Pagei

TheExperienceoftheForeign

Pageii

SUNYSeries,Intersections:
PhilosophyandCriticalTheory
RodolpheGaschandMarkC.Taylor,Editors

Pageiii

TheExperienceoftheForeign
CultureandTranslationinRomanticGermany
AntoineBerman
TranslatedbyS.Heyvaert
StateUniversityofNewYorkPress

Pageiv

OriginallypublishedasL'preuvedel'tranger
EditionsGallimard,1984
PublishedbyStateUniversityofNewYorkPress,Albany
1992StateUniversityofNewYork
Allrightsreserved
PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica
Nopartofthisbookmaybeusedorreproducedinanymannerwhatsoeverwithoutwrittenpermissionexceptinthecaseofbriefquotationsembodiedincritical
articlesandreviews.
Forinformation,addressStateUniversityofNewYorkPress,StateUniversityPlaza,Albany,N.Y.,12246
ProductionbyDanaFoote
MarketingbyFranKeneston
LibraryofCongressCataloginginPublicationData
Berman,Antoine.
[preuvedel'tranger.English]
Theexperienceoftheforeign:cultureandtranslationin
romanticGermany/AntoineBerman:translatedbyS.Heyvaert.
p.cm.(Intersections)
Translationof:L'preuvedel'tranger.
Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.
ISBN0791408752(CH:acidfree).ISBN0791408760(PB:
acidfree)
1.TranslatingandinterpretingGermanyHistory19thcentury.
2.RomanticismGermany.I.Title.II.series:Intersections
(Albany,N.Y.)
P306.8.G3B47131992
418'.02'0904309034dc20
9028938
CIP
10987654321

Pagev

Contents

ANoteontheTranslation

vii

TheManifestationofTranslation

Introduction

11

1.Luther:TranslationasFoundation

23

2.Herder:FidelityandExpansion

35

3.BildungandtheDemandofTranslation

43

4.Goethe:TranslationandWorldLiterature

53

5.RomanticRevolutionandInfiniteVersability

69

6.LanguageofArtandLanguageofNature

87

7.TheSpeculativeTheoryofTranslation

103

8.TranslationasaCriticalMovement

121

9.A.W.Schlegel:TheWilltoTranslateEverything

129

10.F.SchleiermacherandW.vonHumboldt:TranslationintheHermeneutical
LinguisticSpace

141

11.Hlderlin:TheNationalandtheForeign

157

Conclusion

175

Notes

193

SelectedBibliography

235

Index

243

Pagevii

ANoteontheTranslation
Translatingabookwhichincludessomepagesonthe"ethicsoftranslation"andwhichconcludeswithasomewhatpolemicalexhortationtocreateanewscienceof
translation,shouldgiveanytranslatorpause.Inthisnote,IshalljustifyafewchoicesInecessarilyhadtomakeinordertoservebothmastersinaway,Ihope,
acceptabletoboth.
Themostimportantchoiceistheverytitleofthebook.TheFrench,L'preuvedel'tranger,isitselfthetranslationofaphrasebyHeideggerwritingonHlderlin:
DieErfahrungdesFremden.TheFrenchpreuvehasmuchricherconnotationsthantheratherblandexperience.Thereisatingeofviolence,ofstruggle,init
(capturedbestintheEnglishordeal),whichmakesitperfectasarenderingofHeidegger'sErfahrung.Intheessay"TheEssenceofLanguage"(DasWesender
Sprache),Heideggerwritesthat"tohaveanexperiencewithsomething,beitathing,ahumanbeing,oragod,meansthatitgoesagainstus[unswiderfhrt],thatit
affectsus,comesoverus,throwsusoverandchangesus."1 Theproblemisthat,inFrench,thewordexperienceisalsoveryfrequent,inexactlythesamesenseasits
Englishcognate,andthatBermanusesitaswell.Thoughattimesitwouldseemthatheusesbothtermsindiscriminately,Ihavechosentoaddpreuveinbrackets
eachtimeheusesthisterm.Wheneverthishappens,thereadershouldreadexperienceasthekindofErfahrungHeideggermeans.
Stillconnectedwiththetitle,thereisthewordl'tranger,whichissetupinanoppositionalrelationtolepropreanotherborrowingfromHlderlin.2 Thefirstone
didnotposeanyproblem:Ithasbeenrenderedas"theforeign."Thesecondonedoesnotallowforaonewordtranslation("theown"wouldnotbeacceptedby
Englishreaders)therefore,Ihavehadtoresorttotheratherinelegantphrase"whatisone'sown,"whichthen,forreasonsofsymmetryconnectedwiththe
oppositionalschemementionedabove,hasforcedmetosometimesrenderl'trangeras"whatisforeign.''Ihavepreferredthesesomewhatelaboratephrasingsover
moresimplewordslike"identity,"or"specificity,"bothofwhichwouldbecorrecttranslationsoflepropreinanother

Pageviii

context.Inthisbook,whichisdevotedlargelytotheJenaRomanticsandHlderlin,"whatisone'sown"doesindeedtouchuponan"identity"andcertainlyrefersto
whatismostspecifictoapeopleoranindividual,butitisnotquitethesamething:Itsstaticqualitydeniesthedialecticalrelationshipwith"theforeign."
SinceBermanquotesfrequentlyfromothersources(mostlyGerman),eitherusingexistingFrenchtranslationsorprovidinghisown,awordhastobesaidonthese
translationsaswell.Ihaveadoptedthefollowingpolicy.Whenevertheywereavailabletome,IhaveusedexistingEnglishtranslationsofBerman'ssources.When
Englishtranslationswerenotavailable,ImodeledmyowntranslationfromthesourceafterBerman's,eventhoughhesometimestranslatesratherlooselyhimself.In
eachcase,Ihavecheckedthetranslations(whetherbyBerman,otherFrenchtranslators,orEnglishtranslators)againsttheoriginals,3 andsilentlymodifiedthemwhen
necessary.Thus,IsometimesmodifiedtheexistingEnglishtranslationstoaccommodateBerman'sowninterpretationsofGermantexts,ortocorrectmistakesnot
madebytheFrenchtranslators.
Afinalremark:Bermanwrotethisbooktenyearsago,inFrance,wheretherewas(andstillis)muchlessofanawarenessaboutgenderbiasedlanguagethaninthe
USAtoday.Consequently,thereaderwillsometimesfindhe,him,andmanusedtorefertopeople(translators,writers,readers)ingeneral.Iapologizetoallthose
whomightbeoffendedbymyfailuretosubstitutes/he,him/her,andpersonintheappropriatecases.IbelieveBerman'sunrelentingemphasisonthenecessityofan
experience[preuve]withtheforeignsufficestoclearhimofanyexclusionaryprejudice.
Notes
1.MartinHeidegger,UnterwegszurSprache(Gesamtausgabe,vol.12),FrankfurtamMain:Klostermann,1985,149.
2.DasFremdeanddasEigene,elaboratedinthefamouslettertoBoehlendorff,whichisquotedbyBermaninchapter11(seep.000).
3.ExceptfortheveryfewquotationsfromRussian(Bakhtin),Spanish(Borges),andPortuguese,sinceIhavenocompetencetospeakofintheselanguages.

Pageix
TheartoftranslationhasbeenpushedfurtherinGermanythaninanyotherEuropeandialect.VosshasrenderedtheGreekandLatinpoetsinhislanguagewithsurprising
accuracyWilliamSchlegeltheEnglish,Italian,andSpanishpoetswithavarietyofcolorsforwhichnoexamplecanbefoundbeforehim....
MadamedeStal,Del'Allemagne
Anytranslatormustinevitablyencounteroneofthefollowingobstacles:hewillcleavewithtoomuchaccuracyeithertotheoriginal,attheexpenseofhispeople'slanguageand
taste,ortotheoriginalityofhispeople,attheexpenseoftheworktobetranslated....
WilhelmvonHumboldt,LettertoSchlegel,23July1796

Page1

TheManifestationofTranslation
Thedomainoftranslationhasalwaysbeenthesiteofacuriouscontradiction.Ontheonehand,translationisconsideredtobeapurelyintuitivepracticeinpart
technical,inpartliterarywhich,atbottom,doesnotrequireanyspecifictheoryorformofreflection.Ontheotherhand,therehasbeenatleastsinceCicero,
Horace,andSaintJeromeanabundanceofwritingsontranslationofareligious,philosophical,literary,methodologicalor,morerecently,scientificnature.Now,
thoughnumeroustranslatorshavewrittenontheirdiscipline,itisundeniablethatuntilrecentlythebulkofthesewritingshascomefromnontranslators.Thedefinition
ofthe"problems"oftranslationhasbeenundertakenbytheologians,philosophers,linguists,orcritics.Thishashadatleastthreeconsequences.First,translationhas
remainedanunderground,hiddenactivitybecauseitdidnotexpressitselfindependently.Second,translationassuchhaslargelyremained"unthought,"becausethose
whodealtwithittendedtoassimilateittosomethingelse:(sub)literature,(sub)criticism,"appliedlinguistics."Finally,theanalysesproducedalmostexclusivelyby
nontranslators,whatevertheirqualitiesmaybe,inevitablycontainnumerous"blindspots"andirrelevancies.
Ourcenturyhaswitnessedthegradualtransformationofthissituationandtheconstitutionofavastcorpusoftextsbytranslators.Inaddition,thereflectionon
translationhasbecomeaninternalnecessityoftranslationitself,aswasinpartthecaseinclassicalandromanticGermany.Thisreflectiondoesnotquitetakethe
formofa"theory,"ascanbeseenfromValeryLarbaud'sSousl'invocationdesaintJerme.Butinanycase,itindicatesthewilloftranslationtobecomean
autonomouspractice,capableofdefiningandsituatingitself,andconsequentlytobecommunicated,shared,andtaught.
HistoryofTranslation
Theconstructionofahistoryoftranslationisthefirsttaskofamoderntheoryoftranslation.Whatcharacterizesmodernityisnotaninfatuation

Page2

withthepast,butamovementofretrospectionwhichisaninfatuationwithitself.ThusthepoetcritictranslatorPoundmeditatedsimultaneouslyonthehistoryof
poetry,ofcriticism,andoftranslation.Thusthegreatretranslationsofourcentury(Dante,theBible,Shakespeare,theGreeks,etc.)arenecessarilyaccompaniedby
areflectiononprevioustranslations.1 Thisreflectionmustbeextendedanddeepened.Wecannolongerbesatisfiedwiththeuncertainperiodizationsconcerningthe
WesternhistoryoftranslationedifiedbyGeorgeSteinerinAfterBabel.Itisimpossibletoseparatethehistoryoftranslationfromthehistoryoflanguages,ofcultures,
andofliteraturesevenofreligionsandofnations.Tobesure,thisisnotaquestionofmixingeverythingup,butofshowinghowineachperiodorineachgiven
historicalsettingthepracticeoftranslationisarticulatedinrelationtothepracticeofliterature,oflanguages,oftheseveralinterculturalandinterlinguisticexchanges.
Totakeanexample,LeonardForsterhasshownthatEuropeanpoetsattheendoftheMiddleAgesandintheRenaissancewereoftenmultilingual.2 Theywrotein
severallanguagesforanaudiencewhichwasitselfpolyglot.Nolessfrequentlydidtheytranslatethemselves.SuchisthemovingcaseoftheDutchpoetHooftwho,on
theoccasionofthedeathofhisbelovedwife,composedawholeseriesofepitaphs,atfirstinDutch,theninLatin,theninItalian,thensomewhatlateragainin
Dutch.Asifheneededtopassthroughawholeseriesoflanguagesandselftranslationsinordertoarriveattherightexpressionofhisgriefinhismothertongue.
ReadingForster,itseemsclearthatthepoetsofthatperiodworkedbeitincultivatedorpopularspheresinaninfinitelymoremultilingualenvironmentthanour
ownperiod(whichisalsomultilingual,butinadifferentway).Therewerethelearnedlanguagesthe"queen"languages,asCervantesputit:Latin,Greek,and
Hebrewthereweredifferentwrittennationallanguages(French,English,Spanish,Italian),andamassofregionallanguagesanddialects,etc.Apersonwalkingalong
thestreetsofParisorAntwerpmusthaveheardmorelanguagesthanareheardtodayinNewYorkCity:Hislanguagewasonlyoneamongmany,whichrelativized
themeaningofthemothertongue.Insuchanenvironmentwritingtendedtobe,atleastinpart,multilingual,andthemedievalrulethatassignedcertainpoeticgenresto
certainlanguagesforexample,fromthethirteenthtothefifteenthcentury,amongthetroubadoursinthenorthofItaly,lyricalpoetrywasassignedtoProvencalwhile
epic,ornarrative,poetrywasassignedtoFrenchwasinpartprolonged.ThusMiltonwrotehislovepoemsinItalianbecause,asheexplainedinoneofthemtothe
Italianladytowhomtheywereaddressed,"questalinguadicuisivantaAmore."ItgoeswithoutsayingthatthesaidladyalsoknewEnglish,butthatwasnotthe
languageoflove.FormenlikeHooftandMilton,the

Page3

conceptionoftranslationmusthavebeendifferentfromours,aswastheirconceptionofliterature.Forus,selftranslationsareexceptions,asarethecaseswherea
writerchoosesalanguageotherthanhisownthinkofConradorBeckett.Weeventhinkthatmultilingualismordiglossiamaketranslationdifficult.Inshort,theentire
relationtothemothertongue,towardforeignlanguages,towardliterature,towardexpressionandtranslationisstructureddifferentlytoday.
Towritethehistoryoftranslationistopatientlyrediscovertheinfinitelycomplexanddeviousnetworkinwhichtranslationiscaughtupineachperiodorindifferent
settings.Anditistoturnthehistoricalknowledgeacquiredfromthisactivityintoanopeningofourpresent.
AnAncillaryCondition
Inthefinalinstance,theissueistoknowwhattranslationmustmeaninourculturalsettingtoday.Thisproblemisaccompaniedbyanotherone,ofanalmostpainful
intensity.Iamreferringheretosomethingthatcannotnotbementionedtheobscured,repressed,reprieved,andancillaryconditionoftranslation,whichreflects
upontheconditionofthetranslatortosuchanextentthatitishardlypossiblethesedaystomakeanautonomousdisciplineofthispractice.
Theconditionoftranslationisnotonlyancillaryitis,intheeyesofthepublicaswellasintheeyesofthetranslatorsthemselves,suspect.Aftersomanysuccessful
accomplishments,masterpieces,theovercomingofsomanyallegedimpossibilities,howcouldtheItalianadagetraduttoretradittorestillremaininplaceasthelast
judgmentontranslation?Andyet,itistruethatinthisdomain,fidelityandtreasonareincessantlyatissue.Translating,asFranzRosenzweigwrote,"istoservetwo
masters"thisistheancillarymetaphor.Thework,theauthor,theforeignlanguage(firstmaster)havetobeserved,aswellasthepublicandone'sownlanguage
(secondmaster).Hereemergeswhatmaybecalledthedramaofthetranslator.
Ifthetranslatorchoosestheauthor,thework,andtheforeignlanguageasexclusivemasters,aimingtoimposethemonhisownculturalrealmintheirpureforeign
form,herunstheriskofappearingtobeaforeigner,atraitorintheeyesofhiskin.AndthetranslatorcannotbesurethatthisradicalattemptinSchleiermacher's
words,"toleadthereadertotheauthor"willnotturnagainsthimandproduceatextleaningtowardtheunintelligible.Butiftheattemptissuccessfulandthe
accomplishmentperhapsrecognized,thetranslatorcannotbesurethattheotherculturewillnotfeel"robbed,"deprivedofaworkitconsideredirreduciblyitsown.
Herewetouchuponthehyperdelicatedomainoftherelationsbetweenthetranslatorand"his"authors.

Page4

Ontheotherhand,ifthetranslatorsettlesforaconventionaladaptationoftheforeignworkinSchleiermacher'swords,"leadingtheauthortothereader"hewill
havesatisfiedtheleastdemandingpartofthepublic,sureenough,buthewillhaveirrevocablybetrayedtheforeignworkaswellas,ofcourse,theveryessenceof
translation.
Nevertheless,thisimpossiblesituationisnottheinescapablerealityoftranslation:Itis,rather,basedonanumberofideologicalpresuppositions.Theletteredpublicof
thesixteenthcentury,mentionedbyForster,rejoicedinreadingaworkinitsdifferentlinguisticvariantsitignoredtheissueoffidelityandtreasonbecauseitdidnot
holditsmothertonguesacred.PerhapsthisverysacralizationisthesourceoftheItalianadageandofallthe"problems"oftranslation.Ourletteredpublic,foritspart,
demandsthattranslationbeimprisonedinadimensioninwhichitmustbesuspect.Hencethoughthisisbynomeanstheonlyreasontheeffacementofthe
translatorwhoseeks"tomakehimselfverysmall,"tobeahumblemediatorofforeignworks,andalwaysatraitorevenasheportrayshimselfasfidelityincarnate.
Timehascometomeditateonthisrepressionoftranslationandonthe"resistances"thatunderlieit.Wemayformulatetheissueasfollows:Everycultureresists
translation,evenifithasanessentialneedforit.TheveryaimoftranslationtoopenupinwritingacertainrelationwiththeOther,tofertilizewhatisone'sOwn
throughthemediationofwhatisForeignisdiametricallyopposedtotheethnocentricstructureofeveryculture,thatspeciesofnarcissismbywhicheverysociety
wantstobeapureandunadulteratedWhole.Thereisatingeoftheviolenceofcrossbreedingintranslation.Herderwaswellawareofthiswhenhecompareda
languagethathasnotyetbeentranslatedtoayoungvirgin.Itisanothermatterthatinrealityavirginlanguageorcultureisasfictitiousasapurerace.Wearedealing
herewithunconsciouswishes.Everyculturewantstobeselfsufficientandusethisimaginaryselfsufficiencyinordertoshineforthontheothersandappropriatetheir
patrimony.AncientRomanculture,classicalFrenchculture,andmodernNorthAmericanculturearestrikingexamplesofthis.
Here,translationoccupiesanambiguousposition.Ontheonehand,itheedsthisappropriationaryandreductionaryinjunction,andconstitutesitselfasoneofits
agents.Thisresultsinethnocentrictranslations,orwhatwemaycall"bad"translations.But,ontheotherhand,theethicalaimoftranslatingisbyitsverynature
opposedtothisinjunction:Theessenceoftranslationistobeanopening,adialogue,acrossbreeding,adecentering.Translationis"aputtingintouchwith,"oritis
nothing.
Thecontradictionbetweenthereductionistaimofcultureandtheethicalaimoftranslatingcanbefoundonalllevelsonthelevelof

Page5

theoriesandmethodsoftranslation(as,forexample,intheperennialoppositionbetweenthechampionsofthe"letter"andthechampionsofthe"spirit"),aswellason
thelevelofthetranslatingpracticeandthepsychicbeingofthetranslator.Atthispoint,inorderfortranslationtogainaccesstoitsownbeing,anethicsandan
analyticarerequired.
EthicsofTranslation
Onthetheoreticallevel,theethicsoftranslationconsistsofbringingout,affirming,anddefendingthepureaimoftranslationassuch.Itconsistsofdefiningwhat
"fidelity"is.Translationcannotbedefinedsolelyintermsofcommunication,ofthetransmissionofmessages,orofextendedrewording.Noristranslationapurely
literary/estheticalactivity,evenwhenitisintimatelyconnectedwiththeliterarypracticeofagivenculturalrealm.Tobesure,translationiswritingandtransmitting.But
thiswritingandthistransmissiongettheirtruesenseonlyfromtheethicalaimbywhichtheyaregoverned.Inthissense,translationisclosertosciencethantoartat
leasttothosewhomaintainthatartisethicallyirresponsible.
Definingthisethicalaimmoreprecisely,andtherebyliberatingtranslationfromitsideologicalghetto,isoneofthetasksofatheoryoftranslation.
Butthispositiveethicsinturnsupposestwothings:first,anegativeethics,thatis,atheoryofthoseideologicalandliteraryvaluesthattendtoturntranslationaway
fromitspureaim.Thetheoryofnonethnocentrictranslationisalsoatheoryofethnocentrictranslation,whichistosayofbadtranslation.AbadtranslationIcallthe
translationwhich,generallyundertheguiseoftransmissibility,carriesoutasystematicnegationofthestrangenessoftheforeignwork.
AnalyticofTranslation
Second,thisnegativeethicsmustbecomplementedbyananalyticoftranslationandoftranslating.Culturalresistanceproducesasystematicsofdeformationsthat
operatesonthelinguisticandliterarylevels,andthatconditionsthetranslator,whetherhewantsitornot,whetherheknowsitornot.Thereversibledialecticoffidelity
andtreasonispresentinthetranslator,eveninhispositionasawriter:Thepuretranslatoristheonewhoneedstowritestartingfromaforeignwork,aforeign
language,andaforeignauthoranotabledetour.Onthepsychiclevel,thetranslatorisambivalent,wantingtoforcetwothings:toforcehisownlanguagetoadorn
itselfwithstrangeness,andtoforcetheotherlanguagetotransportitselfintohismothertongue.3 Hepresents

Page6

himselfasawriter,butisonlyarewriter.Heisanauthor,butneverTheAuthor.Thetranslatedworkisawork,butitisnotTheWork.Thisnetworkofambivalences
tendstodeformthepureaimoftranslationandtograftitselfontotheideologicaldeformationdiscussedabove.Andtostrengthenit.
Ifthepureaimoftranslationistobemorethanapiouswishoracategoricalimperative,"ananalyticoftranslationshouldbeaddedtotheethicsoftranslation.The
translatorhasto"subjecthimselftoanalysis,"tolocalizethesystemsofdeformationthatthreatenhispracticeandoperateunconsciouslyonthelevelofhislinguisticand
literarychoicessystemsthatdependsimultaneouslyontheregistersoflanguage,ofideology,ofliterature,andofthetranslator'smentalmakeup.Onecouldalmost
callthisapsychoanalysisoftranslation,similartoBachelard'spsychoanalysisofthescientificspirit:itinvolvesthesameascetic,thesameselfscrutinizing
operation.Thisanalyticcanbeverified,carriedoutbyglobalandrestrictedanalyses.Dealingwithanovel,forinstance,onemightstudythesystemoftranslationthat
hasbeenused.Inthecaseofanethnocentrictranslation,thissystemtendstodestroythesystemoftheoriginal.Everytranslatorcanobservewithinhimselfthe
redoubtablerealityofthisunconscioussystem.Byitsnature,likeeveryanalyticprocedure,thisanalyticshouldbeplural.Thusonewouldbeonthewaytowardan
open,nolongersolitary,practiceoftranslation.Andtowardtheestablishmentofacriticismoftranslation,parallelandcomplementarytothecriticismoftexts.
Furthermore,atextualanalysis,carriedoutagainstthebackgroundoftranslation,shouldbeaddedtothisanalyticofthetranslatingpractice:Everytexttobetranslated
presentsitsownsystematicity,encountered,confronted,andrevealedbythetranslation.Inthissense,itwaspossibleforPoundtosaythattranslationisasuigeneris
formofcriticisminthatitlaysbarethehiddenstructuresofatext.Thissystemoftheworkpresentsthefiercestresistancetotranslation,whilesimultaneouslymaking
itpossibleandgivingitmeaning.
TheOtherSideoftheText
Inthisframeworktherewillalsoberoomtoanalyzethesystemofgains"and"losses"manifestedinalltranslations,evensuccessfuloneswhatiscalledthe
"approximating"characteroftranslation.Affirming,atleastimplicitly,thatthetranslation"potentiates"theoriginal,Novalishascontributedtoourunderstandingthat
gainsandlossesarenotsituatedonthesamelevel.Thatistosay,inatranslationthereisnotonlyacertainpercentageofgainsandlossesalongsidethis

Page7

undeniablelevel,thereisanotherlevelwheresomethingoftheoriginalappearsthatdoesnotappearinthesourcelanguage.Thetranslationturnstheoriginalaround,
revealsanothersideofit.Whatistheotherside?Thisiswhatneedstobediscernedmoreclearly.Inthatsense,theanalyticoftranslationshouldteachussomething
aboutthework,aboutitsrelationtoitslanguageandtolanguageingeneral.Somethingthatneitheramerereadingnorcriticismcanunveil.Byreproducingthesystem
oftheworkintoitslanguage,thetranslationtiltsit,whichis,unquestionably,againa"potentiation."Goethehadthesameintuitionwhenhetalkedabout"regeneration."
Thetranslatedworkissometimesregenerated"notonlyontheculturalorsociallevel,butinitsownspeaking.Tothis,inaddition,correspondsanawakeninginthe
targetlanguageofstilllatentpossibilitiesbythetranslation,whichitalone,inadifferentwaythanliterature,hasthepowertoawaken.ThepoetHlderlinopensupthe
possibilitiesoftheGermanlanguage,homologousbutnotidenticaltothoseheopenedupasatranslator.
MetaphysicalAimandtheDriveofTranslating
Presently,Ishouldliketoexaminebrieflyhowthepureethicalaimoftranslationisarticulatedalongwithanotheraimthemetaphysicalaimoftranslationand,
correlatively,withwhatmaybecalledthedriveoftranslating.BythelatterImeanthatdesirefortranslatingthatconstitutesthetranslatorastranslator,whichcanbe
designatedbytheFreudiantermdrivesinceithas,asValeryLarbaudemphasized,something"sexual"inthebroadsenseoftheterm.
Whatisthemetaphysicalaimoftranslation?Inatextthathasbecomealmostcanonical,WalterBenjaminspeaksofthetaskofthetranslator.Thiswouldconsistof
asearch,beyondthebuzzofempiricallanguages,forthe"purelanguage"whicheachlanguagecarrieswithinitselfasitsmessianicecho.Suchanaim,whichhas
nothingtodowiththeethicalaim,isrigorouslymetaphysicalinthesensethatitplatonicallysearchesa"truth"beyondnaturallanguages.TheGermanRomantics,whom
Benjaminmentionsinhisessay,andmostnotablyNovalis,havebeenthepurestincarnationofthisaim.ItisthetranslationagainstBabel,againstthereignof
differences,againsttheempirical.Curiously,thisisalsolookedfor,initswildstateasitwere,bythepuredriveoftranslatingsuchasitismanifested,forinstance,in
A.W.SchlegelorArmandRobin.Thedesiretotranslateeverything,tobeapolyoromnitranslator,isaccompaniedinSchlegelandRobinbyaproblematic,even
antagonistic,relationtotheirmothertongue.ForSchlegel,Germanisclumsy,stiffcapable,tobesure,ofbeingputto"work,"butnot

Page8

to''play."Forhim,theaimofpolytranslationispreciselytomakethemothertongue"play.Inoneinstance,thisaimmergeswiththeethicalaim,asitisexpressedby
someonelikeHumboldt,forwhomtranslationshould"expand"theGermanlanguage.Inreality,however,thetranslatingdriveleavesanyhumanistprojectfarbehind.
Polytranslationbecomesanendinitself,theessenceofwhichistoradicallydenaturalizethemothertongue.Thetranslatingdrivealwaysstartsoffwitharefusalof
whatSchleiermacherhascalleddasheimischeWohlbefindenderSprachetheindigenouswellbeingoflanguage.Thetranslatingdrivealwayspositsanother
languageasontologicallysuperiortothetranslator'sownlanguage.Indeed,isitnotamongthefirstexperiencesofanytranslatortofindhislanguagedeprived,asit
were,poorinthefaceofthelinguisticwealthoftheforeignwork?Thedifferenceamonglanguagesotherlanguagesandone',sownlanguageishierarchizedhere.
Thus,forexample,EnglishorSpanishwouldbemore"flexible,"more"concrete,""richer"thanFrench!Thishierarchizationhasnothingtodowithanobjective
statementoffact:Thetranslatortakesofffromit,hitsuponitinhispractice,reaffirmsitincessantly.ArmandRobin'scaseclearlyprovesthis"hatred"ofthemother
tongue,whichsetsinmotionthetranslatingdrive.Robinhad,asitwere,twonativelanguages:Fissel,aBretondialect,andFrench.Hispolytranslationalactivity
obviouslyspringsfromthehatredofhis"second"mothertongue,whichheconsiderstobeseverelydeficient:
AllthemoreIlovedforeignlanguages,tomepure,atsuchadistance:inmyFrenchlanguage(mysecondlanguage)therehadbeenallformsoftreason.
Init,onecouldsayyestoinfamy!

Itisobviousthat,inthiscase,themetaphysicalpurposeofsurpassingthefinitudeofempiricallanguagesandofone'sownlanguageinamessianicmomentumtowards
purespeechinRobin'swords,"tobetheWord,notwords"islinkedtothepuretranslationaldrivewhichseekstotransformthenativelanguagethrougha
confrontationwithnonnative,andthereforesuperior,languagesmore"flexible,"more"playful,"ormore"pure."
Onemightsaythatthemetaphysicalpurposeoftranslationisabadsublimationofthetranslationaldrive,whereastheethicalpurposeisthesurpassingofit.Indeed,the
translationaldriveisthepsychicfoundationoftheethicalaimwithoutit,thelatterwouldbenothingbutanimpotentimperative.Thetranslationalmimesisisnecessarily
ofthenatureofadrive.Atthesametime,however,itsurpassesthedrive,preciselybecauseitnolongerseeksthissecretdestruction/transformationofthenative
languagewhichiswishedforbythetranslationaldrive

Page9

andthemetaphysicalaim.Throughthesurpassingrepresentedbythemetaphysicalaim,anotherdesireismanifested:thedesiretoestablishadialogicrelation
betweenforeignlanguageandnativelanguage.
HistoryofTranslation
EthicsofTranslation
AnalyticofTranslation

Thesethen,arethethreeaxesalongwhichwecandefineamodernreflectionontranslationandtranslating.
TranslationandTranstextuality
Afourthaxisshouldbeadded,dealingwiththedomainofliterarytheoryandoftranstextuality.Atrulyliteraryworkisalwaysdevelopedagainstthebackgroundof
translation.DonQuixoteisthemoststrikingexampleofthis.Inhisnovel,Cervantesexplainsthatthemanuscriptcontaininghishero'sadventureswasallegedlywritten
byaMoor,CidHametBengeli.Thisisnotall:severaltimesDonQuixoteandthepriestengageinscholarlydiscussionsconcerningthetranslation,andmostofthe
novelsthathaveupsetthehero'sspiritarealsotranslations.ThereisafabulousironyinthefactthatthegreatestSpanishnovelshouldhavebeenpresentedbyits
authorasatranslationfromtheArabic,whichhadbeenthedominantlanguageinthePeninsulaforcenturies.Tobesure,thiscouldteachussomethingaboutthe
Spanishculturalconsciousness.Butalsoabouttheconnectionbetweenliteratureandtranslation.Thisconnectioncanbewitnessedthroughoutthecenturies:fromthe
fifteenthandsixteenthcenturypoetsthroughHlderlin,Nerval,Baudelaire,Mallarm,George,Rilke,Benjamin,Pound,Joyce,Beckett.
Thisisafruitfulfieldofresearchforthetheoryoftranslation,provideditgoesbeyondthenarrowframeworkoftranstextuality,andisconnectedtoresearchon
languagesandculturesingeneralamultidisciplinaryfieldwithinwhichtranslatorscouldcollaboratefruitfullywithwriters,literarytheorists,psychoanalysts,and
linguists.
Paris,May1981

Page11

Introduction
ThepresentessayisdevotedtoanexaminationofthetheoriesoftranslationbytheGermanRomanticsfromNovalis,FriedrichSchlegel,andA.W.Schlegelto
Schleiermacher.ThesetheorieswillbecomparedbrieflywiththecontemporaryonesbyHerder,Goethe,Humboldt,andHlderlin.ItiswellknownthattheGerman
Romantics,atleastthoseassociatedwiththejournalAthenum,producedaseriesofgreattranslationswhichhaveturnedouttobeadurableassettotheGerman
patrimony:A.W.Schlegel(togetherwithLudwigTieck)translatedShakespeare,Cervantes,Caldern,Petrarch,aswellasnumerousotherSpanish,Italian,and
Portugueseworks.Schleiermacher,forhispart,translatedPlato.Thisisanenterpriseofsystematicandhighlyselectivetranslation.TranslationsbyGoethe,Humboldt,
andHlderlinarealsohighlyselective,buttheirorientationisconsiderablydifferent.
Allthesetranslations,carriedoutatthedawnofthenineteenthcentury,referhistoricallytoaneventthathasbeendecisiveforGermanculture,language,andidentity:
Luther'ssixteenthcenturytranslationoftheBible.Ineffect,thistranslationmarkedthebeginningofatraditioninwhichtranslationhenceforth,anduptothepresent
century,hasbeenconsideredanintegralpartofculturalexistenceand,furthermore,asaconstitutivemomentofGermanity(Deutschheit).Thishasnotescapedthe
attentionofaplethoraofgreatGermanthinkers,poets,andtranslatorsfromtheseventeenthtothetwentiethcenturies:
Leibniz:
IcannotbelievethatitwouldbepossibletotranslatetheHolyScripturesintootherlanguagesasgracefullyaswepossesstheminGerman.1

Goethe:
Independentlyofourownproduction,wehavealreadyachievedahighdegreeofculture(Bildung)thankstothefullappropriationofwhatisforeigntous.Soonothernations
willlearnGerman,becausetheywillrealizethatinthiswaytheycantoalargeextentsavethemselvestheapprenticeshipofalmostallotherlanguages.Indeed,from

Page12
whatlanguagesdowenotpossessthebestworksinthemosteminenttranslations?
ForalongtimenowtheGermanshavecontributedtoamutualmediationandrecognition.HewhounderstandsGermanfindshimselfonthemarketplacewhereallnationspresent
theirmerchandise.
Theforceofalanguageisnottorejecttheforeign,buttodevourit.2

A.W.Schlegel:
Onlyamanifoldreceptivityforaforeignnationalpoetry,which,ifpossible,mustripenandgrowintouniversality,makesprogressinthefaithfulreproductionofpoemspossible.I
believeweareonthewaytoinventthetrueartofpoetictranslationthisgloryhasbeenreservedfortheGermans.3

Novalis:
ApartfromtheRomans,wearetheonlynationtohavefelttheimpulseoftranslationsoirresistibly,andtoowetoitsoinfinitelyinculture(Bildung)....Thisimpulseisan
indicationoftheveryelevatedandoriginalcharacteroftheGermanpeople.Germanityisacosmopolitanismmixedwiththemostvigorousindividualism.Onlyforushave
translationsbecomeexpansions.4

Schleiermacher:
Aninternalnecessity,inwhichapeculiarcallingofourpeopleisclearlyexpressed,hasdrivenustotranslatingonagrandscale.5

Humboldt:
Justastheunderstandingofalanguageincreases,likewisetheunderstandingofanationwidens.6

InGermany,asanactivitythathasgeneratedanidentity,translationfromLutheruntilthepresenthasbeentheobjectofareflectionforwhichanequivalentcould
probablyhardlybefound.Thetranslatingpracticehereisaccompaniedbyareflection,sometimespurelyempiricalormethodological,sometimesculturalandsocial,
sometimesoutrightspeculative,onthemeaningoftheactoftranslation,onitslinguistic,literary,metaphysical,religious,andhistoricalimplications,ontherelation
amonglanguages,betweensameandother,betweenwhatisone'sownandwhatisforeign.Initself,Luther'sBibleistheselfaffirmationoftheGermanlanguage
againsttheLatinof"Rome,"asLutherhimselfemphasizedinhisLetteronTranslation.Nevertheless,intheeighteenthcentury,aftertherichblossomingofbaroque
translations,anduntilHerderandVoss,theinfluenceofFrenchclassicismbroughtalongatrendofpurelyformaltranslationsconformingtogoodtaste"asdefinedby
theEnlightenment.SuchisWieland'scase,

Page13

whosetranslationsofShakespeare,asGundolftellsus,"startfromthepublic"insteadof"startingfromthepoet."7 Thistendency,termedgallicizingbythe
contemporaryGermansthemselves,isvictoriouslydefeatedbythepenetrationintoGermanyofEnglishliteratureandthebeginningofareturntothe"sources"(folk
poetry,medievalpoetry,thephilosophyofJakobBoehme,etc.),aswellasbyanincreasingly"manifold''(A.W.Schlegel'sterm)openingontodifferentworld
literatures.Thisisalsotheage,firstwithLessing,thenwithHerderandGoethe,inwhichtheirownliteraturebecomesanissue(notquitenational,evenlessnationalist,
aswithlateRomanticism),aliteraturewhichcouldclearlydefineitsrelationwithFrenchclassicism,theEncyclopedists,theSpanishGoldenAge,Italianrenaissance
poetry,Elizabethandrama,theeighteenthcenturyEnglishnoveland,finallyandessentially,GraecoRomanAntiquity,intheframeworkoftheoldbattlebetween
AncientandModern,revivedbyWinckelmann.Inthisrespect,theissueiswhetherGreeksorRomansshouldbegivenprominenceanissuethatwasoftheutmost
importancetotheAthenumRomanticsandwhichwillretainitsactualitythroughNietzsche.
Inthisglobalselfdefinition,thissituationwithinthespaceofEuropeanliterature,translationplaysadecisiverole,largelybecauseitisthetransmissionofforms.The
revival,fromHerdertoGrimm,offolktalesandfolkpoetry,ofmedievalsongsandepics,pointsinthesamedirection:Itisanintratranslationofsorts,throughwhich
Germanliteratureacquiresavasttreasuryofforms,evenmorethanarepositoryofthemesandcontents.Philology,comparativegrammar,textualcriticism,and
hermeneutics,whichareinauguratedinGermanyattheturnoftheeighteenthcentury,haveafunctionallyanalogousroleinthisenterprise:A.W.Schlegelisatthesame
timecritic,translator,literarytheorist,philologer,andcomparatist.Humboldtisatthesametimetranslatorandtheoreticianoflanguage.Schleiermacheris
"hermeneuticist,"translator,andtheologian.Hencethecloseconnection,themeaningofwhichwillbeseenlater,betweencriticism,hermeneutics,andtranslation.
Withinthisculturalfield,whichtheGermanswerebeginningtocallBildung(cultureandeducation),theenterprisesoftheRomantics,Goethe,Humboldtand
Hlderlin,willbedeveloped.ThetranslationsoftheRomantics,whichtakeontheconsciousformofaprogram,simultaneouslycorrespondtoaconcreteneedofthe
age(toenrichthepoeticandtheatricalforms),andofavisionpeculiartothem,markedbytheIdealismdefinedbyKant,Fichte,andSchelling.FriedrichSchlegel,
Novalis,andSchleiermacherthemselvestakeanactivepartinthisspeculativeprocess.ForGoethe,lessofatheorist,translationisintegratedintothecontextof
Weltliteratur(worldliterature),forwhichthepurest

Page14

mediummightwellbetheGermanlanguage,asissuggestedbythepassagesquotedabove.Translationisoneoftheinstrumentsfortheconstitutionofauniversality
aviewbelongingtoGermanclassicism,ofwhichhe,withSchillerandHumboldt,istheprimerepresentative.FortheRomanticsoftheAthenum,translationona
"grand"scaleisanessentialmoment,togetherwithcriticism,oftheconstitutionofa"universalprogressivepoetry"thatistosay,oftheaffirmationofpoetryas
absolute.Asaprogrammaticpractice,itfounditsexecutorsinA.W.Schlegel,L.Tieck,anditstheoristsinF.SchlegelandNovalis.Tobesure,inthelattertwoone
doesnotfindasystematicexpositionofthetheoryoftranslationanymorethanasystematicexpositionofcriticism,thefragment,literature,orartingeneral.
Nevertheless,inthemassofromantictexts,thereisareflectionontranslation,closelyconnectedtothemorefullydevelopedreflectionsonliteratureandcriticism.The
issueforus,then,istoreconstructthisreflectionbysituatingitinthelabyrinthotheirtheoriesalabyrinthwhich,initsstructure,willturnouttobeconcernedwith
translationandtranslatability.WhenNovaliswritestoA.W.Schlegel,"Inthefinalanalysis,allpoetryistranslation,"8 heplacestheconceptofDichtung(supreme
withhim)andthatofbersetzunginanunfathomableessentialproximity.WhenF.Schlegelwritestohisbrother,"Thepowertopenetrateintothemostintimate
singularityofagreatspirit,forwhichyouhaveoftenillhumoredlyrebukedme,callingit'thetalentofthetranslator',"9 heplacescriticism,understanding,and
translationwithinthesameessentialproximity,thoughinapsychologicalway.OnemaybetemptedtohearinthisanechoofHamann'swordsinEstheticainnuce:
Speakingistranslatingfromanangeliclanguageintoahumanlanguage,thatistosay,transposingthoughtsintowordsthingsintonamesimagesintosigns.10

Butitisobviousthat,intheirreflectionontheconnectionoftranslationandpoetry,NovalisandF.Schlegelhavesomethingmorespecificinmindthantheaffirmation
thatallthoughtandalldiscourseare"translations."Whiletheydoadheretothistraditionalpointofview,theyenvisageamoreessentialconnectionbetweenpoetryand
translation.Wewillhavetoshowthat,forthem,translationisastructuraldoubleofcriticism(inthestrictsensethatthisnotioncarriesfortheAthenum),andthat
translatabilityistheverymeansofrealizingknowledge,oftheEncyclopedia.Inbothcasestranslatingisa"romanticizing"operation,theessenceofspirituallifewhich
Novalistermed"infiniteversatility."11Intheframeworkofsuchapurelyspeculativetheory,howdoesitstandwithlanguages,withtheconcretepracticeof
translation?Someideaofwhathappenswhentranslationsetsoutto

Page15

workon"thetranslatabilityofeverythingintoeverything"maybegatheredfromthefollowingremarkbyRudolfPannwitz,accordingtowhichA.W.Schlegel's
translationwouldhave"italianized"ratherthan"germanized"Shakespeare:
A.W.Schlegel'stranslationofShakespearehasbeenoverestimated.SchlegelwastoosoftandtoomuchimmersedinRomanceandGoetheanversetocapturethemajestic
barbariousnessofShakespeareanversehisversesaremoreItalianversesthanEnglishverses.12

Pannwitz'sobviouslypolemiccontentionrefersinthefirstplacetothehistoricalfactthattheRomanticshave"appropriatedRomanceartisticformstoGerman
literature."13ItcanhardlybeforgottenthatRomanticismderivesfromRomance,dealingbothwith"Romance"and"novelistic"[romanesque]forms.Butalso,and
moreprofoundly,itreferstothe"versatile"relationtheRomanticsheldwithlanguagesingeneral,asifitwerepossibleforthemtoinhabitthemall.AsArmelGuerne
observedquitepoignantly,NovalishasacuriousrelationtoLatinandFrench(aswellastotheexpressionsofRomanceoriginexistinginGerman):
Novalis'language...iscuriouslygallicizedorlatinizedevendowntoitsvocabulary.14

Itcanbesaidthat,toacertainextent,Romantictranslationseekstoplaywithlanguagesandtheirliteratures,tomakethem"fallinto"oneanotheratalllevels
(especiallythelevelofmeter,whichmotivatesPannwitz'sremark:sometimesinhistranslationofShakespeare,A.W.Schlegelhadrecourseto"Italianrhyme"),justas
theEncyclopediaaimedatmakingthedifferentcategoriesofthesciencesfallintoeachother:
Asciencecanonlybetrulyrepresentedbyanotherscience.15
Encyclopedistic.ThereisaDoctrineofphilosophical,critical,mathematical,poetical,chemical,historical,Science.16
Buttotransportoneselfarbitrarilynowinthis,nowinthatsphere,asifintoanotherworld,notmerelywiththeunderstandingandtheimagination,butwithone'swholesoulto
freelyrelinquishfirstoneandthenanotherpartofone'sbeingandtoconfineoneselfentirelytoathirdtoseekandfindnowinthis,nowinthatindividualthebeallandendallof
existenceandintentionallyforgeteveryoneelse:ofthisonlyaspiritiscapablethatcontainswithinitself,insomesense,apluralityofspiritsandawholesystemofpersons.17

Encyclopediaanduniversalprogressivepoetryplaythesamegame.Andthisgameisnotfutile,itisnotonlythepsychologicalexpressionof

Page16

a"translatortalent":itisthereflection,orratherthesymbol,ofthegameofSpiritwithitself.ForNovalis,languageplayssuchagame,ashestatesinhisfamous
"Monologue":
Onecan'thelpbutbeastonishedattheabsurd,whollyerroneousassumptionpeoplemakethattheirtalkisaboutthings.Nooneknowswhatismostdistinctiveaboutlanguage,
namely,thatitisconcernedsolelywithitself.Thisiswhyitissuchamarvelousandfertilemysterythatwhensomeonespeaksjustinordertospeak,preciselythendoeshe
pronouncethemostmagnificentandoriginaltruths....Ifonecouldonlymakecleartothem[people]thatitiswithlanguageaswithmathematicalformulastheyconstitutea
worldbythemselves,theyplayonlyamongthemselves...andforthatveryreasontheyaresoexpressiveandmirrorthesingularinterplayofthings.Itisonlythroughtheir
freedomthattheyarepartsofnature,andonlyintheirfreemovementdoestheworldsoulexpressitselfandmakethemintoadelicatemeasureandoutlineofthings.Soitistoo
withlanguage.18

Onecanseeclearlythattheconquestofforeignmeters,Novalis'gallicizationoflanguage,dependsonacertaingamewithlanguageandwithlanguages.But,insucha
game,whatoftheuntranslatability,thatistosay,ofthatwhichinthedifferenceoflanguagespurportstobetheirreducible,atalevelwhichneednotbethatof
linguistics,andwhicheverytranslatorencountersastheveryhorizonofthe"impossibility"ofhispracticeanimpossibilitywhichhe,nevertheless,hastoconfrontand
livewith?Wewillhavetoinquireintothestatus(ornonstatus)accordedtoitbytheRomanticsastatuscloselyconnectedtothenotionsofcriticabilityand
uncriticability.Wewillseethattranslatabilityanduntranslatabilityare,asitwere,determinedaprioribytheverynatureoftheworksaparadoxwhichwemay
formulateasfollows:thatwhichhasnotalreadytranslateditself,isnottranslatable,norisitworthbeingtranslated.
ItisstrikingtonoticethatthespeculativetheoryoftranslationnowherereallyencounterstheproblemoflanguageandlanguagesasGoethe,Humboldt,andHlderlin
did.Beingintegratedintothetheoryofliteratureandoftheworkasmediumforthepoeticabsolute,translationlosesitsculturalandconcretelinguisticdimension,
exceptwithA.W.Schlegel,wherethealmosttechnicalreflectionsontheintroductionofmetricsintoGermanareconcerned.Evenso,language,inthiscontext,does
notappearasadimension,butasthedocileorstubborninstrumentofacertainpoeticplay.A.W.Schlegelwrites:
Iamconvincedthatlanguageisnotcapableofanythingwithoutthewill,thezeal,andthesensibility(Sinn)ofthosewhouseit....Ourlanguageisstubbornweareallthemore
pliantourlanguageisharshandrudewedoeverythingtoselectsoftandpleasantsoundsif

Page17
necessary,weareevenskilledinplayingonwords,somethingforwhichtheGermanlanguageisextremelyillsuitedbecauseitalwayswantstowork,neverplay.Where,then,are
thosehighlycelebratedqualitieswhichwouldmakeourlanguageinitselftheonlyonetobecalledupontotranslateallothers?Acertainwealthofvocabulary,whichisnotsuch
astonotmakeitspovertyfeltoftenintranslationitscapacitytocompound,andoccasionallytoderiveaslightlymorefreewordorderthansomeothermodernlanguagesand,
finally,acertainmetricalflexibility.Asfarasthelatterisconcerned,itisentirelynatural,becausesincetheProvencalageourpoetryhasgenerallyfollowedforeignmodels.Ihave
shownelsewherethatthesuccessoftheintroductionofancientmetrics...mustbeattributedrathertothezealandthesensibilityofcertainpoetsthantothestructureofthe
languageitself.19

Itseemsthatthewholepointwouldbetomakethelanguageplayatagamethegameofflexibilityforwhichitisnevernaturallyprepared.Inthesametext,A.W.
SchlegelcomparesthisoperationtothoseoftheRomans,whoalso"civilized"theirlanguagebyanimmenseeffortoftranslation.
WithrespecttothepracticalandtheoreticalattemptsoftheAthenum,thereflectionsbySchleiermacherandHumboldtrepresentthemomentwhentranslationenters
intothehorizonofhermeneuticsandthescienceoflanguage.Itischaracteristictonotethatboththinkersareconfrontedimmediatelywiththeproblemoflanguageand
theproblemoftherelationbetweenmanandlanguageasthatwhichmancanneverdominatefromthepositionofanabsolutesubject.Novalis,mostoften,had
thoughtlanguageastheinstrumentofathinkingsubject:
Languagealsoisaproductoftheimpulsetowardsformation(Bildungstrieb).Justasthelatteralwaysformsthesamethingsinthemostdiversecircumstances,sodoeslanguage,
throughcultureandthroughanincreasingdevelopmentandenlivening,becometheprofoundexpressionoftheideaoforganisation,ofthesystemofphilosophy.Thewholeof
languageisapostulate.Itisofapositive,freeorigin.20

Postulateandpositivereferheretothefactthatlanguageisposited,institutedbyspiritasitsmodeofexpression.Insuchaconception,languagecanneverbe
thoughtastheunmasterabledimensionofhumanbeing,whichconfrontsitwiththemultiplicity,simultaneouslyempiricaland"transcendental,"oflanguages:theopaque
beingBabelofnaturallanguage.HumboldtandSchleiermacher,fortheirpart,approachthisrealityoflanguage,thoughwithoutrecognizingitassuch.Buttheir
undertaking,aboveall,isnolongerspeculative,aswasthatoftheAthenum.Itinaugurates,startingwithWeimarclassicismforHumboldt,withJenaRomanticismfor
Schleiermacher,anewphaseinthe

Page18

reflectionontranslation,whichwillbetakenupagaininGermanybysuchmindsasRosenzweigandSchadewaldt,whenthetimehascomeafterawholeperiodof
retranslationsofgreatliteraryandreligioustextsofthepast.RudolfPannwitztakescompletestockofthisturningofthetimewhenhedeclares:
Ourversions,eventhebestones,startoutfromafalseprincipletheywanttogermanizeSanskrit,Greek,English,insteadofsanskritizing,hellenizing,anglicizingGerman....The
fundamentalerrorofthetranslatoristopreservethecontingentstateofhisownlanguageratherthansubmitittotheviolentmotionoftheforeignlanguage....Onedoesnot
imaginetowhatextentthethingispossible,towhatdegreealanguagemaytransformitselffromlanguagetolanguagethereishardlyagreaterdistancethanfromdialectto
dialect,thoughcertainlynotwhentheyaretakentoolightly,muchratherwhentheyaretakenseriouslyenough.21

ItisatthispointthatHlderlin'stranslations,preciselybecausetheydosubmitthemselvestothe"violentmotionoftheforeignlanguage,"movetocenterstage,and
withthemtherelationoflanguages,relationsofcouplinganddifferentiation,ofconfrontationandhybridizationtobemoreprecise:Therelationofthemother
tonguetootherlanguagesasitisenactedintranslation,andasitdeterminestherelationofthemothertonguetoitself.Thisdevelopmentbelongstous,orshould
beours,andgraduallyestablishesitselfalongwiththatwhichlinguistics,moderncriticism,andpsychoanalysis,amongothers,teachusaboutlanguageandlanguagesin
general.
TheRomantictheoryoftranslation,poeticalandspeculative,constitutesthebasisofacertainmodernconsciousnessofliteratureandtranslationinquiteafew
respects.Here,theaimofourstudyisdouble:ontheonehandtorevealthestillunderestimatedroleofthistheoryintheeconomyofRomanticthoughtbut,also,on
theotherhand,toquestionthepostulates,andthustocontributetoacritiqueofourmodernity.The"speculative"theoryoftranslationandthe"intransitive"or
"monologic"theoryofliteraturearerelated.22StrikingtwentiethcenturyexamplesmaybefoundinBlanchot,Steiner,orSerres.Thisevolution,begunbythe
Athenum,isnowinitsrepetitiveandepigonalphase:Whatisatstaketodayisaliberationfromitsoastoprepareanewdomainofliterature,criticism,and
translation.
The"speculative"theoryoftranslationandthe"intransitive"theoryofpoetryare,inaprofoundsense,"thingsofthepast,"whatevermaybethe"modern"finerywith
whichtheyadornthemselves.Theyblockthewayofthehistorical,cultural,andlinguisticdimensionoftranslationandpoetry.Anditisthisdimensionwhichis
beginningtorevealitselfatthepresentday.

Page19

Asforus,ourcriticalworkonthetheoriesoftranslationfromtheclassicalandromanticageinGermanyhasoriginatedfromatwofoldexperience.
Inthefirstplace,itoriginatesfromalongandalmostsymbioticfamiliaritywithGermanRomanticism.23Asmanyothers,amongthemBreton,Bguin,Benjamin,
Blanchot,Guerne,Jacottet,wehavesoughtinitthefascinatingoriginofourliteraryconsciousness.Whatismorefascinating,thatistosay,moreinvestedbythe
imagination,thanGermanRomanticism?Itisevenmorefascinatingbecauseitisadornedbythedoubleprestigeofthetheoreticalandthefantastic,andbecausewe
believetofindinittheunion(itselfimaginary)ofthepoeticandthephilosophical.Romanticismisoneofourmyths.
Aliteraryandintellectualtrajectory,allthemorestarvedforselfaffirmationandabsolutenessinproportionasitprogressivecutitselfofffromanyhistoricaland
linguisticground,thoughtithadfoundinititsownimagemoreandmorebloodlessanddeprivedoflife.Notallismonologueandselfreflectioninmodernpoetry
andliterature.24Butitcertainlyconstitutesadominanttendency.Onemayrecognizeoneselfperfectlyinit.Itisalsopossible,andthisisourposition,torefuseitinthe
nameoftheexperienceofanotherliterarydimensiontheonewhichwefindinEuropeanpoetryandtheaterpriortotheseventeenthcentury,inthenovelistic
tradition,andwhichhasevidentlyneverdisappeared.GermanRomanticismhascertainlyknownthisdimension,sinceitmadeittheprivilegedfieldofitstranslations
andofitsliterarycriticism.Butitsimultaneouslyremainedseparatefromitbyanunbridgeableabyss(aswillbeseenwithA.W.Schlegel).
Anditisthisdimensionwhichhasopeneditselftouswhen,havingtranslatedsomeGermanRomantics,wehavebeenledtotranslatesomemodernLatinAmerican
novels.LiketheauthorsofsixteenthcenturyEurope,RoaBastos,GuimaraesRosa,J.M.Arguedastonameonlythegreatestwritefromanoralandpopular
tradition.25Hencetheproblemtheyposefortranslation:howtorendertextsrootedinanoralcultureintoalanguagelikeourown,whichhasfollowedthereverse
historical,cultural,andliterarytrajectory?Onemaylookatthisasapurelytechnical,sectorialproblem,andleaveitatthat.Butinfactitconstitutesachallengethat
putsthemeaningandthepoweroftranslationatstake.TheworktobedoneonmodernFrench,inordertomakeitcapableofwelcomingthatliterarydomain
authenticallythatistosay,withoutethnocentrismshowsquiteclearlythatweareconcernedhere,inandthroughtranslation,withaparticipationinthismovement
ofdecenteringandchangethatourliterature(ourculture)needsifitwantstofindagainanimageandanexperienceofitselfwhichithaspartly(though,certainly,not
completely!)lostsinceclassicismeven

Page20

thoughFrenchRomanticismhadtheambitionoffindingthemagain.Translation,ifitwantstobecapableofparticipatinginsuchamovement,mustreflectonitself
andonitspowers.Inevitably,suchareflectonisaselfaffirmation.Andthis,wemustrepeat,ishistoricallyandculturallylocated:Itisattheserviceofacertainturn
inliterature.TheproblemsposedbyLatinAmericantranslationsarebynomeanssectorialtheymayeasilybefoundinotherdomainsoftranslation.No"theory"of
translationshouldbenecessaryiftherewerenotsomethingtobechangedinthepracticeoftranslation.TheGermanyoftheRomanticsofGoethe,Humboldt,
Hderlin,andSchleiermacherhas,initsway,knownananalogousproblematic.Thatisthereasonwhywehavebeenledtoattempttowriteevenifpartiallya
chapterinthehistoryofEuropeantranslationandachapterinGermanculturalhistoryachapterparticularlyheavyinmeaning,sincewerecognizeinitchoicesthat
havebeenourown,eventhoughourculturalfieldhaschanged.26This"historical"workitselfservesacertainculturalbattleinwhichthespecificityoftranslationas
wellastherefusalofacertainmodernliterarytraditionhavetobeaffirmed.Translationwoulddeserveitssecularancillarystatusifeventuallyitdidnotitselfbecomean
actofcreativedecenteringconsciousofitself.
Allthatremainsistoindicatethosestudiestowhichthepresentessayismostindebted.Toourknowledgethereisnostudyonthetranslationsandthetheoryof
translationoftheRomantics.AtbestonefindssomemonographsdevotedtothetranslationsbyL.TieckandA.W.Schlegel.SomeGermandoctoraldissertations
studytherelationbetweenoneRomanticandaforeignliterature,thoughtheyneverdirectlytacklethequestionofthenature,thepurpose,andthemeaningofthe
translationsthisRomanticwasabletomakefromthatforeignlanguage.27ThescantpublicationsinGermanydevotedtotheRomantictheoryoflanguagenoteits
importancefortranslationbutdonotofferananalysisofitbeyondthelevelofparaphrase.ThesameistrueforGoethe.Hlderlin'stranslations,ontheotherhand,
havebeencarefullystudied(atleastthosefromtheGreek)byF.BeissnerandW.Schadewaldt.
WalterBenjamin,inTheConceptofArtCriticisminGermanRomanticismperhapsthemostperspicaciousworkontheAthenumeverwrittenremainsthe
onlyauthorwhohasfullymeasuredtheimportanceofthesubjectandwhohassituateditinthelargercontextofareflectiononRomanticism:
ApartfromthetranslationofShakespeare,thedurablepoeticworkoftheRomanticsistheannexationofRomanceartisticformsforGermanliterature.Theireffortswere
consciouslydirectedtotheappropriation,development,andpurificationoftheseforms.Buttheirrelationtothemwasentirelydifferentfromthatoftheprecedinggenerations.

