Abstract
In the past decades many scholars have gone to some lengths to incorporate the tenets of Schleiermacher into their reflections on translation. One of them, Antoine Berman, contends that the German was the first to seize upon and systematically assert the ontological importance of the ever-recurring dichotomies in translation theory. The French theorist maintains that, by pursuing his ontological claims to the end, the German has succeeded in providing an irrefutable argument for foreignization in translation. In the following article, we will reassess the pivotal role of ‘Ueber die verschiedenen Methoden des Uebersezens’ in the ethico-translational debate by restaging the theoretical background against which Berman’s appreciation has been able to take shape. By bringing the Heideggerian notion of “authenticity” to the fore, we hope to have proven that, despite his having ample reason to emphasize the paramount role of this seminal text within the ethico-translational field, Berman has failed to grasp its true value.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Quite a large number of references can be listed. Most influential have been the Schleiermacher translations of Lefevere (Schleiermacher (1977)), García Yebra (Schleiermacher (1978)), Berman (1985), and Robinson (Schleiermacher (1977)) and, evidently, the critiques of Ortega y Gasset (1937/1983), Berman (1984), Venuti (1991, 1995), Pym (1997), and Robinson (2013).
- 2.
In our analysis, we discuss Berman’s L´épreuve de l’étranger extensively. La traduction et la lettre will play a minor role in our discussion.
- 3.
The latter two exploits are completed in that same year. A year later revised versions of the study and the translation are printed in Les tours de Babel (1985).
- 4.
In her doctoral thesis, Kaisa Koskinen characterizes Berman’s reading as “emphatic,” and she opposes his unison performance to the approach of Venuti, which she deems more critical (49).
- 5.
Note that, although Berman makes mention of a methodic approach, we prefer not to speak of methods of translation. If we follow Marc de Launay’s arguments vis-à-vis the methodical dimension in Schleiermacher’s seminal text to their logical conclusion, we can only uphold the idea that the German proposes some principles of orientation (2006).
- 6.
In order to dismiss the originality and the uniqueness of the dichotomization, Pym lists the predecessors and the spiritual descendants of the German theorist: “Beyond his specifically Germanic antecedents [Herder and Goethe], Schleiermacher’s separation of two alternatives connect with a network reaching back at least to Cicero ’s ‘ut interpres / ut orator’. Usually expressed as fidelity to one of two levels, the basic binarism reappears in more recent pairs such as ‘formal’ versus ‘dynamic’ (Nida), ‘semantic’ versus ‘communicative’ ( Newmark), ‘ anti-illusory’ versus ‘illusory’ (Levy), ‘adequate’ versus ‘appropriate’ (Toury), ‘overt’ versus ‘covert’ (House), ‘ documental’ versus ‘instrumental’ (Nord), and ‘resistant’ versus ‘transparent’ (Venuti). Not all these twentieth-century theorists follow Schleiermacher’s preference; most of them would accept clines going from one pole to the other, with a whole series of middling strategies. Yet the basic binarism remains anyway, not just in the mode of thought but more importantly in the generalized refusal to consider the translator, or the place of the translator, as a viable third term” (Schleiermacher 7).
- 7.
Before we mark the following distinctive step in the Berlin Academy lecture, we would like to counter what appears to be one of Pym’s main arguments against Schleiermacher’s theory. The Australian scholar argues that the German theorist makes an attempt to do away with oral communication (Schleiermacher 22). Let us hasten to point out that the bias toward Uebersezen is prompted by the linguistic-hermeneutic perception that thought and expression are intricately woven together and that, to put it plainly, the entwinement of both (in language) need not be preserved in the act of Dolmetschen, as the successful execution of the task of the interpreter hinges entirely on the conveyance of information (Schleiermacher 40, 59–60; cf. Berman, L’épreuve 232–233). Therefore, it surely was not Schleiermacher’s intention to downplay, let alone disparage, interpretative approaches to textual material altogether. In fact, Péter Szondi states that Schleiermacher’s interest in the interpretation of oral expression would revive in later writings (295).
- 8.
At the time, the exclusion of paraphrasing and imitating was likely to prompt a lively debate, as the methods were encouraged not only in France and England but also in Germany, where the belles infidèles had also gained foothold (cf. Konopik 140–142).
- 9.
For this very reason, we refer to the terminological overview in Hildegard Feicks Index zu Sein und Zeit. Feick also explains the difference between the existential (existenzial) and the existenziell (usually left untranslated) (27).
- 10.
We have no choice but to tread lightly here: we remain in the dark with respect to the motives that have led to a negative assessment of inauthenticity . Maybe Berman’s evaluation is the indirect result of his reading of Heidegger’s late writings, in which he seems far from reluctant to engage in the ethico-translational arm struggle. An argumentative thread that weaves its way up in the German’s work after the so-called turn (Kehre) – right to the apex of his hermeneutico-phenomenological writings – deals with the notion of “aletheia .” Whereas translators and philosophers have equated the notion in a slipshod fashion with truth, Heidegger, after having explored the etymological and ideological roots of the Greek term, concludes that “aletheia” does not refer to truth as such (Wahrheit), but rather to truth as disclosure, as unconcealing, as unveiling (Entbergung), and that the term should therefore be rendered accordingly (Parmenides 12; cf. Van Egdom 683–684). We grant that this endeavor may well have convinced Berman of the fact that Heidegger champions a foreignizing approach in translation, yet his conviction could not have allowed him to dispense with the (mere) ontological implications of the terms in use (authenticity and inauthenticity).
