Since the defining factor of the source-representative modality is that the translator
represents himself as a mouthpiece of the source and as someone who injects minimum
interference in the process of translation, it is not immediately clear why anyone chose to
represent himself as the representative of the source. In my preceding survey of translators there
were instances of complaints made by translators who felt themselves bound and restricted by
the source text, such as Jean Chapelain (“translation is an abject thing, and translation in those who practice it presupposes a servility of spirit and a depreciation of intellect”)3 or John Denham
(“Such is our pride, our folly, or our fate / That few but such as cannot write, translate”).4
Modern theory also complains of the tendency of the translator to act as an invisible agent.5 Yet
according to polysystem theory, translators imagine a poor reception for their translations
because they believe that they are writing in strong literary systems that are not dependent on
translations for innovation.6 In such a situation, it is more beneficial to write original material; in
3 See n. 41 on page 26 above.
4 From To Sir Richard Fanshaw upon his translation of Pastor Fido, excerpted in Steiner 1975 (63-64).
5 The professional translator Norman Shapiro describes the ideal translation to be like Like a pane of glass through which the audience can clearly see the source (Venuti 1995:1). Lawrence Venuti, however, argues against the invisible translation, contending that translators should become visible in the resultant translation by never allowing the audience to forget that they are experiencing something foreign.
6 The literary system of France shows how writers may reject translations. Chapelain made his comments in 17th century France, and followedsimilar sentiments by fellow French writers Jacques Peletier and Etienne Pasquier of the 16th century. These writers were experiencing a French literary system that had undergone significant changes as part of its Renaissance. As Worth-Stylianou observes (1996: 43), the Renaissance was a time of experimentation in literature, particularly as French began to be recognized as a literary language (the Edict of Villers-Cotterêts in 1539 adopted French as the official language of some legal documents). During the Renaissance, French writers were inspired to create their own body of literature in competition with the larger Italian system; translations of Latin authors promised less innovation than native French creations. However, one must be aware of the complexity of a literary system’s relationship with a foreign system and the manner in which a modern audience can learn about the system. The French system is illustrative of the complexity: in the early Renaissance (1549), Joachim du Bellay (La Défense et illustration de la langue française) called for French writers to imitate Latin forms for inspiration, though
Source-representative, Epic 47
a strong system, translations are generally influenced by established literary forms and are not
representative of innovations to the system. In a strong system, translations are relegated to the
periphery.
Yet in Even-Zohar’s analysis of literary systems there are three social scenarios that
result in a weak literature, a status that encourages translations to occupy a central, or primary,
position. A translation may occupy a central position if a literature is young or being established,
when a literature is weaker than another literature system with which it has come into contact,
and when a literature is in a crisis or turning point. In these three social circumstances,
translations tend towards fidelity since the purpose of the translation is to introduce something
new. Here these translators are innovators rather than imitators.7
Under the conventional interpretation of early Roman-Greek relations,8 when the younger
literary-system Latin came into contact with the older and more complete Greek system, Romans
determined that the Latin system was lacking, or “defective.”9 Translation plays a central role in
completing and stimulating the Latin literary system. Alternatively,Romans became unsatisfied
with their established models for artistic expression, such as the early Latin carmina, and
he was opposed to the idea that his ideal of imitation would include slavish reproduction. Du Bellay believed that translations are central and are promising tools for innovation; Pasquier, writing twenty-five years later, found translation slavish and useful only for an audience unversed in Latin. Their different stances could reflect either a change in French literature, or merely a difference of opinion. What can be said is that certain authors concluded that writing translations would not be as beneficial to them as writing something original.
7 Examples of innovations could be the introduction of thematic material or even poetic metre into the literary
system. Translators are innovators in that they introduce new material into the target literary system.
8 Examples of the conventional interpretation are: Quinn (1982: 116) "Roman literature was not a natural growth; it was a transplant by professionals trained in, or drawing their inspiration and knowledge from, the Greek-speaking Hellenistic world”; and Nisbet (1999: 153) “Roman poetry was not an indigenous growth, and when it peaked it was very dependent on Hellenistic models, where the divorce from living Greek was greater than in the classical period.” Both of these viewpoints are invoked by Michèle Lowrie in her review (Bryn Mawr Classical Review, 2006.04.34) of Habinek’s The World of Roman Song: From Ritualized Speech to Social Order, a book that contests such claims. 9 Even-Zohar calls a polysystem that does not have “full dynamic diversity” (something he believes every system desires) “defective.”
Source-representative, Epic 48
imported the models of Greece in a type of literary revolution. Either scenario encourages
translators to promote the notion that they are turning to a foreign source in order to innovate, for
innovation lies outside of the target literary system.
When Livius Andronicus produced his translation of Homer’s Odyssey, the resultant epic
poem occupied a primary position in the Roman polysystem because no other examples of epic
poetry existed. Once Romans began to write native Latin epics, any translation produced
thereafter would tend towards the periphery, or secondary position, until such time as that type of
literature experienced a turning point or a crisis, or even until Romans came into contact with an
even greater literary system. In the event of a turning point or a crisis, native speakers would
look to outside literature systems in order to rejuvenate their own literature.10