Page21
UnliketheAufklrung,theRomanticsdidnotconceiveofformasanaestheticruleforart,thefollowingofwhichwasanecessarypreconditionforthepleasurableoredifying
effectofthework.Forthem,formwasneitherarule,nordiditdependonrules.Thisconception,withoutwhichA.W.Schlegel'strulysignificanttranslationsfromtheItalian,the
Spanish,andthePortuguesewouldbeunthinkable,wasdevelopedphilosophicallybyhisbrother.28

Elsewhere,in"TheTaskoftheTranslator,"BenjaminalsomentionstheRomantics:
They,morethananyothers,weregiftedwithaninsightintothelifeofliteraryworkswhichhasitshighesttestimonyintranslation.Tobesure,theyhardlyrecognizedtranslation
inthissense,butdevotedtheirattentiontocriticism,another,ifalesser,factorinthecontinuedlifeofliteraryworks.ButeventhoughtheRomanticsvirtuallyignoredtranslation
intheirtheoreticalwriting,theirowngreattranslationstestifytotheirsenseoftheessentialnatureandthedignityofthisliterarymode.29

EvenifBenjaminunderestimatesthevalueofthoseraretextswhichtheRomanticsdevotedtotranslation,itstillremainsthathehascircumscribedexactlythespaceit
occupieswiththem.Furthermore,hisownviewoftranslationmaybeconsideredasaradicalizationofNovalis'sandF.Schlegel'sintuitions.
WehavealsousedtheworksonRomanticthoughtbyP.Szondi,B.Allemann,M.Thalmann,andP.LacoueLabartheandJ.L.Nancy.AsfarasNovalisandF.
Schlegelareconcerned,wehavereliedinpartonreflectionsfromourpreviousstudy,"LettresFouadElEtrsurleRomantismeallemand."
Amongtheworksdevotedtotheproblematicoftranslation,werecognizeaparticularaffinitywiththosebyMikhalBakhtin.GeorgeSteiner'sAfterBabel,byits
magnitudeandtheabundanceofitsinformation,isafundamentalbasicwork,evenifonedoesnotsharehistheoreticalconclusions.Finally,thecollectionpublishedby
H.J.Strig,DasProblemdesbersetzens,offersanexcellentoverallviewofthetheoriesoftranslationinGermanysinceLuther.30
Withintheprimarilytheoreticalframeworkofourstudy,wehavehadtorenounce,afewexceptionsnotwithstanding,aconcreteanalysisoftranslationsbythe
Romanticsandtheircontemporaries.Inordertobepertinent,suchananalysiswouldhaverequiredmorespacethanwehaveavailablehere.

Page23

1
Luther:TranslationasFoundation
ThemasterpieceofGermanproseistherefore,fairlyenough,themasterpieceofitsgreatestpreacher:theBiblehassofarbeenthebestGermanbook.
F.Nietzsche,BeyondGoodandEvil

Inhis"NotesandEssaysforaBetterUnderstandingoftheWestEasternDivan",Goethewrites:
SincetheGermancontinuallymovesaheadoftheEastbywayoftranslationsofallkinds,wefindoccasiontoputforwardheresomeremarksthatarewellknown,butthatcannot
berepeatedtoooften.
Therearethreekindsoftranslation.Thefirstacquaintsuswiththeforeignonourowntermsasimpleprosaictranslationisbestinthisrespect.Forsinceprosetotallycancelsall
peculiaritiesofanykindofpoeticartandsinceproseitselfpullspoeticenthusiasmdowntoacommonwaterlevel,itdoesthegreatestserviceinthebeginning,bysurprisingus
withforeignexcellenceinthemidstofourownnationalhomeliness,oureverydayexistenceitoffersusahighermoodandrealedificationwhilewedonotrealizewhatis
happeningtous.Luther'sBibletranslationwillproducethiskindofeffectatanytime.1

ThisobservationisechoedaccuratelybyapassagefromDichtungundWahrheit:

Page24
Forthecircumstancethatthisexcellentman[Luther]handeddownawork,composedinthemostdifferentstyles,andgaveusitspoetical,historical,commanding,didactictonein
ourmothertongue,asifallwerecastinonemould,hasdonemoretoadvancereligionthanifhehadattemptedtoimitate,indetail,thepeculiaritiesoftheoriginal.Invainhasbeen
thesubsequentendeavourtomakeJob,thePsalms,andotherlyricalbooks,capableofaffordingenjoymentintheirpoeticalform.Forthemultitude,uponwhomtheeffectistobe
produced,aplaintranslationalwaysremainsthebest.Thosecriticaltranslations,whichviewiththeoriginal,reallyonlyseemtoamusethelearnedamongthemselves.2

Goethe'sjudgment,largelysharedbytheentireGermantradition,concernsfirstandforemostthehistoricalsignificanceoftheLutherantranslation.Renouncingthe
productionofa''criticaltranslation"closelytiedtothe"particularitiesoftheoriginal,"LuthermanagedtocreateaworkaccessibletotheGermanpeople,capableof
providingasolidbaseforthenewreligioussensibilityoftheReformation.ThiswasobviouslytheissueinthecaseoftheBible.Towhatextentdoesthisevaluation
correspondtotherealityofLuther'swork?
From1521to1534,Lutherandateamofscholarsworkonthetranslation,havingrecoursesimultaneouslytotheLatinandGreekversions,aswellasoccasionallyto
theHebreworiginal.TherewereatthetimeotherGermantranslationsoftheBiblethefirstonepublishedin1475,buttheywereswarmingwithLatinisms.Luther,
forhispart,aimsattheGermanization,Verdeutschung,ofthesacredtextsfromtheoutset.Thisaimisexplicitlypronouncedinapolemicaltext,"OnTranslating:An
OpenLetter,"inwhichhedefendshistranslationsandhisprinciplesagainstthosewhoallegedthat
inmanyplacesthetext[oftheBible]hasbeenmodifiedorevenfalsified,wherebymanysimpleChristians,evenamongthelearnedwhodonotknowtheGreekandHebrew
languages,havebeenstartledandshocked.3

ConcerningadetailtheadditionofanonlyinatextbySt.Paul,whichisfoundinneithertheLatinversionnortheGreektextLutherstates:
IwantedtospeakGerman,notLatinorGreek,sinceitwasGermanIhadundertakentospeakinthetranslation.ButitisthenatureofourGermanlanguagethatinspeakingoftwo
things,oneofwhichisaffirmedandtheotherdenied,weusethewordsolum(allein)[aloneoronly]alongwiththewordnicht[not]orkein[no]....Thereareinnumerablecases
ofthiskindindailyuse.4

Thisdiscussionreferstoamoregeneralpurpose:toofferthecommunityofbelieversatextingoodGerman.Butwhatis,inLuther's

Page25

age,goodGerman?CertainlynotaGermanthatwouldobeyrulesandpredeterminedcanons.ItcanonlybetheGermanofthedialects,theMundarten.Furtheronin
thesametext,Lutherisveryclearonthissubject:
WedonothavetoinquireoftheliteralLatin,howwearetospeakGerman,astheseassesdo.Ratherwemustinquireaboutthisofthemotherinthehome,thechildrenonthe
street,thecommonmaninthemarketplace.Wemustbeguidedbytheirlanguage,anddoourtranslatingaccordingly.Thatwaytheywillunderstanditandrecognizethatweare
speakingGermanwiththem.5

Totranslate,then,withanearforpopular,everydayspeech,sothattheBiblemaybeheardandunderstood.GoodGermanisthatofthepeople.Butthepeople
speakaninfinityofGermans.Whatisatstake,then,istotranslateintoaGermanthatinacertainwayrisesabovethemultiplicityofMundarten[dialects]without
denyingorcrushingthemintheprocess.HenceLuther'stwofoldattempt:totranslateintoaGermanthataprioricanonlybelocalhisGermanHochdeutsch,but
toraisethislocalGermanintheveryprocessoftranslationtothelevelofacommonGerman,alinguafranca.Inordernottobecomeinturnalanguagecutofffrom
thepeople,thisGermanmustconservewithinitsomethingoftheMundartenandthegeneralmodesofexpressionofpopularspeech.Onewouldhave,then,the
constantanddeliberateuseofaveryorallanguage,chargedwithimages,locutions,phrases,togetherwithaworkofpurification,ofdedialectizationofthislanguage.
Thus,forinstance,LuthertranslatesChrist'swords"exabundantiacordisosloquitur"(Matth.12:34)notas"outoftheabundanceoftheheartthemouthspeaks,"
because"noGermancouldsaythat,"butas"whatfillstheheartoverflowsthemouth.""Themotherinthehomeandthecommonmansaythis.''NotLatin,norapure
dialect,butageneralizedpopularspeech.Adifficultoperation,asLutheradmits:
FortheliteralLatinisagreathindrancetospeakinggoodGerman.6

Difficult,butapparentlysuccessful:assoonasitappeared,theLutheranBiblewasasensation,despiteallthecriticism.Onereeditionfollowsanother.Verysoonthe
peopletowhomitwasdestinedlearnpassagesfromitbyheartandintegrateitintotheirpatrimony.Fromthestart,itbecomesthecornerstoneoftheReformationin
Germany,asGoetheverywellobserved.Butitisevenmorethanthat:BytransformingtheHochdeutschintoalinguafranca,itmakesitintothemediumofwritten
Germanforcenturies.IntheLutherantranslation,afirstanddecisiveselfaffirmationofliteraryGermanisplayedout.Agreat"reformer,"Lutherishenceforth
consideredagreatwriter,acreatorof

Page26

language,anditisinthiscapacitythatheiscelebratedbyHerderandKlopstock.
LetushaveacloserlookatwhatisatstakeintheVerdeutschung,sincethismayshedsomelightontheproblematicsoftranslationthatwillculminateattheendof
theeighteenthcenturyinthetheoriesofGoethe,theRomantics,andaboveallwithHlderlin'stranslationsfromtheGreek.WhatLutherviolentlypushesasideisLatin
astheofficialmediumoftheRomanChurchand,moregenerally,ofwriting.Wearepresentedherewithaphenomenonpeculiartothesixteenthcentury(tothe
ReformationandtheRenaissance),whichBakhtinhasexcellentlydescribedinhisworkonRabelais:
Anintenseinterorientation,interaction,andmutualclarificationoflanguagestookplaceduringthatperiod.Thetwolanguagesfranklyandintenselypeeredintoeachother's
faces,andeachbecamemoreawareofitself,itspotentialitiesandlimitations,inthelightoftheother.Thislinedrawnbetweenthelanguageswasseeninrelationtoeachobject,
eachconcept,andeachpointofview.7

Inthepresentcase,thedelimitationBakhtinmentionsis,ofcourse,concernedwiththeconfrontationofGermanandLatin.Butatthesametimeitisconcernedwith
thesphereofnationalfolkidioms.Asinglenationallanguagedidnotexistasyet,itwasslowlyformed.Theprocessoftransformingthewholeofphilosophytothevernacularand
ofcreatinganewsystemofliterarymedialedtoanintenseinterorientationofdialectswithinthisvernacular....However,theprocesswasnotlimitedtotheinterorientationof
dialects.Thenationallanguage,havingbecomethemediumofideologyandliterature,inevitablyenteredintocontactwithothernationallanguages.8

Here,quitelogically,Bakhtinemphasizes
theimmenseimportanceoftranslationsintheabovemutualclarificationoflanguages.Weknowthattranslationplayedaconsiderableroleinthelinguisticandliterarylifeofthe
sixteenthcentury....Theseworkshadtobetranslatedintoalanguagethathadnotbeenfinallydevelopedandformed.Indeedithadtobeshapedintheveryprocessof
translation....9

WhichispreciselywhathappenswithLuther'sBible.Asamatteroffact,thespaceBakhtindescribesisEuropean,eventhoughhisbookdealswithFrenchliterature.
ButnoFrenchtranslationofthatperiodastherelativelysecondaryroleassignedtotranslationinDuBellay'sDfenseetillustrationdelalanguefranaiseclearly
showscouldassumethefoundationalroleoftheLutheranBible,becausetheredoesnotexistinFranceaworkthatcould,byitself,playtheroleofa

Page27

foundationofnationalandliteraryFrench.WedonothaveaDivineComedy.IfLuther'sBibleplaysthisrole,itisbecauseitclaimstobeaVerdeutschungofthe
Scriptures,connectedhistoricallytoavastmovementofreformulationofthefaith,ofarenovationoftherelationtosacredtexts,ofaradicalreinterpretationofthe
Testaments,aswellastoanationalreligiousaffirmationagainstthe"imperialism"ofRome.Conversely,thismovementonlyacquiresitsstrengthfromtheactual
existenceofa"germanized"Bibleaccessibletoall.WehavehereadecisivehistoricalandculturalconjunctionthatestablishesarealruptureinGermany:Henceforth,
thereisabeforeandanafterLuther,notonlyreligiouslyandpolitically,butliterarily.10TherediscoveryofapreLutheranliterarypastbyHerderandthe
Romanticswillnotquestionthisrupture,andGoetheisperfectlywellawareofitinthetextcitedabove:InordertoreadtheNibelungenorMeisterEckhart,the
Germanshavetoresorttointratranslations,notneededbytheItalianstoreadDante,whoisneverthelessacontemporaryofMeisterEckhart.
ThefactthatthefoundationandtheformationofcommonliteraryGermanshouldhavehappenedbymeansofatranslationiswhatallowsustounderstandwhythere
willexistinGermanyatraditionoftranslationthatregardstranslationasthecreation,transmission,andexpansionofthelanguage,thefoundationofaSprachraum,
ofalinguisticspaceofitsown.AnditisbynomeansacoincidencethattheRomanticswilllinktheirtheoriesofliterature,criticism,andtranslationtoatheoryofthe
Bible,toa"universalmethodofbiblification."11
FranzRosenzweig,whocollaboratedwithMartinBuberonanewVerdeutschungoftheBible,conformingtotheneedsofthefaithinthetwentiethcentury,has
broughtoutthemeaningofLuther'stranslationforGermanculture,language,andliteratureinaremarkableway.Wequoteatlengthfromhisessay"DieSchriftund
Luther":
Languagesmaybeaccompaniedbywritingforcenturieswithouttheemergenceofwhatisdesignatedwiththepeculiarexpressionof"writtenlanguage."...Atonetimeinthelife
ofapeoplethemomentcomeswhenwriting,onceitsservant,becomesthemasteroflanguage.Thismomentarriveswhenacontentembracingtheentirelifeofthepeopleis
pouredintowritingthatis,whenforthefirsttimethereisabook"thateveryonemusthaveread."Fromthismomenton,languagecannolongerproceedunaffected....And
truly,fromthenonthetempoofthedevelopmentofthelanguageisheavierthanbefore.Today,westilllargelyunderstandLuther'sGermanifwemodernizethespelling....On
theotherhand,itwouldbeverydifficultforustoreadtheliteraturecontemporaneouswithLuthertotheextentthatithasnotalreadybeeninfluencedbyhim....
Tobesure,thedominationofabookoveralanguagedoesnot

Page28
meanthatthelatter'sdevelopmenthasended.Nevertheless,itistremendouslysloweddown....
Theproblematicoftheclassic,foundationalbookisintensifiedbythefactthatitisatranslation.Becausefortranslationsthereholdsalawofunicity,connectedherewiththat
unicityoftheclassicmomentofthehistoryofthelanguage.Thehistoryoftranslationhasaverytypicalcourse.Inthebeginning,unassuminginterlineartranslations,whichwant
tobenomorethanaidesforreadingtheoriginal,coexistwithfreeadaptationsreformulationswantingtoconveyinsomewaytothereaderthemeaningoftheoriginalorwhat
theyconsidertobeitsmeaning....Then,onedaythemiracleofthemarriageofthetwospiritsoflanguagehappens.Thisdoesnothappenwithoutpreparation.Onlywhenthe
receivingpeople,outoftheirownlongingandbytheirownexpression,goouttoencounter...theforeignwork,thatiswhenitsreceptionnolongerfollowsfromcuriosity,
interest,culturalimpulse[Bildungsdrang],orevenaestheticpleasure,butinthebroadnessofahistoricalmovement,onlythenhasthetimeforsuchahierosgamos,sucha
sacredwedding,arrived.ThusforSchlegel'sShakespeareonlyatthetimewhenSchillercreatesfortheGermansatheateroftheirownthusforVoss'HomeronlywhenGoethe
approachestheantiqueform....Thentheforeignbookbecomesone'sown....ThistremendousstepintheunificationoftheBabelofthepeoplesdoesnotoweitsexistencetoa
singletranslatoritisafruitripenedbythelifeofthepeopleundertheconstellationofanentirelyuniquehistoricalmoment.Amomentthatcannotberepeated.Themomentofthe
historyofthepeopledoesnotreturnbecauseithasnoneedtoreturnwithinthelimitswhichaloneenterintoconsiderationherethelimitsofthehorizonofamomentaneous
nationalpresenceitisimmortal.Aslongastheconnectionofthispresentwiththepastisnotcatastrophicallybroken...thatwhichVossmadeofHomerremainsHomericfor
theGermanpeople,andthatwhichLuthermadeoftheBibleremainsbiblical.Nonewattemptattranslationcanattainthisnationalsignificance....Tobesure,thenewtranslation
ofHomermaybemuchbetterthanvoss'translations,butitcannotconstituteaworldhistoriceventitcanonlyseektoobtainthelaurelsbestoweduponitbythespiritofitsown
people,notthosebestowedbytheworldspirit,whichcanbebestowedonlyoncebecausetheworldtournamentcanbeplayedonlyonce,unlikethetraininggamesofpeoples
andpeoplewhichareplayedeveryyearandeveryday.12

Thisimportanttextraisesmanyquestions.RosenzweiglinksthehistoricalunicityofatranslationinthiscaseLuther'stothevaguelyHegeliannotionofworldspirit.
inLuther'scase,undoubtedlythereisnoneedtoresorttothisspeculativenotion:Thehistoricityofhistranslationisobviouslylinkedtoprecisereligious,national,and
linguisticfactors.ButRosenzweig'stexthasthemeritofraisingtheproblemofthe

Page29

historicityoftranslationingeneral.Indeed,ifnotevident,thehistoricityofaworkisatleastundisputed.Homer'sworkishistoricinthesensethatGreekhistory
(notonlyGreekliteraryhistory)isunthinkablewithoutit.ThesamegoesforaDante.Still,atstakehereisthehistoricityofacertainnationallinguisticorculturalspace.
ButtheseworksareequallyhistoricattheleveloftheWesternspaceasawhole,andbeyond:Theyconstitutewhatiscalled"universalliterature"whichthey
certainlycouldnothavebeenwithoutthemediationoftranslation.Buttwopointshavetobemadehere.First,itisbecausetheywerealreadypotentiallyuniversal
thattheyhavebeenuniversallytranslated.Whichistosaythattheyalreadycarriedwithinthemselves,attheleveloftheirformandtheircontent,theirown
translatability.TheworkofsomeonelikeKafka,inthetwentiethcentury,hasauniversalvalue,andithasbeentranslatedalmosteverywhere.Butandthisisthe
secondpointthisdoesnotmeanthatallthetranslationsofthoseworkshaveanhistoricvalue.Forinstance,Kafka'sinfluenceinFrancedidnotdependona
translationthatdrewattentioninandofitself,thatis,asaworkproperlyspeaking.ThesamemaybesaidofthetranslationofaJoyceoraDostoevsky.Inthese
circumstances,atranslationshouldbecalledhistoricifithasbeenepochmakingasatranslation,atranslationwhichappearsassuch,andinthatway,strangely,
attainstherankofaworkandisnolongerconfinedtobeahumblemediationofanhistorictext.Inotherwords:Thetranslationofanessentialtext,atextheavywith
history,isnotitselfnecessarilyhistoric.Thus,itisnecessarytodistinguishthegeneralhistoricityoftranslation,itsroleofunassumingmediationwhichobviously
contributestothemovementofhistory,fromthoserelativelyraretranslationswhich,bytheirowneffect,turnouttobeheavywithhistoryIndeed,asRosenzweigsays,
thesearetheuniquetranslationswhichdonotpreventtheexistenceofothertranslations(uniqueornot)ofthesameoriginals.InGermany,Luther'sBible,Voss'
Homer,Hlderlin'sSophoclesandPindar,A.W.Schlegel'sShakespeare,andTieck'sDonQuixote,clearlybelongtothistypeoftranslation.Butonecannotsimply
statethatthesetranslations"cameattheirtime"(itwasnotthecaseforHlderlin),becausethetranslationsthatonlymediatecanalsoonly"comeattheirtime"by
virtueofthatselectivitybelongingtocultureswhichmakespossibleallomnitranslation.Moreover,inthecaseoftheGermantranslationswementioned,itisinteresting
tonotethattheyareallretranslations:therewerealreadynumeroustranslationsoftheseworks,oftenofanexcellentquality.Tobesure,thenewtranslationsemerge
fromanhistoricallyprecisesoil:ThereformulationoftherelationtotheBibleandrevealedfaith(Luther),thedeepeningoftherelationtotheGreeks(Voss,Hlderlin),
anopeningtoEnglishandIberianliteratures(A.W.SchlegelandTieck).Theycould

Page30

onlyexistonsuchasoil.Thedeepeningofthealreadyexistingrelationtoforeignworksdemandednewtranslations.Butthisisasomewhatdeterministview,because
wecanalsoconsiderthesetranslationsasthatunforeseeableandincalculablenoveltywhichistheessenceofatrulyhistoricevent.Itseemsthatthesetranslations
couldonlyemergeasretranslations:goingbeyondtheframeworkofsimpleinterculturalcommunicationcarriedoutbymediatingtranslations,theymanifestthepure
historicpoweroftranslationassuch,whichisnottobeconfoundedwiththehistoricalpoweroftranslationingeneral.Atagivenmoment,itisasifthehistorical
relationwithanothercultureoranotherworkcouldonlybeestablishedabruptlybymeansoftranslation.Itdoesnotnecessarilyhappenlikethisforinstance(andwe
shallcomebacktothis),theprofoundrelationtoAntiquitymaintainedbyclassicistFrancedoespresupposeagreatmanytranslationsthosemadeinthesixteenth
andseventeenthcenturiesbutbynomeansonetranslationinparticularnotevenAmyot'sPlutarch.ThepeculiarityofGermancultureisperhapstohaveexperienced
thisuniquepoweroftranslationseveraltimes.AnditemergedforthefirsttimewithLuther.
Inthisrespect,anexaminationofthelimitsofLuther'sVerdeutschung,specificallywithregardtotheHebrewtext,mayhaveseemedofsecondaryimportance.
Besides,theselimitshaveonlybecomeevidentinthetwentiethcentury,togetherwiththereinterpretations,rereadings,andretranslationsoftheGospelsandtheOld
Testament.AsRosenzweigemphasizesbutthisisalreadyindicatedbytheexampleofLuther'stranslationquotedaboveLuther,eventhoughhecertainlyreferred
backtotheHebrewtext,inthefinalanalysisworkedfromtheLatinversion:
EvenashestudiedtheHebrewtext,hedidnotthinkinHebrew,butinLatin.13

Whichwasinevitable,sinceitwasLatinandnotHebrewthatconstitutedthelinguistic,religious,andculturalbackgroundofLuther'sthought.Nevertheless,bybringing
aboutthedelimitationofGermanandLatin,theVerdeutschungdidnotproceedtoasimplegermanizationinthesenseinwhichwewouldspeakdepreciatinglyofthe
"gallicization"ofaforeigntexttoday.Thisisallthemoreimpossibleinasmuchas,inthecaseofareligioustranslationlikethatoftheBibleandofareturntothe
"sources"likeProtestantism,theHebreworiginalcouldnotbesimplyleftaside.Here,theappealtoHebrewfunctionedrathertoreinforcetheefficiencyofthe
"Reform"movement.EventhoughitwasbynomeansthedeterminingfactorintheentireLutheranundertaking,HebrewinflectedtheVerdeutschungandlentita
supplementaryoriginality.LutherknewverywellthatopeningtheBiblicalwordtothe

Page31

communityofbelieverswasatthesametimegivingthemthiswordinthelanguageofthe"womaninthehome,"ofthe"childreninthestreet,"andofthe"commonman
inthemarketplace,"andtransmittingtothemtheBible'sownspeaking,thatistosay,theHebrewspeech,whichrequiresthattheframeworkoftheGermanbe
sometimespushedaside:
OntheotherhandIhavenotjust...disregardedaltogethertheexactwordingoftheoriginal.RatherwithmyhelpersIhavebeenverycarefultoseethatwhereeverythingturns
onasinglepassage,Ihavekepttotheoriginalquiteliterally,andhavenotlightlydepartedfromit.Forexample,inJohn6[:27]Christsays,"HimhasGodtheFatherscaled
[versiegelt]."ItwouldhavebeenbetterGermantosay,"HimhasGodtheFathersignified[gezeichent],"or,"HeitiswhomGodtheFathermeans[meinet]."ButIpreferredtodo
violencetotheGermanlanguagerather,thantodepartfromtheword.Ah,translatingisnoteveryman'sskillasthemadsaintsimagine.Itrequiresaright,devout,honest,sincere,
Godfearing,Christian,trained,informed,andexperiencedheart.ThereforeIholdthatnofalseChristianorfactitiousspiritcanbeadecenttranslators.14

Elsewhere,LutherwritesofhistranslationofthePsalms:
Ontheotherhandwehaveattimesalsotranslatedquiteliterallyeventhoughwecouldhaverenderedthemeaningmoreclearlyanotherway....Therefore...weshouldkeep
suchwords,accustomourselvestothem,andsogiveplacetotheHebrewlanguagewhereitdoesabetterjobthanourGerman.15

Inthesametext,hebroachestheproblemofthe"meaning"andofthe"letter"inamoregeneralway,statinghehastranslated
attimesretainingthewordsquiteliterally,attimesrenderingonlythemeaning.16

ThisisadirectallusiontoSaintJerome,translatoroftheVulgate,forwhomthetranslationoftheScriptureswasonlyarenderingofmeaning.Ashesaysinhis"Letter
toPammachius,"thisisarulealreadywellinstitutedbyCiceroandtheLatinpoets:
IdonotonlyadmitbutrecognizeclearlythatintranslatingtheHolyScripturesfromtheGreek...Ihavenottranslatedwordforword,butmeaningformeaning.17

St.JeromeandhistranslationremainthebackgroundfortheLutheranBible,butthelatterneverthelessintendstoleave"someroom"totheHebrewlanguage.Thus,
theVerdeutschungseemstooscillatebetweenseveralmodesoftranslation.Andwemustusethetermmodehere,becauseinLutherthereisnoconcernwithasetof
empirical

Page32

rulesasisthecaseinEstienneDolet'sLamaniredebientraduired'unelangueenaultrenorofamethodinthesenseofasystematicdefinitionoftypesof
translation,asinSchleiermacher's"OntheDifferentMethodsofTranslating."18Nottochoosebetweenliteralnessandfreedom,betweenthe"meaning"andthe
"letter,"betweenLatinandHebrew,doesnotsignifyamethodologicalwaveringbutaperceptionofthefundamentalaporiasoftranslationandanintuitionofwhatcan
andmustbedoneatagivenhistoricalmoment.
Assuch,Luther'stranslationopensadoublehorizon:anhistoricalculturalone,whichwehavementionedabove,andthemorelimitedoneoffutureGerman
translationsandtheirmeaning.SinceLuther,notranslationfromaforeignworkandaforeignlanguagecanbemadewithoutsomereferencetohistranslationofthe
Bible,evenifitisonlytoputhisprinciplesasideandtoattempttogobeyondthem.Voss,Goethe,andHlderlinwilltakeprecisestockofthis.IftheLutheranBible
establishesaruptureinthehistoryoftheGermanlanguage,culture,andliterature,italsoestablishesoneinthedomainoftranslations.Moreover,itsuggeststhatthe
formulationandthedevelopmentofanationalcultureofitsowncanandmustproceedbywayoftranslation,thatis,byanintensiveanddeliberate
relationtotheforeign.19
Thisaffirmationmayappear,andinpartis,oftheutmosttriviality.Atleastitisourcustomtoconsideritsuch.Butitisonethingtothinkthat,forone'sown
developmentofwhateverorder,itisgood"torubone'sbrainswithanother"(Montaigne)itisanothertothinkthatanyrelationtooneselfandtowhatisone's"own"
passesradicallythroughthisrelationtotheotherandtotheforeign,somuchsothatitisbysuchanalienation,inthestrictestsenseoftheword,thatarelationto
oneselfispossible.Therelies,onthepsychologicallevel,thementaloperationofmanytranslators,anoperationAndrGideonceformulatedinaconversationwith
WalterBenjamin:
ItispreciselythefactthatIremovedmyselffrommymothertonguethatprovidedmewiththenecessarymomentumtomasteraforeignlanguage.Whatmattersmostforthe
learningoflanguagesisnottolearn,buttoabandonone'sownlanguage.Onlyinthatwaydoesoneeventuallyfullyunderstandit....Itisonlyinleavingathingthatwename
it.20

Butthingsbecomemorecomplicatedwhenthislawleavesthepsychologicalsphereandisappliedonthehistoricalculturallevel.Inaddition,thedisproportionofthe
passagethroughtheforeignmakesthethreatofthelossofone'sownidentityhoverperpetuallyovertheleveloftheindividualaswellasthatofapeopleandahistory.
Whatisatstakehereisnotsomuchthislawasitisthepointwhereitcrossesits

Page33

ownlimitswithout,forallthat,transformingitselfintoagenuinerelationtotheOther.AndthisiswhatsometimesseemstohappeninGermanculture:Whenthe
"flexibility,"sohighlypraisedbyGoetheandA.WSchlegel(bytheformerfortheGermanlanguage,bythelatterfortheGermancharacter),istransformedintothe
unifiedandproteanpowertofallintoalterity.Attheoutsetofthenineteenthcentury,thispowerisattestedtobytheprodigiousdevelopmentofphilology,literary
criticism,comparativestudies,hermeneutics,and,ofcourse,translation.Intheliterarysense,authorslikeTieck,JeanPaul,andGoetheshowthesamedangerous
"flexibility"(inthevocabularyofthetimeversatilityisreadilyusedtodesignatethismentalandculturalagility,withoutapejorativemeaning).Thismovement,very
productiveculturally,startsfromtheparadox,apparentornot,thatacommunityhasbetteraccesstoitselfinproportionasitopensitselftowhatitisnot.Inhis
UntimelyMeditations,NietzschewillregardwhathesummarizesbytheexpressionhistoricalsenseasagenuinedisasterthedisasteroftheEuropeannineteenth
century.21
Obviously,aspiritas"versatile"asF.Schlegel'swasperfectlywellawareofthenatureofthisrelation.Inhisfragments,hementionstwonationsoftranslatorsthe
RomansandtheArabsandwhatsetsthemapartinthisrespect.TheRomansmadealanguageandaliteratureforthemselvesonthebasisofatremendousworkof
translationfromtheGreek,aworkofsymbiosisandannexationthinkofanauthorlikePlautus.AccordingtoSchlegel,theArabsproceededinadifferentmanner:
Theirfondnessfordestroyingorthrowingawaytheoriginalswhenthetranslationsarefinishedcharacterizesthespiritoftheirphilosophy.Preciselyforthatreasonitmaybethat
theywereultimatelymorecultivatedbut,withalltheirculture,morepurelybarbaricthantheEuropeansoftheMiddleAges.Forbarbarismisdefinedaswhatisatonceanti
classicalandantiprogressive.22

Indeed,toburntheoriginalsanactofanimmeasurable,almostmythicalcomplexityhasatwofoldeffect:Itsuppressesanyrelationtoaliteratureconsideredtobe
anhistoricalmodel(the"anticlassical")anditmakesimpossibleanyretranslation(whereaseachtranslationimpliesitsretranslation,thatis,a"progressivity").
Inthatway,startingfromthehistoricalprecedentofLuther'stranslationoftheBible,awholesetofquestionsisposedtoGermanculture,questionsthatconcernits
veryessence:Whatareweifweareanationoftranslators?Whatistranslation,andwhatisagoodtranslation,forthepeopleweare?Also,towhatextentdoesthis
hypertrophicanddisproportionaterelationnotconstituteforusaradicalthreat?Shouldwe

Page34

notratherturntothatwhich,inourculture,hasbecomeforeigntous,thoughitactuallyconstitutesourinnermostnatureourpast?WhatisDeutschheit,ifitisthe
siteofallthesequestions?Herder,Goethe,theRomantics,Schleiermacher,Humboldt,andHlderlin,eachintheirownway,attempttoconfrontthesequestionsthat
situatetranslationinaculturalproblematicextendingfarbeyondall"methodology."Inthenineteenthcentury,Nietzscheandphilologicalpositivismwilltakethemup
again,followedinthetwentiethcenturybythinkersasdiverseasLukcs,Benjamin,Rosenzweig,Reinhardt,Schadewaldt,andHeidegger.

Page35

2
Herder:FidelityandExpansion
Thischapter,devotedtoHerderandtheproblematicoftranslationestablishedinGermanyinthesecondhalfoftheeighteenthcentury,couldbeplacedundertheaegis
oftwonotionsthatrecurfrequentlyintextsofthatperiod:ErweiterungandTreue.Erweiterungmeansexpansion,amplification.Wehavealreadyencounteredthis
wordinNovalis,whenhestatesthatonlyinGermanyhavetranslationsbecome''expansions."Treuemeansfidelity.ThewordcarriesgreatweightinGermanculture
atthetimeandstandsforacardinalvirtueintheaffectivesphereaswellasintranslationandnationalculture.Inthisrespect,tostatethatatranslationmustbefaithfulis
notastrivialasitmayseematfirstsight.For,asRosenzweigsays,totranslateis"toservetwomasters":1 theforeignworkandtheforeignlanguageone'sownpublic
andone'sownlanguage.Adoublefidelityisneeded,then,incessantlythreatenedbythespecterofadoubletreason.Butfidelity,forthatmatter,isbynomeansan
historicalconstant.Atthetimewhen,inGermany,fidelityisbeingcelebratedwithalmostmaritalovertonesbyBreitinger,Voss,andHerder,Francetranslateswithout
theleastconcernforfidelityandcontinuesitsneverabandonedtraditionof"embellishing"and"poeticizing"translations.TheGermantheoryoftranslationconsciously
positionsitselfagainstthesetranslations"aftertheFrenchmanner."Atthecloseofthisperiod,A.W.Schlegelexpressedthisviewinveryvigorousterms:

Page36
Othernationshaveadoptedatotallyconventionalphraseologyinpoetry,sothatitistotallyimpossibletomakeapoetictranslationofanythingwhatsoeverintotheirlanguage
Frenchisanexample....Itisasiftheywantedeveryforeigneramongthemtobehaveandtodressaccordingtothecustomsoftheland,andthatexplainswhytheyneverreally
gettoknowtheforeign.2

ThiswayoftranslatingisinperfectconformitywiththedominantpositionofFrenchcultureatthetime,aculturewhichdidnotneedtogothroughthelawofthe
foreigntoaffirmitsownidentity.French,farfromopeningitselftotheinfluxofforeignlanguages,rathertendedtoreplacetheseasameansofcommunicationinthe
Europeanintellectualandpoliticalsphere.Inthesecircumstances,thereisnoroomforanyconsciousnessoffidelity.ThepositionofeighteenthcenturyGermanonly
acquiresmoreweightintheprocess.Itreferstoaculturalproblematicwhich,asitwere,isthereverseoftheFrench.3
Thisproblematiccouldbeformulatedatfirstinthefollowingway:theGermanlanguagelacks"culture,"andtoacquireit,itmustgothroughacertainexpansion,which
presupposestranslationsmarkedbyfidelity.Forinwhatrespectcouldatranslationthatmirrorsthe"Frenchmanner"expandthehorizonofthelanguageandthe
culture?SuchisthegeneralargumentforBreitinger,Leibniz,Voss,andHerder.Tobesure,inordertotriumph,thisargumenthastostruggleagainsttheFrench
influenceaswellasagainstacertainpragmatismbornfromthemostmediocretendenciesoftheEnlightenment.Schadewaldthascharacterizedthissituationveryaptly:
Frankly,therearecertainwaysoftranslatingthatareentirelynonproblematic:thosethatdonotwanttobe,inthestrictsenseoftheword,faithfultotheoriginalor,inanycase,
donotconsiderfidelitytotheessenceoftheoriginalanobligatoryrequirement.When,inGermanybeforethebeginningoftheeighteenthcentury,translationwaspracticedasa
formalrhetoricalexerciseinthemannerofCiceroandQuintillian...itdidnotmakeadifferenceifprosewastranslatedintopoetryorpoetryintoprose....Fororiginalheremeans:
"stylisticmodel,"andfidelityissubmittedtothearbitrarinessofanuncultivatedordeformedsenseoftaste.Lateron,whenaforeignworkisapproachedwiththeintentiontolay
holdofitsmaterialandobjectivecontentandtomakeitaccessibletoone'scontemporaries,oneisconsideredasfaithfulifonefeelsobligedtothetransmittingofcontent.Here,
translationsare"writings"(andIquoteadefinitionbytheAufklrerVenzky,publishedin1734inGottsched'sCriticalContributions)"whichrenderamatteroralearnedwork
intoanother...language,sothatthosewhodonotknowtheoriginallanguage...mayreadthosemattersandthatworkwithgreateradvantageandpleasure."Andifsucha
translationhas"clearlyandcompletelyex

Page37
pressedtheunderstandingofanoriginalwriting,itisasgoodastheoriginal."Becausehere,theoriginalisthesumoffactsthatareusefulandworthknowing.Therefore,itis
perfectlycompatiblewiththeideaoffidelitytocorrectandcomplementtheoriginal,toaddnotes,clarifyobscurities....Nevertheless,theactualtranslationinthiscaseisan
essentiallynegativetask:thetranslatorisconcernedwiththeovercomingoftheintolerablesituationintroducedintotheworldbytheBabylonianconfusionoftongues.4

Still,theserationalistandempiricaltrends,whichdonotevenhavethesuperbeaseoftheclassicalFrench"nontranslations,"arenotpeculiartothedominant
tendenciesofGermantranslationintheeighteenthcenturytheyratherrepresentaphenomenonalmostahistoricalinitsconstancyofnegationofthemeaningof
translation.
Leibniz,whohadakeeninterestintheproblemsoftranslationandofhisownlanguage,tookapositionconcerningtheexpansionofGermanlanguageandculturein
twotextsthatarenotveryoriginalbutthatalreadyannounceHerder:
Therealtouchstoneofthewealthorpovertyofalanguageappearswhentranslatinggoodbooksfromotherlanguages.Thenitbecomesclearwhatislackingandwhatis
available.
Idocertainlynotbelievethatthereexistsalanguageintheworldthatcouldrenderthewordsofotherlanguageswithequalforceandequivalentwords....Buttherichestand
mostconvenientlanguageistheonebestsuitedtowordforwordtranslations,translationswhichfollowtheoriginalfootbyfoot.5

Here,thepoweroflanguageliesinitscapacityforliteralness,andtranslationisthemirrorinwhichlanguageperceivesitsownlimits.
InhisCritischeDichtung,theSwisscriticBreitingeralsodefendsliteralness:
Onedemandsofatranslatorthatheshouldtranslatetheconceptsandideasdiscoveredinaneminentmodelaccordingtothesameorder,thesametypeofconnectionand
composition...sothattherepresentationofthoughtsmakesthesameimpressiononthereader'ssensibility.Atranslation...deservesallthemorepraiseinproportionasitis
faithfultotheoriginal.Whichiswhythetranslatormustsubmittotheseverelawthatprohibitshimtostrayfromtheoriginal,neitherfromthepointofviewofthoughts,norfrom
thatofform.Thesemustremainunchanged,retainthesamedegreeoflightandforce.6

Thisprescriptionoffidelity,notfurtherspecified,isagoodindicationofthegeneraltendencyofthereflectionsofthetime,inspiteofitsveryrationalistlanguage.

Page38

ButitiswithHerderandtheLiteraturbriefe7 thattheproblematicofexpansionandfidelitywillbetiedtogether.ItiswellknownthatHerderdevelopedanentire
philosophyofculture,history,andlanguageinwhichsuchnotionsasgenius,people,popularpoetry,myth,andnationacquiredtheirpatentofnobility.Hehimself
translatedpoetry,notablySpanish"romances."Becauseofhismanifoldpoetic,philosophical,andlinguisticinterests,hewaswellplacedtogaugetheimportanceofthe
relationtotheforeignthatmanifesteditselfinGermanywithincreasingforce,specificallyundertheinfluenceofEnglishliteratureandGraecoRomanantiquity.Atthe
sametime,areturntothe"sources,"thatis,areturntopopularpoetryandtheprestigiousmedievalpast,wasinaugurated.Herder,withhisVolkslieder,playeda
leadingroleinthismovement.Hisreflection,centeredessentiallyonlanguageandhistory,representsthefirstversionofGermanclassicism.Weshallbrieflycomment
hereonaseriesofHerder'stextswhichclearlyoutlinethenewspaceofGermanculture.8 ThesearesometimesquotationsfromtheLiteraturbriefecommentedupon
bythethinker.
Theproblemsoftranslation,asfarastheyaffecttherelationofthemothertonguetoforeignlanguages,oftenhaveanimmediateintensityforHerder,whichis
expressedinalmostamorousandsexualterms.Thus,
ItisnottounlearnmylanguagethatIlearnotherlanguagesitisnottoexchangethehabitsofmyeducationthatItravelamongforeignpeoplesitisnottolosethecitizenshipof
myfatherlandthatIbecomeanaturalizedforeignerifIweretoactinthisway,IwouldlosemorethanIwouldgain.ButIwalkthroughforeigngardenstopickflowersformy
language,asthebetrothedofmymannerofthinking:Iobserveforeignmannersinordertosacrificeminetothegeniusofmyfatherland,likefruitsripenedunderaforeignsun.9

Therelationofwhatisone'sownandwhatisforeignisexpressedinimages,butthespecterofapossibletreasonlurksbehindtheverychoiceofthecomparisonsand
theapologeticanddefensivetoneofthetext.Predominanceoftheforeign:lossofwhatisone'sown.Transformationoftheforeignintothesimplepretextofthe
enrichmentofwhatisone'sown:treasonoftheveryexperienceofstrangeness.
Inthefaceoftheimbalancesinherentinanyrelationtotheforeignimbalanceswhichhavetheirimmediateprojectioninthedomainoftranslationthetemptationto
refusethisrelationaltogetherisgreat.Klopstock,morethanHerder,hasexperiencedthistemptation,notsomuchontheleveloftranslationasonthelevelof
interlingualrelations,liketheborrowingofforeignwords.Hewaspreoccupiedbythisproblemasapoetandasagrammarian,totheextentthatheconsidered
GermanapurerlanguagethanEnglish(afflictedbyanun

Page39

settlingmassofLatinwords)andfreerthanFrench(prisonerofitsclassicism).AsforHerder,themothertonguewasforhim"asortofreservoirofthemostoriginal
conceptofthepeople."10Assuch,ithadtodelimititselfinrelationtootherlanguagesandaffirmitsownterritory.Hencethedream,forhimandHerder,ofavirgin
language,protectedagainstanyforeignblemishes,inparticulartheblemishthattranslationrunstheriskofbeing.Again,Herder'slanguagetakesonacurioussexual
coloring:
Eventhoughtherearemanyreasonstorecommendtranslationsfortheformation(Bildung)ofthelanguage,languageneverthelesshasgreateradvantagesinprotectingitself
fromalltranslation.Beforetranslation,alanguageresemblesayoungvirginthathasnotyethadintercoursewithaman,andthereforecouldnothaveconceivedthefruitofthe
minglingoftheirblood.Itisstillpureandinastateofinnocence,thefaithfulimageofthecharacterofitspeople.Evenifitwouldbenothingbutpoverty,caprice,andirregularity,
itistheoriginalnationallanguage.11

Atextdisturbinginitsutopiannavet,inthekindofprofoundnesswhichitpossessesnonetheless,derivingfromtheimageoftheyoungvirginappliedtothemother
tongueaswellastheobviouslyvertiginousmythofalanguageclosedontoitself,not"knowing,"inthebiblicalsense,anyotherlanguages.Utopiaistherightterm
here,sincethedestinyofthevirginistobecomeawoman,justlike,todrawfromthestockofvegetalimageswithwhichGermanclassicismandRomanticismareso
wellendowed,itisthedestinyofthebudtobecomeaflowerandthenfruit.TheverychoiceofHerder'simage,evenifonetakesintoaccounttheChristianorperhaps
Rousseauianvalorizationofvirginity,showsthattherelationtotheforeigncannotandshouldnotbeavoided.
Foracultureandalanguagethreatenedtoomuchbythisrelation,thereremainsthetemptationofapureclosureontoitself,justlikeinlateRomanticismweencounter
thetemptationoftheineffable,theunspeakable,and,asweshallsee,theuntranslatable:Notonlynottotranslateanymore,buttobecomeuntranslatableitself,
thisisperhapsmostcompleteexpressionofaclosedlanguage.Aregressivetemptation,ifitistruethattherelationtotheforeignisalso,andaboveall,arelation
ofdifferentiation,ofdialectic,orhoweverelseonewantstocallthatmovementoftheconstitutionoftheselfbytheexperience[preuve]ofthenonself,which,as
weshallsee,istheveryessenceofcultureforGermanclassicismandidealism.
Trying,likeGoethe,tomaintainabalancebetweenthistemptationandtheinversetemptationofapurebeingoutsideoneself(ofwhichexamplesmaybefoundin
certainRomantics),andstartingfromthe

Page40

reflectionsofcertaincollaboratorstotheLiteraturbriefe,Herderdefinesthenature,therole,andtheoptionsofthetranslatorwhichareallcloselylinkedtothe
expansionoflanguageandculture.Thus,hequotesThomasAbbtinhisFragments:
Thegenuinetranslatorhasahigherpurposethantomakeforeignbookscomprehensibletothereaderapurposewhichelevateshimtotherankofanauthorandwhich
transformsthesmallvendorintoamerchantwhoreallyenrichesthestate....Thesetranslatorscouldbecomeourclassicwriters.12
Homer,Aeschylus,andSophoclescreatedtheirmasterpiecesoutofalanguagethatdidnotyetpossessanycultivatedprose.Theirtranslatormustimplanttheirmasterpiecesinto
alanguagewhichremainsprose...eveninhexameters,soastoloseaslittleaspossible.Theyclothedthoughtsinwordsandimagesthetranslatorhimselfmustbeacreative
geniusifhewantstosatisfyboththeoriginalandhisownlanguage.13

RegardinganotherLiteraturbrief,Herdergoesfurther:
Asecond,higherdegree:iftranslatorscouldbefoundwhonotonlystudytheauthorinordertotranslatethemeaningoftheoriginalintoourlanguage,butalsotofindits
individualtone,whoputthemselvesinthecharacterofitswritingstyleandexpresscorrectlyforusthegenuinedistinctivetraits,theexpression,andthetoneoftheforeign
original,itsdominantcharacter,itsgeniusandthenatureofitspoeticgenre.Frankly,thisisverymuch,butnotyetenoughformyidealtranslator....Ifsomeonetranslatedforus
thefatherofpoetry,Homer:aneternalworkforGermanliterature,averyusefulworkforgeniuses,apreciousworkforthemuseofantiquityandourlanguage....Allthiscan
becomeaHomerictranslationifitraisesitselfabovetheleveloftheattempt,ifitbecomes,asitwere,thewholelifeofascholarandshowsusHomerasheis,andashecouldbe
forus....Sofarfortheintroductionandthetranslation?Itshouldinnowaybeembellished....TheFrench,whoaretooproudoftheirnationaltaste,draweverythingclosetoit,
insteadofadaptingthemselvestothetasteofanotherepoch....WepoorGermans,ontheotherhand,stillalmostwithoutpublicandwithoutcountry,stillwithoutthetyrantofa
nationaltaste,wewanttoseethisepochasitis.AndinHomer'scasethebesttranslationcannotaccomplishthiswithoutthenotesandexplanationsofaneminentcriticalspirit.14

ThegreattranslationsoftheGermanclassicalandromanticage,allofthem,areannouncedinthistext.Thenotionoffidelityherereceivesalessrationaldefinitionthan
withBreitinger:thetranslator,whoisalsowriter,creativegenius,scholar,andcritic,mustcapturetheuniquenessoftheoriginal,itselfdefinedasits"expression,"its
"form,"its"character,"its"genius,''andits"nature."Tobesure,allthesearetermsthatare

Page41

moreappropriateforanindividualthanforawork:buttheworkisnowdefinedasanindividualapointofviewthatwillberadicalizedbytheRomanticsinthe
lightofFichte'sphilosophy.Itisthisworkindividualthatthegeniustranslatormustrender,inacentrifugalmomentwhichHerder,logically,opposestothecentripetal
movementoftheFrench,andthatshouldnotcontainanyembellishment:this,ineffect,wouldannultheentiremeaningofsuchacapturing.Theworkmustbeshown
"suchasitis,"andsuchasitmaybe"forus"(whichislessclear).Amovementinwhichcriticism,history,andphilologyareimplied.Thefidelitytotheindividualityof
theworkisthedirectproductiveagentoflinguisticandculturalexpansion.
FromLuthertoHerderthereisaprogressionwhichtheFrenchinfluenceandtherationalismoftheEnlightenmenthaveatmostonlyhindered:Atthetimeofthe
constitutionofaliteratureandatheaterthatwouldform,asitwere,thetwocenterpiecesofGermanculture(andthisis,indeed,thecentralpreoccupationofHerder
andLessing),translationiscalleduponforthesecondtimetoplayacentralrole.Tobesure,itsharesthisroleandinthisHerderannouncestheRomanticswith
criticism.Regardingthetextwehavejustcommentedupon,wemayspeak,forthatmatter,ofcriticaltranslation.ButfromHerder'sperspective,translation,soto
speak,playsamoreimmediaterolebecauseitdealsdirectlywithlanguagewhichisapointthatJeanPaul,inhisSchoolforAesthetics,haswellperceivedata
time,tobesure,whenthetranslationsHerderhadwishedforwerealreadyhistoric:
InSchlegel'sShakespeareandinVoss'translations,languageletsitsartfulfountainsplay,andbothworksgiveweighttothewishoftheauthorofthepresentwork:that
translatorsingeneralmightknowhowmuchtheyhavedoneforthesonority,theplenitude,thepurityofthelanguage,oftenmorethanthewriterhimself,becauselanguage,
precisely,istheirsubjectmatter,whereasthewritersometimesforgetslanguagetothebenefitofthesubjectmatter.15

Morespecifically,whatremainstobeaskedis:TowhatextentdoesGermanculture,asitisdefinedinthesecondhalfoftheeighteenthcenturywithLessingand
Herder,thenGoetheandtheRomantics,specificallyimplytranslationasanessentialmomentofitsconstitution?Andfurther:Onceithasbeenstatedthattheessence
oftranslationisthefidelitytothespiritoftheworkswhichopensaculturetotheforeignandthusenablesittoexpand,whatarethepreferreddomainsof
translationthatmustbeopenedtotheGermanBildung?Inotherwords,havingansweredthequestionswhytranslate?andhowtotranslate?,onemustanswerthe
question:whatshouldbetranslated?Thesethreequestionsareattheverycenterofanyhistoricaltheoryoftranslation.

Page43

3
BildungandtheDemandofTranslation
TheconceptofBildungisoneofthecentralconceptsofGermancultureattheendoftheeighteenthcentury.Itcanbefoundeverywhere:inHerder,inGoetheand
Schiller,intheRomantics,inHegel,inFichte,etc.Bildunggenerallymeans"culture,"anditmaybeconsideredtheGermancounterpartofKultur,whichisofLatin
stock.Butbecauseofthelexicalfamilytowhichitbelongs,1 itmeansmuchmoreanditisappliedtomanymoreregisters:thusitispossibletospeakoftheBildungof
anartwork,thedegreeofits"formation."Likewise,Bildunghasaverystrongpedagogicalandeducationalconnotation:theprocessofformation.
ItisnoexaggerationtostatethattheconceptsummarizestheconceptionwhichtheGermancultureofthetimeformedofitself,thewayinwhichtheculture
interpretsitsmodeofunfolding.Weshallattempttoshowthattranslation(asthemodeofrelationtotheforeign)isstructurallyinscribedinBildung.And,ina
subsequentchapter,weshallseethat,thoughitiscommontoallwritersandthinkersoftheage,BildungreceivesitscanonicalformwithGoethe.
WedonotpretendtoproceedheretoasemantichistoricalanalysisoftheconceptofBildung,buttopresentsomesortofidealprofileofit,basedonthedifferent
meaningsittakeson,notablyinHerder,Goethe,Hegel,andtheRomantics,
What,then,isBildung?Itisaprocess,aswellasitsresult.ThroughBildunganindividual,apeople,anation,butalsoalanguage,alitera

Page44

ture,aworkofartingeneralareformedandthusacquireaform,aBild.Bildungisalwaysamovementtowardaform,one'sownformwhichistosaythat,inthe
beginning,everybeingisdeprivedofitsform.InthespeculativelanguageofGermanIdealism,thebeginningmaybetheparticularitywhichlacksthedeterminationof
theuniversal,theunityfromwhichthemomentofscissionandoppositionisabsent,thepanicindifferencelackingallarticulation,thethesiswithoutitsantithesisor
synthesis,theunmediatedimmediate,thechaoswhichhasnotyetbecomeworld,thepositiondeprivedofthemomentofreflection,theunlimitedwhichmustbelimited
(orviceversa),theaffirmationwhichmustgothroughnegation,etc.Theseabstractformulationsalsohaveaconcreteandmetaphoricalside:thechildthatmust
becomeadult,thevirginthatmustbecomewoman,thebudthatmustbecomeflowerandthenfruit.ThealmostconstantuseoforganicimagestocharacterizeBildung
indicatesthattheconceptdealswithanecessaryprocess.Butatthesametime,thisprocessisanunfoldingoffreedom.
BecauseBildungisatemporal,andthereforehistorical,process,itisarticulatedinperiods,stages,moments,ages.Thusthereare"epochs"ofhumanity,ofculture,of
history,ofthought,oflanguage,ofart,andofindividuals.Theseepochsareoftendual,butmostfrequentlytriadic.Atbottom,allBildungistriadicwhichistosay
thatitsstructureisessentiallyhomologoustowhatHeideggerdefinedas
theprincipleofunconditionedsubjectivityoftheGermanabsolutemetaphysicsofHegelandSchelling,accordingtowhoseteachingthebeingwithitselfofspiritrequiresareturn
toitselfwhich,inturn,requiresabeingoutsideitself.2

Ofcourse,theinterpretationofthisprinciplevariesfromauthortoauthor.ButitmaybesaidthatitprovidesthespeculativebasisfortheconceptofBildung,orthat
thelatterprovidesitwithitshistoricalculturalbase.
Inthissense,Bildungisaprocessofselfformationconcernedwitha"same"unfoldingitselftoattainitsfulldimension.AndprobablythehighestconceptGerman
thinkingoftheagecreatedtointerpretthisprocessisthatofexperience,whichHegelextractedfromthenarrowmeaningassignedtoitbyKant.Forexperienceisthe
onlynotioncapableofembracingallothers,itisabroadeningandanidentification,apassagefromtheparticulartotheuniversal,theexperience[preuve]ofscission,
ofthefinite,oftheconditioned.Itisvoyage(Reise)andmigration(Wanderung).Itsessenceistothrowthe"same"intoadimensionthatwilltransformit.Itisthe
movementofthe"same"which,changing,findsitselftobe''other.""Dieandbecome,"Goethesaid.

