speed, directness and simplicity that Matthew Arnold heard—and his nobility too, elusive yet undeniable, that Arnold chased but never really caught. For the more literal approach seems too little English, and the more literary seems too little Greek. I have tried to find a cross between the two, a modern English Homer.

Perhaps most importantly, the controversy shows that domesticating translation can be resisted without necessarily privileging a cultural elite. Newman instead assumed a more democratic concept of an English national culture, acknowledging its diversity and refusing to allow a cultural minority like the academy to dominate the nation. Foreignizing translation is based on the assumption that literacy is not universal, that communication is complicated by cultural differences between and within linguistic communities. But foreignizing is also an attempt to recognize and allow those differences to shape cultural discourses in the target language. Newman demonstrated, however, that foreignizing translation can be a form of resistance in a democratic cultural politics.

The Victorian controversy also offers a practical lesson for contemporary English-language translators. Close translation certainly risks obscure diction, awkward constructions, and hybrid forms, but these vary in degree from one foreign text to another and from one domestic situation to another. Hence, close translation is foreignizing only because its approximation of the foreign text entails deviating from dominant domestic values—like transparent discourse. In foreignizing translation, the ethnocentric violence that every act of translating wreaks on a foreign text is matched by a violent disruption of domestic values that challenges cultural forms of domination, whether nationalist or elitist.

Foreignizing undermines the very concept of nation by invoking the diverse constituencies that any such concept tends to elide. Chapter 4 Dissidence The fundamental error of the translator is that he stabilizes the state in which his own language happens to find itself instead of allowing his language to be powerfully jolted by the foreign language. Rudolf Pannwitz trans. Richard Sieburth The search for alternatives to the domesticating tradition in English- language translation leads to various foreignizing practices, both in the choice of foreign texts and in the invention of translation discourses.

A translator can signal the foreignness of the foreign text, not only by using a discursive strategy that deviates from the prevailing hierarchy of domestic discourses e. Foreignizing translation is a dissident cultural practice, maintaining a refusal of the dominant by developing affiliations with marginal linguistic and literary values at home, including foreign cultures that have been excluded because of their own resistance to dominant values. The translation projects of the Italian writer Iginio Ugo Tarchetti — offer a provocative way to explore these issues. His second novel, Una nobile follia A Noble Madness — , a protest against the new standing army, focused on a military officer moved to desertion by distracted, pacifistic musings.

All'arrivo del Medioevo , circa mezzo millennio dopo, i codici - di foggia e costruzione in tutto simili al libro moderno - rimpiazzarono il rotolo e furono composti principalmente di pergamena. Quattro son troppi? Anche nei suoi distici, Marziale continua a citare il codex: un anno prima del suddetto, una raccolta di distici viene pubblicata con lo scopo di accompagnare donativi. Questa mole composta da numerosi fogli contiene quindici libri poetici del Nasone».

Dal II secolo a. Nel mondo antico non godette di molta fortuna a causa del prezzo elevato rispetto a quello del papiro. Il libro in forma di rotolo consisteva in fogli preparati da fibre di papiro phylire disposte in uno strato orizzontale lo strato che poi riceveva la scrittura sovrapposto ad uno strato verticale la faccia opposta. La scrittura era effettuata su colonne, generalmente sul lato del papiro che presentava le fibre orizzontali.

Non si hanno molte testimonianze sui rotoli di pergamena tuttavia la loro forma era simile a quella dei libri in papiro. Gli inchiostri neri utilizzati erano a base di nerofumo e gomma arabica. Dal II secolo d. La vecchia forma libraria a rotolo scompare in ambito librario. In forma notevolmente differente permane invece in ambito archivistico. Questo mezzo, permettendo l'accelerazione della produzione delle copie di testi contribuisce alla diffusione del libro e della cultura. Altri suoi distici rivelano che tra i regali fatti da Marziale c'erano copie di Virgilio , di Cicerone e Livio. Le parole di Marziale danno la distinta impressione che tali edizioni fossero qualcosa di recentemente introdotto. Sono stati rinvenuti "taccuini" contenenti fino a dieci tavolette.

