Imitations and Reflections

[DWM]

Agree, sometimes there is a substitute imitations (which we cannot deny if we say about translations, especially poetry) for inadequacies.

I think we all agree about that. My point, though, is that if we look to the past (the 19th century and before), we find that free translation was really the norm rather than the exception, while the concept of "imitation" only arrived in the 20th century, when linguistic theories came to dominate the practice of literary translation, and the demand for strict or literal faithfulness to the original text became standard.

[Eric]

Mary LA has a point in #38. If you know you're reading an imitation, approximation, or whatever, that's OK. But a translation is something else - the translator must try to salvage as much of the original text as possible.

The ideological distortions that David brings up are a sad state of affairs. When translators have to follow the party line, no good can come of it. They may be aware, but are helpless to do what they really want with a text. No doubt the commissars of the Soviet Union wanted kings to be ditherers, so they may have nudged the translators in that direction.

We all agree that a translator must know the source language well, but not only the language. The translator's knowledge of the whole of the source-language culture, both contemporary and historical will also affect the quality of the translation. For instance a translator familiar with Castilian Spanish will have to do his homework when tackling Argentinian authors. The same problem mutatis mutandis is when those familiar with Sweden tackle Finland-Swedish literature, or those who know the Netherlands try to translate Flemish authors. Germany, Austria, and Switzerland also have different traditions and history too.

[learna]

I think we all agree about that. My point, though, is that if we look to the past (the 19th century and before), we find that free translation was really the norm rather than the exception, while the concept of "imitation" only arrived in the 20th century, when linguistic theories came to dominate the practice of literary translation, and the demand for strict or literal faithfulness to the original text became standard.

Yes, the translation theory has its evolution. Yesterday I started reading "Теория и практика перевода" by Андрей Паршин and the first pages were dedicated, in brief, to this issue. Andrey Parshin agrees with you saying that the fundamentals of the scientific theory of translation started its development just in the middle of 20th century. The translation theory officially lookes quite young, though it has a wealth of experience .

As for Finkel's article I would not take it as an axiomatic statement, though it was an interesting reading.