Page45

Butasvoyage,itisalsotheexperienceofthealterityoftheworld:inordertohaveaccesstothatwhich,intheguiseofabecomingother,isintruthabecoming
itself,thesamemustexperiencethatwhichisnotitself,oratleastwhatappearsassuch.ForIdealism,theaccomplishedexperienceisthebecomingitselfofthe
otherandthebecomingotherofthesame:
HeliftedtheveiloftheGoddessatSas.Butwhatdidhesee?Hesawmiracleofmiracleshimself.3

ThusNovalisinTheDesciplesatSas.Butexperiencewouldonlybeafalsepretenseifitwasnotalsotheexperienceofapparentradicalalterity."Consciousness"
mustlivethealterityasabsoluteandthen,atanotherstage,discoveritsrelativity.Whichiswhyexperienceisalwaysthe"crossingofappearances,"inproportionasit
discoversthatappearancesarenotonlyotherthantheyare,butthatalterityisnotasradicalasitseems.Astheexperience[preuve]ofalterity,theformationofself
throughtheexperience[preuve]ofalterity,experiencemustfinallyemergeasreunion,identity,unity,supremethoughdelayedmoment,sincethetruthofthis
experience[preuve]issituatedsomewherebetweenitsclosureanditsinfinity.
Asthewayofthesametoitself,asexperience,Bildungtakesontheformofanovel:
Everyhumanbeingwhoiscultivatedandwhocultivateshimselfcontainsanovelwithinhimself.4
Nothingismoreromanticthanwhatiscommonlycalledtheworldanddestiny.Weliveinacolossalnovel.5
Lifeshouldnotbeanovelgiventous,butanovelwehavemadeourselves.6

Thenovelistheexperienceoftheapparentstrangenessoftheworldandoftheapparentstrangenessofthesametoitself.Proceedingtowardsapointwhereboth
strangenesseswillbecanceled,thenovelhasa"transcendental"structure.Hencethepolarities,inGoetheandtheRomantics,whichdefinethenovel:theeverydayand
themiraculous(oneofthefacesofstrangeness),thenearandthefar,theknownandtheunknown,thefiniteandtheinfinite,etc.
Thisexperience,whichproceedstowardthepointwherealltheinitiallyhostilepolaritieswillbecomeone,isnecessarilyprogressive:
Here...allisinconstantprogressandnothingcangetlost.Whichiswhynostagecanbeomitted,thepresentoneisnecessarilyconnectedtothepreviousaswellasthe
followingone,andwhatmayhaveseemedobsoleteforcenturieswillbereanimatedwithanewyouthful

Page46
7

vigorwhenthetimehascomeforspirittorememberitselfandtoreturntoitself.

Anditbelongstothenatureofthisprogressiontobe,inacertainway,passive:Novalis:"passivenatureofthenovelistichero"8 "Onedoesnotdo,onedoeswhatcan
bedone."9 Thispassivity,forthatmatter,isimpliedbytheorganicistimageryofBildung.Andculturallyitisnotwithoutconsequences.Theprecedenceofpassivityin
themovementofexperienceentailsthattherelationofthesametotheothercannotbearelationofappropriation.Tobesure,Novalis,wellbeforeHegeland
Nietzsche,developedatheoryofappropriation,ofZueignung.10Heevenassimilatesthinkingandeating.Butthismodeoforalappropriation,totheextentthatitisa
becomingsameoftheforeignaswellasabecomingforeignofthesame,hasnothingincommonwithatheoryofradicalappropriationasitisdevelopedby
Nietzsche.11RomanticagilityandGoetheancuriosityarenotWilltoPower.
ThisbriefandschematiccharacterizationofBildungshowsimmediatelythatitiscloselyconnectedwiththemovementoftranslationfortranslation,indeed,
startsfromwhatisone'sown,thesame(theknown,thequotidian,thefamiliar),inordertogotowardstheforeign,theother(theunknown,themiraculous,the
Unheimliche),and,startingfromthisexperience,toreturntoitspointofdeparture.Inamovementgovernedbythelawofappropriation,therecouldneverbean
experienceoftheforeign,butsimplyanannexationorreductionoftheothertothesame.WhichispreciselyhowNietzsche,evokingRomanantiquity,interpretsthe
actoftranslationandcultureassuch:
Thedegreeofthehistoricalsenseofanyagemaybeinferredfromthemannerinwhichthisagemakestranslationsandtriestoabsorbformeragesandbooks....AndRoman
antiquityitself:howforciblyandatthesametimehownaively,ittookholdofeverythinggoodandloftyofGreekantiquity,whichwasmoreancient!Howtheytranslatedthings
intotheRomanpresent!...Aspoets,theyhadnosympathyfortheantiquarianinquisitivenessthatprecedesthehistoricalsenseaspoets,theyhadnotimeforallthosevery
personalthingsandnamesandwhatevermightbeconsideredthecostumeandmaskofacity,acoast,oracentury,andquicklysubstitutedtheirownRomanactualityforit....
Theydidnotknowthedelightsofthehistoricalsensewhatwaspastandforeignwasanembarrassmentforthem,andbeingRomans,theysawitasanincentiveforaRoman
conquest.Indeed,translationwasaformofconquest.Notonlydidoneomitwhatwashistoricalno,onealsoaddedallusionstothepresentand,aboveall,struckoutthenameof
thepoetandreplaceditwithone'sownnotwithanysenseoftheft,butwiththeverybestconscienceoftheimperiumRomanum.12

Page47

Wordswhich,consciouslyornot,echothoseofSaintJerome,whenhesaysofoneofhisLatinpredecessorsthathehas"ledthemeaningscaptive,asitwere,intohis
ownlanguagewiththerightofaconqueror."13Here,themovementoftheimperialexpansionofcultureisstrictlyequivalentwiththemovementwhichbringsthe
meaningstoitselfascaptives.ButthisconqueringcomingandgoinghasnothingtodowiththecyclicalmovementofexperienceasitwasexpressedbyF.Schlegel:
Whichiswhy,sinceheiscertaintoalwaysfindhimselfagain,manincessantlygoesoutsideofhimself,inordertofindthecomplementofhisinnermostbeinginthatofanother.
Theplayofcommunicationandofbringingtogetheristheoccupationandtheforceoflife.14
Theessenceofspiritistodetermineitselfand,inaperpetualalternation,togooutsideofitselfandreturntoitself.15
Thetruemiddleisonlytheonetowhichonealwaysreturnsfromthemostexcentricpathsofenthusiasmandenergy,notthemiddleoneneverleaves.16

Thiscircular,cyclical,andalternatingnatureofBildungimpliesinitselfsomethingliketranslation,berSetzung,apositingofoneselfbeyondoneself.17
TheimportanceoftranslationforGermancultureattheendoftheeighteenthcentury,then,isprofoundlyconnectedtotheconceptionithasofitself,thatistosayof
experienceaconceptionopposedineveryrespecttothoseofancientRomeorclassicistFrance.Onemaysurelyseeinthe"eccentric"Bildunganinternal
weaknesswhichishowNietzscheinterpretsit.Itmaybeseenastheincapacitytobeone'sowncentertooneself,andthatisthewholeproblemofmediationwhich
constitutesafundamentalprobleminNovalis,F.Schlegel,andSchleiermacher.Thelatterwasperfectlyawareofthe"mediatingnature"ofBildung.18Goethe's
WilhelmMeisteristhestoryoftheeducationoftheyounghero,aformationwhichpassesthroughaseriesofmediationsandmediators,oneofwhomissignificantly
calledthe"Foreigner."Becausetheforeignhasamediatingfunction,translationcanbecomeoneoftheagentsofBildungafunctionitshareswithaseriesof
other"translations"whichconstituteasmanycriticalrelationstotheselfandtheforeign.19ThustheageofVoss,Hlderlin,Schleiermacher,andA.W.Schlegel
witnessestheriseoffolklore,ofgreatnationaldictionaries,ofliteraryandartcriticismeventhememorabletravelsofAlexandervonHumboldt,Wilhelm'sbrother,
takeplaceinthisdimension.20Inallofthesetranslations,theessenceofBildungaffirmsitself.
Butinorderforthismultipleopeningtotheforeignnottofallintoatotalsymbiosiswithit,itshorizonmustbedelimited.Bildungisalso,

Page48

andessentially,limitation(Begrenzung).SuchisthewisdomofWilhelmMeistersuchisalsothoughstainedwithambiguitytheconvictionoftheRomantics.
FriedrichSchlegel:
Withoutdelimitation,noBildungispossible.21

AndNovalis:
Thepossibilityofselflimitationisthepossibilityofallsynthesisofallmiracle.Andtheworldstartedwithamiracle.
Therearenolimitstoourintellectualprogress,butwemustpositforourselvestransitionallimitsadhuncactumtobesimultaneouslylimitedandunlimited.22

Inatexttowhichweshallreturn,F.SchlegelgaveaverypreciseformulationofthisrelationofthelimitedandtheunlimitedintheliteraryworkandinBildungin
general:
Aworkiscultivated(gebildet)whenitiseverywheresharplydelimited,butwithinthoselimitslimitlessandinexhaustiblewhenitiscompletelyfaithfultoitself,entirely
homogeneous,andnonethelessexaltedaboveitself.LiketheeducationofyoungEnglishmen,themostimportantthingislegrandtour.Itshouldhavetraveledthroughallthree
orfourcontinentsofhumanity,notinordertoroundofftheedgesofindividuality,buttobroadenitsvisionandgiveitsspiritmorefreedomandinnerversatilityandthereby
greaterindependenceandselfsufficiency.23

LimitationiswhatdistinguishestheexperienceofBildungfromthepurelyerraticandchaoticadventurewhereonelosesoneself.24Thegrandtourdoesnotconsistof
goingjustanywhere,buttherewhereonecanformandeducateoneself,andprogresstowardsoneself.
ButifBildungisaccomplishedbyanessentiallycyclicalanddelimitedtranslation,whatshouldittranslatetowards?Moreprecisely,whichtranslations,
whichdomainsoftranslationcanfunctionasmediationhere?
Byvirtueofitsexperientialnature,Bildungcanneverbethesimpleimitationoftheforeign.Nevertheless,itmaintainsanessentialconnectionwithwhatiscalledin
GermanUrbild(original,archetype)andVorbild,themodelofwhichitcanbethereproduction(Nachbild).Thisalsoreferstoitsexperientialnature:hewhoseeks
himselfinforeignpartsisconfrontedwithfigureswhichfunctioninitiallyasmodels,thenasmediations.SucharethepeopleWilhelmMeisterencountersduringthe
yearsofhisapprenticeship:firstheattemptstoidentifywiththem,buttheyeventuallyteachhimtofindhimself.
TheVorbild,amanifestationandexemplificationoftheUrbild,gatherswithinitthatperfectionandcompletionwhichmakeitintoa

Page49

"classic."Itistheform,ifnotthenorm,towhichBildungmustreferwithoutbeingobligedtocopyit.ThusA.W.Schlegelspeaksofthatgenuineimitationwhichisnot
"theapingofaman'soutermanners,buttheappropriationofthemaximsofhisactions."25
Regardingcultureandliterature,startingwithWinckelmanntheentireantiquitybecomesUrbildandVorbildfortheGermans:
Thefirstamongus...torecognizeand,withdivineenthusiasm,revealthearchetypeofaccomplishedhumanityintheformsofartandantiquitywastheholyWinckelmann.26

Henceforth,antiquitymaybesaidtofunctionasVorbildandUrbildofBildungitselftotheextentthatthehistoryofancientculture,literature,andlanguageappears
as"aneternalhistoryoftasteandart."Fromthereon,therelationtothismodelbecomesaburningissue:"thenecessityofthereturntotheancients,"asthatwhichis
bothoriginaryandclassical.Nootherculture,neitherpastnorpresent,possessesthisprecedence.Comparedtoantiquity,modernityisstillinthephaseoflooking
foritselfintherendingofunfinishedreflection.ForGermanclassicism,thecreationofamodernBildungisfirstofalldeterminedbytherelationtoantiquityasamodel.
Thismeansthatitmuststrivetoattainadegreeofcultureequivalenttothatoftheancients,notablybyappropriatingtheirpoeticforms.Thestudyoftheseforms
philologyhenceforthacquiresaleadingrole:
Toliveclassicallyandtorealizeantiquitypracticallywithinoneselfisthesummitandthegoalofphilology.27

Asfarastranslationsareconcerned,theymustbedevotedtotheancientsfirstandforemost,whichiswhyHerderdemandsatranslationofHomer,the"fatherof
poetry."vossrespondstothiswishbytranslatingtheOdysseein1781,andtheIliadin1793.HistranslationsaimattranslatingtheGreeksasfaithfullyaspossible,but
alsoatsubmittingthestill"unformed"Germanlanguagetothe"beneficial"yokeofGreekmetricalforms.Thoughdisputed,Voss'sworkrapidlyacquiresanexemplary
historicsignificance,similartoLuther'stranslation.
Goethe:
Voss,whowillneverbepraisedenough....Butwhoevercannowseewhathashappened,whatversatilityhascometotheGermans,whatrhetorical,rhythmical,metrical
advantagesareatthedisposalofthetalentedandknowledgeableyoungster...mayhopethatliteraryhistorywillplainlystatewhowasthefirsttotakethisroadinspiteofso
manyobstacles.28

F.Schlegel:
EventhoughthepoetryofVosshaslongsincelostitsimportance,his

Page50
29

meritastranslatorandlanguageartistwill...shineallthemorebrightly.

Humboldt:
Voss,whomaybesaidtohaveintroducedclassicalantiquityintotheGermanlanguage.30

Whichisanextremelyimportantprocess,leadingtothegraecizationofthepoeticalGermanlanguagetheGriechischungderdeutschenSprachementionedby
HofmannsthalofwhichHlderlinistheforemostexample.
Nevertheless,oncethisprecedenceoftherelationtotheancientsisestablished,aquestionariseswhichwillstirGermanculture,moreorlesssurreptitiously,from
RomanticismtoNietzsche:Whichisnearesttous,theGreeksortheRomans?Itgoeswithoutsayingthatthisquestionisneveraskedassuchontheonehand,
becauseWinckelmanntaughtthatantiquityshouldbeviewedasa"whole,"thusamalgamatingGreeksandRomansontheotherhand,becausefromthepointofview
oforiginalityandVorbildlichkeit(thecapacityofbeingamodel)theGreeksarefarsuperior.31Greeceisthenativesoilofpoetryanditsgenres,thebirthplaceof
philosophy,rhetoric,history,grammar,etc.Accordingly,itsculturalprecedenceistotal.Butatthesametime,Greeceseemstoconcealsomethingthatisprofoundly
foreigntomodernculture,andwhichprobablyreferstoitsrelationtomyth.IfGreekBildungformallyconstitutesamodel,itsgroundcannotbutmanifestits
strangenessassoonasoneventurestorecognizeitforwhatitis.F.SchlegelandNietzsche,bothphilologersbytraining,havefeltthisinstinctively.
F.Schlegel:
WeareclosertotheRomansandcanunderstandthembetterthantheGreeks.32
TobelieveintheGreeksisonlyanotherfashionoftheage.PeopleareratherfondoflisteningtodeclamationsabouttheGreeks.Butifsomeoneweretocomeandsay,hereare
some,thennobodyisathome.33

Nietzsche:
OnedoesnotlearnfromtheGreekstheirmanneristooforeign,andtoofluid,tohaveanimperative,a"classical"effect.34

Conversely,theRomansmayseemtobecloserbecauseofthederivative,mixed,crossbredcharacteroftheirculture.ToNietzscheaswellastotheRomantics,itis
clearthatthemixingofgenres,parody,satire,therecoursetomasks,theindefiniteplaywithmatterandformthatcharacterizesAlexandrianliteratureandLatinpoetry
areatbottominfinitelymoreattractivethantheGreekpurity,whetheritisconsidered

Page51

fromthepointofviewof"classicalperfection"(Goethe)orperceivedinitsarchaicoriginality(Hlderlin).F.Schlegeldoesnotfailtomentionthisirresistibleaffinityof
RomanticismwithLatineclecticism:
ThefondnessofAlexandrianandRomanpoetsfordifficultandunpoeticalthemesisreallyaresultoftheirgrandthoughtthatallshouldbepoeticizednotasaconsciousartistic
intention,butasahistoricaltendencyoftheirwork.Andbehindthemixingofalltheartisticgenresbythepoeticaleclecticsoflateantiquitythereliesthedemandthatthere
shouldbeOnePoetryaswellasOnePhilosophy.35

WhichisexactlytheprogramoftheAthenum.Hence,probably,thetasteforsyncretismandtheprofusionof"synactivities"advocatedbyNovalisandF.Schlegel
(sympoetry,symphilosophy,syncriticism),wherethedialogicelementislessimportantthanthepluralpracticeofmixing.
Butunderthesecircumstancesthebeautifulunityoftheconceptofantiquityfallstopieces:anabyssopensbetweenGreeksandRomansaswellasbetweenGreeks
andModerns.Orrather,twomodelsareproposedtoBildungsimultaneously:Latinsyncretism,carrierofan"increasingperfection,"andGreekcompleteness,the
pureimageofa"naturalcycle."36
Butthereismore:Romaneclecticismhasitshistoricalextensioninthemodernliteraturewhichbeginswiththetroubadours,themedievalcycleseverythingwecall
oldRomanceliteratureandcomestobloomwithDante,Petrarch,Ariosto,Tasso,Boccaccio,Caldern,Cervantes,LopedeVega,Shakespeare,etc.Somuchso
thatacertainfiliationappears:romanityRomanceculturesnovelistic[romanesque]formsromanticism.37F.SchlegelandNovaliswereperfectlyawareofthis:
Ourancientnationalitywas,itseemstome,authenticallyRoman....GermanyisRome,asacountry....TheuniversalpoliticsandtheinstinctivetendencyoftheRomansareto
befoundaswellintheGermanpeople.38
Romanticphilosophy.Linguaromana.39

Rome/thenovel[Roman/roman]:thisispreciselytheRomanticfieldofaction,thatoftheircritiquesandtheirtranslations,thestartingpointoftheirtheoriesofthenew
literature.
Conversely,theclassics(Goethe,Schiller)andHlderlinprincipallytranslatetheGreeks,theformerbecausethesearemodelsforthem,thelatterbecausetheGreeks,
intheirculturaltrajectory,representthereverseofthe"modern,"the"foreign,"andbecause,Hlderlinsays,thismustbelearnedtogetherwithwhatisour"own."40

Page52

Here,weseetakingform,withaprecisionthatderivesdirectlyfromdivergentculturalchoices,thehorizonofGermantranslationattheendoftheeighteenth
century,togetherwiththealwayscentralplacereservedforitintheculturalfieldconceivedasBildung.Startingfromthisitwouldbepossibletodrawamap
oftheGermantranslationsofthetime,adifferential,selective,hierarchicaland,asitwere,disjunctivemap,inwhichthe"Greek"andthe"Roman/novel,"41the"pure"
andthe"mixed,"the''cyclical"andthe"progressive"areinsomewaymutuallyexclusive.42Moreover,thispositionreferstothebattleoftheAncientsandthe
Moderns,totheconflictoftheclassicalandtheRomantic,tothediscussionsonpoeticgenresandtherespectiverolesoftheater,music,andliteratureinGerman
culturediscussionsthatwillstirthisculturethroughoutthenineteenthcenturyandbeyond.OneneedsonlytothinkofWagner,Nietzsche,andThomasMann.
BeforegoingontotheRomantictheoryofBildungandoftranslation,wehavetoinquirehow,withGoethe,thewholeofthisproblematicfounditsmostclassical
figure.

Page53

4
Goethe:TranslationandWorldLiterature
Translatorsarelikebusymatchmakerswhopraiseahalfveiledbeautyasbeingverylovely:theyarouseanirrepressibledesirefortheoriginal.
Goethe,MaximsandReflections

IntheageofGermanIdealismnoonehaslivedwithsuchintensitythemultiplicityoftranslationsimpliedbyBildungthanGoethenonehascontributedmoretoa
harmonious,livingandaccomplishedimageofBildungthanhehas.WhereasthelivesoftheRomanticsandHlderlinseemdevouredbyspeculativeandpoeticfever,
Goethe'slifeleavesaconsiderableparttowhatmightbecallednaturalexistence,whichinhiscaseincludednumerousloveaffairs,afamilylife,hisunrelentingactivity
inWeimar,aswellashistravels,hiscorrespondence,andhisconversations.Schillercharacterizedhimas"themostcommunicableofmen."1 Hisworkbearsthe
stampofthesamerichandvitaldiversity:Hepracticedallpoeticandliterarygenres,producedworkshejudgedtobestrictlyscientific,wrotediariesandmemoirs,
animatedperiodicalsandnewspapers.True,criticismandspeculationareabsentfromthisamplepalet,eventhoughhewrotenumerouscriticalarticlesandtextsofa
theoreticalappearance.Translations,ontheotherhand,towhicha

Page54

volumeofhisCompleteWorksisdevoted,werewithhimfrombeginningtoend:BenvenutoCellini,Diderot,Voltaire,Euripides,Racine,Corneille,aswellas
numeroustranslationsofItalian,English,Spanish,andGreekpoems.Tobesure,thesetranslationsdonotdistinguishthemselvesbyanyparticularimportance.Goethe
isnotVoss,notHlderlin,notA.W.Schlegel.Buttheyarewitnesstoanalmostconstantpractice(towhichhewasdisposedbyaknowledgeoflanguagesdeveloped
fromearlychildhood),apracticeaccompaniedbyamassofexceptionallyrichreflections,scatteredthroughhisarticles,bookreviews,introductions,dialogues,
diaries,andcorrespondence,andwhichfoundtheirmostfamousexpressioninDichtungundWahrheit,NotenundAbhandlungenzurbesserenVerstndnisdes
WestOstlichenDivans,and"ZubrderlichenAndenkenWielands".Furthermore,Goetheinsertedfragmentsoftranslationsintwoofhisotherworks,Wertherand
WilhelmMeister,whichisbynomeansacoincidence.Noristhisall:Heisatranslatorpoetwhoalso,andverysoon,becameatranslatedpoet.Andinhim,being
translatednourishedanabsolutelyfascinatingreflection.Thefactthathedevotedapoem"EinGleichnis"tohavingbeenabletoreadhimselfinanotherlanguage,
andthat,from1799on,hedreamedofpublishingacomparativeeditionoftheDanish,English,andFrenchtranslationsofHermannandDorothea,showsthathe
livedthefactofbeingtranslatedasanexperienceandnever,itwouldseem,asthenarcissisticsatisfactionofawriter.Goethe'sstatementsontranslation,whichareof
agreatdiversity,arenevergatheredtogetherintheformofatheory,buttheypossesstheirowncoherencederivingfromhisviewofnatural,human,social,and
culturalrealityaviewitselfbasedonaninterpretationofNatureasaprocessofinteraction,participation,reflection,exchange,andmetamorphosis.Itisimpossible
toofferanexhaustivestudyofthisinterpretationhere.Rather,wehavechosentoapproachGoethe'sreflectionontranslationstartingfromaconceptthatarisesfairly
lateinhiswork(1827),andwhichhehasgivenitspatentofnobility:thatofWeltliteratur,worldliterature.Ineffect,thisreflectionisalmostentirelyintegratedintoa
certainviewofinterculturalandinternationalexchanges.Translationistheactionsuigeneristhatincarnates,illustrates,andalsomakespossibletheseexchanges,
without,tobesure,havingamonopolyonthem.Thereisamultiplicityofactsoftranslationthatassuretheplenitudeofvitalandnaturalinteractionsamongindividuals,
peoples,andnations,interactionsinwhichtheyconstructtheirownidentityandtheirrelationstotheforeign.Goethe'sinterestproceedsfromthisvitalandoriginary
phenomenonofexchangetoitsconcretemanifestations.Generallyspeaking,histhinkingtendstoremainontheleveloftheseconcretemanifestations,evenifhe
alwaysuncovers"theEternalOneness,whichmanifestsitselfin

Page55

manyways."2 Goetherestshisviewonthedoubleprincipleofinteractionand,withinandthroughinteraction,revelationofthe"general"andthe"substantial."In1783,
healreadywritesaboutNature:
Eachofherworkshasitsownbeing,eachofherphenomenaitsseparateidea,andyetallcreateasinglewhole.3

Alsoveryearly,hecopiedthefollowingtextbyKantforhisownuse:
Principleofsimultaneityaccordingtothelawofreciprocalactionorcommunity.Allsubstances,totheextentthattheycanbeperceivedassimultaneousinspace,areincontinual
interactions.4

Elsewherehestates:
Manisnotateaching,butaliving,acting,andworkingbeing.Onlyineffectandcountereffectdowefindpleasure.5

Tothisviewofthecoactingpresent,theperceptionofunicityindiversitymustbeadded:
Ineveryparticular,whetheritbehistorical,mythological,fabulous,moreorlessarbitrarilyinvented,onewillalwayssee...thisgeneralqualitybecomingmoreandmore
apparent.6

Thesameprinciplegovernshissearchforthe"originaryMan,"the"originaryPlant,"or,moreprofoundly,thatofthe"originaryPhenomenon"(Urphnomen).
TranslationandWeltliteraturarethoughtinthistwofolddimension.
What,then,isworldliterature?Notthetotalityofpastandpresentliteraturesaccessibletotheencyclopedicgaze,northemorelimitedtotalityofworkslikethoseof
Homer,Cervantes,Shakespearethathaveattaineduniversalstatusandhavebecomethepatrimonyof"cultivated"humanity.Goethe'snotionofWeltliteraturisan
historicalconceptconcerningthemodernsituationoftherelationamongdiversenationalorregionalliteratures.Inthatsense,itwouldbebettertospeakoftheageof
worldliteraturewhichistheageinwhichliteraturesarenolongersatisfiedwithinteracting(aphenomenonthathasalwaysmoreorlessexisted),butexplicitly
conceivetheirexistenceandtheirunfoldingintheframeworkofanincessantlyintensifiedinteraction.Theappearanceofworldliteratureiscontemporaneouswiththe
appearanceofaWeltmarkt,aworldmarketformaterialgoods.AsStrichobserves:
Itisanintellectualbarter,atrafficinideasbetweenpeoples,aliteraryworldmarkettowhichthenationsbringtheirspiritualtreasuresforexchange.ToillustratehisideaGoethe
himselfwasparticularlyfondofusingsuchimagestakenfromtheworldoftradeandcommerce.7

Theappearanceofworldliteraturedoesnotsignifythedisappearanceofnationalliteratures:Itisthelatter'sentranceintoaspace

Page56

timewheretheyactupononeanotherandseektomutuallyclarifytheirimages.Between1820and1830,Goethehasexpressedhimselfclearlyonthismatter:
Nationalliteratureisnowratheranunmeaningtermtheepochofworldliteratureisathand,andeachmuststrivetohastenitsapproach.8
InventuringtoannounceaEuropean,indeedaworldliterature,wedidnotmeanmerelytosaythatthedifferentnationsshouldinformthemselvesaboutoneanotherandabout
eachother'sworks....No!Itisratheramatterofliving...menoflettersgettingtoknoweachotherand,throughtheirowninclinationandsenseofcommunity,tofindoccasion
toactsocially(gesellschaftlich).9

Thus,worldliteratureistheactivecoexistenceofallcontemporaryliteratures.Thiscontemporaneity,orsimultaneity,isabsolutelyessentialfortheconceptof
Weltliteratur.
Strich:
Worldliteratureisthespiritualspaceinwhichcontemporaries,whatevertheirnationality,encountereachother,cometogether,andactcommunally.10

Goethewritesfurther:
Ifwegobackinhistory,wefindpersonalitieseverywherewithwhomwewouldagreeandotherswithwhomwecouldcertainlybeinconflict.Butthemostimportantelement,
afterall,isthecontemporaneous,becauseitisreflectedmostclearlyinusandweinit.11

Theactiveandconsciouscoexistenceofcontemporaryliteraturesimpliesamodificationoftherelationtotheselfandtheother.Thoughitdoesnotentailthe
effacementofdifferences,itrequirestheirintensifiedinteraction.Such,forGoethe,istheessenceofmodernity.
Inthenewspaceannouncedhere,translationsplayaprimordialrole.In1828,GoethewritestoCarlyleconcerningtheEnglishtranslationofhisTorquatoTasso:
IshouldliketohaveyouropiniononhowthisTassocanbeconsideredEnglish.Youwouldgreatlyobligemebyenlighteningmeonthismatterforitisjusttheseconnections
betweenoriginalandtranslationthatexpressmostclearlytherelationshipofnationtonationandthatonemustaboveallunderstandifonewishestoencouragea...world
literature.12

Whichistomakeoftranslation,ifnotthemodel,atleastthetouchstoneofworldliterature.Goethe'sthoughthereoscillatesbetweentwopoles:topromotea
generalizedintertranslation,ortoconsiderGermanlanguageandcultureastheprivilegedmediumofworldliterature.Inbothcases,thetaskofthe
translatorremainsprimordial:

Page57
HewhounderstandsandstudiesGermanlanguagefindshimselfonthemarketwhereallnationsoffertheirmerchandise,heplaystheinterpreterinproportionasheenriches
himself.Andthuseverytranslatorshouldbeconsideredamediatorstrivingtopromotethisuniversalspiritualexchangeandtakingituponhimselftomakethisgeneralizedtrade
goforward.Forwhatevermaybesaidoftheinadequacyoftranslation,itremainsoneofthemostessentialandmostworthyactivitiesinthegeneraltrafficoftheworld.TheKoran
says:Godhasgiventoeachpeopleaprophetintheirownlanguage.Inthiswayeachtranslatorisaprophettohispeople.13

Elsewherehewrites:
ForitisthedestinyoftheGermantoraisehimselftothestateofrepresentativeforallworldcitizens.14

Accordingtothelatterlineofthought,theGermanculturalspace,becausetranslationhasalwaysopeneditmoretoforeignculturalspaces,couldbecomethe
"exchangemarket"parexcellenceofWeltliteratur.ItmaybesaidwithoutexaggeratingthattheGermanlanguage,forGoethe,sometimesbecamethelanguageof
translation.WhichispreciselywhatisexpressedinoneofhisconversationswithEckermann.Goethe'swordsherehaveacertainflatness,whichsuggeststhathedid
nottotallybelieveinwhathesaid:
Itcannotbedenied...thatwhensomeoneunderstandsGermanwell,hemaydowithoutmanyotherlanguages.IamnotspeakinghereofFrenchthatisthelanguageof
conversation,andparticularlyindispensablewhentraveling,becauseeveryoneunderstandsit,anditcanbeusedineverycountryinlieuofaninterpreter.ButasfarasGreek,
Latin,Italian,andSpanishareconcerned,wecanreadthebestworksofthesenationsinGermantranslationsofsuchoutstandingqualitythatthereisnofurtherreason...tolose
timeoverthepainfullearningoflanguages.15

Themottointroducingthischaptermayusefullyandironicallycorrectthequotationabove.Nevertheless,Goetheisawareoftheprimordialroleoftranslationfor
Germanculture:InthesamewayFranceformeditslanguagetobethe"languageoftheworld"(ofintellectualanddiplomatic,evenaristocratic,exchanges),the
Germanshaveeducatedtheirlanguagetobecomethelanguageinwhichotherlanguagesmaymaketheirworks'ownvoiceresound.Andthisisaprocesswhich,for
Goethe,ispracticallyfinishedin1830,aprocesswhichhesawaccomplishedinthecourseofhislife.Butthishistoricalstatementwhichcanbefoundin
Schleiermacher,Humboldt,andNovalisdoesnotnecessarilyentailtheideathatthereshouldbeauniquemediumofWeltliteratur,akindof"chosenpeople"of
worldliteratureandtranslation.Weltliteraturisrathertheageofgeneralizedintertranslation,in

Page58

whichalllanguageslearn,intheirownway,tobelanguagesoftranslationandtolivetheexperienceoftranslationaprocessGoethesawemergeintheyears1820
1830inFranceandEnglandwith,precisely,thetranslationofGermanliterature(beginningwithhimself,Schiller,andHerder),andtowhichhedevotedthemostacute
attention.
Thisimpliesaboveallthattranslationbeeverywhereconsideredanessential,dignifiedtask,and,infact,belongingtotheliteratureofanation.ThatGoethe
considereditassuchisattestedbyafairlystrikinganecdote.In1808,inthemiddleofNapoleon'sdomination,certainintellectualswantedtocomposeacollectionof
thebestGermanpoetryfortheuseofthe"people."Thenationalistintentionoftheprojectwasnotdenied.16TheauthorsofthefuturecollectionconsultedGoethe
aboutthechoiceofpoems.TheonlyadvicehegavethemwastoincludeGermantranslationsofforeignpoemsaswell,firstofallbecauseGermanpoetrywas
indebtedtotheforeignfortheessenceofitsformsandthissinceitsbeginningandsecond,becauseinhiseyesthesetranslationswerecreationsbelonging
authenticallytothenationalliterature.
Oncetherights,thedignity,andthestatusoftranslationwereassured,Goethecouldgivewhatwouldcomeclosesttoatheoryoftranslation,intheformofareflection
ontheagesorthemodesoftranslation,areflectionthat,asweshallsee,runsabsolutelyparalleltothethinkinghedevotedtothe"epochs"ofBildung.IfBildungis
theprocessinwhichtherelationtotheselfbecomesfirmerthroughtherelationtotheforeignandproducesabalanceofbothrelationsbythegradualpassagefromthe
infertileclosureupononeselftolivinginteraction,translation,beinganexemplificationofthisrelation,ismarkedbystages,stageswhichmayberegardedashistorical
periodsorasmomentsandmodesdestinedtorepeatthemselvesindefinitelyinthehistoryofaculture:
Therearethreekindsoftranslation.Thefirstkindacquaintsuswiththeforeignonourowntermsasimpleprosaictranslationisbestinthisrespect....
Asecondepochfollowsinwhich[thetranslator]onlytriestoappropriateforeigncontentandtoreproduceitinhisownsense,eventhoughhetriestotransporthimselfinto
foreignsituations.Iwouldcallthiskindofepochtheparodisticone,inthefullestsenseofthatword....TheFrenchusethismethodintheirtranslationsofallpoeticworks....
JustastheFrenchadaptforeignwordstotheirpronunciation,justsodotheytreatfeelings,thoughts,evenobjectsforeveryforeignfruittheydemandacounterfeitgrownon
theirownsoil....
Sinceitisimpossibletolingereitherintheperfectortheimperfectandonechangemustofnecessityfollow,weexperiencedthe

Page59
thirdepoch,whichistobecalledthehighestandthefinalone,namelytheoneinwhichtheaimistomakethetranslationidenticalwiththeoriginal,sothattheonecanbevalued
notinstead(anstattdesandern)butintheplaceoftheother(anderStelledesandern).
Thiskindhadtoovercomethegreatestresistanceoriginallyforthetranslatorwhoattacheshimselfcloselytohisoriginalmoreorlessabandonstheoriginalityofhisnation,and
soathirdcomesintoexistence,andthetasteofthemultitudemustfirstbeshapedtowardsit....
Butsincethesethreeepochsarerepeatedandinvertedineveryliteraturesince,indeed,thesethreemethodscanbeappliedsimultaneously,atranslationintoproseoftheShh
nmaandtheworksofNizami'sisstillinorder....
Butitisabouttimenowforsomeonetoofferusatranslationofthethirdtype,whichwouldcorrespondtothedifferentdialectsaswellastotherhythmical,metrical,andprosaic
waysofspeechintheoriginal,andwhichwouldallowustoenjoythatpoemanewinallitsidiosyncrasy....
Itremainstoexplaininafewwordswhywecalledthethirdepochthefinalone.Atranslationwhichattemptstoidentifyitselfwiththeoriginalintheendcomesclosetoan
interlinearversionandgreatlyenhancesourunderstandingoftheoriginalthisinturnleadsus,compelsusasitwere,tothesourcetext,andsothecircleisclosedatlast:initthe
comingtogetheroftheforeignandthenative,theunknownapproximationandtheknownkeepmovingtowardeachother.17

ThisfamoustextprovidesthemostadvancedexpressionoftheclassicalGermanthoughtontranslation.NeitherSchleiermachernorHumboldthavebeenabletogo
beyondit.Somecommentiscalledfor.Fromtheoutset,Goethepresentsthethreemodesoftranslationashistoricalmodes,eachconnectedwithacertainrelationto
theforeign.Eventhoughthethirdmodeiscalledthe"highest"andthe"final,"itdoesnotthereforesimplyconstituteamodedialecticallysuperiortothetwoothers,
particularlythesecond.Itisratherthe"highest"becauseitconstitutesanultimatepossibilityoftranslating(theinterlinearversionconsciousofitself)andbecause
withittheinflectionofthecirclebegins,bywhicheverythingreturnstothestartingpoint.Frommodeonetomodethree,theentiretranslationofwhatisone'sownto
whatisforeignhasbeencompleted,andforGoetheitisevidentthatnoothermodesarepossible.Furthermore,dependingonthedifferentdomainsoftranslation,
thesemodesmaycoexist:Thetranslationoforientaltexts,forinstance,didnottakeplaceatthesametimeasthetranslationsoftheGreeksorofShakespeare.But
whatkeepsGoethefromprivilegingthethirdmode,aswewouldtendtodointhetwentiethcentury,aretwopointsnotapproachedbythetextoftheDivanbut
mentionedelse

Page60

where.Thefirstistherelationoftranslationtotheuntranslatablein1828,hewritestoChancellorvonMller:
Intranslationoneshouldnotengageinadirectstrugglewiththeforeignlanguage.Onemustattaintheuntranslatableandrespectitforitispreciselytherethatthevalueandthe
characterofeachlanguagelie.18

ThesameremarkisfoundinMaximenundReflexionen:
Intranslation,onemustattaintheuntranslatableonlythendoesonebecomeawareoftheforeignnationandtheforeignlanguage.19

ThethirdmodeoftranslationoftheDivanwouldwellseemtoengageinanimmediatestrugglewiththeforeignlanguageandtend,precisely,totranslatethe
untranslatable,inastrugglereminiscentofRimbaud's"spiritualbattle."Theuntranslatable,inreality,isnotanythingparticular,butthetotalityoftheforeign
languageinitsstrangenessanditsdifference.Goetheintendstorespectthisdifference(whichisthemeaningofhishumanism),butalsotorelativizeittotheextent
that,eventhoughitconstituesthevalueandtheoriginalityoftheforeignlanguage,itisnotnecessarilywhatisessentialtoit.Alongthislinehejudgedthecontemporary
attemptsnotablybyA.W.Schlegeloftranslationsinverse,andnotinprose,offoreignpoetry,attemptswhoselegitimacymayseemevidenttousbutatthetime
seemedrevolutionary:A.W.Schlegel'sentiretranslator'sgospelisbasedonthis.Now,theseattemptsarebasedonanabsolutevalorizationofpoeticform,a
valorizationGoetherejects,firstbecausehedoesnotwanttoseparateformandcontent,butaboveallbecauseheassignsanalmosttranscendentalvalueto
contentgrantingthatcontenthereisnotthatwhichcouldsimplybegraspedbeyondtheforminawork,butsomethingmoremysterious.Itmightbesaidthatcontent
istoformwhatNatureistoitsmanifestations.TwoofGoethe'stexts,inDichtungundWahrheit,makehispositiononthesubjectexplicit:
Ivaluebothrhythmandrhyme,wherebypoetryfirstbecomespoetry,butthepartthatisreally,deeply,andfundamentallyeffective,thatwhichistrulyformativeandfurthering,is
whatremainsofthepoetwhenheistranslatedintoprose.Thenremainsthepure,perfectsubstance[Gehalt].20

Tobesure,intherestofthistextGoethepresentstheprosetranslationofpoetryasafirststage,andcitestheLutheranBibletranslationasanexample.Butitistrue
thatbyputtingforththe"pureandperfectcontent"asthe"acting"and"formative"principle,hehasamplyjustifiedthistypeoftranslation.Inanotherpassageof
DichtungundWahrheitinwhichLutherandtheBiblearealsounderconsiderationhedevelopshisviewofthe"content"ofthework:

Page61
Whatmattersmostinallthatishandeddowntous,particularlyinwriting,istheground,theinnerbeing,themeaning,thedirectionoftheworkfortherelieswhatisoriginal,
divine,efficient,untouchable,indestructible,andneithertimenoroutsideinfluencescouldaffectthisprimalinnerbeing[Urwesen],notanymorethanadiseaseofthebodycan
affectawellbuiltsoul.Thus,language,dialect,idiosynchracies,style,andfinallywriting,shouldberegardedasthebodyofanyworkofthespirit....
Therefore,toresearchtheinner,authenticbeingofaworkthatparticularlypleasesusiseveryone'sbusiness,andwhatshouldbeweighedaboveallishowitisrelatedtoourown
innerbeingandtowhatextentitsvitalforceexcitesandfertilizesourownontheotherhand,theexteriorwhichdoesnotaffectusorwhoseeffectisdoubtful,shouldberelegated
tocriticism,whichmaywellbecapableofdismemberingthewholeandtearingitasunder,butnevermanagestorobusoftheactualgroundtowhichwecling,noreventomakeus
waverforonlyamomentwithregardtoouronceestablishedconfidence.21

Thisgroundoftheworkappearstobetheoppositeoftheuntranslatable,ifitisindeedthatwhich,inthework,hasadefinitiveandimmediateholdonus,whichmakes
itspeakforus,itsprofoundSprachlichkeit.Fromthistherelativenatureofatranslationattachedtothedifferencesoftheworkmaybededuced,aswellasthe
derivativeandsecondarynatureofcriticism.Conversely,whenformbecomestheabsolutelyprivilegedelement,asitiswiththeRomantics,poeticandcritical
translationacquireaprimordialposition.
Goethe'striadicschemeisputinadifferentlightwhenitisconfrontedwithothertexts,thosedevotedtoBildung.Therecanbenodoubtthatthemajorityofthe
reflectionsGoethedevotedtotranslationaresituatedinthisframework.Atextwrittenshortlybeforehisdeath,in1831,entitledEpochengeselligerBildung(periods
ofsocial,orsociable,formation),distinguishesfourmomentsofBildung.Thefirstonecorrespondsmoreorlesstothe"virgin"statementionedbyHerder.Thethree
otherscorrespondtothemodesoftheDivan:
I.Fromamoreorlesscrudemass,narrowcirclesofculturedpeopleareformedtherelationsarethemostintimate,onlythefriendistrusted,onlythelovedoneissungto,
everythinghasahomelyandfamiliaraspect.Thesecirclesareclosedtotheoutside,astheymustbe,sincetheyhavetosecurethecrudeelementsoftheirexistence.They
thereforetendtokeeptothemothertongue,whichiswhythisstagemayrightfullybecalledtheidyllic.
II.Thesenarrowcirclesmultiply...theinternalcirculationbecomesmorelively,theinfluenceofforeignlanguagesisnolonger

Page62
refusedthecirclesremainseparatedbutdrawclosertooneanother....Iwouldcallthisstagethesocialorthecivic.
III.Finallythecirclescontinuetomultiplyandtoexpandinsuchawaythattheytouchandpreparetomerge.Theyunderstandthattheirwishesandtheirintentionsarethesame,
buttheyarestillunabletodissolvethebarriersthatdividethem.Thisstagemightprovisionallybecalledthemoregeneral.
IV.Inordertobecomeuniversal,thatgoodwillandgoodfortuneofwhichwemayprideourselvesatpresentareneeded....Ahigherinfluencewasnecessarytoaccomplishwhat
welivetoday:theunificationofallculturedcircleswhichuptonowmerelytouched....Foreignliteraturesareallsetonanequalfootingwithourown,andwedonotlagbehind
inthecourseoftheworld.22

Ifthewordcircleisreplacedbythewordnation,wehaveexactlytheprocessthatleadstotheconstitutionofWeltliteratur.Intheintroductionofthejournal
Propylen,Goetheapproachestherelationofwhatisone'sownandwhatisforeignfromyetanotherangle,describingwhatmightbecalledthelawofopposition:
Wedonotformourselvesbymerelysettinginmotion,lightlyandcomfortably,whatlieswithinus.Everyartist,likeeveryman,isonlyasinglebeingandwillthereforelean
towardsoneside.Whichiswhyhemustalsoabsorb,asfaraspossible,intheoryandinpractice,whatisoppositetohisnature.Thefrivolousshouldseekouttheseriousandthe
earnest,theseriousshouldhavealightandcomfortablebeingbeforehiseyes,thestrongshouldcultivategentleness,thegentlestrength,andeachwilldevelophisnaturein
proportionasheseemstodepartfromit.23

Therelationtotheforeignappearshereastheencounterofthatwhichisopposedtous,asthecultivationofwhatisantagonistictoourownnature.Such,forinstance,
isforGoethethemutualrelationofFrenchandGermancultureatthebeginningoftheeighteenthcentury.TheGermanUnbndigkeit(lackofrestraint)canonlyhelp
Frenchculturetoliberateitselffromthestraightjacketofitsclassicism.Butconversely,German''versatility"haseverythingtogainfromtheformalrigoroftheFrench:
Thuseachculturemustsearchintheotherwhatitlacksaswellaswhatismostopposedtoit.Therelation,then,totheforeignischaracterizedbythefactthatone
looksinitforadifferencethatisitselfdetermined.Besides,thesceneoftherelationbetweenwhatisone'sownandwhatisforeignisdominatedbythatwhich,
beyondtheiropposition,istheelementoftheirpossiblecoexistence:theforeignisalwaysonlyanalterego,andconversely,Iamtheforeigntoamultiplicityofalter
egos.Whichentailsthattherelationtotheforeignisaboveallarelationofcontemporaneity:therecanbenocommerceandinteractionwiththedead.

Page63

Still,thecontemporaneityofalteregosneedstobegroundedinathirdterm,analmostabsolutetermtowhichallcanrefer,andwhichconstitutestheirground:Inthe
caseofaculture,thisgroundmustitselfbeaculture,butaculturethatistheimmediateexpressionofNature.ThisistheGreekculture.ForGoethe,theGreeks
representthepinnacleofhumanityandBildung.InthesamewayonemustalwayscomebacktoNature,inthecycleofBildungonemustalwayscomebacktothe
Greeks.ThepoetstatesthistoEckermannon31January1827:
But,whilewethusvaluewhatisforeign,wemustnotbindourselvestosomeparticularthing,andregarditasamodel.WemustnotgivethisvaluetotheChinese,ortheSerbian,
orCaldern,ortheNibelungenbutifwereallywantamodel,wemustalwaysreturntotheancientGreeks,inwhoseworksthebeautyofhumankindisalwaysrepresented.All
therestwemustlookatonlyhistorically,appropriatingtoourselveswhatisgood,sofarasitgoes.24

ThereferencetoCaldernortheNibelungenisabarelydisguisedcriticismtotheromanticmultipleoverturetowardsforeignliteratures.ForGoethe,theGreeksin
effectoccupytheplaceofUrbildandVorbildintheprocessofBildung,aplaceneverdisputedbyhim.GreeknessisthatmanifestationoftheEternallyOne,the
originaryMan,againstwhichallculturesmaybemeasured,whethertheyareGermanness,Frenchness,Italianness,orevenLatinness.Alltherestis"historical,"either
inthemeaningofpast(adepreciatorymeaningforGoethe)orinthemeaningofcontemporary.Hereagain,wefindthedoublelevelofGoethe'sthought:Eternityand
Contemporaneity.AdoublelevelunifiedinhisconceptofNature.25
Intheselectivespaceofthetranslatable,thetranslationoftheGreeks,asitiscarriedoutbyVossand,underthedirectinfluenceofGoetheandSchiller,byHumboldt,
acquiresanaturalprecedence.WhichiswhyGoethelookeduponthemassofromantictranslationswithincreasingillhumor,since,asStrichrightlyemphasizes,they
concernedneithertheGreeksnorthecontemporaries:
Tobesure,GermanRomanticismalsotranslatedfromallliteraturesbutwhatdidittranslate?Dante,Petrarch,Cervantes,Shakespeare,Caldern,theoldIndianwriters.Their
contemporariesinothernationsremainedalmostexcludedfromthecircleofinterestofGermanRomanticism.Itknewtimeonlyasasequence,atbottomonlyasapast,notas
simultaneityandcosimultaneity,asatemporalcommunityofpeoplelivingtogetherinthepresent.26

Goethesawinitadifferentconceptionofworldliterature,andjustifiedlyso.Thefactisallthemorestrikingsince,personally,hefullyrecognizedhisdebtto
ShakespeareandCaldern.Fromhispointof

Page64

view,theRomanticsendedupinaspacebothinfatuatedwiththepastandabovealldangerouslysyncretic.Wearefacedherewiththeoppositionmentioned
abovebetweenthetwoviewsofBildungandthedisjunctivestructuringofthefieldoftranslation.Oncemore,Goethe'sreserveisallthemorenotablesincetheDivan
reflectionsproposeaviewofthemodesoftranslationthatisbarelydifferentfromthoseofA.W.SchlegelandSchleiermacher.Butthebersetzungstalentandthe
romanticwilltotranslateeverythingarefundamentallyforeigntoGoethe.
ThatthereisanessentialdifferencebetweenthetranslationofcontemporariesandthetranslationofauthorsfromthepastissomethingGoethecouldteachusto
appreciatebetter.Fromthepast,onlytheworksremain.Fromthepresent,wehavetheauthorsandallthatisimpliedbyitintermsofapossiblelivinginteraction.But
thereismore.Contemporaneitymeansthatthetranslatedlanguagemayalsotranslate,thatthetranslatormayalsobetranslated,thatthetranslatedlanguage,
author,andwork,maylivethefactofbeingtranslated.Inotherwords:Iftranslatingisconsideredaninteractionbetweentwolanguages,contemporaneityproducesa
doubleeffect:Thetranslatinglanguageismodified(whichiswhatisalwaysobservedinthefirstplace),butsoisthetranslatedlanguage.Goethemustbecreditedfor
havingconsideredthewholeoftheplayoftranslatingandbeingtranslatedinthespaceofcontemporaneity,forhavingmeasureditspsychological,literary,national,
andculturalmanifestations.Now,translationistakenupinthevastcycleofbeingtranslated.Thisphenomenonisinturnreproducedonalllevelsofculturaltrans
lation(criticism,borrowings,"influences,"etc.).Thus,Goetheoffersusaglobalviewofthemutualrelationsofwhatisone'sownandwhatisforeign,inwhichequal
considerationisgiventothequestionofwhatone'sownisfortheforeign,andthusofitsrelationtotheforeignwhichwhatisourownisforit.Onemightevenstate:
BeforetheageofWeltliteratur,therelationtotheforeignisoneofrefusal,orofmisunderstanding,orofdisfiguringor"parodistic"annexation(thecaseoftheRomans
andofFrenchcultureuntilthenineteenthcentury),oroffaithfulandrespectingwelcome(thecaseoftheGermansfromthesecondpartoftheeighteenthcentury
onwards).Withthearrivalofworldliterature,therelationbecomesproportionallymorecomplexasthedifferentcultureshenceforthseektocontemplatethemselvesin
themirrorofothersandtolookinitforsomethingtheycannotperceivebythemselves.Thecaptivationofoneselfnolongerpassesmerelythroughthe
captivationoftheforeign,butthroughthecaptivationbytheforeignofoneself.ItisGoethe'sversionofHegel'smutualrecognition,andthepoetdoesbyno
meansexcludethestrugglementionedinthePhenomenologyofSpirit.