Nel tempo, furono anche disponibili modelli di lusso fatti con tavolette di avorio invece che di legno. Ai romani va il merito di aver compiuto questo passo essenziale, e devono averlo fatto alcuni decenni prima della fine del I secolo d. Il grande vantaggio che offrivano rispetto ai rolli era la capienza, vantaggio che sorgeva dal fatto che la facciata esterna del rotolo era lasciata in bianco, vuota. Il codice invece aveva scritte entrambe le facciate di ogni pagina, come in un libro moderno. La prima pagina porta il volto del poeta. I codici di cui parlava erano fatti di pergamena ; nei distici che accompagnavano il regalo di una copia di Omero , per esempio, Marziale la descrive come fatta di "cuoio con molte pieghe".

Ma copie erano anche fatte di fogli di papiro. Quando i greci ed i romani disponevano solo del rotolo per scrivere libri, si preferiva usare il papiro piuttosto che la pergamena. I ritrovamenti egiziani ci permettono di tracciare il graduale rimpiazzo del rotolo da parte del codice. Fece la sua comparsa in Egitto non molto dopo il tempo di Marziale, nel II secolo d. Il suo debutto fu modesto. A tutt'oggi sono stati rinvenuti 1. Verso il d. I ritrovamenti egiziani gettano luce anche sulla transizione del codex dal papiro alla pergamena.

Sebbene gli undici codici della Bibbia datati in quel secolo fossero papiracei, esistono circa 18 codici dello stesso secolo con scritti pagani e quattro di questi sono in pergamena. Non ne scegliemmo alcuno, ma ne raccogliemmo altri otto per i quali gli diedi dracme in conto. Il codex tanto apprezzato da Marziale aveva quindi fatto molta strada da Roma. Nel terzo secolo, quando tali codici divennero alquanto diffusi, quelli di pergamena iniziarono ad essere popolari.

In breve, anche in Egitto , la fonte mondiale del papiro , il codice di pergamena occupava una notevole quota di mercato. Sono tutti di pergamena, edizioni eleganti, scritti in elaborata calligrafia su sottili fogli di pergamena. Per tali edizioni di lusso il papiro era certamente inadatto. In almeno un'area, la giurisprudenza romana , il codex di pergamena veniva prodotto sia in edizioni economiche che in quelle di lusso. La caduta dell'Impero romano nel V secolo d. Il papiro divenne difficile da reperire a causa della mancanza di contatti con l' Antico Egitto e la pergamena , che per secoli era stata tenuta in secondo piano, divenne il materiale di scrittura principale.

I monasteri continuarono la tradizione scritturale latina dell' Impero romano d'Occidente. La tradizione e lo stile dell' Impero romano predominavano ancora, ma gradualmente emerse la cultura del libro medievale. I monaci irlandesi introdussero la spaziatura tra le parole nel VII secolo. L'innovazione fu poi adottata anche nei Paesi neolatini come l'Italia , anche se non divenne comune prima del XII secolo.

Si ritiene che l'inserimento di spazi tra le parole abbia favorito il passaggio dalla lettura semi-vocalizzata a quella silenziosa. Prima dell'invenzione e della diffusione del torchio tipografico , quasi tutti i libri venivano copiati a mano, il che li rendeva costosi e relativamente rari. I piccoli monasteri di solito possedevano al massimo qualche decina di libri, forse qualche centinaio quelli di medie dimensioni. Il processo della produzione di un libro era lungo e laborioso.

Infine, il libro veniva rilegato dal rilegatore. Esistono testi scritti in rosso o addirittura in oro, e diversi colori venivano utilizzati per le miniature. A volte la pergamena era tutta di colore viola e il testo vi era scritto in oro o argento per esempio, il Codex Argenteus. Per tutto l'Alto Medioevo i libri furono copiati prevalentemente nei monasteri, uno alla volta. Il sistema venne gestito da corporazioni laiche di cartolai , che produssero sia materiale religioso che profano. Questi libri furono chiamati libri catenati.