Works Cited
Berman, Antoine. 1984. L’épreuve de l’étranger. Culture et Traduction dans l’Allemagne romantique. Herder, Goethe, Schlegel, Novalis, Humboldt, Schleiermacher, Hölderlin. Paris: Gallimard.
Berman, Antoine. 1985. La traduction et la lettre ou l’auberge du lointain. In Les tours de Babel: Essais sur la traduction, ed. Antoine Berman, 33–150. Mauvezin: Trans-EuropRepress.
Berman, Antoine. 1992. The experience of the foreign: Culture and translation in romantic Germany. Herder, Goethe, Schlegel, Novalis, Humboldt, Schleiermacher, Hölderlin. Trans. Stefan Heyvaert. Albany: SUNY.
Berman, Antoine. 2009 [1995]. Toward a translation criticism: John Donne. Trans. Françoise Massardier-Kenney. Kent: Kent State University Press.
De Launay, Marc. 2006. Qu’est-ce que traduire ? Paris: Vrin.
Dilthey, Wilhelm. 1990. Logik und System der philosophischen Wissenschaften: Vorlesungen zur Erkenntnistheoretischen Logik und Methodologie. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Feick, Hildegard. 1991. Index zu Heideggers Sein und Zeit. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Goethe, Johann Wolfgang. 1985. Drei Stücken vom Übersetzen. In Das Problem des Übersetzens, ed. Hans-Joachim Störig, 34–37. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Heidegger, Martin. 1967 [1927]. Sein und Zeit. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Heidegger, Martin. 1982 [1942–1943]. Parmenides. In Gesamtausgabe, LIV, ed. Hartmut Tietjen. Frankfurt: Klostermann.
Heidegger, Martin. 2010. Being and time. Trans. Joan Stambaugh. Albany: SUNY.
Konopik, Iris. 1997. Leserbilder in französischen und deutschen Übersetzungskonzeptionen des 18. Jahrhunderts. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
Koskinen, Kaisa. 2000. Beyond ambivalence. Postmodernity and the ethics of translation. Tampere: University of Tampere.
Ortega y Gasset, José. 1983 [1937]. Miseria y Esplendor de la traducción. In Obras Completas, V, ed. Paulino Garagorri, 431–452. Madrid: Revista de Occidente.
Pym, Anthony. 1995. Schleiermacher and the problem of blendlinge. Translation and Literature 4 (1), 5–30.
Pym, Anthony. 1997. Pour une éthique du traducteur. Artois UP: Arras.
Robinson, Douglas. 2013. Schleiermacher’s Icoses. Social ecologies of the different methods of translating. Bucharest: ZETA.
Schleiermacher, Friedrich. 1985. Ueber die verschiedenen Methoden des Uebersezens. In Das Problem des Übersetzens, ed. Hans-Joachim Störig, 108–135. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Schleiermacher, Friedrich. 1977. On the different methods of translating. In Translating literature: The German tradition from Luther to Rosenzweig, ed. André Lefevere, 67–91. Trans. André Lefevere. Assen: Van Gorcum & Comp.
Schleiermacher, Friedrich. 1978. Sobre los diferentes métodos de traducir. In Filología Moderna, 18 (63–64), 343–392. Trans. Valentin García Yebra.
Schleiermacher, Friedrich. 1985. Des différentes méthodes du traduire. In Les tours de Babel: essays sur la traduction, ed. Antoine Berman, 277–347. Trans. Antoine Berman. Mauvezin: TransEurop.
Schleiermacher, Friedrich. 1997. On the different methods of translating. In Western translation theory from Herodotus to Nietzsche, ed. Douglas Robinson, 225–238. Trans. Douglas Robinson. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Van Egdom, Gys-Walt. 2012. Prolegomena tot een nieuwe conceptie van vertaalbaarheid. Revue Belge de Philologie et d’Histoire/Belgisch Tijdschrift voor Filologie en Geschiedenis 90 (3), 659–730.
Venuti, Lawrence. 1991. Genealogies of translation theory: Schleiermacher. TTR 4 (2), 125–150.
Venuti, Lawrence. 1995. The translator’s invisibility. A history of translation. London/New York: Routledge.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
van Egdom, GW. (2016). Why Berman Was Wrong for the Right Reason. An Indirect Discussion of the Pivotal Role of Friedrich Schleiermacher in the Ethico-Translational Debate. In: Seruya, T., Justo, J. (eds) Rereading Schleiermacher: Translation, Cognition and Culture. New Frontiers in Translation Studies. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-47949-0_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-47949-0_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-662-47948-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-47949-0
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)