Page65

Goethesoughttoformulatethisreciprocalrelationofwhatisone'sownandwhatisforeignbymeansofvariousconceptswhichareprimarilyconcernedwith
translation,butalsowithotherinterculturalorinterliteraryrelations,likecriticism:ThesearetheconceptsofTheilnahme(participation),Spiegelung(mirroring),
Verjngung(rejuvenation),andAuffrischung(regeneration).Participationindicatesacertaintypeofrelationwhichisbothactiveinterventionandengagement,the
reverseofinfluence,Influenz,apassiverelationalwaysseverelyjudgedbyGoethe,connectingittothediseaseofthesamename,Influenza.Thushestatesthat
Carlyleshows
apeaceful,lucid,andintimateparticipationwiththeGermanliteraryandpoeticaldebutsheespousesthemostparticulareffortsofthenation,hegivesvaluetotheindividual,
eachinhisownplace,andthussettlestoacertainextenttheconflictinevitablewithintheliteratureofanypeople.Fortoliveandtoactisalsotochoosesidesandtoattack....
Andwhilethisconflictoftendisturbsthehorizonofaninteriorliteratureformanyyears,theforeignerletsthedust,smoke,andfogsettle...andheseesthosedistantregions,
withtheirlightandtheirdarksides,lightupbeforehim,withanequanimitycomparabletothatwithwhichweareusedtocontemplatethemoononaclearnight.27

Thusforeignliteraturesbecomethemediatorsintheinternalconflictsofnationalliteraturesandofferthemanimageofthemselvestheycouldnototherwisehave.
Goetheplayedthisrole,forexample,intheconflictsbetweenclassicsandromanticsinItaly.Thistypeofinterventioninanationalliteraturerefersinturntothenotions
ofmirroringandregeneration,ashenotesin1827:
Flaggingnationalliteraturesarerevivedbytheforeign.28

Andmoredecisively:
Intheendeveryliteraturegrowsboredifitnotrefreshedbyforeignparticipation.Whatscholardoesnotdelightinthewonderswroughtbymirroringandreflection?Andwhat
mirroringmeansinthemoralspherehasbeenexperiencedbyeveryone,perhapsunconsciouslyand,ifonestopstoconsider,onewillrealizehowmuchofhisownformation
throughoutlifeheowestoit.29

WhichcorrespondstoaprincipleexpressedintheMorphology:
Themostbeautifulmetempsychosisisthatinwhichweseeourselvesreappearinanother.30

Amongallthe"mirrorings"thatmayoccurbetweentwocultures,translationiscertainlyoneofthemostimportant,andtheonewhichstruckGoethethemost,notonly
becausehehimselfhadexperienced

Page66

it,butbecauseitconcernsamorecreativemirroringthandoescriticism.WhenaLatintranslationofHermannandDorotheawasbroughttoGoethe,hemadethe
followingcomment:
Ihadnotseenthispoem,cherishedbyall,foryears,andnowIcontemplateditasitwereinamirrorwhich,asweknowfromexperienceandmorerecentlybyentoptics,hasthe
abilitytoexertamagicalinfluence.Here,inamuchmoreformedlanguage,IsawmyfeelingsandmypoetryidenticalaswellaschangedIwasespeciallystruckbythefactthat
Latinisalanguagethattendstowardstheconceptandthattransformswhat,inGerman,hidesitselfinaninnocentway....31

HeaddsthatintheLatintranslation,hispoem
seemedmorenoble,asifitwere,withregardtoitsform,returnedtoitsorigin.32

Inthesameway,Nerval'stranslationofFaustseemedtohimtohave"regenerated"theGermantext.RegardingtheEnglishtranslationofSchiller'sWallenstein,he
states:
Herewenotesomethingnew,perhapsscarcelyfeltandneverexpressedbefore:thatthetranslatorisworkingnotforhisownnationalonebutalsoforthenationfromwhose
languagehetakesthework.Forithappensmoreoftenthanwethink,thatanationdrawsvigorandstrengthfromaworkandabsorbsitfullyintoitsowninnerlife,thatitcantake
nofurtherpleasureinitandobtainnofurthernourishmentfromit.ThisisparticularlythecasewiththeGermans.Theyarepronetoexcessiveenthusiasmand,bytoofrequent
repetitionsofsomethingtheylike,destroysomeofitsqualities.Itisthereforegoodforthemtoseeoneoftheirownliteraryworksrebornintranslation.33

TheseremarkswouldhavenomorethanapurelypsychologicalscopeiftheyonlyreferredtothewonderGoetheexperiencedwhenhefoundhisworksorthoseof
hisfriendSchilleragaininaforeignlanguagetheseremarkswouldnotconcernthemetamorphosiseffectedbytranslationwhenaworkunfoldsinanotherlanguage.
Butthisisnotthecase.Inordertoproducethisimpressionofwonder,thetranslationmusthaveeffectivelyplacedtheworkinamirrorofitselfthat"regenerates"and
"revives"it.Itisinthissensethatbeingtranslatedisfundamentalforawork(andforitsauthorinthesecondplace)becauseitplacestheworkinanothertime,a
moreoriginarytime,atimeinwhichitseemsasnewasitwasatitsdebut.Inthissense,itbecomesagainhighlyreadableforthosewhoalreadyknowit(authorsor
readers)initsmothertongue.Thisessenceoftranslationfortheotherscertainlyremainsmysterious,butitalreadyindicatesthatthesignificanceoftranslationdoesnot
consistinmediatingforeignworksonlyforthereaderswhodonotknowthelanguageoftheoriginal.No:Translation

Page67

isanexperiencethatconcernsthosetranslatedaswellasthosetranslatingasanendproduct,itisideallydestinedtobereadbyall.Theeffectproducedonthe
translatedworkthroughthetranslationisnodoubtafundamentalphenomenon,anditisGoethe'smerittohaveperceiveditassomethingthatreferstothemysteriesof
thelivesoflanguages,works,aswellasoftranslationassuch.Thesemysteriesaresignaledbythesesimultaneouslyspatialandtemporalnotionsofmirrorreflection,
regeneration,andreturntotheorigin.Withoutthis"participation"oftheforeign,whichtranslationis,thework"wouldbeboredwithitself,"wouldexhaustitselfinthe
effectsitproducesasaworkinitslinguisticspace.Inthissense,itneedstobetranslated,toreappearrejuvenatedinthemirrorofaforeignlanguageinordertobe
abletoofferitsfaceofwondertothereadersofitsmothertongue,i.e.,itsfaceasaworkpureandsimple.Thismetamorphosis,evenmetempsychosis,referstothe
symbolictenoroftranslationassuch,ofwhichGoethewascertainlyaware,sincehedevotedapoemanunpretentiousone,tobesuretoit,entitledEinGleichnis,
asymbol:
Jungstpflckt'icheinenWeisenstrau
TrugihngedankenvollnachHaus,
DahattenvonderwarmenHand
DieKronensichallezurErdegewandt.
IchsetztesicineinfrischesGlas
UndwelcheinWunderwarmirdas!
DieKpfchenhobensichempor,
DieBltterstengelimgrnenFlor,
Undallzusammensogesund
AlsstndensienochaufMuttergrund.
Sowarmir'salsichwundersam
MeinLiedinfremderSprachevernahm.34

Thepoethaspickedflowersofthefieldandcarriedthemhomewithhim.Deprivedoftheirmaternalsoil,theybegintowither.Hethenputstheminfreshwater,and
theretheybloomagain:ThusitwaswhenIheard,fullofawe,mysonginaforeignlanguage.TheoneWhopickstheflowersisthetranslator.Removedfromits
soil,thepoemrunstheriskoffading.Butthetranslatorputsitinthefreshcupofhisownlanguage,anditblossomsonceagain,asifitwerestillonitsmaternalsoil.
Thisisanaweinspiringmarvel,sinceneitherthepoemnortheflowersarestillontheirnativesoil.Eventhoughtheblossomingofflowerssymbolizeswhathappensto
thepoemintranslation,itisthepoeminitsentiretythatisasymbol.Oragain:Translationisasymbol.Asymbolofwhat?Ofthemarvel,certainly,thatoccursevery
dayinthemultipletranslationsthatmakeuptheveryfabricoftheworldofthe

Page68

presenceinourlivesoftheinnumerablefacesofmetamorphosisandmetempsychosis.35
Butevenasheisdescribingtranslationasametamorphosis,evenasheisinscribingitinthegreatcycleofvitalexchanges,Goethetakescarenottoassertthat
everythingistranslation.Tobesure,the"mirroring"hesomarvelouslyfindsherealsoexistselsewhere.Andfirstofallinthedomainofhumanrelationshipsamorous,
friendly,social,cultural.
Hence,itwastemptingtogoonestepfurtherandtoformulateatheoryofthegeneralizedtranslationofeverythingintoeverything,ofwhichtheinterlingualtranslation
wouldbeonlyaparticularcase.Goethedoesnottakethissteponthecontrary,hemaintains,thoughimplicitlyanddespitehisunitaryperceptionofrealitythe
differentseparateddomains.TheRomantics,fortheirpart,donothavethesereservations.TransformingGoethe'smirroringintoareflectionraisedtothelevelofan
ontologicalprinciple,theyedifyatheoryofgeneralizedtranslation,ofwhichtheclearestillustration,asweshallsee,isNovalis'sEncyclopedia.
ThepoetologicalradicalityoftheRomanticshasperenniallybeenopposedtotheallegedly"Philistine"prudenceofGoethe.Wewould,onthecontrary,liketoreread
theRomanticsfromapointofviewmuchclosertoGoethe'sthantotheirown,andtounderscoreallthatisnegativeintheirspeculativefever.Thehumanismofa
GoethewillnotbesurpassedbysymbioticallyrepeatingthepoeticabsolutismoftheAthenum,butbyradicalizingtheintuitionsofthemanfromWeimar,allofwhich
underscorethesocialandhistoricalcharacteroftranslation.

Page69

5
RomanticRevolutionandInfiniteVersability
InhisDialogueonPoetry,havingsketchedabriefoutlineofthe"epochsofpoetry"fromtheGreeksthroughShakespeare,FriedrichSchlegeloutlinestheliterary
situationinGermanyattheendoftheeighteenthcentury:
Meanwhile,evenherethereremainedatraditionwhosecontentionwastoreturntotheancientsandtonature,andthissparkcaughtfirewiththeGermansaftertheyhadgone
throughalltheirmodels.Winckelmanntaughtthatantiquitywastobeviewedasawhole....Goethe'suniversalitygentlyreflectedthepoetryofalmostallnationsandages....
Philosophyarrivedinafewdaringstepstothepointwhereitcouldcomprehenditselfandthespiritofman,inwhosedepthsitwasboundtodiscovertheprimordialsourceofthe
imaginationandtheidealofbeauty,andthuswascompelledtorecognizepoetry,whoseessenceandexistenceithadnotevensuspected.Philosophyandpoetry,thetwomost
sublimepowersinman,whicheveninAthensintheperiodoftheirhighestfruitionwereeffectiveonlyinisolation,nowintermingleinperpetualinteractioninordertostimulate
anddevelopeachother.Translationofpoetsandimitationoftheirrhythmshavebecomeanart,andcriticismadisciplinewhichannihilatedolderrorsandopenednewvistasin
theknowledgeofantiquity....
NothingfurtherisrequiredbutthattheGermanscontinueusingthesemethods,thattheyfollowtheexamplesetbyGoethe,explore

Page70
1

theformsofartbacktotheirsourcesinordertobeabletoreviveorcombinethem....

ThisbrieftextbyF.SchlegelcontainssotospeakinnucleotheentireviewtheRomanticsoftheAthenumhaveoftheirageanditsdisruptions:Thereturnto
antiquity,theappearanceofanationalpoeticgeniusofaproteanstature,theselfunfoldingofphilosophy,theminglingofthinkingandpoetry,theemergenceofanart
oftranslationandofascienceofcriticismthesearetheculturalnoveltiesofthepresent.F.Schlegelherealludesnotonlytoperfectlydefinedhistoricalevents,but
alsotothoseelementswhichareratherpartofaromanticprogram:tounitephilosophyandpoetry,tomakecriticismintoascienceandtranslationintoanart.Itis
also,andaboveall,oftheorderofademand,thedemandofagroupofwhichheisthetheoreticalleaderademandwhichwehaveputforwardherewithafalse
simplicity,sincetermslikephilosophy,poetry,art,science,criticism,orfantasyhaveaveryprecisemeaningintheromanticterminologicalcosmos,whichisbyno
meansreducibletoourconceptualframeworkortheonethatimmediatelyprecedestheJenaRomantics.
Anunderstandingofthistext,then,demandsashortbutcloseexaminationofthewholeofthereflectionsoftheAthenummembers.Onlythusareweableto
understandwhytranslationismentionedtogetherwiththegreatculturalrealizationsofthetime,andwhatitsplaceisamongthem.
ThejourneymustbeginwithanexaminationofthecriticalrevolutionthatemergeswithRomanticism,andofwhichF.SchlegelandNovalisaretheprincipal
instigators.Inwhatsenseisitpossibletospeakofacriticalrevolution?Obviously,theexpressionreferstoKantandhis"Copernicanrevolution,"ofwhomtheearly
Romantics,followingFichte,aretheheirs.ItalsoreferstotheFrenchRevolution.Inbothcases,ahistoricalruptureoccurs.TheKantianrevolutionintroducescriticism
intothecenterofphilosophy,intheformofananalyticofthefinitesubject,whichishenceforthbarredfromanytransgressionofthesensibledomain,andforwhich
anynaivephilosophizingishenceforthimpossible.TheFrenchRevolutionintroducesaradicaldisruptionoftraditionalsocialforms,alsointhenameofreasonwhich
meansthatwithKantandtheFrenchRevolutionthecriticalagehasarrived:
Thisage,inwhichwehavethehonortoliveanagethat,toexpressitinasingleword,deservesthemodestbutsignificantnameofcriticalage,somuchsothatatpresent
everythingwillbecriticized,withtheexceptionoftheageitself,andeverythingwillbecomemoreandmorecritical.2

Page71

Thisagesubmitseverythingtoits"chemistry":3 itistheageofantinavetor,putinnegativeterms,theageofnonsimplicityandoftearingapart.Romanticthinking
inheritsthisnonsimplicity,thisrefusalofallnavet:Itisathinkingdrunkwithcriticalpathos.Atstakeforit,asforallpostKantianthinking,istheaccomplishmentof
thatwhichwasallegedlyonlyoutlinedbyKant,thatis,tomakehiscritique"moreandmorecritical,"butalsotospringtheboltKanthadplacedonspeculationandthe
unfoldingoftheinfinityofthesubject.TheJenaRomanticsactivelytakepartinthisradicalizationofKant'sthoughtinthewakeofFichteandSchelling.
ButtheirplaceinthepostKantianspeculativefieldconsistsofunfoldingtheproblematicoftheinfinitesubjectinthemediumofartandpoetry,andof
reformulatingallexistingtheoriesofart,poetry,Bildung,andgenius,inthelanguageofthereflectioninauguratedbyFichte'sWissenschaftslehre,thedoctrineof
science.Thefecundityofthisproject,whichtakestheexplicitformofaprojectarticulatedinmutipleLehre,surpassesbyfarthecontemporaryenterprisesofthe
magnificationofartthoseofaSchellingor,later,ofaSolgerbecauseitappearsinaspacewhichisnot,properlyspeaking,philosophical(intheacademicsense)
norsimplythespaceofpoeticcreation.ItiswellknownthattheworksofthefirstRomanticsarefew,oftenunfinished,andifNovalis,forinstance,hadnotwrittenhis
Fragments,itisnotcertainthathispoemsandsketchesfornovelsalonewouldhavebeensufficienttocanonizehim.AsforF.Schlegel,hisliteraryworks(like
Lucinde)barelygobeyondthestageofexperimentation.Howthencharacterizethisspace?Probablybysayingthatitisnotthespaceofawork,butoneofintense
reflectionontheabsent,desiredwork,ortheworktocome.TheonlyfinishedtextsleftbytheRomanticsaretheircritiques,theircollectionsoffragments,their
dialogues,theirliteraryletters,and...theirtranslations.Translations,critiques,butalsolettersandfragments(consideredasaliteraryminigenreinheritedfrom
Chamfort,orratherasaformoffinishedwriting,notasBruchstck,piece,unfinishedsketch),haveincommonthereferencetoanabsentother:translationtothe
original,lettersanddialoguestoanexternalreferentofwhichtheytreat,criticismtoaliterarytextorthewholeofliterature.4 Theyarenotworks,butformsofwriting
whichentertainaprofound,butalsoverynostalgic,relationtothework.Toinhabitthisrelationtothealreadyexisting,absent,orimaginedwork,andtothink,within
thisrelation,theworkassuchastheabsoluteofexistence,thisisthespecificityoftheAthenumRomanticism.Butthereismore:Intheintimacyofthisrelation
theyhavethepresentimentthattheseformsofwriting,inacertainway,alsobelongtothespaceofthework,evenastheyremainequallyoutsideofit.Whichcouldbe
formulatedasfollows:Theoriginalwork

Page72

needsanddoesnotneedtranslationtheworkneedsanddoesnotneedcriticismthefragmentsrepresentthewholeandarenotthewholethelettersandthe
dialoguesareworksandarenotworks.Hencetheresurgenceofthequestion:Whatistheliteraryworkifitistheseatofsuchparadoxes?Thecriticalrevolutionofthe
Romanticsconsistsinarelentlessquestioningaboutthisessenceofthework,whichwasmanifestedtotheminthefascinatingintimacyofcriticismandtranslation,of
philologyinthebroadsense,asNovalisdefineditinoneofhisfragments:
Philologyingeneralisthescienceofliterature.Everythingdealingwithbooksisphilological.Notes,title,epigraphs,prefaces,critiques,exegeses,commentaries,quotations,are
philological.Purelyphilologicalisthatwhichtreatsonlyofbooks,whichrelatestobooksandnotatalltonatureasoriginal.5

Thisisalsoadangerousgame,sincecriticismandtranslationmayappearastheabsenceofone'sowncreativity,fragmentarywritingastheinabilitytoproducefinished
worksorsystems.Andinacertainwaytheyarealsothisabsence,thisinability,reverberatinginfinitely.WhenNovaliswritesinthemarginsofF.Schlegel's
Fragments:''notafragment,""notagenuinefragment,"6 heisnotsomuchmeasuringthesebyapredeterminedstandardasbythefactthatthefragmentarywriting
incessantlyinvertsitself,orthreatenstodoso,intofragmentedandunfinishedwritinginthemostbanalsenseoftheterm.ThebulkofNovalis'sandF.Schlegel's
notebooks,astheyarerevealedgraphicallybythelatestGermaneditions,bearwitnesstoincompletenessaswellasintentionalfragmentation.Whichentailsthatthe
richesofromanticthinking,itsabilitytoreflectitselfinfinitely,toturnitselftoallsides,therebyapprehendingthetotality,isalsoitsabsolutepoverty,itsprofound
inability(ifsuchithas)tothinkatallinthesenseofthepatientendurancenearathemeoranobject.TheworkswrittenbytheRomanticsofthesecondgeneration
(likeClemensBrentano'snovels)offeranoftentalentedcaricatureofthisthinkingwithoutpauseandwithoutrest.ItisHegel's"badinfinite,"whichHegelcouldeasily
criticizeinRomanticism,eventhoughhiscritiquewasnotentirelytothepoint,sincewealthandpoverty,powerandimpotence,areconnectedabsolutelyhere.
ThecriticalRevolution,then,ischieflytheestablishmentofacertainwayofthinkingabouttheworkasamediumoftheinfinityofthesubject.Thisthinkingborrowsits
armsfromphilosophy,butisnotitselfphilosophy.Whenwespeakhereofwork,wemeanexclusivelythewrittenorliterarywork.Withtheexceptionofmusic,as
weshallsee,theRomanticshavelittletosayabouttheotherdomainsofart,nodoubt

Page73

becausethesedonotentertainthisparadoxicalandintimaterelationwithcriticism,translation,anddifferentformsoffragmentarywriting,which,fortheRomantics,
belongstoliteraturenodoubtalsobecausethemediumofliteratureislanguage,themostuniversalofallmedia.7 ThescatteredattemptsbythebrothersSchlegeland
Novalistocloselyexaminethe"wonderfulaffinitiesofallthearts"8 barelygobeyondthelevelofgeneralities.Inreality,theirpassionisexclusivelythe"philological,"the
written.ThusF.Schlegelwritesinhis"LetteronPhilosophy:''
ButitsohappensthatIamanauthorandnothingbutanauthor.Writing,forme,holdsIdonotknowwhatsecretmagic:perhapsbecauseofthetwilightofeternitythathovers
aroundit.Yes,IadmittoyouthatImarvelaboutthesecretpowerhiddeninthesedeadtraitsIwonderhowthesimplestexpressions...canbesosignificantthatitisasifthey
lookoutofcleareyes,orthattheyareastellingastheartlessaccentsfromtheprofoundestsoul....Thesilenttraits[ofwriting]seemtometobeamoreappropriatehullforthese
deepest,mostimmediateutterancesofthespiritthantheresoundingoflips.Iwouldalmostsay,inthesomewhatmysticallanguageofourH.[Novalis]:toliveistowritethesole
destinyofmanistoengravethethoughtsofthedivinityintothetablesofnaturewiththestylusofthecreativelyformingspirit.9

AndNovalis:
Ishouldliketoseebeforeme,asaworkofmyspirit,awholecollectionofbooks,onalloftheartsandallofthesciences.10
Ifeellikedevotingmyentirelifetoonenovelwhichalonewouldconstitueanentirelibrary,perhapseventheapprenticeshipofanation.11

Thispassionforthebookandthewrittenisequallynourishedbythefactthatthesespontaneouslytendtoformasystem,asisshownbythefrequentexpressionof
"worldofbooks,"whichNovalisdidnotfailtopointout.12Andthislatentsystematicityofthewrittenwhich,accordingtoF.Schlegel,makesitpossibletoconsider
allworksofliteratureasasingleworkintheprocessofbecoming,ispreciselywhatmustbethoughtanddeveloped.Thereisalsosomethingelse:Literatureisthe
placeofaselfdifferentiationofwhichtheGreeksbequeathedtousthecanonicalform:thatofgenres.Theotherartsdonotprovidetheexampleofsuchaself
differentiationthataffirmsitsownnecessity.Moreover,thedivisionofgenresissuchthatittendstoreemergeeverytimeoneattemptstodenyitorconsiderit
obsolete.Buthistorically,aswehaveseenabove,thereisanotherpossibility,themixingofgenres:FortheRomantics,thisiswhathappenedwiththeLatinand
Alexandrianpoets

Page74

orwiththemodernsShakespeareandCervantes,andwhichnowlooksforanewfigureatthedawnofthenineteenthcentury.Hencethefollowingquestions:
Shouldpoetrysimplybedividedup?Orshoulditremainoneandindivisible?Oralternateqbetweendivisionandunion?13

Theromanticprogramconsistsintransformingwhatishistoricallyonlyatendencyintoaselfconsciousintentioncriticismandtranslation,asweshallsee,areinscribed
inthisprogram.
Inthefirstplace,theissueistoproduceacriticismandatheoryofliteraturethatcandefinitivelytransform,byeffectinganhistoricalrupture,theliterarypracticeintoa
reflectedpracticeassuredofitabsoluteness.Ineffect,everythinghappensasiftheCopernicanrevolutioninphilosophyshouldbematchedbyaCopernicanrevolution
inpoetry.Andonecanunderstandwhy,stillstartingfromKant:TheundertakingofthethreeCritiquesdoesnotonlysignifyalimittoknowledge,butalsoaself
reflectionofspiritbywhichspirithasaccesstoitself,totheelementofitsautonomy:
Critique.Alwaysinthestateofcritique.Thestateofcritiqueistheelementoffreedom.14

ThisiswhyF.Schlegel,inanobviousallusiontoKantandFichte,couldsaythat,attheendoftheeighteenthcentury,philosophyhassucceededinunderstanding
itself.Butthatisnotall:TheKantiancritique,ascendingallthewaytothetranscendentalimagination,discoveredthere"theoriginalsourceoffantasyandtheidealof
beauty,"thusobligingphilosophy"tounequivocallyrecognizepoetry."Whichmeansthatitmadepossible,initsverymovement,thedevelopmentofa''geniology,"ofa
"fantastics,"15andconsequentlyofaCopernicanrevolutionofpoetry,bymeansofwhichpoetrywouldgainaccesstoitsessencejustasreasongainedaccesstoits
essencethroughthetranscendentalmethod.Thesecondrevolution,tobesure,canonlybetheworkofpoetryitself,justastherevolutionofphilosophyisaturning
carriedoutwithinphilosophyitself.Thisentailstwothings.First,criticismshouldnotbeexteriortopoetryitshouldbeaselfcriticismofpoetry.Second,thisself
criticismcannotdowithoutphilosophybecause,fortheRomantics,themovementofselfreflectionisnothingbutphilosophizingassuch:whichiswhytherelation
ofpoetryandphilosophyisatoncefusionandmixing.HenceF.Schlegel'stwofamousfragments:
Thewholehistoryofmodernpoetryisarunningcommentaryonthefollowingbrieftextofphilosophy:allartshouldbecomescienceandallscienceartpoetryandphilosophy
shouldbemadeone.16

Page75
Themorepoetrybecomesscience,themoreitalsobecomesart.Ifpoetryistobecomeart,iftheartististohaveathoroughunderstandingandknowledgeofhismeansandends.
..thepoetwillhavetophilosophizeabouthisart.Ifheistobenotmerelyadiscovererandanartisan,butalsoanexpertinhisfield...thenhewillhavetobecomeaphilologistas
well.17

Inthesetwotexts,asintheDialogueonPoetry,onewitnessesachasscroisofthenotionsof"art,""science,"''poetry,"and"philosophy,"inwhichtheCopernican
revolutionofpoetryisatstake:theelevationofpoetrytoscientificity,toselfknowledge,andtoartificiality,toselfformation,bywayofphilosophizingasreflection.
Novalisexpressesnothingelseinhis"Poeticisms:"
Thewayphilosophiesastheyexisteduntilnowrelatetologology,sotoodopoetriesastheyexistedrelatetothepoetrytocome.Uptonow,poetrieshavemostlyoperated
dynamically,thefuturetranscendentalpoetrycouldbecalledorganic.Whenitwillbeinvented,itwillbeseenthatallgenuinepoets,withoutknowingit,havecreated
organicallybutthatthislackofconsciousnessofwhattheydidhashadanessentialinfluenceontheirworkssothatlargelytheyhavebeentrulypoeticalonlyin
detailbutonthewholeordinarilyunpoetical.Logologywillnecessarilyintroducethisrevolution.18

Appearinghereisthathypervalorizationofconsciousness,orratherofselfknowledge,whichistypicaloftheJenaRomantics.OneofNovalis's"Logological
Fragments"attemptstoexpresstherelationofpoetryandphilosophy:
Poetryistheheroofphilosophy.Philosophyelevatespoetrytothelevelofaprinciple.Itteachesusthevalueofpoetry.Philosophyisthetheoryofpoetry.19

Butitisthatphilosophyhasbecomephilosophizing,andthisisonly"aselfdiscussionofasuperiorkindagenuineselfrevelation".20Thisbecomingconsciousof
poetryisonlythefirstmomenttheKantianmomentofthe"logological"revolution.Itmustbefollowedbyasecondmoment,whichcouldbecalleditspost
Kantianmoment:theunfoldingoftheinfinityofpoetry.Infact,thereflexiveoperationandtheinfinitizingoperationareoneandthesamefortheRomantics.
Thisisoneoftheconsequencesofthevertiginousexpansiontheyimposedontheconceptofreflection,transformedbythemintoafundamentalontologicalcategory:
AllthingsshouldberegardedasoneseestheIasone'sownactivity.21
Allthatcanbethoughtthinksitself.22

Page76

WalterBenjaminhasshowninanexcellentwayhowthiscategorystructurestheentireRomanticthinking,tothepointwhereF.Schlegelwasablewrite:
Theromanticspiritseemstometobefantasizingpleasantlyaboutitself.23

Butthisreflectionisbynomeansapsychologicalmovement,awayofbeingcenterednarcissisticallyontheselfatleastnotinthevulgarsense.Suchapreoccupation
withone'sownpersonal"self"seemseventotallyforeigntotheearlyRomantics.Reflection,here,isconceivedratherasapurespecularprocess,asaselfreflecting,
andnot,asF.Schlegeldepreciatinglyputit,"abroodingcontemplationofone'sownnose."24
Theformalstructureofreflection(themovementbywhichIpassfrom"thought"to"thoughtofthought,"thento"thoughtofthoughtofthought,"etc,)providesamodel
ofinfinitization,totheextentthatthispassageisconceivedasanelevation:Itisastructureofcorridors,stories,staircases,gradations,andtheelevationmaybe
consideredsimultaneouslyasanascension,apotentiation(Potenzierung),andanamplification(Erweiterung).Thusitsconcreteandpositiveplenitudeismanifested.
Itisconcretebecauseitcoversthetotalityofreality,whichappearsasconstitutedbyamultiplicityofreflectivemonadsstimulatingeachotherreciprocallytofurther
reflection,astheeffectofchainsorseriesofpotentiationsrunninginalldirections:
Forceisthematerialofmatter.Soulistheforceofforces.Spiritisthesoulofsouls.Godisthespiritofspirits.25

Itispositivebecausethereflectivestructureofrealityensuresthetruthofthephilosophizing:allphilosophizingthattakesontheapparentformofphilosophizingonan
objectis,infact,thephilosophizingoftheobjectonitself:
Doesoneseeeachbodyonlyinsofarasitseesitselfandasoneseesoneself?Inallpredicatesinwhichweseethefossil,itseesusinturn.26

Oneofthecorollariesofthistheoryisthatwedonotseeobjects,butdoublesofourselves:
Thoughtsarefilledonlywiththoughts....Theeyeseesnothingbuteyesthethinkingorgannothingbutthinkingorgans.27

Theuniverseprojectedinthiswayis,inthestrictestsenseoftheterm,aspecularuniverse,inwhichallexteriority,alldifference,andalloppositioncanonlybe
apparentandtransitory.
Thefactthatreflectionisraisedtothedignityofanontologicalprinciplefreesitfromallfacilesubjectivism,evenguaranteeingitsmost

Page77

completeobjectivity.TheobjectivationofthiscategoryisvisiblewhenNovalis,forinstance,interpretsdeathorsicknessaspotentiatingreflections.Itisalsovisiblein
thecaseoftwoliterarynotions,Witzandirony,whosestructure,fortheRomantics,isreflexive.WhenSchlegelstatesthat"therealWitzisconceivableonlyinwritten
form,"28onefeelshisconcernaboutinterpretingthisnotionasaformofthework,notasapsychologicaltraitofitsauthor.Onemightsay,paradoxically,that
subjectivityasreflectionisatotallyobjectiveandsystematicstructuresystematicbecauseitsessenceistounfolditselffollowingthedegreesofitspotentiations.As
Novaliswrites:
Thethoughtofself...isnothingbut[theoperationof]systematizingassuch.29

AndF.Schlegel:
Aren'tallsystemsindividualsjustasallindividualsaresystems,atleastinembryoandtendency?30

Thetermorganic,whichwehavepointedoutaboveinNovalis'"Poeticisms,"alsohasthemeaningofsystematic:Itreferstoorganization,ratherthantoorganism,as
withGoetheandHerder.Andthisiswhyreflectionbecomescapableofsustainingthetheoryofgeniusandthetheoryofthework.
Totheextentthatreflectionhasbecomeanontologicalcategory,romanticthinkingbecomestherunningthroughofreflexivechains.Bildungisthemovementthrough
whichmantakespossessionofhis"transcendentalI,"withoutanyKantianlimitations,andpractices"theexpansionofhisexistencetoinfinity."31Thisrunningthrough
isdefinedasapotentiation.Everypotentiationisan"elevationtothestateof______,"and,justaswell,a"loweringtothestateof______."Thisdoubledetermination
isinevitableifreflectionistobeactuallyinfinite.ThatistheessenceofwhatNovaliscallsromantization:
Theworldmustberomanticized.Inthiswaytheoriginarymeaningmaybefoundagain.Romanticizingisnothingbutaquantitativepotentiation.Inthisprocess,thelowerselfis
identifiedwithabetterself.Justaswearesuchaqualitativeseriesofpowers.Thisprocessisstillwhollyunknown.TotheextentthatIgiveahighmeaningtothecommon,a
mysteriousaspecttothehabitual,aninfiniteappearancetothefinite,thedignityoftheunknowntotheknown,Iamromanticizingit.Theoperationforthehigher,the
unknown,themystical,theinfinite,isthereverse....32

ThisdoublemovementisalsowhatNovaliscallselsewherethe"methodofreversal."33Romantization,inordertobecomplete,mustaffectallstrataandallseries.It
mustbeencyclopedic.Thisencycloped

Page78

ism,ofwhich,asweshallsee,theromanticprojectofanencyclopediaisoneillustration,consistsbynomeansofembracingeverythinginasystemora"ringof
sciences,"asDuBellaysaidinthesixteenthcentury34butofgoingthrougheverythinginanindefinitemovementwhichNovalisalsocalled(usingatermto
whichwehavealreadyalluded)versability.Thefragmentinwhichthisneologismappears,asavariantofversatilitywhichseemstouniteversion,inversion,
conversion,interversion,pouring[versement],etc.,dealswithselflimitation:
Fichte'ssynthesisgenuinelychemicalmix.Floating.Individualityandgeneralityofpeopleanddiseases.Onthenecessaryselflimitationinfiniteversabilityofthecultured
(gebildeten)understanding.Onecandrawoneselffromeverything,turnandoverturneverything,asonepleases.35

Infiniteversabilityisthepowertocarryouttheentirecourseofreflexivechains,thepowerofthatmobilitywhichNovaliscomparedtothe"voluptuous"movementofa
liquidinTheDisciplesatSas.Itisalsotheabilitytobeeverywhereandtobemany.Bythisright,eventhoughtheexpressionappearsonlyonceinallofthe
Fragments,itmaybeconsideredasthecategorywhich,alongwithreflection,bestrepresentstheromanticperceptionofthesubject,notablytheproductiveand
poeticsubject,thegenius.Assuch,itformulatesanentirenewviewofBildungand,asweshallsee,oftheworkitself.Morethanthecategoryofreflection,itbrings
usclosetothespeculativetheoryoftranslation,ifitistruethatthetheoryofinfiniteversabilityisalsoatheoryoftheinfiniteversion.
SturmundDranghaddevelopedthenotionofartisticgeniusasatempestuous,unconscious,andnaturalforce,engenderingworksasoneengenderschildreninthe
ecstacyofdesire.InthiscontextGoethe,butalsoShakespeareorCaldern,couldbelookedonasnaturalforcestowhichalltheoreticalreflectionremainedforeign.
BeyondJenaRomanticism,thistheorywillbetakenupagainbynineteenthcenturyEuropeanRomanticism.ButnothingismoreforeigntotheAthenumthantheidea
ofageniusartistproducingintheecstacyofavitalunconsciousimpulse,anecstacytowhichtheartisanknowledgenecessaryforthecompositionofthefinalfaceof
theworkwouldbemiraculouslyadded.Novalissaysverysuccinctly:
Theartistbelongstothework,nottheworktotheartist.36

Forthetimebeingitmustbeobviousthatthe"geniology"constitutesthemodelforthetheoryofthesubject.Andtothegeniusbelongs,assupremeexpressionof
subjectivity,thepowertobeabletodoanythingandthewilltowillanything:the"infiniteversatility."Whatpsychoanalysiscallsomnipotencewillonlyrarely,in
thehistoryof

Page79

thought,havebeenconsecratedwithsuchfervorasarealandpositivevalue.Eventhoughthereinterpretationofonethoughtonthebasisofanotherisalways
hazardous,itmaybesaidthatromanticreflectionisasupremelynarcissisticreflection,ifnarcissismconsistsprimarilyintheinabilitytodifferentiateanythingfrom
oneselfinafundamentalway.ThisrefusalorthisinabilitytodifferentiateoneselfisnotwithoutconsequencesfortheviewofBildungandofthetranslationsitimplies.
Thetheoryofgenius,asomnipotentandunrealisticasitmayappeartous,opensneverthelessaculturalhistorywhosefirsteffectsarefeltinthenineteenthcenturybut
whichhavestillnotfinishedaffectingus.AgreatpartofNietzsche'sreflection,inTheGayScience,forinstance,isdevotedtomeasuringthedisastrousconsequences
ofwhathecallsthe"historicalsense,"thatis,thecameleonticabilitytocreepintoanything,topenetrateallspacesandalltimeswithoutreallyinhabitingthem,toapeall
styles,allgenres,alllanguages,allvaluesanabilitywhich,initsmonstrousdevelopment,definesthemodernWesternworldaswellasitsculturalimperialismandits
appropriatingvoracity.Nietzscheremainsexemplaryforus,inasmuchashegatherswithinhimself,inanobviouslyimpossiblecoexistence,allculturaltrendsofour
history.Rimbaud'strajectorypresentssomethinganalogous.Actually,Romanticismrapidlywithdrawsinthefaceoftheconsequencesofitsconceptionofthesubject,
ofart,andofBildung,inthefaceofthisminglingeverythingwitheverythingwhichwilleffectively(butinanegativeformithadcertainlynotexpected)berealizedin
nineteenthcenturyEurope.ThatisthemeaningoftheturningtowardstraditionandCatholicismcarriedoutbyNovalisandF.Schlegelasofthebeginningofthenew
century.
Theinfiniteversabilityispresentedinmanyromantictextsasademandofplurality:
Onlifeandthoughtonagrandscale.CommunitypluralismisourinnermostessenceandperhapseverymanhasapartofhisowninwhatIthinkanddo,justasIhavea
partinthethoughtsofothers.37
Doctrineofpersons.Anauthenticallysyntheticpersonisapersonwhoismanypersonsatonceagenius.Eachpersonistheseedofaninfinitegenius.38

Thisinteriorpluralism,theessenceofgenius,istheanalogue,asitwere,ofexteriorpluralismindeed,itservestoeffaceanydifferencebetweeninteriorsocietyand
exterior(actual)society:justastheindividualisasociety,sotoosocietyisanindividual.Butthegeniusismorethanthemerepluralityofpersons:Itisasystemof
persons,anorganic/organizedtotality:

Page80
39

Sofarwehaveonlyhadaparticulargeniusbutspiritshouldbecometotalgenius.

Thetotalgeniusisthepoeticgenius,ifpoetryisthatwhich"formsthebeautifulsocietyortheinnertotality".40
Thisviewofanorganicandsystematicpluralismresultsinthenumeroustheoriesof"sociability"outlinedbytheRomantics,whetheritbethatoflove,friendship,the
family,orof"syncriticism,""symphilosophy,"and"sympoetry"neologismsformedfromtheGreeksunandmodeledapparentlyonthetermsyncretism.Thisterm,as
Novalisdoesinfragment147ofhisEncyclopedia,shouldbeconnectedwitheclecticism.Thepluralsubjectivityisasyncreticandeclecticpersonality,andonthe
basisofthisitcanengage,togetherwithitsalteregos,intheadventuresofsyncriticismandsympoetry.Itonlypursueswithotherswhatitdoeswithitself.Theideaof
syncretismcontainstheideaofmixingandunitingthedisparate,thediverse,theseparatetheideaofeclecticismcontainsthatoftouchingalittlebituponeverything.
Totouchalittlebituponeverythingthismayseemtrivialbutinrealitytheemphasisshouldbeplacedoneverything.Andnotonlycanthenameofeclecticism
beperfectlyappliedtothepersonalitiesofSchlegelandNovalis,italsocorrespondsperfectlytotheirtheoryofsubjectivity,Bildung,andthework:TheWitz,for
instance,iscompletelyeclecticandsyncretic,andthiseclecticismandthissyncretismarethemselvesinterpretedfromtheperspectiveofsociability:
Manywitty(witzigen)ideasareliketwofriendlythoughts,meetingsuddenlyafteralongseparation.41

Hencethelongseriesofromantictextscelebratingthearbitrary,thewillkrlichaGermanwordinwhichonemustreadcapriceaswellasfreechoice,andwhich
constituestheidealofculturedsubjectivity:
Atrulyfreeandculturedpersonoughttobeabletoattunehimselfatwilltobeingphilosophicalorphilological,criticalorpoetical,historicalorrhetorical,ancientormodernquite
arbitrarily,justasonetunesaninstrument,atanytimeandtoanydegree.42

F.Schlegel'sfragment121,publishedintheAthenumandquotedinourintroduction,syntheticallyresumesthisthemeofthearbitrary,ofthepluralityandthe
syncreticsystematicityoftheculturedindividual.Novalisdevelopsthesameidea:
Theaccomplishedmanmustlive,asitwere,inmanyplacesandmanypeopleatonce....Thenthetrue,grandiosepresentofthespiritisformed.43

Whatisparticularlystrikinginthistheoryistheemphasisonthe:

Page81
Appetitussensitivusetrationalis.Theappetitusrationalisisasyntheticvolition.Limitationinthesyntheticvolitionlimitationdelimitation.(Iwanteverythingatthe
sametime).Electivefreedomispoetichence,moralityisfundamentallypoetry.Idealofwantingeverything,ofmagicwill.44

Thisidealofomnipotence,omniscience,andubiquityservestheconstructionofatheoryofinfinitesubjectivity,whichfreesitselfbyaseries,itselfinfinite,ofelevations
(ironic,moral,poetic,intellectual,evencorporeal)ofitsinitialfinitude.Butthissubjectivitywouldnotbeabsoluteifitwasnotalsoafinitesubjectivity,thatistosay,a
subjectivitycapableofselflimitationandrootednessinthelimited.Atthisstage,romanticthinkingcarriesoutadoublemovement:onegoinginthedirectionof
infinitization,theotherinthedirectionoffinitude.TheaccomplishedBildungisthesynthesisofthetwomovements.Suchisthetheoryof"transitorylimits"bywhich
NovalisseemstoeffectareturntoKant:
Themorethehorizon(thesphere)ofconsciousnessbecomesimmeasurableandmanifold,themoreindividualgreatnessdisappears,andthemorethespiritual,rationalgreatness
ofmanincreasesvisiblythemoreitrevealsitself.Thegreaterandhigherthetotality,themoreremarkabletheparticular.Thecapacityforlimitationgrowswiththelackof
limits.45

AndF.Schlegel:
Thevalueandthedignityofselflimitation,whichisafterall...thefirstandthelast,themostnecessaryandthehighestduty.Mostnecessarybecausewhereveronedoesnot
restrictoneself,oneisrestrictedbytheworld....Thehighestbecauseonecanonlyrestrictoneselfatthosepointsandplaceswhereonepossessesinfinitestrength.46

InNovalis'"DialogueI,"thewholeofthisproblematicisfoundinamorepopularizedform:
A:Formeeachgoodbookisthevehicleofalifelongoccupationtheobjectofaninexhaustiblepleasure.Whydoyourestrictyourselftoonlyafewgoodmenofwitand
intelligence?Isn'titforthesamereason?Aren'tweafterallsolimitedthatwearecapableofwhollyenjoyingonlyafewthings?Andisn'titbetterintheendtothoroughly
possessasinglebeautifulobjectthantoglancepasthundredstosipeverywhere,andthustodullone'ssensesprematurelywithmanyoftenantagonisticpartialpleasureswithout
havingtherebygainedanythingforgood?
B:Youspeaklikeareligiousbrother.Unfortunately,youbeholdapantheistinmeforwhomtheimmeasurableworldisjustlargeenough.Irestrictmyselftoafewmenofwitand
intelligence

Page82
becauseImustwherewouldIfindmore?Soalsowithbooks.Themakingofbooksisstillbyfarnotvastenoughforme.IfIhadthegoodfortunetobeafather,Icouldnothave
enoughchildren:notmerelytenortwelveatleastahundred.
A:Andwomen,too,yougreedyone?
B:No,onlyasingleone,inallseriousness.
A:Whatabizarreinconsistency.
B:Notmorebizarrenormoreinconsequentthantohaveonlyonespiritinme,andnotahundred.Butjustasmyspiritmusttransformitselfintohundredsandmillionsofspirits,
somywifeintoallthewomenthereare.Everymanisendlesslyvariable.Justaswiththechildren,sowiththebooks.Iwouldliketohaveawholecollectionofbooksbeforeme,
comprisingalltheartsandsciences,astheworkofmyspirit.Andsowitheverything.WilhelmMeister'sApprenticeshipisallwehavenow.Weshouldpossessasmanyyearsof
apprenticeship,writteninthesamespirit,aspossiblealltheyearsofapprenticeshipofallthepeoplewhohaveeverlived.47

ThemoststrikingillustrationoftheprincipleofinfiniteversabilityatthelevelofprojectsforromanticworksisconstitutedbyNovalis'sconceptofanencyclopediaand
F.Schlegel'sprojectforaprogressiveuniversalpoetry.Wecannotdealwiththestudyofthesetwoconceptsindepthhere,butatleastwewanttodemonstrate
howthe"versability"manifestedinitisequivalenttotheprincipleoftranslatabilityofeverythingintoeverything.Insomewayitisthespeculativeversionofthe
bersetzungstalentmentionedbyA.W.Schlegelwithregardtohisbrother.The"progressiveuniversalpoetry"wantsto"mix"andto"fuse"thetotalityofpoetic
genres,forms,andexpressions.TheEncyclopedia,foritspart,wantsto''poeticize"allthesciences.Thetwoprojectsaremutuallycomplementary:Universal
progressivepoetryisencyclopedic,theEncyclopediaisuniversalandprogressive.
Thedestinyofprogressiveuniversalpoetry
isnotmerelytoreunitealltheseparategenresofpoetryandputpoetryintouchwithphilosophyandrhetoric.Ittries,asitshould,nowtomix,nowtofuse,poetryandprose,
geniusandcriticism,thepoetryofartandthepoetryofnatureandmakepoetrylivelyandsociable,andlifeandsocietypoetical....Itembraceseverythingthatispoetic,fromthe
greatestsystemsofart,containingwithinthemselvesstillfurthersystems,tothesigh,thekissthatthepoetizingchildbreathesforthinartlesssong.48

Itisobviousherethatversabilityistheoperationalprincipleofsuchafigureofpoetry:Formsandgenresspilloverintooneanother,

Page83

areconvertedintooneanother,collapseintotheincessantandchaoticmovementofmetamorphosiswhichisactuallytheprocessoftheabsolutizationofpoetryand,
forF.Schlegel,thetruthofRomanticism.Thatthisversabilityshouldbeencyclopedic,forexample,orientedontheWhole,isequallyobvious.InF.Schlegel,forthat
matter,thesameambitiondefinestheWitz,irony,andfragmentarywriting,whoseapparentunsystematicityiscompensatedbyitsencyclopedism.Universal
progressivepoetryisatonce"poetryofpoetry,""transcendentalpoetry,"totheextentthatit''canalsomorethananyotherformhoveratthemidpointbetweenthe
presentedandthepresenter,"and,"onthewingsofpoeticreflection,raisethatreflectionagainandagaintoahigherpower."49Themixingofforms,genres,and
contentsispresentedhereastheconsciousradicalizationofalltheliterarymixingsthathaveexistedhistorically,andwhosemodel,asweknow,isthesyncretismof
lateLatinliterature.Thismixingpresupposesthenonheterogeneityofformsandgenres(aswellastheinterchangeabilityofcontents),theirtranslatabilityintoone
anotheror,toformulateitevenmoreprecisely,thepossibilitytoplayinfinitelywiththeirdifferenceandtheiridentity.
TheconceptoftheEncyclopediawillengageourattentionlonger,becauseitillustratesthisprincipleperhapsmorenaivelyandmoreclearly.Itiswellknownthat
NovalisconceivedofanencyclopediadifferentfromtheideaofD'AlembertandDiderot,whoseaimwouldbetogivea"romanticpoeticviewofthesciences,"
accordingtotheprinciplethat"theaccomplishedformofthesciencesmustbepoetic:"50
Encyclopedistic.Universalpoeticsandcompletesystemofpoetry.Ascienceisaccomplished:1.whenitisappliedtoeverything2.wheneverythingisappliedtoit3.when,
consideredasabsolutetotality,asuniverseitsubordinatesitself,asabsoluteindividual,toalltheothersciencesandarts,asrelativeindividuals.51

ThisprojectoftotalizingpoetizationofthesciencesisundoubtedlybornfromNovalis'sdreamofprovidingacertainnumberof"versions"ofFichte'sphilosophy,
somewhatasifthiscouldbeplayedtodifferenttunes,ordeclinedforthedifferentcases.ThepossibilitytomodulatetheWissenschaftslehre,astheemptyframeof
anypossiblescience,engenderstheideaofthetotalizationofthesemodulationstheEncyclopedia:
AnextremelyinstructiveseriesofspecificpresentationsoftheFichteanandKantiansystemcouldbeconceived,e.g.,apoeticpresentation,achemicalone,amathematicalone,a
musicalone,etc.52

Thepoetizationofthesciencesstartsfromtheprinciplethatallscientificcategoriesarerelatedandthustransferable:

Page84
53

Allideasarerelated.Thefamilylikenessiscalledanalogy.
Thecategoriesareoneandindivisible.54

Whichmeansthatifeachscienceisconstitutedbyasetxofcategories,thesemaybereplaced,represented,byasetyofothercategories,andsoforth:
PsychologyandEncyclopedistic.Somethingbecomesclearonlythroughrepresentation.Oneunderstandsamattermosteasilywhenseeingitrepresented.ThustheIis
understoodonlyinsofarasitisrepresentedbythenonI.ThenonIissymboloftheI,andservesonlyfortheselfunderstandingoftheI....Asfarasmathematicsisconcerned,
thisremarkcanbeappliedbysayingthatmathematics,inordertobeintelligible,mustberepresented.Asciencecanonlybetrulyrepresentedbyanotherscience.55

Thusoneobtainsapoeticsofmathematics,agrammarofmathematics,aphysicsofmathematics,aphilosophy,ahistoryofmathematics,amathematicsofphilosophy,
amathematicsofnature,amathematicsofpoetry,amathematicsofhistory,amathematicsofmathematics.56Thesameschemamaybeappliedtoallthesciences,
followingtheschemaofreversibilityNovalissometimescallstheUmkehrungsmethode,57themethodofreversal:poetryofmathematicsandmathematicsofpoetry,
etc.aschemaredoubledbyanother,reflexiveone:poetryofpoetry,mathematicsofmathematics.Theselfreflectionofascienceistheothersideofits
reflectioninanotherscience,ofitssymbolizationbyanotherscience:
Everysymbolcaninturnbesymbolizedbywhatitsymbolizescountersymbol.Butthereisalsoasymbolofsymbolsintersymbols....Everythingcanbesymbolofthe
othersymbolicfunction.58

Onecouldspeakhereofgeneralizedtranslatabilityaswellasofconvertibilityinthemonetarysense:59mathematicsischangedintopoetrylikefrancintodollar.But,to
remainwiththismetaphor,thisconvertibilityishierarchical:Justastherearestrongerandweakercurrencies,sotoodoesthemovementofconversionofcategories
obeyalawofpotentiation.Itgoesfromlowtohigh,fromempiricaltoabstract,fromphilosophicaltopoetic,etc.,toculminateinanoperationtowhichweshallreturn,
calledbyNovalisthe"elevationtothestateofmystery."
Eventhoughthescientificvalidityofsuchanundertakingmaybemorethandoubtful,andthoughittendstodislocatethecategorialfieldsofthesciences,tocreatean
untamedalchemyofsorts,ortoapplytotheobjectivesciencesamodeofthinkingthatwouldbemoreappropriatetothepoeticdomain,60wewanttosignalabove
allhowthe

Page85

Encyclopediaclearlyshowsthestructuralplaceoccupiedbygeneralizedtranslationinromanticthinking,eventhoughtheconceptoftranslationappearsonly
veryrarelyinit.61Onecouldspeakofanoperativeconceptwhichisnotthematizedassuch,butwhichorganizestheunfoldingofthisthinking.Inthissense,Brentano
captureditstruthverywellwhenhewritesinGodwi:"Theromanticisitselfatranslation."62
Weusethetermgeneralizedtranslationonpurpose:allthatconcernsthe"version"ofonethingintermsofanother.Thisnotionisbasedoneverydaylanguage:"I
havetranslatedmythoughtsasfollows...""Ihavegivenmyversionofthefacts''"Idon'tmanagetotranslatewhatIfeel"etc.Here,translationconcernsaswellthe
manifestationofsomething,astheinterpretationofsomething,thepossibilitytoformulate,orreformulate,somethinginanotherway.RomanJakobson
wouldcallthisintratranslation.Toputitinevenmoregeneralterms,translationconcernseverythingbelongingtothedomainofmetamorphosis,transformation,
imitation,recreation,copy,echo,etc.Theseareactualphenomena,anditwouldbetemptingtosearchtheircommonontologicalroot.Romanticthinkingobviously
succumbedtothistemptation,tryingtoprovideaspeculativebasisfortheuniversalexperienceofthetransformabilityandtheaffinityofthings.Theproblemofthe
theoryofgeneralizedtranslatabilityisalwaysthis:Ittendstoeffacealldifferences.Inotherrespects,itistruethatgeneralizedtranslatabilitycorrespondstosomething
real.Andthatanytheoryofdifferenceencountersthereverseproblem:Whatabouttheontologicalsiteofthetransformable,theconvertible?
Restrictedtranslation(betweenlanguages)couldprovide,asitwere,theparadigmofthisproblem:Differentlanguagesaretranslatable,buttheyarealsodifferent,
hencetoacertainextentuntranslatable.Butotherquestionsarise.Forexample:howdoesthetranslationbetweenlanguagesrelatetowhatJakobsoncallsthe
intralingualtranslation?Thatistosay,reformulation,rewording?Howdoestranslationrelatetothehugedomainofinterpretationsasomewhatequivocaltermitself?
Inshort,atissueisthequestionofthelimitsofthefieldoftranslationandofthetranslatable.
Perhapsthepointwouldbetoarticulateamultiplicityoftheoriesoftranslations(thetheoryoftranslationamongthem),refusingatheoryoftheuniversaltranslation.
Thereisagreattemptationtoopposetoitatheoryofdifference,whetheritbepsychological,linguistic,orepistemological.Suchatheoryishighlydesirable,anditis
ineffectbeingdevelopedtodayfromdifferentfieldsofexperience.Butobviously,itmustquestionitselfabouttheexistence,ifnotofgeneralizedtranslation,atleastof
itsappearance,andevenmoreaboutthefascination

Page86

thetheoriesofgeneralizedtranslationhaveexertedregularlythroughouthistory.
Intheirway,theJenaRomanticshavelivedthisproblematicintensely.Muchmorethanthat:Itconstitutedthespaceoftheirthinkingandtheirpoetry.Inthefirst
place,theydeveloped,withtheEncyclopedia,theWitz,andtheuniversalprogressivepoetry,atheoryofgeneralizedtranslatabilitywhichisthespeculativeand
fantasizingtranspositionoftheconcreteexperienceofthetransformable.Inthesecondplace,theyproposedatheoryofpoetrywhichmakespoetryintotranslation
and,conversely,makestranslationintoadoubleofpoetry.Itisinthislightthattheyinterpretedtherelationofpoetrytoitsmedium,language:Allpoetrywouldbethe
"translation"ofnaturallanguageintolanguageofartapositionannouncingthatofMallarm,Valry,Proust,orRilke.Inthethirdplace,theycertainlysurmisedthat
restrictedtranslationperhapsconstitutedtheparadigmofgeneralizedtranslation,butobscuredthisintuitionbyphilosophicallyprivileginggeneralizedtranslation.From
thenon,translationwasnomorethanoneofthe(interchangeable)namesoftheinfiniteversabilityundoubtedlyatoolimitedname.Inthefourthplace,they
interpretedtranslationastheinferiordoubleofcriticismandunderstanding,becausethelatterseemedtothemtobringouttheessenceofliteraryworksmorepurely.
Inthefifthplace,theypassionatelylivedtheexperienceofrestrictedtranslationwithA.W.Schlegel,andconceivedtheideaofaprogramoftotaltranslationthus
espousingafascinationperhapsinherenttotranslatingassuch:Ifeverythingistranslatable,ifeverythingistranslation,onecanandmusttranslatealltheworksofallthe
languagestheessenceoftranslationisomnitranslation.
Allthesepointsareinterconnected,eventhoughitisimportanttodistinguishbetweenthem.ThegeneralizedtranslationoftheEncyclopediaisnotthetranscendental
translationofpoetry,butisitsconditionofontologicalpossibility.Thetheoryofcriticismisnotthetheoryoftranslationbutcriticismisaprocessoftranslation,and
translationisaprocessofcriticism,totheextentthatbothrefertothesame"spiritualmimic,"rootedintheprincipleoftheconvertibilityofeverythingintoeverything.
TheEncyclopediaisonlyafabricofintratranslations,butA.W.Schlegel'sprogramofrestrictedtranslationhasencyclopedicambitionsthroughwhichitbecomes
apparenttowhatextenttheprincipleofinfiniteversabilityisincessantlyatworkinthearticulationofthedifferentprojectsoftheromanticRevolution.Whatremains
nowistogothroughthedifferentmomentsofthisimmensecircularreflection.