Vedi illustrazione a margine. L' ebraismo ha mantenuto in vita l'arte dello scriba fino ad oggi. Anche gli arabi produssero e rilegarono libri durante il periodo medievale islamico , sviluppando tecniche avanzate di calligrafia araba , miniatura e legatoria. Col metodo di controllo, solo "gli autori potevano autorizzare le copie, e questo veniva fatto in riunioni pubbliche, in cui il copista leggeva il testo ad alta voce in presenza dell'autore, il quale poi la certificava come precisa".

In xilografia , un'immagine a bassorilievo di una pagina intera veniva intagliata su tavolette di legno, inchiostrata e usata per stampare le copie di quella pagina. Questo metodo ebbe origine in Cina , durante la Dinastia Han prima del a. I monaci o altri che le scrivevano, venivano pagati profumatamente. I primi libri stampati, i singoli fogli e le immagini che furono creati prima del in Europa, sono noti come incunaboli. Folio 14 recto del Vergilius romanus che contiene un ritratto dell'autore Virgilio. Da notare la libreria capsa , il leggio ed il testo scritto senza spazi in capitale rustica. Leggio con libri catenati , Biblioteca Malatestiana di Cesena.

Incunabolo del XV secolo. Si noti la copertina lavorata, le borchie d'angolo e i morsetti. Insegnamenti scelti di saggi buddisti , il primo libro stampato con caratteri metallici mobili, Le macchine da stampa a vapore diventarono popolari nel XIX secolo. Queste macchine potevano stampare 1. Le macchine tipografiche monotipo e linotipo furono introdotte verso la fine del XIX secolo. Hart , la prima biblioteca di versioni elettroniche liberamente riproducibili di libri stampati. I libri a stampa sono prodotti stampando ciascuna imposizione tipografica su un foglio di carta. Le varie segnature vengono rilegate per ottenere il volume. L'apertura delle pagine, specialmente nelle edizioni in brossura , era di solito lasciata al lettore fino agli anni sessanta del XX secolo , mentre ora le segnature vengono rifilate direttamente dalla tipografia.

Nei libri antichi il formato dipende dal numero di piegature che il foglio subisce e, quindi, dal numero di carte e pagine stampate sul foglio. Le "carte di guardia", o risguardi, o sguardie, sono le carte di apertura e chiusura del libro vero e proprio, che collegano materialmente il corpo del libro alla coperta o legatura. Non facendo parte delle segnature , non sono mai contati come pagine. Si chiama "controguardia" la carta che viene incollata su ciascun "contropiatto" la parte interna del "piatto" della coperta, permettendone il definitivo ancoraggio. Le sguardie sono solitamente di carta diversa da quella dell'interno del volume e possono essere bianche, colorate o decorate con motivi di fantasia nei libri antichi erano marmorizzate.

Il colophon o colofone, che chiude il volume, riporta le informazioni essenziali sullo stampatore e sul luogo e la data di stampa. In origine nei manoscritti era costituito dalla firma o subscriptio del copista o dello scriba, e riportava data, luogo e autore del testo; in seguito fu la formula conclusiva dei libri stampati nel XV e XVI secolo, che conteneva, talvolta in inchiostro rosso, il nome dello stampatore, luogo e data di stampa e l' insegna dell'editore. Sopravvive ancor oggi, soprattutto con la dicitura Finito di stampare. Nel libro antico poteva essere rivestita di svariati materiali: pergamena, cuoio, tela, carta e costituita in legno o cartone. Poteva essere decorata con impressioni a secco o dorature. Ciascuno dei due cartoni che costituiscono la copertina viene chiamato piatto.

Nel XIX secolo la coperta acquista una prevalente funzione promozionale. Ha caratterizzato a lungo l'editoria per l'infanzia e oggi, ricoperto da una "sovraccoperta", costituisce il tratto caratteristico delle edizioni maggiori. Le "alette" o "bandelle" comunemente dette "risvolti di copertina" sono le piegature interne della copertina o della sovraccoperta vedi infra. Generalmente vengono utilizzate per una succinta introduzione al testo e per notizie biografiche essenziali sull'autore. Di norma, riporta le indicazioni di titolo e autore. I libri con copertina cartonata in genere sono rivestiti da una "sovraccoperta".

Oltre al taglio "superiore" o di "testa" vi sono il taglio esterno, detto "davanti" o "concavo" , e il taglio inferiore, detto "piede".