Page87

6
LanguageofArtandLanguageofNature
Thepoetisapeculiarspeciesoftranslatorwhotranslatesordinarydiscourse,modifiedbyanemotion,intothe"languageofgods."
PaulValry

InhisLaGenseduRomantismeallemand,RogerAyraultobservesthatanexplicittheoryoflanguageishardlytobefoundinNovalisandF.Schlegel.Tobesure,
thebrothersSchlegel,philologistsbytraining,couldnothavenotthoughtaboutlanguagebut,infact,itisonlyaftertheAthenumperiodthattheycontributed,with
Grimm,Bopp,Humboldt,andsomeothers,totheformationofcomparativegrammarandthescienceoflanguage.AsforNovalis,itistruethathedevotesonlylittle
spacetoquestionsoflanguageinhisFragments.Whatdoesthismean?Inthefirstplace,itmeansthatonewouldlookinvainforaphilosophylikeHamann'sor
Herder'sintheearlyRomantics.Rather,suchaphilosophyemergeswiththeSchlegelswellaftertheyabandonedtheircritical,speculative,andpoetologicalreflection.
1 Itisasifthereexistsacertainincompatibilitybetweenthesereflectionsandanobjectivestudyoflanguage.
Still,toagreewithAyraultthatneitherNovalisnorF.Schlegeldevelopedatheoryoflanguageisinaccurate,ifonlybecausetheirtheoryoftheworkisatheoryof
poetry,which"relatesdirectlytolanguage."2 On

Page88

theotherhand,theRomanticsdidassertthatlanguageisthemostuniversalofallthehumanmedia,thoughthisdoesnotmeantheystudieditinitsownright.Ifthe
workisaboveallaworkoflanguage,languageonlycountsaslanguageofthework.Whichmeansthattheromantictheoryoflanguageisentirelydependentonthe
theoryoftheworkandofpoetry.Itisneverautonomous,nevercrystallizedinanindependentSprachlehre[DoctrineofLanguage].Assuch,itisarticulatedalong
twoaxeswhich,eachinitsownway,makelanguagedisappearasarealitysuigeneris:(1)Everythingislanguage,"communication,"andhencehumanlanguageisa
systemofsignsnotfundamentallydifferentfromotherexistingsystemsofsigns,exceptthatitisinferiortothem(2)The"true"language,suchasitappearsinthework,
mustbeconceivedonthebasisofmathematicalandmusical"languages,"forexample,onthebasisofpureformswhich,byvirtueoftheirtotallackofcontent,are
"allegorical,"forexample,''mimes"ofthestructureoftheworldandthespirit.Theseforms,freedfromthe"tyranny"ofcontent,arealsofreefromtheyokeof
imitation.
ActuallanguageappearsinthisdoubleperspectiveasaNatursprache,alanguageofnature,whichmustbetransformedintoalanguageofart,aKunstsprache:
Thecommonlanguageisthelanguageofnaturethelanguageofbooksisthelanguageofart.3
Natural,mimic,imagedlanguage.Artificial,arbitrary,voluntarylanguage.4

Thelanguageofnatureisinherentlypurelyreferential,centeredonacontent.Andtheprimacyofcontent,fortheRomantics,ispreciselytheoppositeofart.
Novalis:
Thecrudertheart,themorestrikingthecompulsionofthecontent.5
Itiscrudeandwithoutspirittocommunicateonlybecauseofthecontentcontent,matter,shouldnevertyrannizeus.6

AndF.Schlegel:
Aslongastheartistintheprocessofdiscovery...heisinastatewhich...isattheveryleastintolerable.7

Thiscrudelanguagemustbetransformedintothemediumforpoetrybyachainofpotentiations.Here,writingassuchplaysanessentialrole:
Elevationofthecommonlanguagetothelanguageofbooks.The

Page89
8

commonlanguagegrowsincessantlyfromitthelanguageofbooksisformed.
Thepoetryofnatureistheproperobjectofthepoetryofart.9

Thespiritisthepotentiatingprinciplehence,theworldofwritingispotentiatednature,ortechnicalworld.10

Poetryimplieslanguageonlyasitssupport,itsinevitableandimperfectbeginning.Thetaskofthepoetisrathertoproduce,onthebasisofthelanguageofnature,a
pureapriorilanguageataskinwhichmathematics,music,andevenphilosophy,haveprecededhim.Inawholeseriesoftexts,NovalisandF.Schlegelhave
attemptedtothinkthetotalityoftheartsnotablypaintingasaprioricreations.ThefoundationofthisoppositionofthetwolanguagesisobviouslythatofNature
andofSpirit,whichNovalis,usingadaringneologism,callsFaktur:
Factureisopposedtonature.Thespiritistheartist.Factureandnaturemingledseparatedunited....Natureengenders,spiritmakes.Itismuchmoreconvenienttobemade
thantomakeoneself.11

Thisnature/facturedivisionisthefundamentalaffirmationofthelogologicalrevolution,andneitherF.Schlegel'snorNovalis'sdeclarationsaimedataspeculative
relativizingofthisoppositionchangeanythingaboutthis:ThatwhichisopposedtotheKnstlichkeitoftheartist,toeverythinginhimthatisreflection,calculation,
consciousness,sobriety,lucidity,agility,anddetachment,istheunconscious,obscureNatrlichkeit,inebriatedwithitself,whichischaracteristicoftheSturmund
Dranggeniusor,moreprofoundly,ofthepopularsimplicitythat"flourishes"innonreflectedproduction,innaive"naturations"(anotherofNovalis'sneologisms),
whicharetogenuinepoeticartwhatthesongofbirdsorthemurmuringofthewindinthetreesistothefugueorthesonata:mimetism,''intolerable"passionforwhatis
expressedorrepresented.
Theromanticcriticismofcontentisfirstofallacriticismoftheartist'srelationtocontentbutitisdifficultforthiscriticismnottobetransformedintoacriticismofthe
verynotionofcontent,becausetheproceduresusedtoopenthisrelation(reflection,irony,etc.)tendtodissolvecontentortomakeitintoameresupportofthese
procedures.Toaffirm,asF.Schlegeldoes,thatGoethe'sironyinWilhelmMeistertransformsthecharactersofthisnovelinto"marionettes,"or"allegoricalfigures,"12
istodenyanyrealistdimensionofthiswork,ortoconsiderthatdimensioninessential.Butcontentisreferential,itdragstheworkoutofitsownelement,thatofself
reference.Asforimitation,itsreferentistheoutsideworld,thegiven,thephenomenal.Thetaskofpoetry,then,isfirstandforemostthedestructionofthenatural
referen

Page90

tialstructureoflanguage(justastheromanticconsciousnessisareflexiveconsciousness,neverintentionalconsciousnessortranscendence).Nevertheless,thenon
referential,thenoncontent,thenonimitativedonotmeanthatpoetrybecomesan"emptyform,"apureformalizationnotanymorethandomusic,pilosophy,or
mathematics.Becauseselfreference,assuch,is"symbolic"or"allegorical"(contrarytotheattemptsoftheage,theAthenumtendstousebothtermswithout
distinction).FriedrichSchlegelcanstateafewpagesapartthat"allbeautyisallegory''andthat"language...rethoughtinitsorigin,isidenticalwithallegory."13A
principlewhichcorrespondstothenonreferentialstructureofreality:Theselfreflectionoflanguagereflects,inakindofnonreferentialreference,theselfreflectionof
thereal:
Allthesacredgamesofartareonlydistantimitationsoftheinifiniteplayoftheworld,thisworkofartwhicheternallygivesitselfitsownlaw.14

Inaddition,allegory,asaprincipleofart,alsoreferstothefactthatpoeticlanguage,whichisneverentirelyliberatedfromitsnaturalness,canneverexpressdirectly
the"Almighty"[leTrsHaut]:bydenaturalizinglanguagethroughawholeseriesofprocedures,allegoricalwritingseekstocircumventthisinfirmityofnaturallanguage
whichNovalisandhisfriendnevertireofproclaiming.
Novalis:
Anumberofthingsaretoodelicatetobethoughtmanymorestilltobespokenabout.15
Forthepoetlanguageisnevertoopoor,butalwaystoogeneral.16

AndF.Schlegel:
Languageaswellbehavesbadlytowardsmorality.Itisneversocrudeandbeggarlyaswhenitcomestodesignatemoralconcepts.17

ThecriticalRevolution,then,establishesanewrelationwithlanguagewhichcanbesaidtogovernmodernWesternpoetrytoagreatextentarelationinwhich
naturallanguageisdefectivewithregardtotheessenceandtheprojectofpoetry.Fromourperspective,thisnotionofnaturallanguageshouldperhapsbespecified.
Tosaythatlanguageisnaturalisnottodenyitshuman,historicalorigin.Itistosaythat,forman,languageconstitutesanabsolutegiven,whichconstituteshimasman,
andwhichhasitsowndensity.Thisdoesnotmeanthatwestandinapassiverelationtolanguage,thatweareimmersedinitanddominatedbyitsstructures:We
createinlanguage,withlanguage,wecreatesomelanguage,withoutevercreatinglanguageassuch.Evenmorethanbywriting,thisisshownbyoralcultures,where
linguisticcreationis

Page91

incessant.Theoralrelationtolanguagecanbecalled"natural":Itissatisfiedwithcultivatingthepotentialitiesoflanguagewithouteverseekingtorevolutionizeit.The
writtenrelation,ontheotherhand,containstheseedofsucharevolution.Novalishadthisintuitionwhenhewroteinhisnotebooks:
Booksareamoderngenreofhistoricalcreaturesbutahighlysignificantone.Perhapstheyhavetakentheplaceoftraditions.18

Literaturestandsinafoundationalrelationtohistory.Anditispreciselybecause,fromthispointon,therelationofmentohistoryandtothemselvesismediatedbythe
writtenthatthelatter'soriginarysoil,"oral"naturallanguage,nolongerseemstobethevehicleofhistoricity.Itisinsufficientforthephilosophical,cultural,scientific,and
evenpoeticalaimshumanityhassetforitself.Theoral,originarynaturalnessoflanguageineffectimpliesitsnonuniversality,itsnonrationality,itsreferencetoand
complicitywiththehicetnunc,itsinfinitedispersioninlanguages,dialects,jargons,sociolects,idiolects,etc.Lefttoitselfanditspureandnatural,historical,andsocial
essence,languageisincessantlyparticularized,differentiated,taggedtotheinfinitedispersionofspacesandtimes.Tobesure,onecouldseeinthisanaspectofits
essentialwealth.Butintheperspectiveofmodernity,itisviewedratherasthatwhichcongenitallyopposesitsownunfolding.Inits"naturalstate,"languageisnotonly
infinitelydifferentiated,butalsonotfixed:Itisalwayschanging,modifying,renewingitself.Writing,asiswellknown,introducesabrutalfixationintothismovingflux,or
rather,modifiestheconditionsofthetransformationoflanguage,asRosenzweigforcefullystatedinthetextwequotedabove:Henceforth,theconditionsof
transformationcomeinpartfromtheoutside.GermanRomanticism,whateveraversionforFrenchclassicismitmayhave,isinscribedinthesamedimension,and
drawsfromitthesameradicalconsequencesforpoetry,byposinganabyssal(ontological,nolongeraestheticalsocial)differencebetweenthelanguageofnature,the
"common"language,andthelanguageofpoetry.Anditsownpoeticalcriticallanguageismadeintheimageofthisdifference:Itisartificialthroughandthrough.19This
artificialityismanifestedinthefirstplacebyacertainunreadability.TheobscurityofaHeraclites,aGngora,sometimesofaShakespeare,orthe"trobarclus"(the
obscurespeechofthetroubadours)dependsonanotherregister.Itiseitheradecipherablecodeoracontentpurposelypresentedinanobscureway,oramoreor
lessdeliberateslippagebetweenthelanguageandwhatitaimstosay.Unreadability,ontheotherhand,seemstobeprofoundlyrelatedtothenonreferential.When
Novalisstatesthatthe''mystery"isthe"stateofdignity,"weareactuallyatthebeginningofaprocessthatwillculminateinMallarmor

Page92

Rilke.Andthisinfinitedistancingfromnaturallanguageisaccompaniedbyaquestforatotal,encyclopedicworkwhichwouldbeallworksandwhichwouldreflect
itself,aworkthat,insomeway,couldunfoldinanyexistinglanguage,becauseitis(apparently)"beyond"language.Brentanointuitedthisinapassageofhisnovel
Godwi,towhichweshallcomebacklater,whenhesaysaboutDanteandShakespeare:
Thesetwopoetsdominatetheirlanguageaswellastheir....Theyarelikegiantsintheirlanguage,andtheirlanguagecannotsubjectthem,forlanguageingeneralisbarely
sufficientfortheirspirit.20

Forthemoment,letuslookatthetwoaxesthatstructureF.Schlegel'sandNovalis'sreflectionsonlanguagemoreclosely.
Everythingislanguage.Thisstatementisfoundalmosteverywhereintheromantictexts.Everythingis"sign,""symptom,"''trope,""representation,""hieroglyph,"
"symbol,"etc.,callingnowforaninterpretation,nowforablindimmersion.Nevertheless,thispuresignifyingofthingsandoftheworlddoesnotcommunicateanything
inparticularitisrathercrudemeaning:
Grammar.Notonlymanspeakstheuniversealsospeakseverythingspeaksinfinitelanguages./Doctrineofsignatures.21
Grammar.LanguageisDelphi.22
Imagenotallegory,notsymbolofsomethingforeign:symbolofitself.23

Suchistheparadoxofacommunicationwithoutsomethingthatiscommunicated,ofauniversalandemptylanguage,proposingtheimminenceofafuturerevelationor
thevestigesofapastrevelationtothehumanear:
Allthatweexperienceisacommunication.Thustheworldisindeedacommunicationarevelationofthespirit.ThetimeisnolongerwhenGod'sspiritwasintelligible.The
meaningoftheworldhasbeenlost.Wehavebeenleftwiththeletter....24

Onemightspeakhereofauniversalpoeticityofthings,ifpoetrymaysometimesseemtobethemeaningofthislanguageoftheperpetuallysilentworldthatis
perpetuallyintheprocessofspeaking.Thisuniversewhereeverythingislanguage,andwherelanguageisalwayslanguageof...(languageofflowers,ofmusic,of
colors,etc.),referstothetheoryofsignaturesaswellastothetheoryofBaudelaire'scorrespondences,ofwhichTieckandthebrothersSchlegel,forthatmatter,have
givensomesortoffirstversion.Butitmaybesaidjustas

Page93

wellthatifeverythingislanguage,thereisnolanguageinthespecificsense,andthathumanlanguageisperpetuallydeficientinrelationtothislanguageofthewhole.
Thesystemoflinguisticsigns,properlyspeaking,seemspovertystrickeninrelationtothisincessantcommunicationoftheworld.Henceforth,thetaskofpoetryisto
bringhumanlanguageanduniversallanguageclosertogether.Butthisdoesbynomeanscomedowntoanaturalizingofpoetryanditsforms:Onthecontrary,tothe
extentthatthelanguageofthingsispuremysteryandpureemptysignificance,itstaskwillbetocreateaKunstsprachewiththesamecharacteristics.Novalis
expressedthisinafamousfragment:
Novels,withoutconsistence,thoughwithassociations,likedreams.Poemsmerelyharmoniousandfullofbeautifulwords,butalsowithoutanymeaningorconsistenceatthe
mostisolatedstanzasintelligible....Atmosttruepoetrycanhaveanoverallallegoricalmeaning,andanindirecteffect,likemusic,etc.25

Thereisacorollarytothefactthateverythingislanguageor"allegory":"Linguisticsigns,"writesNovalis,"arenotspecificallydifferentiated(unterschieden)fromthe
otherphenomena.''26Signheremeansbothamarkmakingpossiblethedesignationofthings,andahieroglyphanalogoustothoseprovidedtousbytheworldandby
nature.FortheRomantics,humanlanguageistheseatofacontradiction:Ontheonehand,ascreationofthespirit,itistooabstract,toogeneral,toodistantfromthat
whichitdesignates.Inthissense,Novaliscansaythatitis,forphilosophyaswellasforart,an"inauthenticmediumofrepresentation."27Butontheotherhand,as
hieroglyph,languagehasanactiveandalmostmagicalpower:
Thedesignationbysoundsandtraitsisanabstractionworthyofadmiration.ThreelettersdesignateGodtomeafewtraitsdesignateamillionofthings....Thedoctrineof
languageisthedynamicoftherealmofthespirit.28

WhenNovaliswrites,summarily,that"thespiritcanonlymanifestitselfinaforeignandaerialform,"29whatcouldbemeantbutlanguage,thoughapoeticallypurified
andpotentiatedlanguage?Thuswereadinhis"LogologicalFragments":
Thepoetdissolvesallbonds.Hiswordsarenotgeneralsignstheyaresoundsmagicwordsthatmakebeautifulgroupsmovearoundthem.Justliketheclothesofsaintsretain
miraculouspowers,sotoohavemanywordsbeensanctifiedbysomegloriousthought,andbecomebythemselvesalmostapoem.Forthepoet,languageisnevertoopoor,
alwaystoogeneral.Heoftenneedsrecurringwords,wornoutbyuse....30

Page94

Thereisademandherethatcouldbeformulatedasfollows:tomakeaninstrumentofpoeticexpressionfromthemostordinary,trivial,everydaylanguage.Ratherthan
penetratethesignifyingdensityofnaturallanguage,poetrymustmakethislanguagemoreandmore"aerial."Andthisoperationiscarriedoutinthecontextofa
theoryofmathematicalandmusical"languages"thatareconsideredtobeaprioriandallegoricallanguages.
Itshouldbespecifiedthat,forNovalis,musichasaccesstoitstruthonlythroughthemostpurifiedforms:
Danceandsongmusicarenotreallytruemusic.Onlysubspeciesofit.Sonatassymphoniesfuguesvariations:thoseareauthenticmusic.31

Obviously,thisbrutalrupturebetweenpopularandabstractmusic,effectedbytheapostleoftheMrchen[fairytale],shedslightontheoppositionbetweenpoetryof
natureandpoetryofart.Aboveall,itmakesitpossibleformusictobecomethemodelofpoetry,withoutsurrenderingpoetrytoapureandformlesssentimentality.
Musiccanonlybecomethebackgroundforpoetryanditstransformationintononreferentiallanguagebecauseitsessenceismathematical.IfNovalisseparates
popularmusicsodecisivelyfromabstractmusic,itisbecausethelatteris"mathematicized."
Mathematics,alongwithphilosophy,playsaveryimportantroleinromanticthinking,accordingtothefollowingprincipleexpressedbyNovalis:"Everythingreal
createdfromnothing,likenumbersandabstractexpressions,hasamarvelousaffinitywiththingsfromanotherworld...withapoetic,mathematical,andabstract
world,asitwere."32Theromantictheoryofmathematicsissituatedattheintersectionofapurelyformalisttheoryandaspeculativedoctrineofthemysticismof
numbersandfigures(asitcanalsobefoundinFranzvonBaader).Butinfact,thesetwotheoriesarereallyone.Themysticalcharacterofmathematicslies,ineffect,in
itsformalandaprioribeing.ThestatementfromtheMonologue,thatmathematicalrelationsandoperationsareafictionaswellasareproductionoftherelationsof
things,couldjustaswellbemadebythemodernpositivesciences.Thatthisontologicalandgnoseologicalvalidityisaccompaniedbymoreoccultsignificationsisa
secondarypointfortheRomantics.
ForNovalis,mathematicsconstitutesamodel,evenanobjectoffascination,33inasmuchasitisaproductofthetotallyapriori,abstract,andselfcenteredspirit,and
totheextentthattheproductiveworkofthespiritisvisibleinit.Itisthemodelofanintransitivetranscendental"art,"whosegamesofsignsneverthelessrefer,as
throughaninfinitedistance,tothe"gamesoftheworld."Thisnonmimeticandnon

Page95

empiricalmimesishastoguidetheCopernicanrevolutionoflanguageandmusic,inordertodeliverthesefromthe"slightestsuspicionofimitation."34
Geometryisthetranscendentalartofsigns.35
Thesystemofnumbersisthemodelforagenuinesystemoflinguisticsignsourlettersshouldbecomenumbers,ourlanguagearithmetic.36
Genuinemathematicsisthetrueelementofthemagician.Inmusic,itappearsformallyasrevelationascreativeidealism.37
Music.Mathematics.Doesmusicnothavesomethingofcombinatoryanalysis,andviceversa?...Languageisamusicalinstrumentofideas.Thepoet,therhetorician,andthe
philosopherplayandcomposegrammatically.Afugueisentirelylogicalorscientific....38
Musicalrelationsseemtometobe...thefundamentalrelationsofnature.39

TextswritteninpraiseofmusicarelegioninNovalis(aswellasinF.Schlegel).Butthiscultofmusichasnothingtodowiththemythofmusicthathadalreadystarted
toflourish,inthesameperiod,withWackenroderithasnothingtodo(oronlyindirectlyso)withthecultof"magictones"thatwillbesofashionablewiththeother
romanticgenerations.Theissuehereisabstractmusic:acompositionalsystemoftonesconstituting,accordingtoKant'sformula,a"purposivenesswithoutpurpose"
or,accordingtothenolesspoignantformulaofNovalis,amonologue.Asystemofperfectallegoricity,sincethesoundsareatoncefullofmeaningandemptyofany
assignableanddefinitemeaning.Ifthemathematicalsignisempty,ifthelinguisticsignisfull(toofull:itsaysthis,orthat),themusicalsign,foritspart,isbothfulland
empty.Hencethepoeticimportanceofmusic,initstripleaspectofmathematicalarchitecture,compositionalstructure,andinfinitesignificationoftonalchains:
Novalis:
Ourlanguageitwasverymusicalinthebeginning....Itshouldonceagainbecomesong.40
Compositionofdiscourse.Musicaltreatmentofwriting.41
Onemustwriteasonecomposes.42

F.Schlegel:
Manypeoplefinditstrangeandridiculouswhenmusiciansspeakofthethoughtsintheirmusicanditoftenhappensthatoneperceives

Page96
theyhavemorethoughtsintheirmusicthantheydoaboutit.Butwhoeverhasasenseforthewonderfulaffinitiesofalltheartsandscienceswillatleastnotconsiderthematter
fromthedullviewpointofsocallednaturalnessaccordingtowhichmusicwouldbeonlythelanguageofthesenses,andhewillconsideracertaintendencyofpureinstrumental
musictowardphilosophyasnotimpossibleinitself.Doesn'tpureinstrumentalmusichavetocreateitsowntext?Andisnotthethemeinitdeveloped,reaffirmed,varied,and
contrastedinthesamewayastheobjectofmeditationinaphilosophicalsuccessionofideas?43

Suchisthetaskofsymbolicabstractpoetry:tomakethewordssingphilosophicallyinamusicalandmathematicalcomposition,wherethesongofthewordsisthat
whichabolishestheirlimitedmeaningandgivesthemaninfinitemeaning.SuchisNovalis's"poetryoftheinifinite,"F.Schlegel's"progressiveuniversalpoetry,"whenit
istakennotontheleveloftheirtextualforms,butontheleveloftheirverbalfabric.Novalis'sfragmentonnarrativesdeprivedof"consistence,"quotedabove,comes
closesttodefiningtheessenceofthismusicalizedpoeticlanguageinanabstractsense.TheJenaRomanticswillundoubtedlyhavebeenthefirsttoformulatethese
demandsthatwillresurfacemorethanacenturylaterinMallarm,theSymbolists,andValry(inFrance).However,thefollowingshouldbeadded:Intherelation,
henceforthanxious,thatpoetrywillhavewithitsmodel(itsrival),monologicalmusic,ithasanessentialadvantage:Itmaybecomelanguageoflanguage,poetryof
poetry,whereasonecanonlyspeakinaderivativesenseofamusicofmusic(oramathematicsofmathematics)assoonasitisridofallreferenceoutsideofitself,of
allimitativeorthematictranscendence,poetrybecomesthesupremeart,asichselbstbildendesWesen,a''beingthatformsitself."44Thatis,onemightsay,its
supramusical,supramathematicalessence,itsabilitytobenotonlyapriori,buttranscendentalintheFichteansense,anditisthisthatguaranteesitsprofoundidentity
withphilosophy.45
Yet,itisstrangetofindthattheRomanticshaveinnowayreflectedonthefacultyoflanguagetobecomelanguageoflanguage,andthatNovalis'sMonologue,the
mostaccomplishedoftheRomanticSprachlehre,issatisfiedinthisrespectwiththehomologybetweenlanguageandmathematics.Forthereflexivefacultyof
languageisapropertyofnaturallanguageassuch,indissolublylinkedtoitsreferentialfaculty.Inthesamewaythatselfconsciousnessisfirstandforemostintentional
consciousness,languageisselfreferenceonlytotheextentthatitisreference,thespace,even,ofallthepossiblereferenceswheretheconsciousnesssubjectis
constituted.Becausetheyplacethemselvesexclusivelyonthelevelofreflexiveconsciousness,theRomanticsdo

Page97

notsucceedindefiningtheleveloflanguageproper.Hence,languagecanonlyappearastheimperfectmediumofapoetrydestinedtobethesiteofsupreme
reflection.TheonlytheoryoflanguagetheAthenumisabletoprovideisatheoryofapotentiated,romanticized,"pure"language"pure,"notinthesensethatit
wouldrestorethehiddenessenceofthe"wordsofthetribe"(Mallarm),butinthesensethatithasbeenmethodicallyanddeliberatelyemptiedofallitsnatural
contentsandconnections.Tobesure,andthisisanambiguitythatcanbefoundagainandagaininthehistoryofmodernWesternpoetry,thepoeticlanguagecreated
inthiswaypretendstobenothingmorethantheaffirmationofthemagicalorsensory"powers"ofnaturallanguage.Butthatisprobablyanillusion,andNovalissenses
itwhenhesaysaboutpoetry:
Witheveryfinishingtouchtheworkspringsforwardfromthemasterintodistantspacesthus,withtheverylasttouch,themasterseeshissocalledworkseparatefromhimself
byanabyssofthought,whoseexpansehehimselfcanbarelygrasp.46

MallarmandRilkeformulatedthislawofpoeticdistancingwithsimilarprecision.Theformerwrites:
Wordsriseupunaidedandinecstasymanyafacetrevealsitsinfiniterarityandisprecioustoourmind.Forourmindisthecenterofthishesitancyandoscillationitseesthe
wordsnotintheirusualorder,butinprojection(likethewallsofacave),solongasthatmobilitywhichistheirprincipleliveson,thatpartofspeechwhichisnotspoken.Then
quickly,beforetheydieaway,theyallexchangetheirbrilliancesfromafarortheymaytouch,andstealafurtiveglance.47

Thelatter:
KeinWortimGedicht(ichmeinehierjedes"und"oder"der","die","das")istidentischmitdemgleichlautendenGebrauchsundKonversationswortdiereinereGesetzmigkeit,
dasgroeVerhtnis,dieKonstellation,dieesimVersoderinknstlerischerProsaeinnimmt,verndertesbisindenKernseinerNatur,machtesnutzlos,unbrauchbarfrden
blonUmgang,unberhrbarundbleibend....48

Thetheoryofpoeticlanguage,astronomicremovedfromthenaturallanguage,culminatesinRilkeinatheoryofhermeticism,inthesensethatthepoemclosesupon
itselfinNovalisandF.Schlegel,itresultssimilarlyinatheoryofthe"stateofmystery"(Geheimniszustand).Atthebasisofthis,firstofall,istheidea,popularatthe
endoftheeighteenthcentury,ofasuperiorlanguage,aSanskritforinitiates.Butthetheoryofthestateofmysterygoesfurther:Itdescribesthesupremepoetic
operationbywhichlanguagebecomesbothfamiliarandforeign,nearanddistant,clearandobscure,intelligibleandunin

Page98

telligible,communicableandincommunicable.LetusquotesomeofNovalis'sfragmentswhichalludetothisoperationfromvarioussides:
Hewhoknowshowtomakeasciencemustalsoknowhowtomakeanonsciencehewhoknowshowtomakesomethingintelligible,mustalsobeabletomakeitunintelligible.
49

Theartofmakinganobjectforeign,andyetknownandattractive,thisistheromanticpoetics.50
Toraisetothelevelofmystery.Theunknownisthestimulusforthefacultyofknowledge.Theknowndoesnotstimulate....Mystification.51
Mysteryisthestateofdignity.52
Thespiritstrivestoabsorbthestimulus.Theforeignattractsit.Metamorphosisofwhatisforeignintowhatisone'sownthusappropriationistheincessantactivityofthespirit.
Somedaytherewillnolongerbeanystimulusoranythingforeignthespiritshouldbeforitselfstimulusandforeign....Todaythespiritisspiritbyinstinctanaturalspiritit
shouldbecomearationalspirit,spiritbyreflection(Besonnenheit)andbyart.(Natureshouldbecomeart,andartasecondnature).53

SuchisalsotheromantictheoryoftheDistant(anechoofwhichmightperhapsbefoundinWalterBenjamin,whenhesaysinhisessayonBaudelairethatbeauty"is
theuniqueappearanceofsomethingdistant":)
Theunknown,themysterious,aretheresultandthebeginningofeverything....Distantphilosophysoundslikemusicbecauseeverycallintothedistancebecomesvowel....
Thuseverythingatadistancebecomespoetrypoem.Actioindistans.Distantmountains,distantpeople,distantevents,etc.,everythingbecomesromantic,quodidemest
henceouroriginarilypoeticnature.Poetryofnightandtwilight.54

Theplaceoftheworkisthedistant,theunknownknown,thefamiliarforeign.InHeinrichofOfterdingen,Novaliswrites:"Onehearsforeignwordsandyet
understandswhattheyareintendedtomean."55Thuswefindagain,butnowonthepurelypoeticandspeculativelevel,therelationofwhatisone'sownandwhatis
foreignasitconstitutesGermanBildung.Inthisrespect,Novalis'unfinishednovelmaybeconsideredastheconsciousreversal(Umkehrung)oftherelationofwhat
isone'sownandwhatisforeign,ofthenearandthedistantasitstructuresGoethe'sBildungsroman,WilhelmMeister.Suchistheculminationoftheromantictheory
ofthework:Raisedtothestateof

Page99

mysteryisthelanguagewherefamiliarwordshavebecomeforeign,whereeverythingisplungedintoanunintelligibledistantandyetfullofmeaning.
Butdoesn'tthisliteraryoperation,whichistheessenceofromantization,56resembletheverymovementoftranslation?Orrather:Doesn'ttranslationcontinue,or
radicalize,thismovementatworkintheRomanticwork?Doesn'titteartheforeignworkawayfromthefinitudeofitsnativelanguage,ofitsempiricalsoil?Doesn'tit
distanceit"astronomically,"byinscribingitinanotherlanguage,fromitsempiricalsoil?Inanytranslation,aseveryonewillagree,theworkisuprooted,asitwere.
Now,thismovementofuprootinginherentinalltranslation,whateveritsnature,isconsideredtobealoss,evenatreason,bypopularopinion.Thetranslatedtext
wouldfallshortoftheoriginalbecauseitisallegedlyunabletorestorethenetworkofconnivancesandreferencesthatconstitutesthelifeofthelatter.Ofcourse.Butin
theRomanticperspective,thisnetworkiswhatconsecratesthefinitudeofthework,whosevocationisitsownabsoluteness.Ifironyisoneofthemeansthe
Romanticsimaginedcouldelevatetheworkbeyonditsfinitude,thentranslationmustbeconsideredasthehyperironicprocedurethatcompletestheworkofthe
ironyimmanentinthework.57
Infact,thissetofmovementsbywhich,intranslation,theforeignbecomesfamiliar,thefamiliarforeign,etc.,isidenticaltothatbywhichthe(Romantic)worktriesto
denynaturallanguageandtoriditselfofanyempiricalconnection.Inthissense,thetranslationofaliteraryworkis,asitwere,thetranslationofatranslation.And
thedoublemovementwhichcharacterizestheromantictext,whichmakestheneardistantandthedistantnear,isineffecttheaimoftranslation:Inthetranslatedtext
theforeigniscertainlymadenearbut,also,thenear(thetranslator'smothertongue)is,asitwere,distancedandmadeforeign.58
Now,this"metamorphosis,"this"reversal,"iswhatNovaliscallstheelevationtothestateofmystery.Translation,then,appearsasthesummit,oroneoftheempirical
summits,oftheabsolutizationofthework.Everythingtheworklosesinconcreteterms,itgainsintranscendentalreality,forexample,onthelevelofthatwhich
constitutesitas"work."
Novalis'sdaringassertionthat"inthefinalanalysis,allpoetryistranslation"anassertionthatcouldhavebeenutteredjustaswellbyaJoBousquetnowbecomes
intelligible:Iftruepoetryistheelevationofnaturallanguagetothestateofmystery,andiftranslationconstitutes,asitwere,adoublingofthismovement,thenonemay
wellstatethatDichtungisoriginarilybersetzen.Or:Tothetranscendentaltranslationcarriedoutbypoetry(romantization)correspondsempiricaltranslation,for
example,thepassageofaworkfromonelanguagetoanother.Thefirst"translation"worksonlanguageaslanguage,thesecondonthe

Page100

specificlanguageinwhichlanguageingeneralhasbeenworkeduponbythefirst.Henceforth,itcanbeunderstoodwhytheactoftranslatingcouldexertsucha
fascinationontheRomantics,thoughitisbynomeansafascinationwiththerelationamongexistingspecificlanguages,butwiththatwhich,inanytranslation,
concernstheputtingtodeathofnaturallanguageandtheflightoftheworktowardsastellarlanguagewhichwouldbeitspure,absolutelanguage.WalterBenjamin's
theoryoftranslation,whichwouldbeinconceivablewithouthisprolongedengagementwiththeRomantics,onlyexpressestheirintuitionsmorepurely.
ItisclearwhyatheoryofKunstsprache(justlikethetheoryoftheinfiniteversabilityofuniversalprogressivepoetryandtheEncyclopedia)isasecretinvitationtoa
theoryoftranslation:Inthislight,anyworkistranslation,whetheritbeanindefiniteconflationintooneanotherofalltextualandcategorialforms,orthe
infinitizationofthe"wordsofthetribe."Whatiscustomarilyconsideredasthenegativityoftranslationishenceforth,fortheAthenum,ratheritspoeticpositivity.
Tobesure,suchaspeculativepositiongoesfarbeyondGoetheandHerder,whoremainfirmlyattachedtoan"empirical"literaryandculturalperspective,anddonot
believethatpoetryistotearitselfloosefromitsreverentialsoil.59
Thisisthepositionwhichpresidesoverthebirthofwhatthemodernepochcallsliterature,asMichelFoucaultforcefullyshowedinTheOrderofThings:
Butthewordisofrecentdate,asisalso,inourculture,theisolationofaparticularlanguagewhosepeculiarmodeofbeingis"literary."Thisisbecauseatthebeginningofthe
nineteenthcentury,atatimewhenlanguagewasburyingitselfwithinitsowndensityasanobjectandallowingitselftobetraversed,throughandthrough,byknowledge,itwas
alsoreconstitutingitselfelsewhere,inanindependentform,difficultofaccess,foldedbackupontheenigmaofitsownoriginandexistingwhollyinreferencetothepureactof
writing.Literatureisthecontestationofphilology(ofwhichitisneverthelessthetwinfigure):itleadslanguagebackfromgrammartothenakedpowerofspeech,andthereit
encounterstheuntamed,imperiousbeingofwords.FromtheRomanticrevoltagainstadiscoursefrozeninitsritualpomp,totheMallarmandiscoveryofthewordinitsimpotent
power,itbecomesclearwhatthefunctionofliteraturewas,inthenineteenthcentury,inrelationtothemodernmodeofbeingoflanguage.Againstthebackgroundofthis
essentialinteraction,therestismerelyeffect:literaturehasbecomeprogressivelymoredifferentiatedfromthediscourseofideas,andenclosesitselfwithinaradicalintransitivity
itbecomesdetachedfromallthevaluesthatwereabletokeepitingeneralcirculationduringtheclassicalage(taste,pleasure,naturalness,truth),

Page101
andcreateswithinitsownspaceeverythingthatwillensurealudicdenialofthem...itbreakswiththewholedefinitionofgenres...andbecomesmerelyamanifestationofa
languagewhichhasnootherlawthanthatofaffirminginoppositiontoallotherformsofdiscourseitsownprecipitousexistenceandsothereisnothingforittodobutto
curvebackinaperpetualreturnuponitself,asifitsdiscoursecouldhavenoothercontentthantheexpressionofitsownformitaddressesitselftoitselfasawritingsubjectivity,
orseekstoreapprehendtheessenceofallliteratureinthemovementthatbroughtitintobeing.60

Readingthistext,itisclearthattheRomantictheoryoftheworkanditslanguageconstitutes,throughawholeseriesofliterary,cultural,andhistoricalmediations,the
verysoilof"modern"literature,oratleastofthedominanttrendinwhatwecallthefieldofliterature.Thistrendisofanintransitiveorderor,touseanotionnewly
developedbyBakhtin,monological.Wemayaskourselves,beforeanalyzingtheRomantictextsthatrepresentwhatmaybecalledthemonologictheoryof
translationasthebeyondofthework,if,fromnowon,suchaconception,sucha"trend,"isnotwhatshouldbecalledintoquestion.Shouldn'twelookforthat
which,inmodernWesternliteraturebutalsobeforeandbesidesit(inliteraturesperipheraltoit),doesnotcorrespondtothismonologicvocation?Torediscoverthis
morefertile,moredeeplyrooteddimensionwhichisstifledbyRomanticandmodernmonologism,adimensionwhichconcernsboththe"lyrical"domain(whichthe
Athenum,asLacoueLabartheandJ.L.Nancyhaveshown,doesnotmanagetointegrate)andthe"novel,"suchasitassertsitselfinthelineageunearthedby
Bakhtin?Tobesure,Romanticismclaimssuchalineage:Cervantes,Ariosto,Boccaccio,theeighteenthcenturyEnglishnovel,butitonlyretainsitsformalagility,not
itsextraordinarytextualdensity.InTheDialogicImagination,Bakhtinbrutallydistinguishedthe''monologism"ofpoetryandthe"dialogism"ofthenovel.Assuch,
thisoppositionisnotacceptable:Ifanynovelisessentiallydialogic,notallpoetryisessentiallymonologic.Butitistruethatmonologismisatemptationofpoetrythat
ofthe"stellarlanguage,"the"languageofthegods"andthatthemodernepochseemstohavefeltthistemptationmorethanothersstartingwithGerman
Romanticism,iteventheorizedit.BeyondallthereformulationsthatmustnecessarilybebroughttoBakhtin'sthesis,itcontainsneverthelesstheindicationofa
dimensionthedialogicdimensionthatmaymodifyourexperienceofliteratureand,correlatively,oftranslation.Istranslationonlythepotentiatingextensionofthe
poeticmonologue,ordoesitconstitute,onthecontrary,theadventofadialogicdimensionsuigeneristothework?Suchwouldbethequestionposed,inthis
study,bytheconfrontationofthetheoryof

Page102

translationoftheRomanticsontheonehand,andtheoppositetheoriesofGoetheandHlderlinontheother.Aquestionaccompaniedbyanother:Whatof
translation'sownplaceinthemonologictheory?Asweshallsee,thistheorydoesnotmanageatalltodistinguishtranslationfromwhatitisnotcriticismor
poetry.Inonecase,translationisthebusinessofthepoets,itisNachdichtung.Inanother,itisthebusinessofphilologers,critics,hermeneuticists.IfA.W.Schlegel
canstillbeatonceapoet,translator,critic,andphilologer,inthenineteenthcenturythedivisionisquicklyestablished.Ontheonehandtherearescholarlytranslations,
ontheotherliterarytranslations,madebywriters(Nerval,Baudelaire,Mallarm,George).Whatisatstakeinthisdivisionisthattranslationassuch,asact,hasno
clearlydelimitedplaceofitsown(asworkoflanguageandwithlanguage),thatitisnowtheasideofpoetry,nowtheasideofphilology.Andweshallseethatthe
divisioninwhichtranslationasaspecificactdisappearsiscarriedoutbyRomanticism,evenasitelevatedthisacttospeculativeheightsprobablyneverbefore
attained.

Page103

7
TheSpeculativeTheoryofTranslation
WhilereadingthetextsbyF.SchlegelandNovalis,particularlytheirfragments,oneisstruckbyonething:Though,aswehaveseen,thereisacertaintheoryof
translationimmanenttotheirtheoryofliterature,thepassagesdevotedtotheactoftranslatingarefew,especiallywhencomparedtothosedealingwithliterary
criticism.Tobesure,neitherNovalisnorF.Schlegelaretranslators.Butisitnotstrangetonotethattheirfragmentsdevotedtothetheoryofthebookandofwriting
lackallreferencetotranslation,whereasthecriticalactivityisincessantlymentioned?Letusconsider,forinstance,thefollowingnotebyNovalis:
Encyclopedistic.Mybookmustcontainthecriticalmetaphysicsofreviewing,ofwriting,ofexperimentingandobserving,ofreading,ofspeaking,etc.1

ThisobservationextendstoNovalis'sunpublishednotesintheirentirety.Oneonlyfindsthefollowingremark,jotteddownhastilyalongwithsomeothers:
Everymanhashisownlanguage.Languageistheexpressionofthespirit.Individuallanguages.Geniusoflanguage.Abilitytotranslateintoandfromotherlanguages.Wealth
andeuphonyofeachlanguage.Theauthenticexpressionmakestheclearidea....Transparent,guidingexpression.2

Page104

Inanotherfragment,Novalisspeaksofthemutual"translation"ofqualityandquantitywhichrefersdirectlytothegeneralizedconvertibilityofcategoriesinhis
Encyclopedia.Butitdoesnotcontainanycloseexaminations.3
ThesamecouldbesaidofthemajorityofF.Schlegel'stextsontranslation.Theyareshortannotations,sometimestrivial,sometimesmoreprofound,dealingaboveall
withtheproblemsencounteredintranslatingancientauthors,broughttotheforebyVoss.4 Hereaswell,thesetextscouldnotbecompared,neitherqualitativelynor
quantitatively,tothosedevotedtothenotionofcriticism.Ineffect,itseemsasifthelatternotioncoveredthatoftranslation,ineverysenseoftheterm,notablythatof
onefigurecoveringanotherexactly.ForNovalisandF.Schlegelareveryfarfromunderestimatingtheactoftranslatinginitsliterary,cultural,andhistoricaldimension.
Wehaveseenabovethatthepresentationoftheromanticculturalfielddoesnotfailtoincludeit.ThecontinuationoftheDialogueonPoetryevenmentions"[Voss's]
meritastranslatorandaslanguageartist,whichbrokenewgroundwithanunspeakablevigorandendurance."5 Further,F.Schlegelspeaksabout"Germanartists,"
and''thegeniusfortranslationthatisproperlytheirs."6 Obviously,onedivinestheimposingpresenceofA.W.Schlegelbehindtheseobservations.ButitisinNovalis
thatwewillfindtwotextsthatexpressmostdaringlytheromanticviewoftranslation,andtheconfusion,characteristicforhim,betweentheactoftranslatingandthe
actof"criticizing."ThefirstisafragmentfromBlthenstaub,publishedintheAthenumin1798.Thesecondisaletterof30November1797,addressedtoA.W.
Schlegel.
Someyearslater,ClemensBrentanodevotesashortchapterofhisnovelGodwitoromanticartandtotranslation,whichendswiththestrikingassertion:"The
romanticitselfisatranslation."Anassertionthathasbeenpointedoutofteninliterarycriticism,butneverreallyelucidated.
Atpresentweshallproceedtoacommentaryofthesethreetexts,primarilytheonebyNovalis,whichrepresents,asitwere,thesummaryoftheAthenum'sviewon
translation.Brentano,forhispart,doesnotbelongtothisgroup,buthistextislikeadistantresonanceofthisview,alreadyconfusedanddeformed,thoughofthe
utmostsignificance.Oncethesetextshavebeenclarified,itwillbeourresponsibilitytoshowwhy,inRomanticthinking,theconceptofcriticismhadtocover,
displace,andtoacertainextentobscuretheconceptoftranslation,andwhy,consequently,noautonomousplacefortheactoftranslatingcanbefoundinthis
thinking.Itwillbeourresponsibilityaswelltoshowthatthiscoveringreferstoanactualproblemthatemergesassoonastheculturalandlinguisticdimensionofthe
workisgivenlessattentionthanitsabsolutizedpoetic"nature."

Page105

Letusstart,chronologically,withtheoldesttext,thelettertoA.W.SchlegelofNovember1797.Atthistime,thelatterhadjuststartedtoworkonhismonumental
translationofShakespeare.
ThereviewerofyourShakespearemeanswell.Buthisreviewistrulynotpoetic.AndtothinkwhatcouldhavebeensaidaboutyourShakespeare,particularlyinrelationtothe
whole.Itisamongtranslationswhat"WhilhelmMeister"isamongnovels.Isthereyetanythingsimilartoit?ThoughweGermanshavebeentranslatingforalongtime,and
howevernationalthisinclinationtowardtranslationmaybetotheextentthattherehasbeenalmostnoGermanwriterofnotewhodidnotalsotranslate,trulybeingas
imaginativehereasforanoriginalworkyetnowheredoesoneseemtobeasuninformedasabouttranslation.Withusitcanbecomeascienceandanart.YourShakespeareisan
excellentcanonforthescientificobserver.ApartfromtheRomans,wearetheonlynationtohavefelttheimpulse(Trieb)oftranslationsoirresistiblyandtoowetoitsoinfinitely
inculture(Bildung).Hencethemanysimilaritiesbetweenourculture(Kultur)andthelateRomanliteraryculture.Thisimpulseisanindicationoftheveryelevatedandoriginal
characteroftheGermanpeople.Germanityisacosmopolitanismmixedwiththemostvigorousindividualism.Onlyforushavetranslationsbecomeexpansions.Itrequirespoetic
moralityandthesacrificeofone'spersonalproclivitiestoundertakeatruetranslation.Onetranslatesoutofaloveforthebeautifulandfortheliteratureofone'shomecountry.
Translationisasmuchpoetry(dichten)asthecreationofone'sownworksandmoredifficult,morerare.Inthefinalanalysis,allpoetryistranslation.Iamconvincedthatthe
GermanShakespearetodayisbetterthantheEnglish....7

Weshouldcommentonalmosteverysentenceinthisessentialtext.WeshallonlyleaveoutthealreadyclarifiedpassageswhereNovalissignalsthehistoricalaspectof
translationinGermany,apassagewhich,asweknow,expressesnomorethanacommonconvictionofallGermanwriters.
Firstofall,wehavetonotethatNovaliswritesthislettertoA.W.Schlegelconcerningareviewofthelatter'stranslation.Thisapparentlyfavorablereviewisallegedly
not"poetry."Inthebackgroundofthisremarkistheromanticdemandthatanycritiqueshouldalsobepoetry,asF.SchlegelexpresseditintheAthenum.Thoughin
anindirectway,criticismispresentinthistextastherequirementthatareviewofapoetictranslationshouldbetheexpositionoftheessenceandthetruthofthis
translation.Whatessence?Whattruth?Thatremainstobeseen.ToNovalis,A.W.Schlegel'sShakespeareappearsasamodel,aworkoccupyingamong
translationstherankofWilhelmMeisteramongnovels.TheMeisterissignificantfortheRomanticsinthatitappearstothemtobethefirstmodernreflexivework,
thefirstworktopresentitselfas

Page106

work,tendingtowardsasymbolicalallegoricaldimensionbymeansoftheironizationofitscontent.BothF.SchlegelandNovalisdevotedenthusiastic"reviews"toit,
atleastatthetimeofthisletter.TosaythatA.W.Schlegel'stranslationistotranslationswhattheMeisteristonovelsistosaythat,init,translationbecomesvisible
astranslation,presentsitselfassuch,whichraisesittothelevelofan"art"anda"science''inthesenseexplainedinourpreviouschapters.ItisalsotosaythatA.W.
Schlegel'sShakespeare,inacertainway,relatestoitsformanditscontentinamanneratleasthomologoustothemannerinwhichtheMeisterrelatestothem
reflexivity,ironization,symbolization,infiniteelevationtothelevelofKunstsprache.Letusconfrontthispassagewithasentencefromtheendoftheletter:"Iam
convincedthattheGermanShakespearetodayisbetterthantheEnglish."Wheredoessuchanevaluationcomefrom?Fromacomparisonwiththeoriginal?Notinthe
least,evenifonesupposeswhichismorethandoubtfulthatNovalisreadShakespeareinEnglish,areadingforwhichhelackedsufficientlinguisticandcultural
knowledge.Isitajudgmentofthe"nationalist"type?Certainlynot,sincetheGermannessmentionedintheletter,asforHerder,Goethe,andSchleiermacher,isabove
allconceivedbythecapacityoftranslating.What,then,makesitpossibletosaythattheGermanShakespeareisbetterthantheEnglish?A.W.Schlegelwas
particularlyproudofhavingtranslatedthisShakespearefaithfully,forexample,ofhavingrenderedthepassagesinproseasproseandthepassagesinpoetryaspoetry.
8 Thus,inhisownview,histranslationwasequivalenttotheoriginal,thoughanequivalentwhich,likeanytranslation,wasonlyanapproximation.Novalis'sjudgment,
then,seemspeculiar.Butitisnotwithoutmotivation.TheGermanShakespeareis"better"preciselybecauseitisatranslation.Tobesure,previoustranslationsof
ShakespearearenotasgoodastheEnglishShakespeare.Butthatisbecausetheyareprosetranslations,freeandoftenmadedull,whichdonotconfrontthepoeticity
oftheShakespeareantextthewayA.W.Schlegelhadundertakentodo.Insomesense,theyarenottranslationsthatareconsciousofthemselves,justasthenovels
beforetheMeisterhadnotfullyattainedthenovelisticessence.AssoonastheGermantranslationofShakespeareattemptsto"mime"theoriginalauthentically,itcan
onlygobeyondit.Letustrytoexplainthisparadox.Onthe"mimic"operationatworkinbothtranslationandcriticism,Novaliswritesinafragment:
Themimevoluntarilyvivifiesinhimselftheprincipleofadeterminedindividuality.
Thereissymptomaticandgeneticimitation.Onlythelatterisalive.Itpresupposesthemostintimateunionoftheimaginationandtheunderstanding.

Page107
Thecapacitytotrulyawakenaforeignindividualityinoneselfnotmerelytodeceivebyasuperficialimitationisstillentirelyunknownandrestsonamostwonderful
penetrationandspiritualmimic.Theartistbecomeseverythingheseesandwantstobe.9

Thismimiccapacitypenetratestheforeignindividualityandreproducesit:Henceitis"genetic."Inanotherfragment,Novalisasserts:
Naturally,weonlyunderstandtheforeignbymakingourselvesforeigntransformingoneself.10

Aswehaveseen,F.Schlegel,forhispart,definedtranslationasa"philologicalmime"andexplainedthedialecticsoftranslationintermsofcreationandunderstanding:
Inordertotranslateperfectlytheancientintothemodern,thetranslatorwouldhavetohavesuchmasteryofthelatterastobeabletomakeeverythingmodernbutatthesame
timehewouldhavetounderstandantiquitysowellthathewouldbeablenotjusttoimitateitbut,ifnecessary,recreateit.11

Butwhywouldthisgeneticandphilologicalmime,farfrommerelyprovidingamodestapproximationoftheoriginal,provideabetterversionofit?Becauseit
constitutestheoriginal,throughitsverymovement,intoapotentiation.Itsscopeisnotmerelytheoriginalinitscrudebeing(inthiscase,Shakespeare'splaysintheir
sixteenthcenturyEnglish).Theoriginalitself,inwhattheRomanticscallits"tendency,"possessesanaprioriscope:theIdeaoftheWorkwhichtheworkwantstobe,
tendstowards(independentlyfromtheauthor'sintentionsornot),butempiricallyneveris.Inthisrespect,theoriginalisonlythecopythetranslation,ifyouwantof
thisapriorifigurewhichpresidesoveritsbeingandgivesititsnecessity.12Now,translationaimspreciselyatthisIdea,thisoriginoftheoriginal.Throughthisaim,it
necessarilyproducesa"better"textthanthefirst,ifonlybecausethemovementconstitutedbythepassagefromonelanguagetoanotherthebersetzunghas
necessarilydistanced,removedtheworkbyforcefromtheinitialempiricallayerthatseparateditfromitsownIdea:Inotherwords,thetranslatedworkiscloserto
theinternalscope,andfurtherfromitsfinitegravity.Thetranslation,thesecondversionofthework,bringsitclosertoitstruth.Andsuchistheessenceofthe"mimic"
movement,theessenceweapproachedwhencomparingtheinternalmovementoftheromanticworktothemovementoftranslation.Criticism,asweshallsee,hasthe
samestatus,andF.SchlegeldidnothesitatetocallhisreviewofWilhelmMeisteranbermeister,an''OverMeister"(justlikeNietzschesaysbermensch,"Over
man").13Everybersetzungisamovementinwhichtheberisapotentiatinggoingbeyond:ThusonemaysaythatA.W.Schlegel'sShakespeareisan

Page108

bershakespeare.Theoriginalisinferiortoitstranslationinthesameway"Nature"isinferiorto"Facture."Thefurtheroneisdistancedfromthenatural,thecloser
onegetstotheabsolutepoeticcore.ThinkofF.Schlegel'sfragmentonthe"copiesofimitations,"the"examinationofreviews,"etc.Thus,wewouldhavechainsof
worksinwhichthelatterpotentiatetheformer:

TheexaminationofNovalis'ssecondtextwillconfirmsuchaninterpretation.ButwearealreadyinapositiontobetterunderstandNovalis'sassertions:thatinthefinal
analysisallpoetrywouldbetranslation.Thisisapointwealreadytouchedupon.Ifpoetryisessentiallyagoingbeyond,apotentiationof"naturallanguage,"the
constitutionofa"stellar"language,itisinitselfalreadytranslation,14sincetranslationisnothingelsethanthismovement.Asrestrictedtranslationpassagefromone
languageintoanotheritiscertainlyonlyoneoftheempiricalformsofthismovement.ButthisempiricalformcanundoubtedlybeconceivedandNovalis,atleast
here,hasthisintuitionasthecanonicalformofthegeneralizedtranslationthatoperatesinthepoeticand,moreover,alsoscientificwork(theEncyclopedia).And
theimmanenttranslationthatpoetryiscanonlybeconceivedasaselftranslation:Theworktranslatesitself,setztsichber,goesbeyonditselftowardtheetherofits
owninfinity.Translation,bymakingtheoriginalpassnotonlyfromlanguagexintolanguagey,butfromitsmothertongue(i.e.,itsempiricalbelonging)intoaforeign
languageingeneral(whichthusconstitutesthe"distant"language,theallegoricalfigureofthepurelanguage),15submitsittotheGrandTourmentionedbyF.
Schlegel.TheAthenumfragmentno.297mustberereadfromthisperspective:
Aworkofartiscultivatedwhenitis...completelyfaithfultoitself,entirelyhomogeneous,andnonethelessexaltedaboveitself.LiketheeducationofayoungEnglishman,the
mostimportantthingaboutitistheGrandTour.Itshouldhavetraveledthroughallthethreeorfourcontinentsofhumanity,notinordertoroundofftheedgesofindividuality,
buttobroadenitsownvisionandgiveitsspiritmorefreedomandinnerversatilityandtherebygreaterindependenceandselfsufficiency.16

WhichamountstosayingthattranslationisliterallyBildung,butapoeticandspeculativeBildung,nolongermerelyliteraryandhumanisticasitwasforGoethe.Or:
TranslationisanErweiterung,butnowinanidealistsense.

Page109

Inthisletter,Novalisseemscloserthanevertothearchetypalcharacteroftranslationforthepoeticandliterarylabor.Hecannomorelosesightofitthantheessential
roleoftranslationfortheGermancultureescapeshim.HeisawareofitasmuchasGoethewas,ifnotmoreso.Andyet,thishyperbolicreversalwhichmakespoetry
intotranslation,evenintosomethingmore"rare"and"difficult,"doesnotresultforhiminaglobaltheoryoftheactoftranslating,becausethespecificityof"restricted"
translationisincessantlycoveredoverby,oridentifiedwith,potentiatingtranslation,whichismoreessentialinhisperspectiveandwhich,underseveralnames,
characterizesthemovementoftheaffirmationoftheworkonthebasisofthedestructionofnaturallanguage.Thesetwoformsoftranslationintersectatonlyone
point:thefactthat,inawork,themovementofdestructionoftheNaturspracheobviouslypassesthroughthedestructionofaparticularlanguage.Onemightjustas
wellsaythattheactoftranslatingconsistsinlightingthefireofpoeticdestructionfromonelanguagetoanother.Sucharethecertainlyhazardousconjecturestowhich
Novalis'sthinkingleads.
Ascanbeseen,thisthinkingresultsintwoextremepropositions,logicalintheirframework,butwellcapableofshockingthecommonsense:Allpoetryistranslation
alltranslationissuperiortoitsoriginal.Thefirststatementamountstothedeclarationthateveryworkisanimatedbyaselfreflexivemovement.Butafterall,whena
Rilkedeclaresthatthewordsinthepoemaresidereallyremovedfromthewordsofthecommonlanguage,heintendstoexpresssomethingthatisvalidforallpoetry.
Itwouldremaintobeseenifallpoetrymayclaimsuchapurposethatistosay:ifallpoetryisessentiallymonologic.
Thesecondstatementisconnectedtothefirst:Ifalltranslationistranslationoftranslation,thismovementofpotentiationcanonly"crown"and"finish"theoriginal.The
essentialisnotthatwhich,inthework,isorigin,butthefactthat,throughits"GrandTour,"itbecomesmoreandmore"universal"and"progressive.''17Onemayalso
say:Translationrepresentsasuperiorechelonofthelifeoftheoriginal.Ahyperbolicalassertion?Nodoubt.Butthefollowingmaybenoted:Itsometimeshappensthat
translationsgiveanimpressionofsuperiorityovertheiroriginalwhichisnotmerelyofaliteraryorder.WemaythinkofPaulCelan'stranslationofthefollowingverses
byJulesSupervielle:18
Jus,tusaitschaquefeuille
Quiverdiralefort,
Lesracinesquirecueillent
Etdvorentleursecret,
laterreurdel'phme
l'approchedelanuit,

[Jesus,youknoweachleaf
Thatwillmaketheforestgreen,
Therootsthatcollect
Anddevourtheirsecret,
theterroroftheephemeral
attheapproachofthenight,

Page110

etlesoupirdelaTerre
danslesilenceinfini.
Tupeuxsuivrelespoissons
tourmentantlesprofondeurs,
quandilstournentetretournent
etsis'arrtcoeur....
Jesus,dukennstsiealle:
dasBlatt,dasWaldgrnbringt,
dieWurzel,dieihrTiefstes
aufsammeltundvertrinkt,
dieAngstdesTaggeschpfes,
wennessichnachthinneight,
dasSeufzendieserErde
imRaum,dersieumschweigt.
DukannstdenFischbegleiten,
dichwhlenabgrundwarts
undmitihmschwimmen,unten,
undlngeralsseinHerz....

andthesighoftheEarth
intheinfinitesilence.
Youcanfollowthefish
Thataretormentingthedepths,
whentheyturnandturnagain
Andiftheirheartstops....
Jesus,youknowthemall:
theleafthatbringsforestgreen,
therootthatgathers
anddrownsitsdeepest,
thefearofthediurnalanimal,
whenitinclinesnightward,
thesighingofthisearth
inthespacesilentaroundit.
Youcanaccompanythefish,
burrowyourselftowardtheabyss
andswimwithit,underneath,
andlongerthanitsheart....]

GeorgeSteiner,towhomweowethisconfrontation,showsclearlyhowtheuniverseSuperviellesoughttocaptureinhissomewhatdullanddiscursiveversesis,asit
were,seizedanddeepenedinCelan'sverses.Onemightsimplysaythatthisisapoeticrecreationthatcannolongerbecalleda"translation,"evenifCelanbelievedhe
couldcallitthat.Oragain,thatitistheoppositionoftwopoetics.ButonecannotdenyoneselftheimpressionthatCelancapturedpreciselythepoeticpurposeof
Supervielle,andthatthiscapturinghasproducedapoeticallysuperiorpoem.NotthatSuperviellewouldbealesserpoetthanCelan(thisisnottheplaceforsucha
debate),butthetranslationbytheGermanpoethassucceededin"potentiating"theFrenchpoem,toplaceitatthelevelofitsownpurpose,eventopurgeitofthe
flawsthataffectSupervielle'spoetryingeneralandthatconcernhisrelationtolanguageandpoeticexpressionassuch.Ifthisisthecase,thepoemtranslatedbyCelan
wouldbeanberSupervielle.Mallarm'stranslationsofPoe'spoemshassometimesoccasionedanalogouscommentaries.Therarityoftheseexamplesinthefieldof
translationwouldsignify,asNovalissays,thattranslatingissomethingrareanddifficult.Itcouldalsomeanthatthistypeoftranslationisonlypossibleinacertain
poeticspace,definedhistoricallybyRomanticism,towhichSupervielleandCelanbelongaswellasPoeandMallarm.Weareveryfarfromclearlyunderstandingall
that.ButdoesnotthefactthatnotranslationofShakespeare'sSonnetshasbeensatisfactory(eventhoughgreatpoetsandgreattranslatorshaveattemptedit)indicate
acontrariothatthesepoems,intheirpoeticwriting,dependonanaimthatmakesimpossi

Page111

ble,ifnotalltranslation,atleastany"potentiating"translation?Anddoesn'tsuchapotentiatingtranslationpresupposearelationoftheworktoitslanguageandtoitself
thatisitselfoftheorderoftranslation,thuscallingfor,makingpossible,andjustifyingthemovementofitstranslation?
LetusstartnowonthesecondtextofNovalis,from"Blthenstaub":
Atranslationiseithergrammatical,transforming,ormythical.Mythicaltranslationsaretranslationsinthehigheststyle.Theypresenttheclear,perfectedstateoftheindividual
workofart.Theydonotgiveustheactualworkofart,buttheideaofit.Thereexistsasyetnoperfectmodelofsuchwork,Ibelieve.Weencounterevidenttracesofitinthespirit
ofmanycritiquesanddescriptionsofworksofart.Itcallsforaheadinwhichthepoeticspiritandthephilosophicalspirithavepenetratedeachotherintheirfullness.Greek
mythologyisinpartsuchatranslationofanationalreligion.ThemodernMadonnaisalsosuchamyth.
Grammaticaltranslationsaretranslationsintheordinarysense.Theyrequireagreaterudition,butonlydiscursiveabilities.
Thetransformingtranslations,iftheyaretobeauthentic,requirethehighestpoeticspirit.Theyeasilylapseintotravesty,likeBrger'siambicHomer,Pope'sHomer,andthe
Frenchtranslationsintheirentirety.Thetruetranslatorofthiskindmustineffectbetheartisthimself,abletorendertheideaofthewholeinthisorinthatmannerashepleases.
Hemustbethepoetofthepoet,abletolethimspeaksimultaneouslyaccordingtothepoet'sideaandtohisown.Thegeniusofhumanitystandsinasimilarrelationtoeach
individualman.
Notonlybooks,everythingcanbetranslatedinthesethreeways.19

Thistextfrom"Blthenstaub"obviouslyalludestoA.W.Schlegel'sworkasatranslatorbutitalsosupposes,inabarelydisguisedway,F.Schlegel'swork,notably
hisessayonWilhelmMeister.TheallusiontotheMadonna,isolatedinthiscontext,referstoavisitbytheJenagrouptothemuseumsofDresden,wheretheywere
abletoadmire,amongotherthings,Raphal'sMadonnas.20
NotefirstofallthatNovalis'sfragment,likeGoethe's,isorganizedinatriadicmanner:therearethreetypesoftranslation.Thefirsttype(thesecondoneinthetext),
"grammaticaltranslation,"seemstocorrespondtoGoethe'sprosetranslation,whoseonlyaimistorenderthecontentandthegeneralphysionomyoftheoriginal.The
twoothertypes,ontheotherhand,donothaveanequivalentinGoethe'striad.Novaliscallsthefirstone"mythical,"thesecondone"transforming"(verndernd).
Disregardingtheorderofthetext,wewillfirstexaminethelatter.ThereisakindofambiguityinthenotionofVernderung.Accordingtotheexamplesgiven
Brger,Pope,theFrenchthesearetranslationsthatmerelymodifytheoriginalanditsforms,eitherbytranslatingaver

Page112

sifiedworkintoprose,oronetypeofverseintoanother,etc.Andthisispreciselythekindoftranslationthatis,ifnotcondemned,atleastdeemedsecondrateby
Herder,Goethe,Schleiermacher,andA.W.Schlegel.ButforNovalis,the"transformation"carriedoutbythesetranslationconstitutesathreatonlytothistype,notto
theessence,oftranslation.Intruth,the"transforming"translatoristhe"poetofthepoet"areflexiveexpressionbynowfamiliartous,signalingthemovementof
potentiationmentionedabove.Inthesameway,thegeniusofhumanityisthemanofman,theindividualtothenthpower.The''transforming"translator,whomust
possess"thehighestpoeticspirit,"istheonewhopracticesthat"spiritualmimic"whichallowsforthereproductionofthe"foreignindividuality,"asismadeclearbythe
sentence:"Hemustbe...abletolet[thepoet]speaksimultaneouslyaccordingtohisownideaandthepoet'sidea."The"transforming"translationis,asitwere,the
unionandthecomplementationoftwopoeticaims,producingthepotentiationofthework.Onemayalsosay:Ifitistorepresent"thehighestpoeticspirit"andnotan
arbitraryoperation,the"transforming"elementofthistranslationcanonlybethepoeticaimofthetranslatorinasmuchashehasbecome"theartisthimself."Thus
Celan'sorMallarm'stranslationcouldbepresentedasa"transforming"translation(thoughfaithfultotheoriginalpoet's"idea"atthesametime),effectivelyrequiring
"thehighestpoeticspirit."
ButforNovalisthisisnotthetypeoftranslationthatpossessesthe"higheststyle"forexample,thehighestrankofessence.Thatrankisreservedforthetranslation
called"mythical."TherearefewtextsofNovalisthatcouldelucidatethemeaninghegivestothisterm.Tobesure,weknowthatinthesameperiodmythology
constitutedoneofF.Schlegel'sfavoritethemes,andthat,someyearslater,theDialogueonPoetrymentionsthepossibilityofthecreationofanewmythologythat
wouldrelievetheoldone,forexample,Greekmythology.Duringhisresearches,NovalisstatesthatGreekmythologyisthe"translation"ofa"nationalreligion."What
doesthismean?Inoneofthe"Poeticisms"fragments,hewrites:
Thenovel,asitwere,isfreehistorythemythologyofhistory,asitwere.Shouldn'tanaturalmythologybepossible?(Mythologyhereinmysense,asthefreepoeticinvention
whichsymbolizesrealityinmanifoldways,etc.).21

Inthegroupoffragmentscalled"Sophie,or:ofWomen,"hestates:"Fatumismystifiedhistory."22
Mythmysterymystiquemystificationsymbol:AccordingtothelawsoftheEncyclopedia,thesetermsareconvertible,andrefertothesameRomantic
operation,the"elevationtothestateofmystery."

Page113

Mythicaltranslationisthattranslationwhichraisestheoriginaltothestateofsymbol,inotherwords,tothestateof"imageofitself,"ofabsoluteimage(without
referent).LetustakethetwoexamplesofGreekmythologyandtheMadonna,asdistantastheymaybefromtranslationintheordinarysense.
Greekmythologywouldbethat"freehistory,"that"freepoeticinvention"thattransformsanhistoricalgivenintoapuresystemofsymbols:thereligionoftheancient
Greeks.Itwouldproducea"text"inwhichtheessentialofthisreligion,forexample,itsidealweb,wouldappear.AndtheMadonna?Novalisspeaksofthe"modern
Madonna,"forexample,theoneheadmiredattheDresdenmuseumwithhisfriends.ThisMadonnaineffigycertainlyreferstothehistoricalMadonnaofhistorical
religion,butsheisitspurifiedfigure,itsimage.Thisimage,astronomicallyremovedfromtheactualVirginofCatholicdogma,issymbolofitself,shininginitsownlight.
Itisnottheallegory,thesignofanotherthing,butitratherreferstoanideal.InKantianterms,itisthe''sensibleschema"ofanidea,nottherepresentationofareal
being.InthiswayitiscelebratedinthefifteenthofNovalis's"SpiritualSongs":
Iseeyouinathousandimages,
Mary,sweetlyexpressed,
Butnoneofthemcouldpaintyou
Asmysoulglimpsesyou.23

ThatthisMadonnaisliterally"elevatedtothestateofmystery"isalsoshownby"ChristendomorEurope":
TheveilisfortheVirginwhatthespiritisforthebodyitistheindispensableorganwhosefoldsformtheletterofitssweetannunciationtheinfiniteplayofitsfoldsislikea
ciphermusic.24

F.SchlegelalsomentionstheMadonnainhisAthenumfragments:
Christhasnowbeenrepeatedlydeducedbyapriorimethods:butshouldn'ttheMadonnahaveasmuchrighttobeanoriginal,eternal,andnecessaryideal,ifnotofpure,thenat
leastofmaleandfemalereason?25

Thewordidealrecursinbothauthors.Inthetextfrom"Blthenstaub"Novalisdefinesitasthe"pureandaccomplished"character.Thischaracteronlyappears
throughthemythicaloperation,forexample,bythatwhichwehavelearnedtocall"romantization."Thisoperationishigherthanthatofthe"transforming"translation,
becauseitunitesthepoeticandthephilosophicalspirit.Inmythicaltranslation,theIdeamanifestsitselfintheimage,becomesImageofitself.Raphal'sMadonnaisnot
theimitationoftherealMadonna,butthepresentationofthepureIdeaoftheMadonna.Thus,herewefindagain,thoughina

Page114

differentlanguage,whatNovalisexpressedinhisletterwiththisdifferencethatnowtherenolongerexistsaperfectmodelofthistypeoftranslation,notevenA.W.
Schlegel'sShakespeare.Notonlyisthelatter'sworknotmentioned,Novalisevengivesanotherexampleofmythicaltranslation:theliteraryandartisticcriticswhoaim
toextractthe"tendency"oftheworksandtograsptheirnecessityratherthantodescribethemempirically(orjudgethem).
Thefragmentfrom"Blthenstaub,"then,goesfurtherthanthelettertoA.W.Schlegel,evenasitdevelopsthesamethematic.The"transcendental"translationpushes
theempiricaltranslationmoreandmoreintothebackground.Assuch,itbecomesauniversaloperation:"Everythingcanbetranslatedinthesethreeways."Theview
Novalisgivesofthemiddleagesin''ChristendomorEurope,"andofthekingandqueenofPrussiain"FaithandLove"arealso,beyondadoubt,mythicaltranslations
ofhistoricalrealities.Theydonotrepresenttheserealitiesastheyare,buttheir"pureandperfectedcharacter."
Buttotheextentthattranslationissubjectedtosuchabroadening,ittendstoloseallspecificityandtobeconfoundedwithothernotions,suchasthe"elevationtothe
stateofmystery,"the"symbol,"the"mystification,"etc.InthewholeofRomanticthinking,iteventendstobedisplacedandrepressedbytheseconcepts.26Infact,
whenwearelookingforthatwhichconstitutesatheoryoftranslationintheirtheoryofcriticism,ofpoetry,andoftheEncyclopedia,wearecertainlynotinventinga
fiction,butwe,too,presentthe"pureandperfectedcharacter"ofwhatthisthinkingeventuallypreferredtocallbydifferentnames,andtoapproachfromthoseangles
inwhichitsspecificitydisappears.
Nevertheless,thisspeculativetheorydeterminesinitswaythetranslatingpracticeofA.W.SchlegelandL.Tieck,eveniftheirprinciplesareofnecessitymore
concrete.Itdoesnotdeterminethemdirectlyintheirmethodsoftranslation,butitgovernstheirdeepvisionofpoetryandtheveryconstitutionoftheirfieldof
translations.Indeed,theworksselectedbybothtranslatorscorrespondtothosedesignatedbyromanticcriticismasthemodels,orthesketches,ofthe"poetryof
poetry,"thetranscendentalpoetry,"the"universalprogressive"poetry,andthe"poetryoftheinfinite."Ifoneaddstothisthatthesetranslationsareallaccompaniedby
correspondingcritiques,itmaybeconcludedthattheyfulfillthesamefunctionasthelatter:toaccumulate"materials"fortheliteraturetocome,andforthetheory
whichisinseparablefromit.AsF.Schlegelwrites:
Suchatheoryofthenovelwouldhavetobeanovelitself,whichwouldreproduceeacheternaltoneoffantasyinafantasticway....Thencreaturesofthepastwouldliveinnew
figures,Dante'sholyshadowwouldrisefromitsunderworld,Laurawouldwalkheavenly

Page115
27

beforeus,andShakespearewouldconversepleasantlywithCervantesthereSanchowouldagainjestwithDonQuixote.

LetusnowseehowtheconnectionbetweenpoetryandtranslationappearswithanotherRomantic,whocertainlyreceivedtheimpulsesfromtheAthenum,butno
longershareditsspeculativeenthusiasm:ClemensBrentano.
Godwi,publishedin1801,drawsuponthenovelsofthetime(byGoethe,JeanPaul,Tieck,etc.)inaparodicandsubjectiveway.Inthetextweareabouttoquote,
threecharactersareengagedinaconversationontheessenceofRomanticism:GodwihimselfMaria,thepoetnarrator(whospeaksinthefirstperson)andfinally
Haber,the"rationalist"translatorofAriostoandTasso.28
ItisMariawhoopensthislongconversation:
"Everythingthatstandsasamediatorbetweenoureyesandanobjecttobeseen,bringingusclosertothedistantobject,butalsocommunicatingsomethingofitselftoit,is
romantic."
"ThenwhatistherebetweenOssianandhispresentations,"saidHaber.
"Ifweknewmore,"Ireplied,"thanthataharpisbetweenthem,andthisharpbetweenhisgreatheartandhismelancholy,wewouldknowthehistoryofthesingerandofhis
tune."
Godwiadded:"Sotheromanticisaperspective,orratherthecoloroftheglassandthedeterminationoftheobjectbytheshapeoftheglass."
"Accordingtoyou,then,theromanticisformless,"saidHaber"Iratherthoughtitwouldhavemoreformthantheancient,insuchawaythatitsformbyitself,evenwithout
content,wouldhaveavigorousimpact."
"Idonotknow,"Icontinued,"whatyouunderstandbyform.Frankly,theunformedhasoftenmoreformthantheformedcanendureandinordertobringoutthissurplus,we
wouldonlyhavetoaddafewcurvestotheVenustomakeherromantic.ButIcallformtherightlimitationofsomethingthought."
"SoIcouldsay,"Godwiadded,"thatformitselfcannothaveaform,butisonlythedeterminedceasingofathoughtexpandingequallytowardallsidesstartingfromonepoint.
Thissomethingthoughtmightbeinstone,sound,color,word,orthought."
"Anexamplesuddenlycomestomymind,"Ireplied"youwillexcusethefactthatitisthesoveryordinaryallegoryofthevanityoftheworld.Imagineasoapbubble,whoseinner
spacewouldbeitsthoughtitsextension,then,wouldbetheform.Yetthesoapbubblehasamomentinitsextensionwhenitsappearanceanditsaspectareinperfectharmony
thenitsformisrelatedtothematter,totheinteriordiameterinalldirections,andtothelightinsuchawaythatitoffersabeautifulsight.Allthecolorsaroundshineinit,andthe
soap

Page116
bubbleitselfisattheultimatepointofitsperfection.Thenittearsitselfloosefromthestrawandfloatsthroughtheair.ThatiswhatIunderstandbythewordform,alimitationthat
onlycontainsanidea,andsaysnothingofitself.Alltherestisuniform,eithertoomuchortoolittle."
HereHaberreplied:"SoTasso'sLiberatedJerusalemisanuniform"
"DearHaber,Isaid,"youwillannoymeifyoudonottellmewhetheryoudonotwanttounderstandmeordonotwanttoannoyme.
"Donotbeannoyed,"hereplied,"forIdoneither.theonenorwanttheotherbutIamnotcontentwithyouruniformoftheromantic,andIconfrontyoupreciselywithTasso,
becauseIknowhim,andbecauseunfortunatelyIfeelonlytoostronglyhowclearanddeterminedhisformis.IfeelitallthemorebecauseIamplayingwiththeideaoftranslating
himoneday."
"Thatyoufeelittoostrongly,isproofforme,"Isaid"pureformisnotfelttoomuchandmindyoudonotmakethereaderofyourtranslationfeelittoomuch,forinmyopinion
everypureandbeautifulworkofartthatmerelypresentsitsobjectiseasiertotranslatethanaromanticonethatnotonlydesignatesitsobject,butaddsacoloringtothis
designation,fortothetranslatoroftheromantic,theformofthepresentationbecomesitselfaworkofart,whichhemusttranslate.TakeforinstanceTasso,preciselywhatdoes
thenewrhythmicaltranslatorhavetostrugglewith?EitherhemustpossessTasso'sownreligiousness,seriousness,andardor,inwhichcaseweheartilyimplorehimratherto
inventhimselforifhedoesnotpossessallthis,orifheisaProtestant,bodyandsoul,thenhemustfirsttranslatehimselfintotheCatholic,andthus,again,hemusttranslate
himselfhistoricallyintoTasso'smentalityandlanguagehemusttranslateanawfullotbeforehecomestotheactualtranslation,forromanticpoetspossessmorethanmere
presentation,theyalsohavethemselves,andstronglyso."
"Butthatisnotthecasewiththepurepoets,"saidHaber,"sincetheyarestillsomewhatfurtherremovedfromus."
"No,"Ireplied"eventhoughtheyaresomewhatfurtherremovedfromus,andpreciselybecausethisgreatdistanceabolisheseverymediumbetweenusandthemthatcould
reflectthemimpurelytous.Theconditionofyourtranslatorismerescientificityinlanguageandobject,heshouldmerelytranslatethelanguageinthiswayhistranslationmust
relatetotheoriginalliketheplastercastingtothemarble.Weareallequallyremovedfromthem,andweshallreadthesameinthem,sincetheyonlypresent,buttheirpresentation
hasnocolorbecausetheyareform...."
"Therhymesalone,"Icontinued,"canonlyberenderedinourlanguageasdoggerelverse,andyet,yousee,preciselytheserhymesarealreadysuchaformofform.Howwould
youproduceallthat?The

Page117
Italianrhymeisthetoneonthebasisofwhichthewholeisplayed.Willyourrhymehavethesametone?Idonotbelieveyouarethekindoftranslatorwhocantranslatefromall
keysandregistersforanotherinstrument,withoutthesong...becomingblind,likeamagnificenteaglewithapaperbagoveritsheadsittingstupidlyinacorner."
Godwilaughedandsaid:"AquestionforarecipebookhowtotranslateanItalianeagleintoGerman?AnswerRecipeapaperbag,pullitoveritshead,andthenthewild
creaturehasbeentranslatedintoatamedone,itwillnolongerbiteyouyetitisthesameeagle,translatedrightfaithfully."
"Rightfaithfully,"Isaid,"foritsitsamongtheGermanhens,rightpatientlyandfaithfullylikeadomesticanimal."
"Everylanguage,"Icontinued,"islikeaparticularinstrumentonlythosethataremostsimilarcanbetranslatedintooneanother.Butonemusicismusicitself,andnota
compositionfromtheplayer'smood(Gemt)andhistypeofinstrument.Itiscreatedtherewheretheinstrument,themusician,andthemusictouchoneanotherinequal
excellence.Manytranslations,especiallythosefromtheItalian,willalwaysbesoundsfromtheconcertinaorthewindinstrumentstranslatedforclangingandblaringinstruments.
..."
"ThenyoumustconsiderDantecompletelyuntranslatable,"saidHaber.
"Preciselythisonelessthanothers,"Icontinued,"justlikeShakespeare.Thesetwopoetsdominatetheirlanguageaswellastheirage.Theyhavemorepassionthanwordsand
morewordsthantones.Theybearthemselveslikegiantsintheirlanguages,andtheirlanguagecannotconstrictthem,sincelanguageassuchisbarelysufficientfortheirspirit,
andtheycanwellbetransposedagaintoanothersmartsoil.Theycanthrive,butaSamsonmusthavedoneit.Theywillalwaysbeliketransplantedoaktrees,whoseminorroots
mustbecutawaytoputtheminanewfurrow.Butmostoftheotherpoets(Snger)haveverypeculiarmanners,whichresideinthenatureoftheirinstrumenttheyareplaysof
sounds,likeShakespeare'splayofwords.Playsofsoundscannotbetranslated,thoughplaysofwordscan."
"Howdidwegetstartedontranslations?"saidGodwi.
"BecauseofFiamette'sromanticsong,"Isaid."Theromanticitselfisatranslation."
Atthispointthedarkroomlitup,amildgreenlustershonefromthewaterbasinIdescribed.
"Look,howromantic,justthewayyoudefinedit.Thegreenglassisthemediumofthesun."29

Wehavehereanecho,alreadydeformedandconfused,oftheromantictheoryofthework:contraryto"classical"works,definedbypureform,forexample,bythe
purepresentationofacontent,"romantic"worksarecharacterizedbythat"coloring''whichinsertsitselfbe

Page118

tweenourperceptionandthethingrepresented.That"coloring,"inthecaseofaworkoflanguage,isobviouslythe"sonority"ofthewords(rhymes,alliterations,all
thatiscommonlycalledthe"color"ofwords).Theromanticworkmusicalizesthemediumofrepresentation,andthusconfusesitsobjectalcontent:Atitslimit,itisonly
theradiance,thepureresonanceofthecolorofthemedium.Toromanticizeistocolortheform,asthegreendoesinthewaterbasinmentionedinthetext.One
recognizesherethetheoriesoftheAthenum,butoutsideofthesymbolicabstractelementspecifictoit,withtheresultthattheromanticworksbrutallyfallintothe
untranslatablethoughwiththisparadoxthattheconfusionoftheformbyitssonorouscolorisitselfinterpretedasa"translation."ItisuncertainifBrentanohimself
recognizedthescopeofhissentence:''Theromanticitselfisatranslation,"asentencewhichsoexactlyechosNovalis's.Orrather,thissentenceisthedistantechoof
thedeepertruthofromanticartanechoisolatedinthetext.Thereishereacertaindifficultyinconnectingthisstatementtothosedealingwithpoetictranslation,
whoseemphasisisratherontheuntranslatabilityoftheRomanticwork.Tobesure,"forthetranslatoroftheromanticwork,theformofthepresentationitself
becomesaworkofartthathehastotranslate."Butifthisformisconstitutedbyitssoundanditscolor,howdoesonetranslateit?Because,forBrentano,this
sonorousandcoloredelementispreciselythatwhichcouldnotpassintoanotherlanguage.ThatthisisarealproblemisattestedtobytheallusiontotheItalianpoets,
aswellasBrentano'sownpoetry.Histwofamousverses:
OSternundBlume,GeistundKleid,Lieb,LeidundZeitundEwigkeit!30

obviouslydonotallowatranslation,atleastaliteralone,withoutlosingtheiraura.Now,theselinesareasplendidexampleoneoftherarestofGermanRomantic
poetry.Nevertheless,andthisistheambiguityofBrentanoandlateRomanticism,theselinesareposed,asitwere,onadivide:Isitaseriesofpuresoundswhose
sonorities,stimulatingoneanother,produceaneffectivelyuntranslatablemusicaleffectorisitan"association"inwhichsoundandsensemutuallyinfinitizeeachother,
asNovaliswouldhaveit?Both,undoubtedly,butNovalis's"association"goeswellbeyondthemeremusicalityofapoem:Thismusicalityisaprioriworkeduponin
suchawaythatitnolongerrestssimplyonthefortuneofnaturallanguage.Itisnotfortuitous,whereasBrentano'spoem,inallits"magic,"islikeasplendidfind,a
magnificentthrowofthediceplayedwithsignifiersandsignifiedswhichisfarfromabolishingcoincidence.Itisratherariskyandmomentaneousgamewith
coincidence.AndtherethetwoRomanticisms

Page119

areseparated,therethetranslatableworkisseparatedfromtheuntranslatableworkuntranslatablebecauseitisnotawork.Inhisway,Brentanonoticesthe
differencewhenheopposestranslatablepoetry(DanteandShakespeare),whosetranslatabilityopensitselfinthespacethatseparatestheir"spirit"fromtheir
"language,"andItalianpoetry,whichbelongstonaturallanguageinsuchawaythatitnolongerauthorizesanytranslationthatwouldnotbeatreason.Thedistinctionis
undoubtedlyimportant,eventhoughonemaydoubtitsvalidityforShakespeareandDante,andeventhoughonemaydoubtaswellthatitwouldbeeasiertotranslate
playsofwordsthan"playsofsounds."
ThispassagefromGodwiishighlysignificant,forBrentano,sotospeak,confusesthecardsofJenaRomanticisminit.Ontheonehandhereformulatesitsessential
intuitions:Poetryistranslationthetranslatormusttranslatehimself(Novalis's"spiritualmimic")theworkisdefinedbyitsmusicalityanditsnonobjectivity.Brentano's
imagesaresignificanthere,imagesinwhichthefigureofthevoid(thetransparentwaterbasinwhichisthemediumofthesun,thesoapbubble)recursincessantly.
ThesealmostironicimagesarederivedfromF.Schlegel'sandNovalis'sbestintuitionsontheemptyandintransitiveworkthatcancapturethedistant.Butthethemeof
musicality,thoughalsoinheritedfromtheAthenum,doesevenmorethanconfusethecards,itinvertsthem:apassagefromabstract,mathematical,andcomposed
musicalitywhosemodelisthe"fugue,"etc.,tothemusicalityoftheallegedlypopularsong,theLiedinshort,thatsensoryandsensualmusicalityofwhichtheearly
Romanticism,atleastinprinciple,prohibiteditselfanyuse.Andimmediatelythereappearsthethemeofuntranslatablepoetry,pureavalancheofbeautifulsonorities,
undoubtedlyaveryancienttheme,butitnowtakesallitsforcefromplacingpoetryintheshadowofmusic,inthatemptyspacebetweengenuinepoetryofartand
genuinepopularpoetrywheretheessentialofwhatwecallRomanticismdevelopsandproliferatesinlyricalornovelisticalmostworks,sometimesforthebetter,often
fortheworst.Thesamelevelingoftheproblematiccouldbeobservedwithregardtothe"fantastic"andthe"dream."
Thatthetheoryofthetranslatabilityoftheworkissuddenlyinvertedintothetheoryofitsuntranslatabilityisperhapsaninevitabledialecticalturningbackby
whichlateRomanticismseekstoaffirminitswaytheabsoluteautonomyofpoetryasinearlyRomanticism,thisautonomyissoughtbeyondnaturallanguage,inthe
"ineffable"domainofmusic.AnditisnocoincidencethatlateRomanticpoemshavesometimesbeen"translated"intomusicinthenineteenthcentury,thusgaininga
renowntheirown"musicality"couldnothaveassuredthemof.Tobesure,thetheoryoftheAthenumcontainstheseedofthisreversal,justasitcarriesinitselfin
nucleoalltheavatarsofthehistoryofmodernpoetry.

Page120

Butatleastwehadtopointoutthisstrangedestinybywhichthosewhoaffirmedtheaprioritranslatabilityofliteraturegavebirthtoapoeticsofuntranslatability,a
farlessinnocentpoeticsthanitappearstobeatfirstsight,sinceinthefinalanalysisitcanonlybearegressivepoeticsoftheincommunicable.Intheabsenceof
anypositivetheoryofnaturallanguage,thispoeticsnecessarilyimposesitself.ThehostilitytheRomanticshadtowardaVoss,despitealltheiradmirationforhim,is
understandablewhenonereadswhathedeclaredtoHumboldt:
Thatwhichcannotbeexpressedinhumanlanguagecannotbetrue.31

Nevertheless,oneofBrentano'sintuitionsremains,anditwouldbedesirabletotakeitupagain,thoughtransformed:thedistinctionbetweenworksconnectedtothe
naturallanguage(whichwronglyappeartobeuntranslatable)andthosethatattempttoestablishacertaindistancefromit(andthatwouldbemoreeasilytranslatable).
Weshallcomebacktothisintheend.Theuntranslatable,foritspart,canonlybewilled:Inthe(relative)untranslatabilityoflateromanticpoetrythereisawilltobe
closeduponitself,toincommunicability,forexample,awilltoescapefromthedomainoflanguage,awillthatgoesthroughtheidolizingofmusicandalsothroughan
essentiallyinauthenticrelationtothemothertongue,sometimesborderingonfolklorism.ThiswillconstitutesoneoftheimbalancespeculiartoGermanRomanticism,
whichmadeitintosomething"sick"forGoethe.

Page121

8
TranslationasaCriticalMovement
Wenowapproachtheissuementionedthroughoutthepreviouschapter:thecoveringoveroftheconceptoftranslationbythatofcriticisminF.SchlegelandNovalis.
Itisobviousthatatleasttworeasonspresideoverthistheoreticalobfuscation:(1)IfthecenteroftheAthenum'spoetologicalpreoccupationswastheCopernican
revolutionofpoetry,andifthisrevolutionnecessarilypassedthroughacritique(intheKantiansense),literarycriticismobviouslytendstomoveintofirstplacewith
themand(2)ThestartingpointofRomanticreflection,atleastwiththeSchlegelbrothers,isthephilologicalandcriticalactivity,raisedlittlebylittletothelevelofa
philosophicalpractice.1 Novalishimself,whoseformationwasdifferent,definedthe"philological"aseverythingrelatingtothetextualandthewritten.Hencetwo
meaningsofthewordcriticisminonecase,transcendentalcriticism,reflectionofpoetryonitself,logologyinthesecond,criticismoftexts,i.e.,literarycriticism.We
couldspeakofgeneralizedcriticismandrestricedcriticism,justlikewedidwithtranslation.Butherethetwocriticalmovementstendtowardtheobviouslyideal
pointwheretheybecomeidentical,thatistosay,whereitseemsimpossibletodistinguishliteratureandcriticism.Ineffect,theliteraturetocomecarriesitsown
criticismwithinitasF.Schlegeltellsus,ittries"nowtomix,nowtofusetogetherpoetryandprose,geniusandcriticism."2 Butliterarycriticism,asagenreandasa
discipline,carriesoutareversemovementofpoetization:

Page122
3

Poetrycanonlybecriticizedbypoetry.Ajudgmentaboutartwhichisnotitselfaworkofart...hasnocivilrightsintherealmofart.

Novalis,afterhisfashion,corroborateshisfriend'sstatement:
Hewhoisnotcapableofmakingpoemswillalsojudgethemonlynegatively.Therebelongstogenuinecriticismthecapacitytoproduceoneselftheproductstobecriticized.Only
tastejudgesnegatively.4

Thisiswhattheromantictextsrepeatadnauseam,andwhichtheartofthefragmentis,inpart,supposedtorealize:tounitereflectionandpoeticform.Thisisan
entanglementthathasbecomefamiliartousinthetwentiethcentury,butonethatremainscomplex.For,iftheimmanentcriticismoftheworkappearsononesideas
theconditionforthepossibilityofitsexternalcriticism,onemightaswellsay,asF.Schlegeldoesnothesitatetodo,thatthelatter,openingtheveryfieldof
literatureitselfwithits"fragmentsofthefuture,"constitutestheconditionforthepossibilityoftheworktocome.
Butitisonlypossibleiftheconceptofcriticismundergoesafundamentalchangeofmeaning.Tocriticizeaworkisnolongertoexpressaseriesofjudgmentsoniton
thebasisofaestheticrulesorsensibility,aimedatinformingorenlighteningthepublic.Itis,asNovalissaidinhisfragmentonmythicaltranslation,toliberatethepure
Ideaofthework,its"pureandperfectedcharacter,"toaccomplishthisactof"spiritualmimic"whichisthefoundationofanyunderstandingoftheliterarywork.Andit
istrueenoughthatwithF.Schlegelcriticismbecomes"divinatory,"forexample,anactofcomprehension.F.Schlegelexpressesallthismostclearlyinhisessayson
Lessing:
...notsomuchtojudgeastounderstandandexplain.Thatinaworkofartonemustnotonlyfeelthebeautifulpassages,butgrasptheimpressionofthewhole....AndIthink..
.thatoneunderstandstheworkcompletelyonlyinthesystemofalltheartist'sworks....So,too,theparticularinart...mustleadtotheimmeasurableWhole....Ifyouwantto
attaintheWhole...youmayconfidentlyassumethatyouwillnotfindanaturallimitanywhere...beforehavingreachedthecenter.Thiscenteristheorganismofalltheartsand
allthesciences,thelawandthehistoryofthisorganism.Thisdoctrineofformation,thisphysicsoffantasyandart,couldwellbeascienceofitsown,whichIwouldcall
encyclopediabutthissciencedoesnotyetexist....Eitherthesourceofobjectivelawsforanypositivecriticismisthere,oritisnowhere.Ifthisisthecase...truecriticism
cannottakenoticeofworkswhichcontributenothingtothedevelopmentofartandscienceindeed,atruecritiqueofthatwhichdoesnotstandinarelationtothatorganismof
cultureandgenius,isnotevenpossible.

Page123
Ifyouwanttotryandunderstandauthorsorworks,i.e.,constructthemgeneticallyinrelationtothatgreatorganismofallartandallscience....
Theessenceofhigherartandformliesintherelationtothewhole....ThereforeallworksareOneWork,allartsOneArt,allpoemsOnePoem....Everypoem,everywork,must
signifythewhole,signifyitactuallyandeffectively.5

Tounderstandawork,then,istoplaceitintheWholeofartandliterature,toshowitssymbolicessence,whichistosignify(Bedeuten)theWholeandtheveryIdea
ofart.Itistoliberatethe"infinitemeaning"ofthework.Thecriticismthatcarriesoutthisoperationcanonlybe"positive,"forexample,attachitselfonlytothose
worksthat,inthemselves,contributetotherealizationoftheIdeaofart.Negativecriticism,foritspart,isoftheorderofthepolemical.InanothertextonLessing,F.
Schlegeltakesupthesametheme:
Itwasnotdifficulttoshowthenecessityofcriticismforallliterature.Buttheconceptofcriticismthatwasconstantlygiventoitasfoundation,wasthehistoricalconceptof
criticism.Onlycriticismasitexisteduntilnowwasspokenof.Butcouldtherenotbeanentirelydifferentone?...Thisisnotonlypossible,itisalsoprobable,forthefollowing
reason.FortheGreeks,literaturehadalreadyexistedforalongtime,itwasalmostatitsend,whencriticismbegan.ThisisnotsofortheModerns,atleastforusGermans.Here
criticismandliteraturearebornatthesametime,yes,theformerwasalmostbornearlierwehadaknowledge...offoreignworks,evenofthemostinsignificantones,before
havinganyknowledgeofours.Andstilltoday,Idonotknowifweshouldprideourselvesmorerightfullyforhavingacriticismratherthanaliterature.Anyway,withthe
modificationofthisrelationcomesthepossibilityandtheideaofacriticismofanentirelydifferentkind.Acriticismthatwouldnotbesomuchthecommentaryofanalready
existing,finished,andwitheredliterature,astheorganonofaliteraturestilltobeachieved,tobeformed,eventobebegun.Anorganonofliterature,thereforeacriticismthat
wouldnotonlyexplainandconserve,butthatwouldbeproductiveitself,atleastindirectly....Hencethenecessityandtheideaofascienceofitsownthatseekstodetermine
theunityandthedifferenceofallthehighersciencesandarts.6

Acrucialtext,inwhichF.SchlegeldefineswhatcouldbecalledtheCopernicanrevolutionofcriticism:tobecometheconditionforthepossibilityoftheliterature
tocome.Thisrevolutionrunsparalleltotheonebywhichpoetryconstitutesitselfas"poetryofpoetry,"forexample,ascriticalpoetry.Thesetwomovementsarenot
onlyparalleltheytend

Page124

tocollapseintooneanother.Thus,aswehaveseen,F.Schlegelstatesthatthetheoryofthenovel(i.e.,theformalmodeofrealizationofromanticpoetry)mustbea
novelitself.
Thecriticaloperationisthatcomprehensionbywhich,saysW.Benjamin,"thelimitationoftheindividualworkofartismethodicallyrelatedtotheinfinityofart."7 It
openstheworkuntoitsowninfinity,itisthesamemovementbywhichtheworkbecomes"faithfultoitself,entirelyhomogeneous,andnonethelessexaltedabove
itself."8 ItisinthissensethatF.Schlegelcanadd:
Noliteraturecanendurethroughtimewithoutacriticism.9

Positionedbeforeandafterthework,criticismistheagentofitspotentiation.ThusF.Schlegel'sessayonWilhelmMeisterconsidersitselfbermeisteror
"mythicalversion"ofthiswork."Mythical,"becauseitrelatesitmethodicallytotheIdeaofwhichitisonlytheimperfectrealizationbecauseitstrivestoliberatethis
"infinitesignification"whichmarksitssymbolicalmeaning.OftherealistdimensionofGoethe'snovel,whichwouldconnectit,forinstance,totheeighteenthcentury
Englishnovelistictradition,Schlegel'scriticismhasnoideaandwhenNovalisperceivesthatthemeaningofWilhelmMeistermaywellbesoughtinthatdirection(that
ofitscontent),hehastenstocondemntheworkinitsentirety.Likewise,F.Schlegel'sessayonLessingdoesnotexaminetherealLessing,butengagesthe
"tendencial"Lessing,forexample,whatLessingconcealsintermsof"fragmentsofthefuture.''
Now,thismovementwhichsurpassestheworkinitsimmediategivenbyconnectingittotheWholeofart,iswhatwehavealreadybeenabletodescribeasthe
movementofmythicaltranslation(Novalis).Thenhowdoesithappenthatitappearsalmostalwaysonlyasacriticaloperation?Letusfirstnotethis:Thecategoryof
"comprehension"isvalidforbothcriticismandtranslation:
Inordertotranslateperfectlytheancientintothemodern,thetranslatorwouldhavetohavesuchmasteryofthelatterastobeabletomakeeverythingmodernbutatthesame
timehewouldhavetounderstandantiquitysowellthathewouldbeablenotjusttoimitateitbut,ifnecessary,recreateit.10

WhenF.Schlegelstates,inafragmentwehavealreadyquoted,thattranslationsare"philologicalmimes,"heincludestheminthesphereof"thephilological"ingeneral,
forthesamereasonas"notes"and"commentaries,"forexample,as"criticalgenres."Conversely,theAthenumfragment287equatescriticismandtranslation:

Page125
11

OnlythendoIshowthatIhaveunderstoodanauthor,whenIcanactinhisspiritwhenIcantranslatehimandtransformhimwithoutdiminishinghisindividuality.

WefindonceagainNovalis's"spiritualmimic,"validforthetranslatorandthecritic,bothofwhommuststudyaforeigntextand"reconstruct"it.Tobesure,inthecase
ofthetranslator,thetextisbothotherandforeignbutthisdistinctioncarrieshardlyanyweightforthephilologercriticconfrontedwithancienttexts.Iftheaimofany
reconstructivemimicoftheworkistobringoutits"pureandperfectedcharacter,"thenthereshouldbenodoubtthatcriticism,essentiallyidenticaltotranslation,is
superiortoit,foritisnothingbutthismovementofliberationraisedtopureselfconsciousness:workofartsurpassingtheworkofart,quintessence.Onthe
otherhand,translationisandremainsaninterlingualactivity:Ifittearstheworkfromitsoriginalempiricity,itisonlytoplungeitagainintothatofanotherlanguage.To
besure,totheextentthattheworktornfromitsmothertongueisincarnatedinanotherlanguage,afulguration,asitwere,happenswhichallowsapreviewofwhatit
wouldbeinitspureelement,farfromallearthlylanguages,intheetherealanddiaphanouslanguageoftheSpiritanidealistperspectiveforwhichactuallanguageis
nottherightmediumoftheSpirit,andinwhichRomanticismjoinsHegel.But,justasforHegelphilosophyissuperiortopoetry,fortheAthenumcriticismissuperior
totranslation.Thiscanbeformulatedinyetanotherway:transcendentalcriticismandempiricalcriticism,restrictedcriticismandgeneralizedcriticism,immanent
criticismandexternalcriticismtendtobeunitedinthefinishedcriticaltextwhichisthebringingoutoftheIdeaoftheworkaswellastheautotheoryofcriticismand
"miniatureworkofart.''12Whichleadstotheparadoxicalconsequence,asW.Benjaminputit,that"inromanticart,criticismisnotonlypossibleandnecessary,but
theirtheoryinevitablycontainstheparadoxofahighervalorizationofcriticismthanofthework."13Thesubordinaterankoftranslationmaybededucedfromthefact
that,ineveryconcretetranslation,thetranscendentalmoment,the"translation"throughwhichtheworkisraisedaboveitself,itsauthor,itsempiricity,itsownlanguage,
andevenabovenaturallanguage,isnotcarriedoutaspurelyasincriticism.Madepossiblebytheworkstructureofthework,itisnotinturntranscendentally
necessarytoit.Ifthecriticalworkpushingthings,withBenjamin,tothelimitoftheidealistdialecticissimultaneouslypossible,necessary,andontologically
superiortotheoriginalliterarywork,accordingtothelawthateveryproducttothesecond(ornth)powerissuperiortooneofthefirstpower,interlingualtranslation
turnsouttobesuperiortoitsoriginalbutitlacksthedeepnecessityofcriticism.InthepotentiatingrealmofRomanticphilology,itisonlya

Page126

subgenre,eventhoughNovalisoncecalledthepoeticalcriticaloperationsupreme"translation,"nodoubtcarriedalongbyanolessmomentaneous"syncriticism"with
A.W.Schlegel,whowasthenimmersedinthegrandiose,butempirical,taskoftranslatingShakespeare.
Eventhoughitreceivesthesamedefinitionascriticism,translationdoesnotcomeoutonthewinningside.Thoughdisplaced,relegatedontologicallytothesecondrank
(tothepointwhereitsliterarypossibilitiesinthefieldoffragmentarywritingareignored,whereasthoseofcriticismarenot),coveredoverinthesenseindicated
above,ithasneverthelessthesamefieldofoperationascriticism:"theworksthatcontributetothedevelopmentofscienceandart,"forexample,asweknow,
Shakespeare,Dante,Caldern,Cervantes,etc.Buteventhere,asBenjaminsawverywell,theRomanticprogramoftranslationsisheteronomous,designedapriori
bythecriticalprogram.Theinevitabledenouement:Intheabsenceofanytheoryofthisinterlingualandinterculturalexchangeoftranslationthatwastakenupby
Herder,Goethe,andHumboldt,theactoftranslatingisinevitablycrushedbytheactofpoeticcreationandthatofcritical"reconstruction."
Nevertheless,itmustbeemphasizedthat,withinthisidealistperspective,theRomanticswereabletoshowtheprofoundrelationthatconnectstheworkasworkto
translation(andcriticism).Thisrelationconsistsinthefactthatthework,bythetensionwhichsimultaneouslyunitesittoandseparatesitfromlanguage(oratanother
level:totherelationofbelonginganddistancethatconnectsittolanguage),makestranslationpossible,demandsitlikeaneedofitsown,and,moreover,makesitinto
anhistoricaloperationfullofmeaninglinguisticallyandculturallyaswellaspsychologically.Thisrelationbelongstotheworkaswork,whatevermaybethe
multiplicityofrelationsinwhichtheworksmaystandotherwisetotheirlanguagesandlanguageingeneral.Theworkisthatlinguisticproductionwhichcallsfor
translationasadestinyofitsown.Letusprovisionallynamethiscalltranslatability.Itisimportanttodistinguishthisnotionoftranslatabilityfromcommon
translatabilityortheonelinguisticsseekstodefine.Thelatterisareality.Languagesaretranslatable,eventhoughthespaceoftranslatabilityisloadedwiththe
untranslatable.Linguisticuntranslatabilityliesinthefactthatalllanguagesaredifferentfromeachother,linguistictranslatabilityinthefactthattheyarealllanguage.
Fromwhichitfollowsthat,inthisdomain,translatabilityanduntranslatabilityremainrelativenotions.
Butliterarytranslatabilityisdifferent,thoughliterarytranslation,obviously,alsoknowslinguistictranslatability(anduntranslatability).Itconsistsinthefactthatawork,
emergingasawork,isalwayspositionedinacertaindistancefromitslanguage:Whatconstitutesitaslinguistic,

Page127

cultural,andliterarynoveltyispreciselythespacethatallowsitstranslationintoanotherlanguageand,atthesametime,makesthistranslationnecessaryandessential
itisindeedSchlegel's"GrandTour."Inonesense,translationisexteriortotheworkitmayexistwithoutit.Inanothersense,translationaccomplishesthework,
pushesitbeyonditself,butthis"alienation"isalreadyprefiguredintherelationtoitsoriginallanguage.Thenativestrangenessoftheworkisjoinedbyitsstrangeness
(effectivelyincreased)intheforeignlanguage.Andtranslationisagenuinemetamorphosisforthework,anactualVernderungallthemoresoinproportionasthe
latterismorefaithful,more''literal."Intruth,unfaithfultranslationsimplyannulsthisdialectic.Thetheoryofwhatisone'sownandwhatisforeign,oftheelevationtothe
stateofmystery(tothestateofstrangeness,ofinterpenetrationoftheknownandtheunknown),asitisputforwardbyNovalis,referstothismovementof
metamorphosis,anditisnotwrongtosaythatthehighesttranslationsare"mythical"and"transforming."Thismovementbywhichtheworkbecomes"mythical"is
madepossiblebytheworkitselfor,inotherwords,theworkisthatproductionbywhichtranslationbecomesanactivityfullofmeaning.Whichcanbeseenin
reversebyexaminingwhathappens(ordoesnothappen)withothertranslationsthosethatdonotdealwithworks,whethertheybeliterary,critical,religious,
philosophical,etc.,butwithtextssituatedeitherinothersectorsofhumanexchange,oratdegradedlevels(withoutpretentiontoawritingoftheirown)ofthose
domains.Inthatcase,translationmaybeornotbetechnically"easy"itonlyencounterstextswithoutresistancefromthelinguisticpointofview(certainlycorrecttexts,
butwithoutdensity),or"badlywritten"texts,forexample,textswheretheordinaryrelationtothelanguageisbelowtherelationcommonlyacceptedtexts,inthelatter
case,whichcanonlybetranslatedbyarewritingaimingtoassurethetransmissionofmeaningbarelyachievedbytheoriginal.Inbothcases,thetranslationisnot
calledforbythetextitsimplyemergesfromthenecessityofexchangeandcommunication.Itisnotreallysignificantasanactofitsown.Meaningpasses,flows,
forbetterorforworse,fromonelanguagetoanother,butallthatisoftheorderofadaptation,notoftransmutation.Translationofthistypeoftext,whetheritbeliteral
orinamoreorlessdisguisedformofrewriting,doesnotencounteranyfundamentalresistanceinthem.Now,thereversehappenswithawork:The
incommensurableresistanceitopposestoitstranslationatranslationitsimultaneouslymakespossibleandcallsforgivesitallitsmeaning,nolessincommensurable.
Andinthesamemovement,itburiesitselfinandtearsitselffromitslanguage,developingtheverydimensionofitstranslatabilityanduntranslatability.Or:Themore
translatableitis,themoreitisuntranslatable.Suchisone

Page128

oftheparadoxesofthework,aparallelforwhichcouldberecognizedincriticismandhermeneutics.14
TheRomanticshavebeenabletodescribethisbafflingrealityintheirownway,becausetheywereanimatedbytheincessantquestions:Whatisawork?Whatisthe
meaningofthis"philological"proliferationsurroundingthework,ascompletelyfinished,oftextsoftheseconddegreenotes,fragments,critiques,commentaries,
quotations,translationsallthesecirclesoftextssurroundingthework,beforeorafterit,sometimesseemingtofeedonitlikeparasites,sometimesseemingtobeits
extensions,surpassingtheworkintovertiginouslyinfinitespaces?Whatarethetextsthat,aimingtoshedlightonthework,sometimesenlightenit,sometimesobscure
it,andsometimesdobothatthesametime?Whatisthispluriliteraturethatreadingbreedsaroundtheworks,andthatsometimesrevivesthem?Wouldtherenotbea
work,oragenreofworks,that,initsinfinityanditsplurality,wouldtakeupinitself,alreadycontainwithinitself,inanencyclopedicway,thishyperliteratureof
literature?SuchisthechainofquestionsdevelopedtothepointofobsessionbyJenaRomanticism.Totaketheseupagain,divorcingthemfromthespeculativesphere
thatischaracteristicoftheRomantics,suchisthedesirekindledagainsttheimaginaryfascinationitexertsbytheirtheoryofliterature.Inthissense,tocontestthe
theoryisalsotodrawitsintuitionsoutsideofthedomainofIdealism,toinscribetheminthoseoflanguageandculturedomainswhichGoethe,Herder,Humboldt,
andSchleiermacherhavebeenabletoapproach,thoughwithoutalwaysmanagingtoexpresstheirmultiplequestionswiththesamephilosophicalcloutasthe
Romantics.Themostnotableamongthesequestionsistheonewehavebarelytoucheduponhere:What,inthework,makesitstranslationpossible,necessary,and
fullofmeaning,whileatthesametimemakingitsuperfluous,absurd,andimpossible,evenasitismadeintooneofthemajorutopiasoftheliteraryandlinguistic
activity?Whatisthemeaning,outsideoftheidealistdialectic,ofthismovementof"potentiation"whichbeginswiththeworkandiscontinuedbycriticismontheone
sideandtranslationontheother?Ifthispotentiationisindeeda"reflection,"inwhatrelationdoesthisRomantic"reflection''standtoGoethe's"mirroring"amirroring
inwhichtheworkgainsyouth,freshness,andlife?Canthisdistance,whichcallsattentiontotheworkasworkandopensthespaceoftranslation,becharacterizedas
theRomanticscharacterizeditbycallingitatranslationitself?

Page129

9
A.W.Schlegel:TheWilltoTranslateEverything
A.W.SchlegelisprobablyoneofthegreatestGermantranslatorswhohaseverlived.HehadathoroughknowledgetheprincipalmodernEuropeanlanguages
Greek,Latin,medievalFrench,oldGerman,thelanguesd'ocaswellasSanskrit,totheWesternstudyofwhichhecontributeddecisively.Thelistofhistranslations
isimpressive:Shakespeare,Dante,Petrarch,Boccaccio,Caldern,Ariosto,aswellasanumberoflesserknownItalian,Spanish,andPortuguesepoetstowhich
mustbeaddedtheBhagavadGita.
ButA.W.Schlegelisnotonlyagreatpolytranslatorheisaneminentphilologer,educatedintheschoolofHeyneandBrger,aspecialist(amongotherthings)of
Sanskritandmedievalliteratures,fromwhommore"scientific"peoplelikeBopp,Diez,orvonderHagenhavelearnedmuch.
AndheisalsoagreatcriticwhohaswrittennumerousarticlesonShakespeare,Dante,SpanishGoldenAgetheater,Camons,Goethe,Schiller,thetroubadours,
India,poetry,andmetrics.HegavelecturesinBerlin(1801)andVienna(1808)thatplayedanessentialrolenotonlyinGermanyandAustria,butalso,inpartdueto
Mme.deStal,throughoutEurope:ForthefirsttimetheintuitionsofGermanRomanticismbecameaccessibleandeffectivebeyondthenarrowcirclesthatgavebirth

Page130

tothem.1 Theinfluenceoftheselectureswasconsiderable.Theentirepoeticandcriticalgospelofthenineteenthcenturyisderivedfromit.
Inaddition,A.W.Schlegel,togetherwithhisbrotherFriedrich,isthefounderofthejournaltheAthenum,whoseinfluenceonthedestiniesofEuropeanliterature
andcriticismisonlynowbeginningtobemeasured.2 Healsoproducedapoeticoeuvre,thoughhedidnotseemtoattachmuchimportancetoit,knowingthathistrue
creativitylayelsewhere.
ToallthismustbeaddedthatA.W.Schlegel'spersonalitygoesbeyondtheconstellationoftheJenacircle,andthathissphereofactionputhimincontactwiththe
entireintellectualandliterarylifeoftheageinGermany,shownbyhisintense,thoughoftenstormy,relationswithSchiller,Goethe,Humboldt,andSchelling.Admired,
flattered,butalsohatedbecauseofhispointednessandhispolemicalgifts,3 hegreatlysurpasseshisbrother'scelebrityatthetime,thoughhedoesnothavethelatter's
criticalradicality,aswellasthatofNovalis,ofwhomhehasneitherthespeculativegiftnorthepoetictalenthencehisquiteunjustifiedreputationofmundane
superficiality.Because,ontheonehand,ifheisnotsurethathehasunderstood(butdidtheyunderstandthemselves?)Novalis'sandFriedrichSchlegel'sprojectofa
fragmentarywriting,itisbecausehepossesseswhattheylack:theabilitytofinish,anabilitymanifestedprimarilyinhistranslations.Because,ontheotherhand,he
entertainsaprofoundrelationtophilosophyandpoetry,thougharticulatedinanotherway,moresocial,thanhisbrotherandNovalis.F.Schlegelfeltthisclearlywhen,
in1798,hewrotetoCarolineSchlegel:
Itseemstomethatmodernhistoryisonlybeginning,andthattheworldisagaindividedinspiritualandtemporalpeople.You,Wilhelm,Henriette,andAugust,arechildrenofthe
century.We,Hardenberg[Novalis],Dorothea,andmyself,arethespiritual.4

AsMarianneThalmannindicates,A.W.Schlegel'soeuvreshowsaprogressiveslipping:Translationisgraduallyputasidebycriticism,andcriticismisgradually
supplantedbyphilologyandcomparatiststudies.Tobesure,A.W.Schlegeldoesnotabandonanyofthesethreeactivities,butthecenterofgravityofhisinterestsis
displaced,inamovementthatgoesgrossomodofromthepureliterarypassiontothepurescholarlypassion.Theequivalentofthismovementisfoundinhisbrother
aswell,showingthatbothbelongtothatmodern"twinfigure"formedbyliteratureandphilology,accordingtoMichelFoucault.
ButitisalsoclearthatSchlegelthecriticandphilologerisrootedinSchlegelthetranslator.Itisinthefieldoftranslationthathelabors,creates,developshisentire
staturethereheformshispoeticintuitions,

Page131

andthere,finally,heoccupiesaplaceofhisownwithregardnotonlytotheotherRomantics,butalsotootherintellectualpersonalitiesofthetime.Heis
fundamentallyatranslator,whichneitherGoethe,norHlderlin,norHumboldt,norVoss,norSchleiermacher,norTieckare.Behindthecritic,thelecturer,the
scholar,itisthemanharnessedtothehardtaskoftranslatingwhospeaks.
Tobesure,thisordermaybereversedinturn,anditmaybesaidaswellthat,behindSchlegelthetranslator,thereisthecriticandthephilologertoguidehisempirical
choices.Inthefinalanalysis,A.W.Schlegelrepresentstheunityofthethreefigureswhich,onceagain,setshimapartfromallhiscontemporarytranslators.And
thisexplainswhyhewasabletopropose,inastilloccasionalandepisodicmanner,atheoryoftranslationthatisaboveallatheoryofpoeticlanguage.
Here,everythingbeginswiththetranslationofShakespeare,suggestedbyhisteacherBrger,firsttogetherwithhim,thenonhisown.Theprojectofapoetic
translationofShakespearefor,in1796,thereobviouslyexistednumeroustranslationsoftheEnglishplaywright,mostoftheminprose,andbestknownamongthem
theonebyWieland.5 InanarticlepublishedinthejournalDieHoreninthesameyear,entitled"SomethingonWilliamShakespeareattheoccasionofWilhelm
Meister,"A.W.Schlegel,forhispart,proposesrightfromthestarttomakeatranslationofShakespearethatwouldbebothfaithfulandpoetic.Thepoem,hesays,
mustberendered
asitis,thesamewayloversdonotwanttobedeprivedoftheirsweethearts'freckles.6

Whichmeanstwothings:ontheonehand,ascrupulousrespectfortheEnglishtext,eveninits"faults"and"obscurities,"andtherefusaltomodify,embellish,and
emendit,inparticulartherewhereitshocksthecontemporarysensibility7 ontheotherhand,anefforttorespectthemetricswheretheoriginalisinverse.8
Demandswhichtodaymayseemnormalandelementary,butwhichdidnotappearsoatthetime,andwhichcollidedheadonwiththeredoubtableproblemsthatthe
translationofShakespearehadalwaysposed.
TorenderShakespeareinthemanifoldregistersofhislanguagerhetorical,poetic,philosophical,political,popular,etc.isanimmensetaskinitself.Moreover,his
isaworkdesignedforthetheater,thereforehavingaparticularorality.ThepoetictranslationofShakespearemustbebothreadableandaudible,anditmustbeusable
onastage.ThefactthatSchlegel'stranslationisstillusedinGermantheaterstodayshowsithasbeenabletosolvethisprobleminacertainway.AndA.W.Schlegel,
forthatmatter,wasperfectlyawareofthis.9

Page132

ButthistranslationisitselfbasedonacriticalrereadingofShakespeare.Shakespeareisnotacrudeandformlessgenius(whoseformscouldbeneglectedorimproved
whiletranslating,theonlyimportantthingbeinghis"vision"),butan
abyssofmarkedintention,selfconsciousness,andreflection.10

Inshort,apoetwhoweighshiswordsandhisworks.ThisrereadingreferstoabarelyoldertextbyA.W.Schlegel,"OnPoetry,Metrics,andLanguage"(1795),in
whichheputsforwardanentiretheoryofpoetry.Poetryisfirstandforemostasystemoflinguistic,metrical,andrhythmicalformsmanipulatedbythepoetwitha
superiorknowhow.Inthefinalanalysis,thepoem
consistsonlyofversestheversesofwordsthewordsofsyllables,thesyllablesofindividualsounds.Theselattermustbeexaminedintheirharmonyordysharmonythe
syllablesmustbecounted,measured,weighedthewordsmustbechosentheverses,finally,mustbegracefullyorderedandjoinedtogether.Butthatisnotall.Ithasbeen
remarkedthattheearispleasantlytickledwhenthesamesoundendingsofwordsrecuratdeterminedintervals.Thepoetmustalsosearchforthat,oftenexploringthedomainof
languagefromoneendtotheother...forthesakeofasingleending....Youshallmakeversesinthesweatofyourbrow!Youshallengenderpoemsinpain!11

ThisconceptionisfoundagainandagaininA.W.Schlegel,anditisattheheartofhispractice.Thus,hestatesinoneofhislectures:
metre(Silbenmaab)shouldnotbejustanexternalornament...butitranksamongtheessentialandoriginalprerequisitesofpoetry.Furthermore,sinceallmetricalformshavea
definitemeaning,andtheirnecessarycharacterinaparticularlanguagemayverywellbedemonstrated...oneofthefirstprinciplesoftheartoftranslationisthat,asfarasthe
natureofalanguageallows,apoemshouldberecreatedinthesamemeter.12

AndinhisLecturesonArtandLiterature:
Fromitsbirth,languageistheprimalmatterofpoetrymetrics(inthebroadestsense)istheformofitsreality.13

OnemightthinkthatthisisasomewhatbriefandformaltheoryofpoetrythathasonlyverylittletodowiththeprincipalintuitionsofRomanticism.Butthatwouldbea
mistake:Theapologyofforminpoetryleadspreciselytoatheoryoftheuniversalityofpoeticforms,whichistheexactcomplementofthetheoryoflanguageand
translationofF.SchlegelandNovalis.14
ForA.W.Schlegeltherhythmicandmetricalworkofthepoet("Youshallmakeversesinthesweatofyourbrow!")isnecessarilyofthesame

Page133

orderofthe"facture"mentionedbyNovalis:It"potentiates"naturallanguageforwhichA.W.Schlegelhasnomoresympathythanhispeersandimposesonitthe
yokeoflawsthatresultfirstandforemostfromthepoet'saction.WhichisexactlywhathestatedinhisafterwordtoTieck,quotedinourIntroduction,andreiterated
inhislecturesonclassicalliterature:
Wecan...translatefromallthemostimportantlanguagesintoours.YetIdonotwantthistobeconsideredanadvantageousfeaturewhichjusthappenstobepresentinthe
compositionofourlanguage....allittakesisresolveandhardwork.15

AstheLecturesonArtandLiteraturesay,languageitselfisbornfromananalogouslabor:
Languageisalwaysbornfromthebosomofpoetry.Languageisnotaproductofnature,butareproductionofthehumanspirit,whichconsignstoit...theentiremechanismof
itsrepresentations.Thus,inpoetry,somethingalreadyformedisformedagainanditsabilitytotakeformisasunlimitedasthespirit'sabilitytoreturntoitselfbyreflections
alwayscarriedtothehigherpower.16

Therewehaveafamiliarword:reflection.Butiflanguageisalreadyoriginarilypoiesis,poetryinthesenseofDichtkunst,theartofpoetryisonlyitsreflective
doubling.Thus,A.W.Schlegeldoesnothesitatetotakeupagain,transformingandinacertainwaytrivializing,hisbrother'sconceptof"poetryofpoetry":
Ithasbeenfoundstrangeandincomprehensibletospeakofpoetryofpoetryandyet,fortheonewhohasanotionoftheinternalorganismofspiritualexistence,itisverysimple
forthesameactivitythatproducedsomethingpoetictobeturnedonitsresult.Yes,itcanbesaidwithoutexaggerationthatallpoetryisactuallypoetryofpoetrybecauseit
alreadypresupposeslanguage,whoseinventiondependsonpoeticaptitude,andwhichisitselfapoembythewholeofhumanity,apoeminperpetualbecoming,inperpetual
metamorphosis,neverfinished.17

AllthistextdoesistoapplytolanguagetheterminologyoftheAthenumfragment116,devotedto"universalprogressivepoetry"
Buttheconsequenceofsuchapositionisthatanylanguage,justlikeanymanforNovalis,is"transformablewithoutmeasure,"andthattheformsproducedbypoetic
laboraretransferabletoanotherlanguagetoacertainextent.Tothelaboroftheproductionofpoeticformscorrespondsthatoftheirreproduction(translation).And
becauselanguageisawork,"facture,"andnot"nature,"translationisoneoftheaspectsoftheprocessbywhichlanguagebecomesmoreandmoreworkandform:
Bildung.Thus,thetheoryoftheartificialityoflanguage

Page134

anditsformsgroundsthepossibilityandthenecessityofpoetictranslation.Ifitispossibletotranslatetheseformsonlyuptoacertainpoint,itisobvious(andA.W.
Schlegel,asa"practitioner,"knowsitbetterthananyoneelse)empiricallythattranslationincessantlyrunsintolimits:Thedifficultiesencounteredareoftheorderof
thetranslator'slimitations,ofhislanguageandhisculture,ofthecomplexityofthesolutionstobefoundinordertorenderthisorthattext,thisorthatmetric.18Inthe
worstcase,theyrefertotheexistenceofthatnaturalbasisoflanguagemimetic,onomatopoeicwhichpoetryassuchseekstosurpass.Whichistosay(preciselyin
Novalis'ssense):Themorepoeticatextis,themoreitistheoreticallytranslatableandworthyofbeingtranslated.
Thistheory,then,ofwhichweofferonlyanoutlinehereandwhich,forA.W.Schlegel,isconnectedwithoutaproblemtoapersonalawarenessoftheproblemsof
translation,19complementsthetheoryofKunstsprache.Tobesure,itdoesnotgosofarastoaffirmthatthetranslationisontologicallysuperiortotheoriginal,butit
startsfromthesamebases,andprovidesthetheoryofnaturallanguagewithwhatitlacks:atheoryofthemetricalformsofpoetry.
Theprincipleofthetransferabilityofforms,whichareconsideredtheessenceofpoetry,doesbynomeansentail,asPannwitzbelieves,thatthetranslator"italianizes"
theGermanlanguageby,forinstance,using"Italianrhymes."Itonlytransplantsintoitslanguageaformwhich,eventhoughitiseffectivelyofItalianorigin,tendsto
transcendthisoriginbyitsverynaturetendstobeakindofpoeticuniversal.Thetranslator,rather,isconfrontedwithamultiplicityofforeignmetricalformswhich
heaimstointroduceintohismothertonguesoastoexpanditpoetically.TheformationaldialecticofBildungheretakesonthemeaningofaradicalcosmopolitanism:
TheGermanlanguage,toopoorandtoocrude,mustcalluponforeignmetricstobecomemoreandmoreaKunstsprache.Itfollowsthatanytranslationisandcan
onlybeapolytranslation.Thereisnoprivilegeddomainforit,20noranytaboofromalinguisticorliterarypointofview.WeshallseebelowhowRomantic
polytranslationisdefined.LetussimplystateforthemomentthatitisdistinctfromGoethe'sdiversityinthatitdoesbynomeansaimataconcretecultural
communicationthroughthehorizonoflanguagesandworks:itonlydealswithaworldofabsolutizedandindefinitelyinterchangeablepoeticuniversals,aworldsimilar
totheoneofNovalis'sEncyclopedia.
Thatallpoetry,byvirtueofitsformalessence,istranslatable,isaformidablediscovery,anepochmakingeventinthehistoryoftranslation,andA.W.Schlegeliswell
awareofit.Novalisproudlystatedinhis"Blthenstaub":

Page135
21

theartofwritinghasnotyetbeeninvented,butitisabouttobe.

HelikewisecanaffirmintheafterwordtohistranslationofOrlandofurioso,addressedtoTieck:
Onlyamanysidedreceptivityforforeignnationalpoetry,whichmust,ifpossible,ripenandgrowtothepointofuniversality,makesprogressinthefaithfulreproductionofpoems
possible.IbelieveweareonthewaytoinventthetrueartofpoetictranslationthisfamehadbeenreservedfortheGermans.22

Hecanevenquote,alludingtothetranslationofDonQuixotethatTieckhadjustfinished,Cervantes'sfamouslinesontranslation,statingtheyhavenowbeen
surpassed:
Itseemstomethatintranslatingfromonelanguageintoanother,provideditisnotoneofthequeenlanguages,GreekandLatin,onedoespreciselyliketheonewatchingthe
tapestryofFlandersagainstthegrain:thefiguresarestillvisibleinit,buttheyarefilledwiththreadsthatobscurethem,sothattheycannotbeseenwiththelusteroftheplace.23

ThisisexactlywhatF.SchlegelexpressedinhisDialogueonPoetrywhenhesaidthat"totranslatethepoetsandtorendertheirrhythmisanart."This"art"isthe
unionofthespeculativetheoryofpoetry/translationandtheliterarytheoryoftheuniversalpoetry/metricform.Thisunionmakespossiblethe"logological"revolutionof
translation,andA.W.Schlegel'slettertoTieckfromtranslatortotranslatorisitsmodestmanifesto.
Butifallpoetryistranslatable,onecannowtranslateeverything,getstartedonaprogramoftotaltranslation.Inthesameafterword,A.W.Schlegelproudly
statestoTieck:
Myintentionistobeabletotranslateeverythingpoeticallyinitsformanditsparticularity,whatevernameitmayhave:AncientandModern,classicalworksofartandnational
productsofnature.IcannotguaranteethatIwillnotenterintoyourSpanishdomain,yes,IwouldhaveoccasiontolearnSanskritandotherorientallanguagesinalivingwayin
ordertocaptivate,ifpossible,thebreathandthetoneoftheirchants.Onemightcallthisdecisionheroic,ifitwerevoluntarybutunfortunately,Icannotlookuponmyneighbor's
poetrywithoutcovetingitwithallmyheart,andsoIamcaughtinacontinualpoeticadultery.24

ItisimpossiblenottoperceiveinthistextthesameomnipotententhusiasmthatanimatedNovalisinhis"Dialogue"andinthefragmenton"wantingeverything"25(or,
rather,thatanimatestheentireJenaRomanticism).TheEncyclopediawantstopoetizeallthesciencesRomanticpoetrywantstoembraceallthegenresinits
"arabesques"

Page136

Schlegel'stranslation,foritspart,wantstotranslateeverything,theAncientandtheModern,theclassicalandthenatural,theWesternandtheoriental.Thebookish
DonJuanismofNovalis's"Dialogue"ismatchedbythe"adultery"oftheromantictranslatorwhodoesnotknow,cannotknow,anylimitstohisequallyencyclopedic
desireoftranslation.Ratherthanpolytranslation,weshouldspeakhereofomnitranslation.Totranslateeverything,thatistheessentialtaskofthetruetranslator:It
isthepuredriveofinfinitizedtranslation,thepuredesiretotranslateeverythingandnomatterwhat.
ButthereisadifferencewithF.SchlegelandNovalis:Their"fragmentsofthefuture"remainmereprojects,whereasA.W.Schlegel'sprojectisrealized,26and
exactlyalongtheprogrammaticaxisannouncedintheafterwordtoTieck.27AuniquesuccessinthehistoryofRomanticism,evenif,aswehaveseen,itremains
connectedentirelytothespeculativeandcriticalprojectsoftheAthenumbyitsverydesireforcompleteness."Totranslateeverything"istotranslatethoseworks,
pastorforeign,thatcarrytheseedoftheliteraturetocome:theworksthatbelongtothe"Roman"spaceofwhichwespokeinChapter3,andthosethatbelongtothe
"oriental"space.28A.W.Schlegeldoesnottranslatecontemporaries,andfewGreeks.Attheeveningofhislife,hestatesoutright:
Iamindifferenttocontemporaryliterature,Iamonlyenthusedbytheantediluvialliterature.29

Thiscallsfortworemarks.Inthefirstplace,totheextentthattranslatedworksseemtorepresentboththeprefigurationandthequintessenceofromanticart,the
monologicprincipleisatworkdowntothechoiceofthetextstotranslate:RomantictranslationonlytranslatesRomantictexts,onlythe"same."Theexperienceofthe
foreignasforeignisforeigntothem.AgainthelimitsofBildungasrelationtoalterityareobvious:The"own"onlyseeksitselfonitsexcentricjourneys,its"Grand
Tours."Itisonlyevercentrifugalinordertobemorecentripetalalimitinscribedalsointhetheoryof"wantingeverything:"Iameverythingeverythingismethere
isnoradicalother.
Inthesecondplace,itmustbesaidthat,fromtheRomanticpointofview,theaccusationofaselectivityinfatuatedwiththepast,formulatedbyGoethe,Nietzsche,
andStrich,doesnotreallyapplytotheprojectoftheAthenum.Firstofall(anditisimpossibletodevelopthispointhere),Romanticismdoesnotknowanypastthat
isnotalsofutureforRomanticism,boththepastandthefuturederivetheirequaldignityfromthefactthattheyconstitutethedimensionsofthe"distant"astheplaceof
allplenitudes.Inthefaceofthis"distant,"thepresentisthenearnessthatmustbetransformeditisdeprivedofallpositivity.The

Page137

romanticinfatuationwiththepastisalsoafuturism,andeventhesourceofallmodernfuturisms.30
Further,theselectivityoftheAthenumisnotarbitraryandnotlimiting:Onlythoseworksarecriticizedandtranslatedthatcontribute"tothedevelopmentofscience
andart,"butinfact,therestisonly"negative,"only"falsetendency."31The"wantingeverything"isnotcontradictedbytheprincipleofselectivity:Onlytheworksthat
''signify"theWholearecriticizedandtranslated.The"falsetendency"isnotpartofthewhole.
Itwouldbeinterestingtocomparethisdesiretotranslateeverythingwiththepolytranslationalpassionthatconsumedmoderntranslatorslike,forinstance,Armand
Robin.Heisamultilingualtranslatorand,moreover,highly"transforming."Inhiscase,thepolytranslationalimpulseislinkedtoapolyglotdriveandtoawounded
relationwiththeFrenchlanguage(hismothertonguebeingaBretondialect,Fissel):
Language,bealllanguagesforme!
Fiftylanguages,worldofonevoice!
Theheartofman,IwanttolearnitinRussian,Arabic,Chinese.
ForthevoyageImakefromyoutome
Iwantthevisa
Ofthirtylanguages,thirtysciences.
Iamnotsatisfied,IdonotyetknowthecriesofmeninJapanese!
IgiveforaChinesewordthemeadowsofmyyouth,
ThewashhousewhereIfeltsotall.32

Inanotherpoem,Robinlinksthisquestoflanguagestothatofthetruelanguage:
Withgrandgestures,
Ihaveforfouryearsthrownmysoulintoallthelanguages,
Ihavesought,freeandmad,alltheplacesoftruth,
AboveallIhavesoughtthedialectswheremanwasnottamed.
Ihavebeenonaquestfortruthinallthelanguages.
Themartyrdomofmypeoplewasbarredfromme
InFrench.
IhavetakenCroatian,Irish,Hungarian,Arabic,Chinese
Inordertofeellikealiberatedman.
Iloveforeignlanguagesallthemore
Pureforme,atsuchadistance:

Page138
InmyFrenchlanguage(mysecondlanguage)therehadbeenallkindsoftreason
Init,onecouldsayyestoinfamy!33
Andinthepoem"TheFaiththatmatters":34
IamnotBreton,French,Latvian,Chinese,English
Iamallthatatonce.
Iamtheuniversalandgeneralmanoftheentireworld.35

Butthisawareness,alternativelywoundedandtriumphant,isreversedlogicallyintoalienation,intoaninfiniteselfexile:theoppositeofthisomnipotentcosmopolitanism
thatbelievesitcanbeeverywhereandbe"theWordandnotwords":
Obattlemantomanagainstfortylives!
Replacedinmyfleshbyharshforeigners,
Myselfdislodgedbyme,replaced
Byothermorepowerfuldwellers36

CaseslikeRobin'sarenotinfrequentinthetwentiethcentury.Tobesure,theromantic"wantingeverything"constitutesaprojectthatgoeswellbeyondtranslation.But
itmaybeaskedifthisomnipotentaim(which,afterall,isfoundagaininliterature)isnotinscribedinthedialecticofacertaintypeoftranslation,orifitdoesnot
representoneoftheprofoundtemptations(oneofthedangers)ofalltranslationingeneral.Whattranslator,confrontedwiththeBabeloflanguages,hasnotthoughthe
could"translateeverything?"
ItwouldbelogicaltoasknowtowhatextentA.W.Schlegel'stranslationsinactualityreflectthetheoreticalprojectthatunderliesthem.Or:HowdidA.W.Schlegel
effectivelytranslateShakespeare,Dante,orCaldern?Toanswerthesequestionswouldrequireaconfrontationofallhistranslationswiththeoriginals.Untilnow,
suchacomparisonhasbeenbarelyattempted.37AllwehaveisacollectionoffavorablebutvaguejudgmentsonSchlegel'stranslationsandtheirhistoricalimportance
inGermany.
Inthetheoreticalframeworkofthisstudy,itwouldbeoutofthequestiontoproceedtosuchaconfrontation.Besides,thedifficultiesconnectedtoitareobvious.We
shallsimplytrytoindicateinwhichgeneralframeworksuchaconfrontationshouldbecarriedout.ThemannerinwhichwecanjudgeatranslationofShakespeareor
Cervantestodayisinpartconnectedtothemannerinwhichweperceivetheseauthorsculturally.Letussaythis:Forus,Shakespeare(likeCervantesorBoccaccio)
belongstothatconstellationofEuropeanliteraturewhich,fromthefifteenthtothesixteenthcentury,isconstructedonthebasisof"popular"culturesandliteratures
nolessthanonthe

Page139

basisoftheculturesandlanguagescalled"scholarly."Itisimpossibletoappreciatetheseworksiftheyarenotconnectedtotheseoralroots.Thesamegoesfora
Rabelais,andalsoforaLuther.Thus,totranslatetheseauthorsisforustoattempttorenderthemultipleregistersoftheirorallanguage.Consequently,itistoconfront
thepossibilitiesofourcontemporaryEuropeanlanguagesgonethroughthesieveofhistoryandwritingwithlanguageswhosewealth,flexibility,andfreedomare
incomparablygreater.Wefindagain,fromadifferentperspective,theideaof"naturalgenius"oftheeighteenthcenturywiththedifferencethatwesituatethis"natural
genius''intheveryoralityofthelanguage.TheRomanticpointofviewisentirelydifferent:Againstthenotionof"naturalgenius,"theissueistoshowinaShakespeare
thevigorofapoeticknowhowthatisabletorealizeinfinitelyselfconsciousworks.A"noble"Shakespeare,whowouldbeasortofLeonardodaVinciofthe
theater.Here,itmaybeaffirmedthatwhatisimportantisthe"Romantic"Shakespearewhomixesthenobleandthebase,thecrudeandthedelicate,etc.,orthe
Cervanteswhostrewshischapterswithsonnetsandpastoraltales,scholarlymixingsatireandpoetry.Giventhattranslationhadretainedonlythecrudenessofthese
authors(theirnotveryappetizingpopularbase),theissueforcriticismandtranslationwastoshowthattheyweregreatpoetswho,whentheyhadrecourseto
popularphrases,diditinplay,moreoutofatasteforuniversalitythanaprofoundaffinitywithorality.
Thismeansthat,fromtheRomanticpointofview,onemaycertainlystatetheoreticallythatShakespeare,Cervantes,andBoccaccioaretheunionofthehighandthe
low,thebaseandthenoble.ButatbottomtheRomanticscannomoreaccommodatethedimensionofthelowandthebasethantheprecedingtradition:The
numerousimitationsoftheseauthorsinwhichEuropeanRomanticismindulgedrathershowthattheyconstantlyeclipsethe"base"orsubjectittoahyperironic
treatmentthatannihilatesit.Actually,nothingismoreforeigntoRomanticismthanthenaturalnessoflanguage,eventhough(andhereitdiffersfromclassicism)itclaims
an"obscure"languagechargedwithallegoricity(hence,sometimes,therecoursetooldwords,whichcreatetheimpressionofthe"distant").Howcoulditthen
accommodatewhatintheseauthorsisoftheorderoftheobscene,thespicy,thescatological,theinsult?InthecriticalanalysestheRomanticsgiveofthem,thataspect
issimplynotmentioned.Andinthetranslations?TieckandhisdaughterDorothea,finishingthetranslationofShakespeare,allowedthemselvestobowdlerizethe
crudestpassages.38A.W.Schlegel,ontheotherhand,seemstohaveacteddifferently:HesubtlypoetizedandrationalizedShakespeare(inthenameofthedemands
ofversification,forinstance),butwithoutallowinghimselfflagrantinfidelities.Hence,asPannwitz

Page140

says,hewasunabletorenderthe"majesticbarbariousness"ofShakespeare'sverses.Thus,thelimitofhistranslationistobefoundintheRomanticviewofpoetryand
poetictranslationaswellasinthegeneralinabilityoftheagetoaccommodatethatwhich,inforeignworks,surpassesthefieldofitssensibility,thatis,inthiscase,that
whichwouldobligeBildungtobesomethingelsethananeducationalandformative"GrandTour."
A.W.Schlegel'soppositiontoVoss,forthatmatter,derivesfromthis:Thelatterwouldhave"graecicized"Germantooabruptly.Ifoneoverthrowsthelimitsofone's
ownlanguage,A.W.SchlegelstatesinareviewofVoss'stranslationoftheIliad,onerunstheriskof"nolongerspeakingavalidlanguage,recognizedassuch,buta
kindofslang(Rothwelsch)oneinventsoneself.Nonecessitymaybeadducedtojustifysuchathing."39Vosswouldhavesteppedoverthatlimitbetweenthe
"foreign"and"strangeness''signaledbyHumboldt.40Thattranslation,precisely,shouldinhabittheimpreciseandundefinablebordersofthe"foreign"and"strangeness"
iswhatexceedstheperspectiveofclassicalandRomanticBildung.Likewise,F.SchlegelcouldharshlycriticizeLuther'stranslationoftheBible.41Thatisbecause
Lutherdoesnotyetthinkaboutseparatingthewrittenandtheoral,thescholarlyandthepopular,whereasthisseparationhadbeenentirelycompletedbythetimeof
theRomanticsandGoethe.ThelatterstatesinhisMemoirs:
Ihearditsaidthatonemustspeakthewayonewritesandwritethewayonespeaks,whereasitseemedtomethatwrittenlanguageandspokenlanguagewere,onceandforall,
twoentirelydifferentthings,ofwhicheachwasjustifiedtoclaimitsownrights.42

DespiteKlopstock,thetheoryoflanguageandtranslationinGermanyattheendoftheeighteenthcenturylostsightofwhatwasprimordialforLuther:tospeakandto
translateinthelanguageof"themotherinthehome,thechildrenonthestreet,andthecommonmaninthemarketplace."Asweshallsee,itwasHlderlinwhowas
abletotakeupthistruthofLuther'slanguage,not,tobesure,inthisliteralform,butintheformofapoeticlanguageenrichedsimultaneouslybyforeignlanguagesand
dialects.AndthusheinauguratedanewepochinpoetryandtranslationinGermany

Page141

10
F.SchleiermacherandW.VonHumboldt:TranslationintheHermeneuticalLinguisticSpace
CanF.SchleiermacherandW.vonHumboldtbepresentedtogether?Thelatter,agreatrepresentativeofGermanclassicismbutintouchwithallthetendenciesofhis
time,devotedhiswholelifetoanactivitythatbordersonphilosophy,literature,philology,butthatcanonlybedefinedasaconstantconcernwithlanguage.1 Thisis
notaphilosophyoflanguageinthemannerofHerderorHamannnor,obviously,linguisticsinthemodernsense.Inhistexts,abstractreflectionandtheempiricalstudy
oflanguagearemingled.Astheyare,theystillexertbecauseofthatmixturewhichsometimesmakesthemobscureapowerfulattractiontoday,anditis
understandablethattheyhaveengagedsuchdifferentmindsasChomskyorHeidegger.Perhapsitmightbesuggestedthattheyrepresentthefirstmodernapproachto
whathassincebeencalledthesymbolicdimension.2
AndSchleiermacher?InhisyouthanactivememberoftheAthenum,hedevotedhisentirematurelifetotheelaboration,inconjunctionwithaworkastheologian
andastranslator(Plato),ofatheoryofhermeneutics.Infact,hemustbeconsideredthefounderofthemodernhermeneuticsthatclaimstobeatheoryofthe
understanding.3

Page142

FromSchleiermachertoDilthey,Husserl,the"early"Heidegger,Gadamer,andRicoeur,thereisawholehermeneuticallineage,whichmustbedistinguishedfromthe
theoriesofinterpretationformulatedby,inacertainsense,NietzscheandFreud.4
Thehermeneuticsofunderstandingbreakswiththelimitsoftraditionalhermeneutics(essentiallythatwhichseekstoestablishrulesfortheinterpretationofsacredtexts)
andintendstoconstituteitselfasatheoryofintersubjectiveunderstandingletussay,ofprocessesof"reading"thatappearonthelevelofthecommunicationof
subjectconsciousnesses.Theunderstandingofatext(theexclusiveobjectofancienthermeneutics)isaboveallthatofanexpressiveproductofasubject.Itisalso
theunderstandingofthephenomenonofobjectivelanguagethatisdefinednotsomuchbyitsauthorasbyitssituationinthehistoryofthelanguageandtheculture.
Theoretically,understandingoperatesonalllevelsthatmayconcerntheinterexpressivityofsubjects.Butoneeasilyguessesthatitsfundamentalspaceislanguage.
Firstofall,thisisitsmediumofexplanation.Further,understandingisgenerallyorientedtowardoralorwrittenlinguisticexpressions.5 Strictlyspeaking,thereisalsoan
understandingofgestures,actions,etc.,butthescenewheretheyunfoldandwheretheirmeaningisbroughtoutisnecessarilylanguage.AsGadamersays,drawingon
Schleiermacher'sintuitions:
WeareindebtedtoGermanRomanticismforitsanticipationofthesystematicmeaningthatthelinguisticcharacterofconversationhaswithregardtoanyactofunderstanding.it
taughtusthat,inthefinalanalysis,understandingandinterpretingareoneandthesame....Languageisrathertheuniversalenvironmentinwhichunderstandingitself
appears.6

Thus,startingfromitsowndemands,hermeneuticsencountersthedimensionoflanguageasitsowndimension,andasthedimensiontowhichmanstandsinarelation
ofbothsubjectionandfreedom:
whenevertheword(Rede)isnotcompletelyboundbyobviousobjectsorexternalfactsitmerelyhastoexpress,whereverthespeakeristhinkingmoreorlessindependently,and
thereforewantstoexpresshimself,hestandsinadoublerelationshiptolanguage,andwhathesayswillbeunderstoodcorrectlyonlyinsofarasthatrelationshipis.Ontheone
handeverymanisinthepower(inderGewalt)ofthelanguagehespeaks,andallhisthinkingisaproductthereof....Yetontheotherhandeveryfreelythinking,mentallyself
employedmaninturnshapeshisownlanguage....inthissense,therefore,itisthelivingpoweroftheindividualwhichproducesnewformsbymeansoftheplasticmaterialof
language....Thereforeeachhigherandfreespeechneedstobeunderstoodinthistwofoldway.7

Page143

Theissuehereisnolongerlanguageasexpressionor"postulate"(Novalis)ofthinking,butlanguageastheultimatemediumofanyrelationofmantohimself,toothers,
andtotheworld:inshort,thatdimensionoflanguageandspeechbroughtoutbymodernlinguistics.Hermeneuticsisindispensablebecausethereisopacity,ifnot
unintelligibility,ininterhumanexpressions.Itisthebringingoutofthemeaningofthoseexpressionstotheextentthatitisnotimmediatelyexplicit.
Languageasenvironment,andnolongerasinstrument,thatisthenovelty.Foranyenvironmentisbynature,asLacansays,"somethingthatinfinitelysurpassesany
intentionwemayputinit."
Humboldt'sreflectionsalsorevolvearoundthisnatureoflanguage:
Thus,languageisthemeans,ifnotabsolute,atleastsensible,bywhichmangivesformsimultaneouslytohimselfandtotheworld,orratherbecomesconsciousofhimselfby
projectingaworldoutsideofhimself.8
Language,then,musttakeonthedoublenatureofworldandmanifitistoconvertthemutualrelationsofbothintofruitfulinteractionor,moreaccurately,itmustabolishthe
specificnatureofeach,oftheimmediaterealityoftheobjectaswellasthesubject,inordertoproduceitsownbeinganewonthatbasis,retainingofthisdoublecontentonlythe
idealform.9

Thereflectionsofboththinkersontheactoftranslation(andhereweshalldealchieflywithSchleiermacher's,whicharemoredeveloped)mustbeplacedrigorouslyin
thisnewframework:languageasenvironmentoras"ownbeing."Forifoneweretokeeptothetechnicalorethicalprinciplesoftranslationtheyexpress,onewouldbe
hardputtodistinguishthemfromGoethe'sorevenA.WSchlegel's:thesamedemandof"fidelity,"oftheexactrenderingofthevaluesoftheforeigntextthesame
humanistdiscoursewithitsreaffirmationofthemovementofBildungandoftheoppositiontotranslations"aftertheFrenchmanner''thesameemphasisonthelawof
Bildungclaimingonecanonlyhaveaccesstooneselfthroughtheexperienceoftheother.AnditisevenSchleiermacherwhoprobablymanagedtoformulatethislaw
inthemostpreciseway,mentioning"theforeignanditsmediatingnature."10
Still,theperspectiveisdifferentbecausebotharehenceforthsensitivetothenaturalrelationofmantolanguage,tothemothertongue,totherealityofthedifferenceof
languagesand,finally,totheopacitythatispeculiartothelinguisticmedium,anopacitywhichisonlyoneofthefacesoftheVerschlungenheitmentionedbyFreud
andLacan.

Page144

Theresultfortranslationisanewspace,thatofnaturallanguage,andthatoftheinfinitynolessintersectedofrelationsanyonecanhavetothemothertongueand
tootherlanguages.11Translationisnolongerinstructedtosurpassthese(theAthenum),toderidetheminasovereignmanner(A.WSchlegel),ortorelativizethem
culturallyinthespaceofWeltliteratur(Goethe).Translationmustoperateinthecontextofthisdimension,whichisneitherprivatenorsocial,butsymbolical,andin
whichtheissueisthehumanintheconstitutionofitsbeing.
OnJune24,1823,SchleiermacherdeliveredalectureattheBerlinRoyalAcademyofSciences,entitled"OntheDifferentMethodsofTranslating."Thislecture,later
publishedinhisCompleteWorks,wasconnectedtotheresearchinthedomainofhermeneuticsinwhichhewasengagedatthetime.itmayevenbesaidthatit
constitutesachapterinthisresearch.
Beforeweanalyzethistext,thefollowingmustbeemphasized:ThereisnodoubtthatthisistheonlystudyofthatperiodinGermanytoconstituteasystematicand
methodicalapproachoftranslation.
Methodical,because,forSchleiermacher,theissueisnotonlytoanalyze,butalsotodeduce,onthebasisofdefinitions,thepossiblemethodsoftranslation.
Systematic:Schleiermacherseekstodelimitthesphereoftheactoftranslationinthetotalfieldofunderstanding,adelimitationcarriedoutbytheprogressive
exclusionofthatwhichisnotthisact,andbyitsarticulatedpositioninthisfield.Oncethisdelimitationhasbeeneffected,itbecomespossibletoproceedtoan
examination(itselfsystematic)ofexistingtranslations,andtocreateamethodologyoftranslationappliedtothedifferentgenresofRede.12Thisisthepathofhis
Hermeneutics.
Here,weareinthepresenceofadiscourseontranslationthatclaimstoberationalandphilosophical,andthataimstoconstituteatheoryoftranslationbasedona
certaintheoryofsubjectivity.Thisisalsowhythereisconstantlythequestionofpersons:thetranslator,theinterpreter,theauthor,thereader,etc.Inthisrespect,we
shallseethatthewayinwhichSchleiermacherdefinesthetwotypesoftranslationthatarepossibleforhim,ischaracteristic:Inthefinalanalysis,theycorrespondto
twocultural,social,andpsychologicaltypesoftranslators.Here,translationhasbecomeanintersubjectiveact,the"crestingmomentoflife."13
Schleiermacherbeginswithareflectionongeneralizedtranslation:Thereis"translation"everywherewherewehavetointerpretadiscourse,whetheritbeaforeigner
speakingtousinalanguagewhichisnotourown,apeasantcallingouttousinadialect,anunknownpersonspeakingwordswecanbarelyunderstand,orwhether
weexamine

Page145

wordsweutteredpreviously,butthatnowseemobscuretous....inallthesecasesweareledtoanactof"translation"andthemostdifficultoneisnotnecessarily
theoneconcerningaforeignlanguage.inshort,anycommunicationisanactoftranslation/understandingtoacertaindegree:
Thoughtandexpressionareessentiallyandinternallyidenticalandthewholeartofallunderstandingofspeech,andthereforealsoofalltranslationisbasedonthisconviction.
14

ButSchleiermacheriscarefultoimmediatelydistinguishthisgeneralizedtranslationfromrestrictedtranslation,thatis,oftranslationbetweenlanguages.
Nevertheless,noteveryactoftransmissionbetweenlanguagesisnecessarilytranslation.Aseconddistinctionmustbemade:betweentranslatorandinterpreter.And
thishastobedoneonthefollowinggrounds:Interpretingwouldbemoreconcernedwith"businessmatters,"translationmorewiththedomainsof"science"and
''art"(i.e.,ofphilosophyandliterature).Thisdistinctioniscorroboratedbyanotherone:Interpretingisessentiallyoral,translationessentiallywritten.Thesedistinctions
dependonmerecommonsense,andSchleiermacherwillattempttobasethemonanother,moreessentialdistinction:thedistinctionoftheobjectiveandthe
subjective:
Thelessanauthorhimselfappearsintheoriginal,themoreheactsexclusivelyasthegraspingorganoftheobject...themorethetranslationisasimplekindofinterpreting.15

Everywheretheauthorappearsasthemereservantofanobjectivecontent,thereisinterpretingoralorwritten.Everywherehetriestoexpresshimself,inthefieldof
"science"or"art,"thereistranslation.Furtheron,Schleiermacherattemptstodeepenhisdistinction.Thefieldofinterpretingisthatofthediscoursesinwhichlanguage
tendstobecomepuredesignationwithoutdensity.Notonlyisinterpretingsimplifiedheretotheextreme,ithasnovalueinitself,beingonlytheindifferentvehicleofa
content.Butinliteratureandphilosophy,theauthorandhistextarecaughtinthetwofoldrelationtolanguagementionedabove:Thereissimultaneouslymodificationof
languageandexpressionofthesubject.Philosophicalwisdom,Schleiermachersays,must"bedissolvedinthissystemoflanguage."16Literarydiscourseisalsoa
"livingrepresentation[ofthelanguage],"17evenasitremainstheuniqueexpressionofanindividual(hisspeech).Thesetwolevelsareatonceseparateandunited,and
thehermeneuticianaswellasthetranslatordealwithit.Literatureandphilosophy,then,areofthedomainofthe"subjective,"butthissubjectiveelementalsomeansan
"intimacy"withone'sownlanguagethatdoesnotexistinthecaseoftextsconnectedtointerpreting.Cleavingtothesubjectiveofthesubjectandtotheintimacy

Page146

ofthemothertongue,theliteraryorphilosophicaltextisremovedfromallobjectivity.ThisviewispartiallyanextensionoftheAthenum'sview,butitisalso
connectedtothisnewperceptionoflanguagewhichisbeingbornatthetimeandaccordingtowhichlanguageisnotsomuchrepresentationasexpression:
Henceforth,languageissupposedtobe"rootednotinthethingsperceived,butintheactivesubject."18
Thus,thesphereofgenuinetranslationhasbeen"deduced":
For,aslanguageisanhistoricalthing,therecanbenorightsenseforitwithoutasenseofitshistory.Languagesarenotinvented,andthus,anyarbitraryworkinthemandon
themisfoolishnessbuttheyaregraduallydiscovered,andscholarshipandartarethepowersthroughwhichthisdiscoveryispromotedandbroughttofulfillment.19

Itistheresponsibilityofthetranslatortotransmitthoseworksofscienceandartthatmakeupthehistoricallifeofalanguage.Buthowcanthetranslatorrenderinhis
ownlanguagesomethingthatsimultaneouslyfallswithinthescopeoftheintimacyoftheforeignlanguageandthatofthesubjectexpressinghimselfinthatlanguage?
Howtorendertheinteriorityoftheotherlanguageandtheforeignauthor?"Doesnottranslation,consideredinthisway,seemafoolishenterprise?"20
Facedwiththis"foolishness,"Schleiermachermentionstwopracticesthataresupposedtoresolvethedifficultiesoftranslation,evenastheyavoidthem:paraphrase
andrecreation(Nachbildung).Inbothcases,theproblemiscircumvented,ordenied:
Butwhatofthegenuinetranslator,whowantstobringthosetwocompletelyseparatedpersons,hisauthorandhisreader,trulytogether,andwhowouldliketobringthelatterto
anunderstandingandenjoymentoftheformerascorrectandcompleteaspossiblewithoutobliginghimtoleavethesphereofhismothertongue,whatroadsareopentohim?21

Theanswertothisquestion,whichdefinesthegeneralprocessofanytranslationinthemostsubjectivewaypossible,ispracticallyincludedinitsveryformulation.
SupposeIwouldwantafriendtomeetsomeonehedoesnotknow:Atthelevelofthesetwopersons,eithermyfriendwillgoseethatsomeone,orthelatterwillvisit
myfriend.Schleiermacherreasonsinthiswayfortranslation:
Eitherthetranslatorleavestheauthorinpeace,asmuchaspossible,andmovesthereadertowardshimorheleavesthereaderinpeace,asmuchaspossible,andmovesthe
authortowardshim.22

Inthefirstcase,thetranslatorobligesthereadertoleavehimself,tomakeaneffortofdecenteringinordertoperceivetheforeignauthorinhisbeingasaforeignerin
thesecondcase,heobligestheauthorto

Page147

shakeoffhisstrangenessinordertobecomefamiliartothereader.Whatisinterestinghereisnotsomuchthenatureofthedistinction(ethnocentricornon
ethnocentrictranslation)asthemannerinwhichitisexpressed:aprocessofanintersubjectiveencounter.
Inthisperspective,notonlyarethere,couldtherebe,noothermethods,butalltheotherwaysofposingthe"problems"oftranslationaresubordinatedtoit:
Whateverissaidabouttranslationfollowingtheletterandtranslationfollowingthemeaning,faithfultranslationandfreetranslation...mustbereducibletothetwo[methods]...
.thefaithfultranslationwhichfollowsthemeaningorthetranslationwhichistooliteralortoofreewillnotbethesameaccordingtoonemethod,asitisaccordingtotheother
one.23

Thiswayofreorderingthingsonlyhasmeaningbecausetranslationherehasbecomeachapterofunderstanding.Butthatisnotall:Schleiermacherdevotesthe
remainderofhislecturetoananalysisofthetwomethodsandtoaconsecrationofthefirst,examiningitsconditionsanditsmeaning,thenshowingthefundamental
absurdityofthesecondforthisonecouldbeformulatedasfollows:
OneshouldtranslateanauthorinsuchawayashehimselfwouldhavewritteninGerman.24

Inshort,Schleiermacher'ssystematictendstodemonstratethatthereisanauthenticandaninauthentictranslation,justasthereisanauthenticunderstanding
andcommunicationandaninauthenticunderstandingandcommunication.
Thetranslationthatattemptstoprovideitsreaderwithatextsuchastheforeignauthorwouldhavewrittenhadhebeen"German,"isinauthentic,becauseitnegates
theprofoundrelationthatconnectstheauthortohisownlanguage.Itis,Schleiermacherstates,asifpaternitywereconsideredofnoimportance:
Indeed,whatcanbetheobjectionifatranslatorweretotellareader:here,IbringyouthebookjustasthemanwouldhavewrittenitifhehadwritteninGermanandifthereader
weretoreply...[itis]asifyoubroughtmetheman'sportraitjustashewouldhavelookedifhismotherhadconceivedhimwithanotherfather?Forifthewriter'sparticularspirit
isthemotherofworksbelongingtoscienceandart...,hisnativelanguage(vaterlndischeSprache)isthefather.25

Thistheoryisatoncethenegationofothermothertonguesandthenegationonone'sownmothertongueitisthenegationoftheveryideaofamothertongue.
Theonewhonegatestheothersnegateshimself.AndSchleiermachershows(thoughwithoutdevelopingit)that

Page148

thistypeoftranslationisconnected,atleastinGermany,toaculturalsituationinwhichthenationallanguagehasnotyetasserteditself,inwhichitcanneither
accommodateotherlanguagesintheirdifference,norposeasa"cultured"languageasituationinwhichthemembersofthelinguisticcommunitymaybetemptedto
speakother,more"educated"languages:"Aslongasthemothertonguehasnotbeenformed(gebildet)forthem,[it]remainsthepartialmothertongue''26whichis
"complemented"byforeignlanguageslikeLatinorFrench.Thus,theGermanculturalbilingualismwillhinder,andforalongtime,theliteraryflightofthemothertongue
aswellasthatoftranslations.Forbilingualismdoesnotmeananopeningtotheforeign,butratherthefactofbeingdominatedbyit.Assoonasthemothertongue
assertsitselfaslanguageofculture,thecommunitydefinedbyitmaythinkabouttranslatingforeignlanguagesinsteadofspeakingthem.Conversely,themother
tonguecannotassertitselfaslanguageofcultureaslongasithasnotbecomealanguageoftranslation,aslongasthosewhospeakitarenotfreelyinterestedinwhatis
foreign.Inauthentictranslation,then,correspondstoaninauthenticrelationtothemothertongueandtootherlanguages.Thus,atleast,thingswouldbe
formulatedfortheGermanculture,because,forSchleiermacher,FrenchtranslationdependseitheronNachbildungorontheethnocentricoperation.Frenchislike
thoselanguagesthatare
thecaptivesoftoostrictabondofclassicalexpression,outsideofwhichallisreprehensible.Suchbondedlanguagesshouldexpectabroadeningoftheirspherebyhaving
themselvesspokenbyforeignerswhoneedmorethantheirmothertongue,...theymayincorporateforeignworksbymeansofimitationorevenbytranslationsoftheother
[ethnocentric]kind.27

Itcanbeseenhowthethemeoftranslation"aftertheFrenchmanner"ispositionedhereinabroaderpanorama,thatofthetypeofrelationaculturemayentertainwith
themothertongue.Whichcouldbesummarizedinthefollowingthreediagrams:

Page149

Onthisbasisthenatureandthehistoricalpossibilityofauthentictranslationmaybededuced.This,saysSchleiermacher,
restsontwoconditions:thatunderstandingforeignworksshouldbeathingknownanddesired,andthatthenativelanguageshouldbeallowedacertainflexibility.28

ThesearetheprevailingconditionsatthedawnofthenineteenthcenturyinGermany.Anotherconditionmustbeadded:thatoftheselfaffirmationofthenational
language,evenifthisaffirmationdependsdialecticallyonthenewrelationwiththeforeign.
Apparently,inauthentictranslationdoesnotcarryanyriskforthenationallanguageandculture,exceptthatofmissinganyrelationwiththeforeign.Butitonlyreflects
orinfinitelyrepeatsthebadrelationwiththeforeignthatalreadyexists.Authentictranslation,ontheotherhand,obviouslycarriesrisks.Theconfrontationoftheserisks
presupposesaculturethatisalreadyconfidentofitselfandofitscapacityofassimilation.Speakingofauthentictranslation,Schleiermachersays:
todothisartfullyandwithmeasure,withoutdisadvantagetoone'slanguageoroneselfisprobablythegreatestdifficultyourtranslatorhastoovercome.29

Because"representingwhatisforeigninone'smothertongue,"30thatiswhatrunstheriskofthreateningwhatSchleiermachercallsinastrikingwaydasheimische
WohlbefindenderSprache,thefamilial(thusheimisch,maybetranslatedhere)wellbeingofthelanguage.ThatwhichHerdercalledits"virginity":
Thistypeofcomplaintthatsuchatranslationmustofnecessitybeharmfultothepurityofthelanguageanditspeacefuldevelopmenthasoftenbeenheard.31

Page150

Thatthis"peacefuldevelopment"ofthelanguageisamyth,isshownherebySchleiermacher'sentirewayofthinkingbecausethereisnoisolateddevelopmentofthis
sort,butrelationsofdominationbetweenlanguagesthatmustbereplacedbyrelationsoffreedom.TheGermanthatseekstopreserveitsvirginityisalanguagealready
culturallyinvestedanddominatedbytheFrench.Itispreciselywheretranslationsaremadethattherearefewerrelationsofdomination.Buttheriskofsuddenlygoing
fromoneextremetotheother,andthusdestabilizingtherelationtothemothertongue,isarealone:
Forastrueasitis...thatamanisinacertainsenseeducatedandacitizenoftheworldonlythroughhisknowledgeofvariouslanguages,wemustconcedethatjustaswedonot
considerthattypeofworldcitizenshiprealwhichsupplantsloveforone'scountryatcriticalmomentsjustsoanygenerallovewhichdesirestoequateanylanguage...withthe
nationallanguage...isnotatrueandreallycivilizinglove....Justasamanmustdecidetobelongtoonecountry,justsohemustadheretoonelanguage,orhewillfloatwithout
anybearingsaboveanunpleasantmiddleground.32

Thisunpleasantmiddlegroundistheriskthetranslatorandhisreadersrunbywantingtoopenthemselvestotheforeign,butthenagain,thisisthepriceforallgenuine
Bildung.Andthat,forSchleiermacher,isacertaintyderivingfromhisconsciousnessasahermeneuticianaswellasfromhisconsciousnessasaGerman
intellectual.
Letustakeaslightlydifferentexampletoelucidatethis.ItispossibletointerprettheOldTestamentsoastobringoutitsowntruth,withoutbeingprejudicedapriori
aboutthenatureofthistruth,orwantingtoread,fromtheoutset,thetruthoftheNewTestamentbetweenthelines.Likewise,onemaychooseanopenanddialogic
relationtosomeoneelse,orpreferarelationofdomination.Inauthentictranslation,asHeideggerwouldsay,isapossibleexistenziell.Itisalso,asSchleiermacher
demonstratesverywell,somethingculturallydetermined.Butwhateverthesehistoricalorculturaldominationsmaybe,thereisalwaysamomentthatisoftheorderof
achoice,evenifthechoiceisnotnecessarilyaconsciousone.Bildung,withitsownlimits,dangers,andpositivity,isachoice:thatofGermanclassicalhumanism."To
presenttheforeigninthemothertongue,"toacceptthatthelatterbebroadened,fertilized,transformedbythe"foreign,"toacceptthemediatingnature"oftheforeign,
thisisachoicethatprecedesanynarrowlymethodologicalconsideration.Now,achoiceisalwaysachoiceofmethod,ofmet'hodos,ofapath,itisalwaysthe
tracingofafieldtobecrossed,stakedout,cultivated.AnditisSchleiermacher'smerittohavepresentedthischoiceasthatofauthenticity,confrontingittoanother
possiblechoice,thatofinauthenticity.Becausethesetwo

Page151

conceptsunitetheethicalandtheontologicaldimension,justiceandcorrectness.
Onthisground,Schleiermacherisabletosaythatauthentictranslationmustbeamassiveprocess:
Thismethodoftranslationmustthereforebeappliedextensively,atransplantationofwholeliteraturesintoalanguage,anditmakessenseandisofvalueonlytoanationthathas
thedefiniteinclinationtoappropriatewhatisforeign.Isolatedworksofthistypeareofvalueonlyasprecursors.33

Letussaythatitmustbeaprocessthatisatthesametimesystematicandplural:translationofseverallanguages,severalliteratures,multipletranslationofthesame
work,tobesure,alongtheindicatedpath,abletocomplementeachotherreciprocally,togiverisetoconfrontations,discussions,etc.Translationonalargescaleis
infacttheconstitutionofafieldoftranslationinthelinguisticandliteraryspace.Andtranslationonlyhasmeaninginsuchafield.
Speakingabouttranslation"onalargescale,"SchleiermacherisobviouslythinkingofwhathasjusthappenedinGermanywithVoss,A.W.Schlegel,andhimself,and
ofthehistoricalchoiceGermanculturehasmade,atleastsinceHerder:
Aninnernecessity,inwhichapeculiarcallingofourpeopleexpressesitselfclearlyenough,hasdrivenustotranslatingonalargescalewecannotgoback,wemustgoon....
Wesensethatourlanguage...canonlythriveinallitsfreshnessandfullydevelopitsownpoweronlythroughthemostmanysidedcontactswithwhatisforeign....Because
ofitsrespectfortheforeignanditsmediatingnature,ournationmaybedestinedtocarryallthetreasuresofforeignscienceandart,togetherwithitsown,initslanguage,towrite
themintoahistoricalwhole,sotospeak,whichwouldbepreservedinthecenterandheartofEurope....Thisappearsindeedtobetherealhistoricalaimoftranslationingeneral,
asweareusedtoitnow.Tothisend,however,onlythemethodwehavediscussedfirstshouldbefollowed....Weshouldnotfeargreatharmtoourlanguagefromthese
endeavors.Foritmustbeestablishedattheonsetthatthereis,inalanguageinwhichtranslationispracticedtosuchanextent,aproperlanguagedomain(Sprachgebiet)for
translations,andmuchshouldbeallowedoftranslationsthatshouldnotbetoleratedelsewhere....Weshouldnotfailtoacknowledgethatmuchofwhatisbeautifuland
powerfulinourlanguagehasinpartdevelopedthroughtranslations,orhasinpartbeendrawnfromobscuritybythem.34

TheremustbeaparticularSprachgebietfortranslations,afieldoftheirownwithintheculturalfield,fortranslationtobeabletofulfillitsmediatingfunction.The
creationofthisSprachgebietisnotdefinedasa

Page152

titanicandpoetizingproject,aswithA.W.Schlegel,butastherealizationofthatErweiterungofthemothertonguedemandedbyHerder,Leibniz,andLessing.
ThatSchleiermacher'sreflectionsummarizestheexperienceinthematteroftranslationofhisentireepoch(withtheexceptionofHlderlin's),thatitprovidesthemost
accomplishedformulationofthelawofBildung,thatitinvitesustoareflectionontranslationbasedonethicalvalues,noneofthiscanbedoubted.Fromthispointof
view,Humboldt'stexts,whichweshallnowexaminebriefly,donotaddmuchbuttheyhavethemeritoftracingveryclearlythelimitsofthehumanisttheoryof
translation,limitsonlyHlderlinhasbeenabletoexceed.
In1816,HumboldtpublisheshistranslationofAeschylus'sAgamemnon,whichhehadbeenworkingonformanyyears,accompaniedbyanintroductioninwhichhe
simultaneouslyputsforwardhisviewofGreektragedy,language,andtranslation.ThisintroductiondistinguishesitselffromcontemporarytextsbyA.W.Schlegelby
thefactthatitconnectsthetheoryoftranslationtoatheoryoflanguageatheorywhichgoeswellbeyondA.W.Schlegel'stheoryoflanguage/poetry,andwhich
attemptstoexpresswhatisperhapsinexpressible:theintimacyofthinkingandlanguage:
Awordisnotameresignforaconcept,sinceaconceptcannotcomeintobeing,letaloneberecorded,withoutthehelpofawordtheindeterminateactivityofthepowerof
thinkinggathersintoaword,justaslightcloudsoriginateinaclearsky.Ithasnowbecomeanindividualbeingwithacertaincharacterandacertainshape....Ifyouweretothink
theoriginofawordinhumanterms(whichisplainlyimpossible,merelybecausetheactofpronouncingawordalsopresupposesthecertaintyofbeingunderstood,andbecause
languageitselfcanonlybethoughtasaproductofsimultaneousinteraction,inwhichoneofthetermsisnotabletohelptheother,butinwhicheachmustcarryoutitsownwork
andthatofalltheothers),thatoriginwouldbeanalogoustotheoriginofanidealshapeinthefantasyofanartist.This,too,cannotbedrawnfromwhatisreal,itoriginatesfroma
pureenergyofthespiritand,inthepurestsenseoftheword,fromnothingfromthatmomenton,however,itenterslifeandisnowrealandlasting.35

LetusobservethatHumboldtdoesnotseektodefinethis"labor"ofthespirit(andhenceforthitisa"labor,"nota"poeticgame,''despitethecomparisonwiththe
artist)inalinearway,buttograspitinallitsmythicalcomplexity.Alittlefurther,hewrites:
Allformsoflanguagearesymbols,notthethingsthemselves,norsignsagreedon,butsoundswhichfindthemselves...inrealand,sotospeak,mysticalconnectionswiththe
thingsandtheconceptsthey

Page153
represent,connectionswhichcontaintheobjectsofrealityasitweredissolvedinideas.Thesesymbolscanbechanged,defined,separatedandunitedinamannerforwhichno
limitcanbeimagined.36

Rarelyhastheastonishingdensityofthelinguisticdimensionbeendescribedsowell,adimensioninwhichtheproducer(thespirit)is,asitwere,surpassedathousand
timesbyhisproductanditsinfiniteentanglements.
Thisdimension,forwhosedeterminationtermslike"representation"and"expression"areinsufficient,isadimensionitselfdispersedinasmany"local"productsofthe
spirit:languages.Andsuchisthepluralityoftheaimswithinlanguageingeneral(represent?symbolize?signify?reveal?name?designate?express?link?separate?
determine?),andhenceoflanguages,thatnosinglelanguage,byitsveryidiosynchrasy,isentirely"translatable,"thatis,entirely''corresponding"toanother:
How...couldawordwhosemeaningisnotimmediatelygiventhroughthesensesbetotallyidenticalwithawordinanotherlanguage?37

InHellasundLatium,Humboldtgoesevenfurther:
Eveninthecaseofpurelysensibleobjects,thetermsusedbydifferentlanguagesarefarfrombeinggenuinesynonyms,andbypronouncinghippos,equus,orhorse,onedoes
notsayexactlythesamething.Thesameholdsafortiorifornonsensibleobjects.38

Here,thedifferenceinlanguagesacquiresanabysmaldepth.Forwhatistheissueifhippos,equus,andhorsedonotsaythesamething?Perhapstheyaimatthe
samethingbutdonotsaythesamething?Whatdoessayingmean,then?
Translation,precededinthisbyliterature,iswhatpromotestheBildungoflanguage:
Translation,andpreciselythetranslationofpoets,is...oneofthemostnecessaryworksinaliterature,inpartbecauseitopensformsofartandhumanitythatwouldotherwise
haveremainedwhollyunknowntothosewhodonotknowforeignlanguages...inpart,andaboveall,becauseitleadstothebroadeningofthesignifyingandexpressive
capacityofone'sownlanguage.39

Thistaskisfirstofallthatofliterature:Everylanguage,saysHumboldt,eventhemosthumbleofdialects,isabletoexpress
thehighestandthedeepest,thestrongestandthemosttender.40

But
thesetonesslumberasinaninstrumentthatisnotplayed,untilthenationknowshowtoelicitthem.41

Page154

Whichistosaythatliteraturesubtlyshakestheentireedificeoflinguisticsymbolsinordertorefinethem,thatis,tomakethemcapableofevermore"signifiability"and
"expressivity":
Ahigher,deeper,ormoretendersensemaybeimputedonthesesymbols...andsolanguage,withoutachangethatisproperlyspeakingperceptible,isheightenedtoabolder
sense,extendedintoa[medium]thatrepresentsinmanifoldways.42

Here,translationonlyextendsthefinetuningofthesymbolicalinstrument.Historically,asHumboldtknows,thisrefiningoflanguagebytranslationhasplayedamajor
roleinGermany.43Andinafewdecisivelines,characteristicforclassicalGermany,andaspowerfulasthoseofGoetheorSchleiermacher,ifnotmore,hedefines
whatthereisofthe"fidelity"oftranslation,tryingtoproposeaconceptofitthatavoidsthe"French"wayaswellasacrude"literalness'':
Iftranslationistoappropriatetothelanguageandthespiritofanationwhatitdoesnotpossess,orwhatitpossessesinadifferentway,thefirstrequirementissimplefidelity.
Thisfidelitymustbeaimedatthetruecharacteroftheoriginalandnotatitsincidentals,justaseverygoodtranslationoriginatesinsimpleandunpretentiousloveoftheoriginal..
..Anecessarycorollarytothisconceptionisthatatranslationshouldhaveacertaincolouringofstrangenessoverit,butthelinebeyondwhichthisundeniablybecomesa
mistakecaneasilybedrawn.Aslongasonefeelstheforeign,butnotthestrangeness,thetranslationhasreacheditshighestgoalbutwherestrangenessappearsassuch,
probablyobscurestheforeign,thetranslatorbetraysthatheisnotuptohisoriginal.inthiscasetheunprejudicedreader'sfeelingsdonoteasilymissthedividingline.44

Letusrereadthedecisivesentenceofthispassage:"Aslongasonefeelstheforeign,butnotthestrangeness,thetranslationhasreacheditshighestgoalbutwhere
strangenessappearsassuch,probablyobscurestheforeign,thetranslatorbetraysthatheisnotuptohisoriginal."Ontheonehand,whatHumboldtexpressesistruth
itself:Thereisaninauthenticliteralness,aninsignificantstrangenessthathasnorelationwhatsoeverwiththegenuinestrangenessofthetext.Likewise,thereisan
inauthenticrelationtostrangeness,whichlowersittotheexotic,theincomprehensible,etc.AndthisispreciselywhatA.W.SchlegelreproachedinVoss:tohave
createdamuchtoo"strange"pidginofGreekandGerman.Buttheproblemistoknowwhetherthedividinglinebetweentheforeign(dasFremde)andstrangeness
(dieFremdheit)canbedrawn"easily."Ifyes,how?Andbywhom?Humboldtreplies:bythe"unprejudiced"reader.Butwhoistheunprejudicedreader?Andwhat
isanuniformedreader?Further:Ifthetaskofthetranslatoristobroadenthesignifyingandexpressivecapacityofalanguage,aliterature,a

Page155

culture,anation,andhenceofareader,itcannotbedefinedbywhatthelatter'ssensibilityisabletoaccommodateaprioriitispreciselythewholepurposeof
translation(theoretically)tobroadenthissensibility.TheFremdheitisnotonlytheirrelevanceofwhatisuselesslyshockingor,tomentionaproblemwellknownby
anytranslator,atranslationthat"smacksoftranslation"isnotnecessarilybad(whereas,conversely,itmightbesaidthatatranslationthatdoesnotsmackatallof
translationisnecessarilybad).Fremdheitisalsothestrangenessoftheforeigninallitsforce:thedifferent,thedissimilar,thatwhichcanbegiventhelikenessofthe
sameonlybykillingit.Itmaybetheterrorofdifference,butalsoitsmarveltheforeignhasalwaysappearedinthisway:demonorgoddess.Thedividinglinebetween
theforeign,dasFremde,andstrangeness,dieFremdheit(whichmaybeRilke'sandFreud'sUnheimlichkeit,the"disturbingstrangeness"),45isasdifficulttodraw
astheonebetweeninauthenticstrangenessandauthenticstrangeness.Orrather,itisalinethatisincessantlydisplaced,evenasitgoesonexisting.Anditisvery
preciselyonthislinethatGermanclassicism(butRomanticismaswell)isseparatedfromHlderlin.Instillotherwords,itmaybesaidthatHlderlinwasabletopush
backthatlinebeyondwhatwasthinkable,conceivableforaHumboldtoraGoethe(whonevertheless,beingmoreliberalthananA.W.Schlegel,acceptedVoss's
graecizations).Whichmaysuggestthattranslationissituatedpreciselyinthatobscureanddangerousregionwherethedisproportionatestrangenessoftheforeign
workanditslanguagerunstheriskofstrikingdownwithallitsforceonthetranslator'stextandhislanguage,thusruininghisundertakingandleavingthereaderonly
withaninauthenticFremdheit.Butifatranslatorrefusesthisdanger,thereistheriskoffallingimmediatelyintoanotherone:thedangerofkillingthedimensionofthe
foreign.Thetaskofthetranslatorconsistsinconfrontingthisdoubledangerand,inacertainway,drawingthedividinglinehimself,withoutanyconsiderationforthe
reader.Humboldt,demandingoftranslationthatitmakeusfeeltheforeign,butnotstrangeness,hasdefinedthelimitsofallclassicaltranslation.Hehasalso
drawnthelimitsofwhatmustbetheessentialintheclassicalconceptionofcultureandtherelationtolanguages:topromotethebalanceofthemovementofBildung,
butwithoutexposingthismovementtothedisproportionofthe"violentmotion"oftheforeign.Whichmaymean,inthefinalanalysis:torefusethestrangenessofthe
foreignasprofoundlyastheethnocentrismofFrenchclassicism.46

Page157

11
Hlderlin:TheNationalandtheForeign
Hlderlin'stranslations,aswellastheirrelationtothewholeofhispoeticworkandhisthinking,havebeencloselystudied.1 Giventheexceedingrarityofthiskindof
study,wemustseeinthemthesuresignoftheirprofoundsingularityWehaveneithertheintentionnorthepretensiontoproceedtoaconfrontationofHlderlin's
translationswiththeiroriginals.Weshallsimplyattempttoshowwhatconstitutesthesingularity,thehistoricity,aswellasthesurprisingmodernityofthese
translationswhichispossibleonlybyexamining,evensummarily,theirownspace,aspacewhichisthatofpoetry,ofthought,andevenofHlderlin'sexistence.We
alsowanttoshowthattheSwabianpoet'stranslations,evenastheybelongentirelytotheirageandevenhaveprecursors(particularlyVoss),announceaproblematic
oftranslationwhichisalreadyourown.Intheirtime,mostnotablybySchiller,thesetranslationshavebeenconsidered"theworkofamadman,"eventhough
personalitieslikeBrentanoandBettinavonArnimwereabletogreetthemwithenthusiasm.Butonlyinthetwentiethcentury,startingwithN.vonHellingrath,have
theybeenrecognizedasepochmakinginthehistoryofnotonlyGerman,butWesterntranslation.Thustheyhaverisentotherarelevelofhistorictranslations.For
instance,theimpactofthetranslationofAntigonemaybemeasuredbythefactthatitservedasthelibrettoforCarlOrff'soperaAntigona,andthatitwasperformed
numeroustimesinanadaptationbyBrecht,mostnotablybyoneofthe

Page158

mostimportantcompaniesofthesecondhalfofthetwentiethcentury,theLivingTheater.
AsW.Benjaminpointedout,Hlderlin'stranslations,attheveryleastthoseofSophocles,arethelastworksthepoetproducedbeforefallingintoschizophrenia.Ifwe
believeW.Benjamin,therewouldbeaconnectionbetweentheradicalityofthesetranslationsandHlderlin'sbreakdown:
Hlderlin'stranslationsareprototypesoftheirkind....ForthisveryreasonHlderlin'stranslationsinparticulararesubjecttotheenormousdangerinherentinalltranslations:the
gatesoflanguagethusexpandedandmodifiedmayslamshutandenclosethetranslatorwithsilence...inthemmeaningplungesfromabysstoabyssuntilitthreatensto
becomelostinthebottomlessdepthsoflanguage.2

Perhapspsychoanalysiswillenableustomeasuretherelationbetweenschizofrenia,therelationtolanguages,andtranslationinabetterway.3
Hlderlin'stranslationsarepartandparcelofhispoetictrajectory,ofhisconceptionoflanguage,poetry,andthatwhichhehimselfcallsthe"experience[preuve]of
theforeign"tosuchanextentthatthecustomarycategoriesofpoetryandtranslationcanonlybeappliedwithdifficultyinhiscase.Hlderlinisaverygreatpoethe
isalsoaverygreattranslator,averygreat"thinker"andalso(ifwemaysayso)averygreatschizophrenic.4 Thoughhetookadecisivepartintheconstructionof
GermanIdealismwithhisfriendsSchellingandHegel,hefollowshisownpath,whichwillmovehimfurtherandfurtherawayfromthisfieldandleadhimtoa
reformulationofBildungthat,infact,willliterallyburstitsframework.
Hlderlinthetranslatorbarelyelaboratedontheprinciplesofhistranslations.Wefindsomebriefobservationsinthe"RemarksonOedipus"andthe"Remarkson
Antigone,"andinsomelettersofthesameperiod.But,asweshallsee,theycarryweight.Thedifficultspeculativetextsdevotedtopoetrydonotdealdirectlywiththe
questionsoftranslationeither.Beforeexaminingthecomplexproblematicofthe"own"andthe"foreign"thatdominatesthe''Remarks"andtheletterstoBhlendorff,
Wilmans,andSeckendorf,wewouldwanttomentionatwofoldparticularityofHlderlin'spoeticlanguagethatwillallowabetteraccesstothespaceofhis
translations.
Ithasoftenbeensaidthatthereisnothingmoretransparent,clearereveninitsobscuritynothingmore"chaste"and"pure"thanHlderlin'spoetry.Nothingless
sensual,lesscarnal.Andyet,thispoetryisbynomeansabstract,ethereal,orevensymbolicinthesenseoftheRomantics.Likewise,hisgeneralthematiccouldnotbe
clearer,more

Page159

precise,andmoredelimitedinitsseveralpolarities:theLimitedandtheUnlimited,theHighandtheLow,theGreekandtheHesperic,theHomelandandtheForeign,
HeavenandEarth,etc.,allpolaritiesthataregenerallyseizedinanalmost"geographical"manner,evenifthisisapoetic,mythical,andevenhistoricalgeography.The
greatGermanandEuropeanstreams,theAlps,nativeSwabia,Germancities,Greeceanditshighplaces,theOrientandtheSouth:Amapcouldbedrawnof
Hlderlin'splaces.Now,thelanguageofthepoetseemstoagreeprofoundlywiththisgeographicalthematicinthat,eveninitsstrippedform,ittendstoincorporate
"Greek"and''native"linguisticelementssimultaneouslyinthiscase,aGermanthathasmanagedtointegrateHlderlin'smaternaldialect,Swabian,butalsoa
linguistictreasurygoingback,startingfromKlopstock,Voss,andHerder,toLutherandoldGerman.Inamodestbuthighlyilluminatingbook,RolfZuberbhlerhas
patientlyexploredwhathecalls"Hlderlin'srenovationofthelanguageoutofitsetymologicalorigins."
Thisrenovation,whichistotallyconsciousforHlderlin,consistsindrawingonthelinguisticbaseoftheGermanlanguage,usingthewordswhilegivingthemback
their,ifnot"originary,"atleasttheirancientmeaninginthepoem.Thus,forinstance,whenHlderlinusesthewordFrst,prince,hegivesitbackthemeaningof
Vorderster(theonebeforethefirst)orErster(thefirst).5 Theadverbgern(gladly)anessentialoneforhimpointsbacktoitsroot,gehren,begehren(to
desire).6 Ort(place)isoftenusedinhispoemsintheancientmeaning,stillfoundinLuther,ofEnde(end).7 Hold(favorable,gracious,propitious)isconnectedtothe
Germandialectalhelden,whichmeanstoincline,andHalde(slope).8 Meinen[tomean,tobelieve,tothink]goesbacktotheoldGermanminnen[tolove].9
Zuberbhlergivesmanyexamplesofsuchan"etymological"approachbyHlderlin.Tobesure,thistypeofapproachisnotunusualattheendoftheeighteenth
century,notablyinKlopstockandHerder.ButforHlderlin,thisrecourse,notsomuchtotheetymologyastothemorespeakingsignificationsGermanwordswere
abletohaveinwhatcouldbecalledtheirdialectalepoch(middleages,Luther),becomesanoriginalandcomplexlawofpoeticcreation.Thatthisisaconscious
recourseisbroughtoutbyalinefromthepoet'syouth:
Sprechenwillich,wiedeinLutherspricht.10

HlderlinborrowsnumerouswordsfromLuther'sBible(Blik,Arbeit,Beruf,Zukunft,Geist),andsomeofhisversesaredirectlyinspiredbyit.Thus,
Dochunsistgegeben,
AufkeinerStttezuruhn11

Page160

rhythmicallyreproducesLuther'stranslationofPhil.I:29,
DenneuchistgegebenumChristuswillenzutun....12

HeretherecoursetotheoldLutheranspeech,afrequentoneattime,13issituatedinapoeticmovementthatgoeswellbeyondKlopstock'sandHerder'squestfor
nationalistorigins.ThismovementaimsatrecoveringtheSprachlichkeit,thespeakingforceofthecommonlanguagewhichderivesfromitsmultidialectalroots.To
locateHlderlin'smanifoldborrowingsfromLuther,Klopstock,Pietism,etc.,istoindicatethesamemomentumthatdriveshimtotheintegrationintohispoetic
languageofelementsofhismaternaldialect,Swabian.14Onthislevel,Hlderlin'sproximitytothefoundingfatheroftheGermanlanguage,thetranslatorLuther,is
obvious.Butwehaveanameforthismovement:itisthereturntonaturallanguage,theNaturspracheanditspowers.Withthisdifferencethatthenatural
languageisalsothenativelanguage.Infact,theSwabianpoetteachesusthatthenaturallanguageisalwaysalsothenativelanguage.Butthatisnotall.Itwould
bestupidtoconsiderHlderlina"localist"poet,likeHebel.Hedoesnotwriteinadialect,butintheHochundSchriftSprache.15Moreover,hispoetry
integratesnolessdecisivelyahostoflexical,metrical,andrhythmicalelementsofaforeignlanguage:Greek.Hereagain,Zuberbhler'sstudyprovidesnumerous
examples:Theexpression,orrathertheneologism,unstdtischrenderstheGreek
,theexpressiondesTagesEngelrenderstheGreek
,etc.Itmay
besaid,then,thatHlderlin'spoeticlanguageisconstitutedinthedoublemovementofareturntothemeaningsofthenaturalandnativelanguage,andofan
appropriationoftheSprachlichkeitofaforeignlanguage,Greek,whichisitselfessentiallydialectal.Byitsradicality,thismovementhasnoequivalentinthepoetryof
thetimewhich,withRomanticism,seekstoedifyaKunstspracheor,withGoethe,apoetrythatissolidlyconfinedtothedomainoftheclassicalSchriftsprache.
Now,theuniquecharacterofHlderlin'spoetrymaybedefinedbytwoexpressionsHeideggerusedconcerningthepoem"Remembrance"(Andenken):"The
experience[preuve]oftheforeignandthepracticingofwhatisone'sown."16ThisisadoublelawHlderlinformulatedinalettertoBhlendorff,dated4December
1804:
Welearnnothingwithmoredifficultythantofreelyusethenational.And,IbelievethatitispreciselytheclearityofthepresentationthatissonaturaltousasisfortheGreeks
thefirefromheaven.Forexactlythatreasontheywillhavetobesurpassedinbeautifulpassion...ratherthaninthatHomericpresenceofmindandtalentforpresentation.

Page161
Itsoundsparadoxical.YetIargueonceagain...:[that]intheprogressofeducationthetrulynationalwillbecometheeverlessattractive.HencetheGreeksarelessmasterofthe
sacredpathos,becausetothemitwasinborn,whereastheyexcelintheirtalentforpresentation,beginningwithHomer,becausethisexceptionalmanwassufficientlysensitiveto
conquertheWesternJunoniansobrietyforhisApollonianempireandthustoveritablyappropriatewhatisforeign.
Withusitisthereverse.HenceitisalsosodangeroustodeducetherulesofartforoneselfexclusivelyfromGreekexcellence.Ihavelaboredlongoverthisandknowbynowthat,
withtheexceptionofwhatmustbethehighestfortheGreeksandforusnamely,thelivingrelationshipanddestinywemustnotshareanythingidenticalwiththem.
Yetwhatisfamiliarmustbelearnedaswellaswhatisforeign.ThisiswhytheGreeksaresoindispensableforus.Itisonlythatwewillnotfollowtheminourown,national[spirit],
asIsaid,thefreeuseofwhatisone'sownisthemostdifficult.17

ThisfamousletterreferstooneoftheturningpointsofHlderlin'spoetry:Attheoutset,thepoetcertainlyhasanimmensefascinationfortheGreekworld,frequently
takingonanaspectofnostalgia.Butgradually,HlderlingoesfromtheimageofaGreecethatwouldbetheplaceofnaturalperfection,whichwasafterallvery
commonsinceWinckelmann,toaGreeceinwhich"whatisone'sown,"theoriginalelement,wouldbewhatheseekstobringoutwithexpressionslikethefirefrom
heaven,thesacredpathos,ortheaorgic.Thatis,aGreececlosertoNietzsche'sviewor,moregenerally,tothemodernview:theviolentworldofmyth.Throughall
thesecharacteristics,Greeceappearsasthatwhich,initsoriginanditstrajectory,isforeigntous,eventheforeignassuch.Andthisisexactlyaswehaveindicated,
F.Schlegel'sintuition.IftheGreektrajectorygoesfromthe"sacredpathos"tothe"Junoniansobriety,"thetrajectoryofthemodernWesternworldconsistsratherin
conqueringthe"pathos,''whichisforeigntoit,giventhatwhatisits"own"ispreciselythisvery"Junoniansobriety."IftheGreekshadnotconqueredthis"sobriety,"
theywouldhavebeenengulfed,asitwere,bythe"firefromheaven"(Empedocles'temptation)butwithoutthissamefirefromheaven,theWestrunstheriskoffalling
intoamortalprosaicelement,intowhatHlderlincallsthe"lackofdestiny,"theSchiksaallose.18Thus,thetwotrajectoriesareliterallyopposed,whichmeansthat
Greececannotbeamodel:
AndthustheGreekmodesofrepresentationandpoeticformsarealsomoresubordinatedtothepatrioticones.19

On12March1804,HlderlinwritestoSeckendorff:

Page162
Thefable,thepoeticfaceofhistory,andthearchitectonicoftheheaven,keepmebusyprimarilyatthemoment,inparticularthenational,totheextentthatitdiffersfromtheGreek.
20

ButthisdoesnotatallmeanthatthepoetwouldbeabandoningtheGreeksinordertodevotehimselfhenceforthtothe"highandpureexaltationofthesongsofthe
fatherland."21Ifthiswerethecase,therewouldbeaGreekphaseinHlderlin,followedbyanationalphase.Butthisisnotthecase.Thereismuchrathera
simultaneousdoublemovementthesameoneweindicatedonthelevelofHlderlin'slanguagewhichconnectsthe"experience[preuve]oftheforeign"(ofthe
firefromheaven,thesacredpathos,theaorgic,theSouth,Greece,theOrient)andthe"practicingofwhatisone'sown"(homeland,thenative,thenational).
Inhiscommentaryon"Remembrance,"Heideggerwrites:
Theloveofnotbeingathomeforthesakeofcominghometowhatisone'sown,istheessentiallawofthedestinybywhichthepoetisdestinedtothefoundationofthehistory
ofthe"fatherland."22

ThisformulationdoesnotaccuratelydefineHlderlin'slaw,andHeideggerisnodoubtawareofitwhenhewritesinanoteappendedtohiscommentary:
TowhatextentthelawofhistoricitycomposedintheselinesmaybederivedfromtheprincipleofunconditionedsubjectivityoftheGermanabsolutemetaphysicsofSchellingand
Hegel,accordingtowhoseteachingthebeingwithitselfofthespiritpresupposesfirstthereturntoitself,whichinturnpresupposesthebeingoutsideitself,towhatextentthis
referencetometaphysics,evenifituncovers"historicallycorrect"relations,doesnotobscureratherthanilluminethepoeticlaw,allthiswecanonlyproposetothinkinghere.23

Ineffect,themovementofleavingandreturningtoitselfofSpirit,asitisdefinedbySchellingandHegel,butalsobyF.Schlegel,aswehaveseen,isalsothe
speculativereformulationofthelawofclassicalBildung:Whatisone'sowngainsaccesstoitselfonlybyexperience,namelytheexperienceoftheforeign.This
experiencemaybetheReise,theromanticjourneyofHeinrichvonOfterdingen,attheendofwhichwhatisone'sownandwhatisforeigndiscovertheirpoetic
identity,ortheApprenticeshipYearsofWilhelmMeister,duringwhichWilhelmslowlydiscoversthevirtuesofselflimitation,farfromtheattacksofthe"demonic."
Hlderlin'sthinkingdoesnotdependoneitherofthesetwolawsitscomplexityburststhesimplicityoftheschemaofBildung:Itisneithertheapprenticeshipofthe
infinite,norofthefinite.Infact,itbringsforthsomethingmoreprofoundandmorerisky.Ontheone

Page163

hand,themovementtowardwhatisone'sownandthemovementtowardtheforeigndonotsucceedeachotherinalinearfashion,inthesensethatthesecondwould
belikethemereconditionofthefirst.Rather,thepoem"TheJourney"(DieWanderung)singstheexperience[preuve]oftheforeignandtheattachmenttowhatis
one'sownsimultaneously:
MosthappySwabia,mymother
Whomlikethemoreshining,yoursister
Lombardaoverthere
Ahundredrivuletsthread.
....
...forclosetothehearthof
Thehouseyoudwell,...
...Therefore
Innateinyouisloyalty.Forwhateverdwells
Closetotheoriginisloathetoleavetheplace.
Andsoyourchildren,thetownsbythedistantlyglimmeringlake,
ByNeckar'smeadows,andbytheRhine,
Allthemaffirmthat
Nodwellingplacecouldbebetter.
ButIamboundfortheCaucasus!

Nevertheless,somewhatfurther,havingcelebrated"Homer'scountry,"Hlderlinstates:
YetnottostayIamminded
Ungraciousandintractableis
ThetaciturnwhomIfledfrom,mymother.24

Inthefirstversionof"TheOnlyOne"(DerEinzige),hestillremembersthatloveoftheforeignwhichcontinuallytendstosupplanttheloveofwhatisone'sown:
Whatisitthat
Totheancient,thehappyshores
Bindsme,sothatIlovethem
Stillmorethanmyownhomeland?25

Conversely,otherpoemscelebratedthehomelandaswhatbelongsmosttothepoet:
...Mine
Tospeakofmycountry.Letnoone
Begrudgemethat.26

But,enigmatically,thehomelandseemsthemostdifficult,atleastinits"free"use:

Page164
AtonetimeIquestionedtheMuse,andshe
Repliedtome,
Intheendyouwillfindit.
Nomortalcangraspit....
But,likethelaurel,forbiddenfruit
Yourcountryis,aboveall.27

"Mnemosyne,"morethananyofHlderlin'spoems,hasexpressedthedangerthatliesintheloveoftheforeign,adangerthatcanonlybeavertedbytheloveofthe
"homeland:"
Asignarewe,withoutmeaning
Withoutpainweareandhavenearly
Lostourlanguageinforeignlands
...
Butwhatwelove?Weseesunshine
Onthefloorandmotesofdust
Andtheshadowofournativewoods.28

Theendofthepoemreturnstotheforeigncountry,thoughitispresentedasacountryofthedead:
Bythefigtree
MyAchillesdied
AndAjaxlies
Bythegrottoesofthesea
Bystreams,withSkamandrosasneighbor.

Whatisopenedhere,simultaneously,isadimensioninwhicheachofthepoles,whatisone'sownandwhatisforeign,takeninitsimmediation,isequallydangerous:
Theforeign,thefirefromheaven,couldannihilatetheonewhocomestooclose,butwhatisone'sown,thehomeland,alsohidesthedangerofanengulfment.Inboth
cases,thereisthethreatoffallingintothepurelyIndifferentiated,ofamortalfusionwithImmediacy.Thisispreciselythedangermentionedbythethirdversionof"The
OnlyOne:"
...Namelyalwaystheworldrejoices
Awayfromthisearth,leavingit
Barewherethehumancannotretainit.29

Thisentireproblematicissummarized,asitwere,inoneofthelatterversionsof"BreadandWine":
...Thespiritnamelyisathome
Notinthebeginning,notatthesource.Thehomelandsearshim,
Thespiritlovesthecolony,andbraveforgetting.
Ourflowersandtheshadowsofourforestsrejoice

Page165
30

Thesmotheredone.Theanimatorwouldalmostbeburned.

Withanunsurpassablerigorthedoublelawofthe"spirit"findsexpressionhere:Ontheonehand,"thehomelanddevourshim"ontheother,"theshadowsofour
forests"savehim.Themovementbywhichthe"spirit"escapesthemortal(devouring)immediacyofthehomelandisalsothemovementthatthreatenstoconsumeitby
thesearinglightoftheforeign.Henceforth,astheexperience[preuve]oftheforeignprotectsfromthebadhomeland,sodoestheapprenticeshipofthehomeland
protectfromthefirefromheavenfromtheforeign.Thetwomovementsareinseparable:Thetaskofpoetryconsistsinmasteringtheimbalancesinherenttothe
experienceofwhatisone'sownandtheexperienceoftheforeign.Thistaskisstatedin"Patmos''withtheutmostclarity:
WehaveservedMotherEarth
Andlatelyhaveservedthesunlight,
Unwittingly,butwhattheFather
Whoreignsoveralllovesmost
Isthatthesolidletter
Begivenscrupulouscare,andtheexisting
Bewellinterpreted.ThisGermansongobserves.31

Likewise,in"TheVatican":
TopreserveGodpureandwithdiscrimination
Isthetaskentrustedtous,
Lest,becausemuchdepends
Onthis,throughapenitence,throughamistake
Inthesign
God'sdayofjudgmentsetin.32

Toinstituteabalance,ameasureinthisdimension,tocarryoutataskofdifferentiationorrather,poetry,song,establishes"whatremains"("Remembrance"),that
is,thatdifferentiateddimensioninwhichtheexperienceoftheforeignandtheexperienceofwhatisone'sownarriveatbeingdominated.Poetryisabletoplaythis
foundationalrolebecauseitislanguage,letterandsign,becauseitmaintainsitself,asHlderlinsays,
underthemorerealZeus,who...notonlystaysbetweenthisearthandtheferociousworldofthedead,butwhoalsoforcesthetheeternallyantihumancourseofnature,onits
waytotheotherworld,moredecidedlydownontoearth.33

Poetry,astheputtingintoworkofthedialogue(Gesprch)constitutedbythelanguageinthesong(Gesang),istheplaceofthisfightbywhichthereignofthe
Differentiatedisinstituted.Astheplaceofthis

Page166

struggle,oftheestablishmentofDifference,languageis"themostperilousofgoods,"34becauseitcanitselfbethepreyoftheindistinctionitischargedtoavert,
Hlderlinwaswellawareofthis,ashewasabletosayin"TheVatican":
Turkish,andtheowl,wellversedinwritings,
Speakslikehoarsewomeninacitydestroyed.But
Theycatchthemeaning.Yetoftenlikeafire
Confusionoftonguesbreaksout.35

ThisgeneralproblematicofHlderlin'spoetry,putforwardverysummarilyhere,hasitsrigorouscounterpartinthemovementofhislanguage.Thelattermustgo
throughtheexperience[preuve]oftheforeignlanguage(Greek)aswellastheapprenticeshipofthenativelanguage(Germananditsdialectalroots).Itmightbesaid
thatthelanguageshouldsimultaneouslybe"swabianized"and"graecicized"inordertobecomemoreproperlyitsown,inordertobecomesongoftheNativeEarth,
theinstitutionofa"Nation."
Inthespaceofthemothertongue,thedialectisthatwhich,atleastpotentially,bestexpressestheessenceofwhatisone'sownandofthe"native."Themothertongue
ornationallanguageisthe"daughter"ofitsdialectsbut,becauseitdominatesthembydintofbeingthecommonlanguage,itisalsotheir"mother."Therelationof
languagetoitsdialectsisamutualanddifferentiatedrelationthedialectsaredialectsofthatlanguagetheyhavenomeaning,nobeingasdialectoutsideofthat
space.
Butconversely,commonlanguageneedsdialects,lestitbeinfinitelyimpoverishedandfallinto"fatelessness."Dialects,andmoregenerallythedialectalcreativity,
constitutesomanysourcesofthelanguagebecause,ontheonehand,everylanguagehasadialectaloriginand,ontheother,becausethedialects,connectedtobut
differentfromit,feedthegreat"stream"ofthenationallanguagelikeasmanyrivers.IntheirSprachlichkeit,theirown"speaking,"dialectsaretheclosestpossibleto
theterrestrialbeingofman,his"native"being.But,ontheotherhand,theycanonlydevelopthis''speaking"inthecommonlanguage.ForHlderlin,then,thereturnto
SwabianandtheGermandialectalpastis,evenpartiallyand,asitwere,modestly,36(asitwas,later,forG.M.Hopkins)tocarryoutthe"free"apprenticeshipof
whatisone'sownthatwhichproperlybelongstotheverylanguagehemakessinginhispoems.
Butto"graecicize"Germanistosubjectittotheexperience[preuve]oftheforeign,ofthemostforeignlanguagethereis,becauseitcarrieswithinitselfwhatismost
foreignto"us,"the"firefromheaven,"thoughithasbeenabletobecomethelanguageof"Junoniansobriety"andofrational"logos."

Page167

IfHlderlinhadmerely"dialectized"or"graecicized"hispoeticlanguage,itsbalancingdoubledimensionanditsdifferentiatingpowerwoulddisappear:alocalist(or
pseudolocalist)poetrywouldbetheresult,orapidginofGreekandGerman.Afterall,suchcasesarenotuncommoninliterature.Butpoetry,asthedimensionofthe
Differentiated,theArticulated,theMeasured,canonlyhavethecommonlanguageasitselement:thatis,thelanguagethathasbeendelimitedsimultaneouslyinrelation
tothedialectsit"caps"withoutstiflingthem,andinrelationtootherlanguages.Inacertainway,thedoubledelimitationofwhichBakhtinspeaks,andwhichwe
mentionedaboveinconnectionwithLuther,isrepeatedhere.Throughthe"dialogue"withtheGreekandthe''return"tothedialectalelementoftheGerman,poetry
givesthecommonlanguageaccesstoitsowndimensiontheequilibriumbetweentheforeignlanguageandthedialectthatformsitsorigin.37
Inthiscontext,Hlderlin'stranslationsfromtheGreekpoetsobeyatotalnecessityatalllevels.TheysignalthefurthestpointofthegraecizationofGermanat
workinhispoetry.
Butitmayalsobesaid,conversely,thatthemost"native"GermanisusedtorenderthespeakingforceoftheGreek.Thus,alreadyonthesimplelevelof
words,wewitnessagainthesamedoublemovement.Theline:
Wasist's,duscheinsteinrotesWortzufrben

translatesverse20ofAntigonewithsuchliteralityastoconfineittotheabsurd:
.
Indeed,
originallymeanstohavethecolorpurple,tohaveadarkcomplexion.Hencetheslidingofitsmeaningtoward:beingsomber,tormented,etc.
TherewhereMazon,forinstance,translates(inagreementwiththedictionary,which,forthatmatter,referstoverse20ofAntigoneforthederivedmeaningofthis
verb):
What'sthemattersomethingisbotheringyou,clearly.38

HlderlinpreferstoreinstatethefirstmeaningoftheGreekword:
Whatisit?Youseemtopaintapurpleword.39

Here,then,totranslateliterallyistotranslatethefirstmeaning.
Butontheotherhand,numerousGreekwordsarerenderedbytermsgoingbacktotheMittelhochdeutsch,ortoLuther'sGerman.
bymit...derFb eTugend(withthe"virtue"ofthefeet)insteadofmitderKraftderFb e(withtheforceofthefeet)

istranslated

Page168

whichwouldbemoreobvious.Here,Tugendistakeninitsetymologicalsense,goingbacktotheverbtaugen,tobevalid,tohavevalue.
,normallytranslated
asMhsal(difficulty)isrenderedasArbeit,work,labor,intheoldsense.
Herrin,mistress,isrenderedbyFrau,woman,inthemeaningthiswordhasin
Mittelhochdeutsch.40Zuberbhlerprovidesanimpressivelistofsuchexamples,andshowsthatthisisadeliberatechoiceonthepartofthepoet.ThustheGerman
ofthemiddleagesandofLuther'sBibleisusedtotranslatePindarandSophocles,notbecauseofanarbitrarytasteforthe"ancient,"butbecauseHlderlinwantsto
findagainthespeakingforceoftheGermanwords.
Adoublemovement,then,inwhichGermanmustliterallyspeakliteralGreek,mustbeforced,asitwere,violated,transformed,andperhapsfertilizedbytheforeign
language.Thisliteralnesscanalsobefoundonthesyntacticandthelexicallevel,andthisiswhatgivesHlderlin'stranslationstheirsovereignandviolentarchaism.
Nevertheless,wemustinsistthatthisliteralnesswouldbedifficultlyunderstoodifonedidnotseethatinordertotranslatewhatheinterpretsastheliteralnessofthe
originaltexttohaveapurplecolor,insteadofbeingtormentedHlderlinwentbacktotheetymologicalsourcesofGerman,tothatwhichisliteralnessandoriginin
thislanguage.Fromthenon,translationbecomestheencountershockandfusionoftwoarchaisms,anditisthis,andnotavagueliteralness,thatgivesthis
operationallitsmeaning,andthatobviouslyconnectsittotherestofHlderlin'sundertaking.Exceptthatinthiscaseoneofthepolesofthisundertakingthebrutal
transferofGreekintoGermanseemstohavepriorityovertheother:asifHlderlin,attheverymomentwhenhedevelopedhisproblematicofdifferentiation,ofthe
"nativereturn,"wentforwardinadangerouswayintothatzonewherethedelimitationoflanguagesbordersontheconfusionoflanguages.
Nevertheless,thismovementiscomplicatedandapproachesitsmasterybythis:Onseveraloccasions,theoriginaltext,initslanguageanditscontent,isviolated,and
violatedinaveryprecisewaynamelyintermsofafundamentaltendencythatthetextitself,accordingtoHlderlin,wouldhaverepressed:
IhopetogiveofGreekart,whichisforeigntousbecauseofitsadaptationtotheGreeknatureandflawswhichithasalwaysbeenabletoaccommodate,amorelivelypresentation
thanusualbybringingoutmoretheorientalelementithasdenied,andbycorrectingitsartisticflawwhereitisencountered.41

Translationisinstructedtorevealtheoriginaryelementoftheoriginaltext.JeanBeaufretwritesinthisrespect:

Page169
ToorientalizethetranslationofSophocles,then,istomakeGreektragedymoreardentthanitcanappeartothemodernreaderwho,contrarytotheGreeks,excellsculturallyin
excentricenthusiasm.42

Still,thingsarenotallthatsimple,becauseHlderlinwritestohispublisherafewmonthslater:
IbelieveIhavewrittenentirelyagainsttheexcentricenthusiasm,andthustohaveachievedGreeksimplicity.43

AndBeaufretaddsquitecorrectlytohiscommentary:
Toorientalizetranslation,then,istoremoveGreektragedyfromitssurroundingsonlybyconservingitsunequaledsobrietyaswell.
Thus,Hlderlin's"corrections"haveadoublemeaning,andinthiscomplexperspectiveallthe"distancesoftranslation"havetobestudied,becauseifitislikeatraitor,itisno
lessinaholywaythatthemodernpoetcomportshimselfinrelationtotheGreekoriginal.44

Adoublemovement,then,of"orientalization"ofthetranslation,butalsoofcaptivationofthe"simplicity,"thatis,the"sobriety"bywhichtheoriginalworkiswhatitis.
AsBeaufretsays:
Abalanceoftwoexcesses,oftheUnfrmlichesandtheAllzufrmliches,oftheaorgicdisproportionandtheexcessiverespectofforms.45

Inthisperspective,totranslate

aseinrotesWortzufrben,isineffect,evenifitisonlyinadetail,tobringoutwhatAntigone'swordscontainin
termsof,tousethestrikingexpressionfromHlderlin's"Remarks,"tdtendfactische,of"deadlyfactical."46Andtothispurpose,exactlylikeinGerman,itistoreturn
toacertainoriginaryliteralnessofthetext.Literaltranslationgoestowardthisliteralnessandeven,inasortofhyperbolicalmovement,restoresitwheretheoriginal
texttendstoveilitorto"deny"it.Infact,theoriginalisnotaninertgiven,butthesiteofastruggle,atallofitslevels.Hlderlindescribedthisstruggleasthatof
''pathos"and"sobriety,"oroftheUnfrmlichesandtheAllzufrmliches.Translationreproducesthisstruggle,evenreactivatesit,butasitwereinreverse:If
SophoclesgoesfromthefirefromheaventotheJunoniansobriety(Greektrajectory),themoderntranslatorgoesfromthatsobrietytothefirefromheaven(Western
trajectory).Butthismovementremainsitselfmeasured,inthatitalsotriesto"achievetheGreeksimplicity."IfSophoclesdeniesthefirefromheaven,theorientalwhich
ishisown,heonlydoessouptoacertainpointforhispart,thetranslatordeniessobrietyonlyuptoacertainpoint.
CoulditbesaidthatHlderlin,startingfromacertain"interpretation"oftheGreeks,hasarbitrarilymodifiedSophocles,asseemstobe

Page170

thecaseinthepassageinAntigonedevotedtoDana,whereherenderstheline:
SheheldandkepttheseedofthegoldenrainwhichwasZeus47

as:
Shecountedtothefatheroftime
Thestrokesofthehours,thegoldenones

andthusproducedasimultaneouslyfascinatinganddeviatingmixofobjectiveliteralnessandsubjectiverecreation?Tobesure,anytranslationofaworkstartsfroma
readingofit,andHlderlin'stranslationsaredeterminedbyhisviewofpoetryandtheGreeks.Butperhapstheconceptofinterpretationisinsufficient.Every
interpretationisthereconstructionofmeaningcarriedoutbyasubject.Whatisthisreconstructionbasedon?Onthesubject'sfieldofvision,onhis"perspective."
Perspectivismisareality.Butwhenwereadawork,noteverythingisinterpretation.Beneathorbeyondthis,thereisthepureapprehensionoftheworkGoethe
alludedtoinDichtungundWahrheitwhenheextensivelymentionedits"ground."Itcanbesaidofthis"ground"thatitirradiates,andthatinturnitilluminesthe
subject'sperspective.Inthissense,Hlderlin'sviewoftheGreeksisnotaninterpretation.Andthisissotruebecause,sinceHlderlin,allthosewhoapproachedthe
Greekworldapproachedthesamereality(whatevertheirformulationsmayhavebeen).48
Butthatisnotall.Wheredoesthisexperiencethatprecedesallinterpretationandprotectsitagainstallsubjectivearbitrarinesscomefrom?Theanswerheremustbe:
fromthatreadingwhichtranslationitselfis.Ifthatisnotthecase,oneshouldmaintainthatHlderlinscaffoldedatheoryofGreekart,oftragedy,etc.,whichhethen
appliedtohistranslations.Butinfact,hisviewoftheGreeksandoftragedyemergesfromhisexperienceasapoetontheonehand,andfromhisexperienceas
translatorontheother.Onlythetranslator(andnotthemerereader,evenifheisacritic)canperceivewhatinatextisoftheorderofthe"denied,"becauseonly
translationmakesappearthestrugglethattookplaceintheoriginalandthatledtothebalanceitis.Valryintuitedthisverywell:
Thelaboroftranslation,carriedoutwithaconcernforacertainapproximationoftheform,inawaymakesusseektoputourstepsinwhatremainsofthestepsoftheauthor'sand
nottoshapeatextonthebasisofanotherbuttogobacktothevirtualperiodofthelatter'sformation.49

Hlderlin'scorrections,modifications,etc.,proceedfromthisprofoundrelation,possibleonlyintranslation,totheworkandthevirtual

Page171

periodofitsformationwhichiswhytheyareneitherarbitrarynorbelongtothedomainofinterpretation:Atmost,itcanbesaidthattheremaybeothertranslations
that,startingfromthesameprofoundrelation,mayarriveatdifferentresults.Inthissense,Hlderlintouchedanessentialpossibility,evenanecessity,oftheactof
translation,andheformulatedthemwithgreatrigor.Becauseit"goesbacktothevirtualperiodofitsformation,"atranslationstandsinarelationtoaworkwhichis
notonlysuigeneris,butdeeper,more"responsible"thanotherrelations:ithasthepowertorevealthatwhich,inthework,isorigin(conversely,ithasthepowerto
obscurethispossibilityitself),whichindicatesthatithaswiththeworkacertainrelationofviolence.Wherethereisrevelationofsomethinghiddenthereisviolence.
Andtheviolenceoftranslationrefersalsotothenolessviolentimmediacypresidingoverthemutualdelimitationoflanguagesandtheircrossbreeding.Thatthereis
crossbreedinghere,andnotpeacefulacclimation,thattheimagesofsexandstruggleprevailoverthoseofgardeningandculture(Herder,Goethe),ispreciselywhat
Hlderlinshowsinapassagedevotedtotheessenceofthetragic:
Thepresentationofthetragicrestsprimarilyonthetremendoushowthegodandmanmateandhownaturalforceandman'sinnermostboundlesslyuniteinwrathconceiving
ofitself,[rests]ontheboundlessunionpurifyingitselfthroughboundlessseparation....Everythingisspeechagainstspeech,onecancellingtheother.50

Here,translationappearsasoneoftheplaceswherethemeasuredandthedisproportionate,fusionanddifferentiationconfrontoneanotherasaplaceofdanger(the
"confusionoflanguages"),butalsooffruitfulness.Thatpoetryisalsosuchaplacemeansthattranslationisapoeticact:not,aswiththeRomantics,thatpoetryisan
actoftranslation,evenifitis"transcendental,"butthattranslationbelongstothedifferentiatingspaceofthepoeticaspacewhichisthatoftheconfusionoflanguages
aswellasthatoftheirdelimitation.Hlderlin'stranslationsarehistoric,becausetheyarethefirstinGermanysinceLuthertoinhabittheplacewhereculturesand
languagesaredelimited.Thatthesetranslations,apriori,seemtobeplacedunderasignopposedtoLutherVerdeutschungontheonehand,Griechischungon
theothershouldnotleadusastrayif,ontheonehand,asecretVerdeutschungiscarriedoutinHIderlinandif,ontheotherhand,thekindofVerdeutschungin
LutherstandsinarelationofcorrespondencetotheverylanguageoftheBiblewhichpassesthroughoralityandwhichiscloserthantherelationoftheLatin
translation.Whatwe,withRosenzweig,havecalledhistorictranslationcanonlybe"historic"becausethattype

Page172

ofcrossbreeding/differentiatingrelationwiththeforeignlanguageandtheforeignworkhappensinit.
Becauseofthistypeofhistoricity,Hlderlin'stranslationsappeartoussimultaneouslyasrootedinatradition,anchoredinanorigin(Luther)andconstitutingthe
spaceofmodernWesterntranslation.infact,theybearwitnesstoachoicethatisinherentintheactoftranslationinalltimes.Eitherthisactyieldstothecultural
injunctionsthathavebeenaimedattheappropriationandthereductionoftheforeignsincethebeginningofWesterntranslation(fromSaintJerometoNietzsche)or,
byvirtueofitsprivilegedpositionofabetween,itconteststheseinjunctions,thusbecomingaculturallycreativeactthiscontestation,raisedtothelevelofa
consciousness,asthiscanbeseenwithsomeonelikePannwitz,istheessenceofmoderntranslation.Tobesure,thismodernityhasnothingtodowiththatofthe
Athenum,thatofmonologicpoetry/translation.51Itsnaturemaybemeasuredevenbetterifwe,brieflyexaminecertaintwentiethcenturytranslationsthat,very
obviously,aresituatedinHlderlin'slineage.
LetustaketheexampleofKlossowski'sEnide.52Fromtheveryfirstlines,thereader,firstofalldumbfoundedbythesyntacticdisruptionsimposedontheFrench
languagebyKlossowskitryingtorenderVirgil'sLatinliterally,goesthroughastrangeexperience:Tobesure,thisiscertainlyalatinizedFrench,asR.Pannwitz
wished,butthestrangethingisthatthislatinizationproduces,inthestrongestsenseofthisword,aseriesofmanifestations.Inthefirstplace,virgil'sepicappearsin
thewayitcouldemergeatthemomentofits"formation"whichmighthelpustomeasurethescopeofGoethe'sremarksonthe"rejuvenation"ofaworkthroughits
translation.Whereaslessliteraltranslationsbarusfromanyaccesstothetruthandtheimmediacyoftheepic'sspeaking:
Virgil'sepicpoemisineffectatheaterinwhichthewordsmimethegestures....Thewordsadoptacertainattitude,notthebodythewordsarewoven,nottheclothesthewords
sparkle,notthearmour....Thisiswhywewanted,aboveallelse,torestrictourselvestothetextureoftheoriginal.53

Butthereismore:inasortofmutualmirroring(Goethe'sSpiegelungonceagain!),thetwolanguagesappear,inthestruggleinwhichtheyareengaged,asitwereat
theirownborders:theLatinintheFrench(firstfaceofthetranslation)andtheFrenchinvestedbytheLatin(secondface),showingus,paradoxicallyasitwere,a
pureLatinandapureFrench.WhatisnotableforthereaderwhoacceptsentrustinghimselftothemovementofKlossowski'stranslationisthemetamorphosisofthe
French,whichmakesitappear,notasasubcross

Page173

breedingofFrenchandLatin,butratherasanewlanguage,orrather,rejuvenatedandrenovated,raisedtoalevelofhithertohiddenpowers.Thus,thereisindeeda
couplingoflanguages,butevenastheymix,thelanguagesalsomanifesttheirpuredifference.Frenchononeside,Latinontheother,andyetthetwoareunitedin
thatspaceofcrossbreedingwhichtranslationis,andperhapsexclusively
Foritisclearthatwhenthismixinghappenselsewhere,theriskisgreatthatitwouldbecaughtininterlingualpowerrelations.54Thesearerelationsthattendtoannul
thedifferenceoflanguages,andoftentostiflethespecificityofthedominatedlanguage,whichisdeemed"inferior,"whereasthemeaningoftranslationisrathera
profoundegalitarianism.ThiswasclearlyfeltbyGoethe,butrealizedbyHlderlin,whoacceptedtothefullextenttherisksitcarried:thelossofthelanguage(ofthe
ownlanguage,oflanguageassuch)inthe"foreignland."
Nevertheless,thenatureof"literal"(usingthiswordforlackofanother,moresubtleterm)translationissuchthatitcaninnocasebetransformedintoamodelora
methodologicalrecipe.Justlikeitexceedsall"interpretation,"itexceedsallmethodology.Letussaythatthistranslationfirstmanifestsitselfatcertaindetermined
historicalandculturalmoments,asRosenzweigrightlysaid.Itemergesfromaprofoundneedofthelanguage,theculture,andtheliterature,anditisthisneed,
perceptiblehistorically,thatguardsagainstthearbitrarinessofanattemptatindividualexperimentation(ofwhichmanyexamplesareknowninthehistoryoftranslation,
asSteinershowedinAfterBabel).Hlderlin'stranslations,aheadoftheirepoch,wereneverthelesshistoricallymotivated.Andinourday,thisisthecasefor
translationslikeKlossowski's.Allevidencepointstothefactthattheycorrespondtoacrisisofourculture,inthefirstplacetheshakingupofitsethnocentrism.Itis
thecrisisofanideological,cultural,literary,andpoeticpositionwhichhasattaineditsfinalconsequences.Thisdoesnotmeanthatalltranslationshouldbecome
"literal,"becausethistypeoftranslationonlymakessenseforacertaintypeofworks,whoserelationtotheirlanguagesissuchthatitrequiresthisdifferentialcoupling
ofliteraltranslation.ThecasecouldnotbeclearerinthecaseoftheEnide,andKlossowskiexplaineditperfectlywell.Thesamegoesforthe(re)translationofthe
Bible,theGreeks,theworksfromtheEastandtheFarEast,andacertainnumberofWesternworks.But,forinstance,aliteral,oranglicizing,translationofHenry
Jameswouldnotmakesense.Tobesure,Jamesshouldnotbe"gallicized,''buthisworkdemandsadifferenttypeofapproach.55
Wearestillfarfromoverseeingthisentireproblematic,andthedangerofconstitutingtypologiessomewhathastily,bywantingtoescapetheinfiniteempiricismofthe
majorityofthetranslators(transla

Page174

tionwouldbeamatterof"intuition,"differentfromworktowork,notallowingforanytheorization,etc.),isgreat.WhatremainsisthatHlderlinwasthefirst,bythe
radicalityofhisundertaking,toexposeustothenecessityofaglobalandthoroughreflectionontheactoftranslationinthebafflingmultiplicityofitsregisters.56

Page175

Conclusion
I.TheArcheologyofTranslation
Everyconclusionisarereadingattemptingtoretracethepathopened,stakedout,andarticulatedbytheintroduction,butwhosecoursehaspartiallyturnedouttobe
differentthanwasinitiallyenvisioned.ThepresentstudyattemptedtoanalyzetheGermanRomantics'theoryoftranslationby,ontheonehand,situatingitwithintheir
theoriesandprogramsasawholeand,ontheotherhand,confrontingitwithother,contemporaryreflections:thoseofHerder,Goethe,Schleiermacher,and
Humboldt,whicharetheoriesofBildung,andthatofHlderlin,whichextendsbeyondtheframeworkoftheformer,andbeyonditsentireepoch.Wealsoattempted
toshowhowthetraditionoftranslationinGermany,whichstartswithLuther,defineditselfinoppositiontoaculturethatofFrenchclassicisminwhoseunfolding
translationdidnotplayadecisiverole.
Next,itappearedthatallthetheoriesoftranslationdevelopedintheRomanticandclassicalperiodinGermanyconstitutethefoundationfortheprincipalcurrentsof
modernWesterntranslation,beitpoetictranslationasitismanifestedinaNerval,aBaudelaire,aMallarm,anS.George,oraBenjamin,whoseoriginsare
obviouslytobefoundinGermanRomanticismorthegreatretranslationscarriedoutinGermanyinthetwentiethcentury,whichcanclaimHumboldtor
Schleiermacherastheirprecursors.Hlderlin'stranslations,fortheirpart,inauguratedanewepochinthehistoryofWesterntranslationthatisstillinitsinitialstages.

Page176

Inthatsense,ourstudymayappeartobeanarchaeologyofEuropeantranslation,centeredonitskeyphaseatthedawnofthenineteenthcentury.Anarchaeology
whichbelongstothatreflectionoftranslationonitselfatoncehistorical,theoretical,andculturalwhichishenceforthinseparablefromthepracticeoftranslation.
Thattranslationshouldbecomea"science"andan"art,"astheJenaRomanticsdemandedofcriticism,thatisineffectitsmoderndestiny.Butfortranslation,this
meansfirstofall:toappear,tomanifestitselfFortwocenturies,literaturehashaditsmanifestos.Translation,ontheotherhand,hasalwaysinhabitedthenonmanifest:
"Effacementbethesplendorofmybeing,"asthepoettranslatorPhilippeJacottetoncesaid.1 Indeed,sincetimeimmemorialtranslationhasbeenapracticeobscured
andrepressedbythosewhocarrieditoutaswellasbythosewhobenefitedfromit.Inthisrespect,classicalandRomanticGermanyisanexceptionthatiswellworth
meditatingupon.Butwhatevertheimmediateintensityofitsrelationtotranslationhasbeen,itisnolessundeniablethatithasonlybeenabletoofferfragmentsofa
genuinetheoryoftranslation.ThatGoethe,Hlderlin,theRomantics,andHumboldt,fromdifferentangles,provideuswithinvaluable"materials"forsuchatheoryhas
beenkeenlyfeltinthetwentiethcenturybysuchthinkersasW.Benjamin,W.Schadewaldt,andF.Rosenzweig.Butthose''materials,"dealingprimarilywiththe
poeticandculturaldimensionoftranslation,mustberethoughtinthelightofourtwentiethcenturyexperience,andreplacedintoadomainofourown.
Indeed,thetwentiethcenturyhasseenthemanifestationoftheproblematicoftranslation(togetherwiththatoflanguageandlanguages)fromdifferentperspectives.
Aboveall,wemustmentionthequestionoftheretranslationofworksfundamentaltoourWesternculture:primarilytheBible,butalsoGreekpoetryand
philosophy,Latinpoetry,andthegreattextsthatpresidedoverthebirthofmodernliterature(Dante,Schakespeare,Rabelais,Cervantes,etc.).Tobesure,any
translationisboundtoage,anditisthedestinyofalltranslationsofthe"classics"ofuniversalliteraturetoberetranslatedsoonerorlater.Butretranslationinthe
twentiethcenturyhasamorespecifichistoricalandculturalmeaning:toreopentheaccesstoworkswhoseunsettlingandquestioningpowerendedupbeing
threatenedatoncebytheir"glory"(toomuchclarityobscures,toogreatradianceexhausts)andbytranslationsbelongingtoaphaseofWesternconsciencethatisno
longerours.Thus,aswehaveseen,ourviewoftheGreeks,theOldTestament,orevenShakespeare,isfundamentallydifferentfromtheclassicist,humanist,or
Romanticviews.Thiswilltoreopentheaccesstogreattextsofourhistoricaltraditionextendstothefieldoftranslation,hermeneutics,andphiloso

Page177

phyatthesametime.ThisisobviousinthecaseoftheBible:ThinkofBuber,Rosenzweig,orMeschonnic.ButitsufficestothinkofthegreatrereadingsofGreek
philosophyattemptedbyHeidegger,toseethathereaswellthetaskofthinkinghasbecomeataskoftranslation.Inthesamewaythehermeneuticofthesacredtexts
isunthinkablewithoutaretranslationofthem,therereadingoftheGreekscannotbeconceivedbyHeideggerandhisdiscipleswithoutatranslationfromtheGreeks
towardourselvesandfromourselvestowardtheGreeks,atranslationthatclaimstobe(inHeidegger'svocabulary)"listeningtotheGreekwords."Anditisevident
thatthisoperationoftranslation,henceforthimmanenttophilosophy,hashadenormousculturalreverberations(inGermany,butalsoelsewhere).Whatshouldbe
emphasizedhereishow,inthetwentiethcentury,translationbecomesaconcernofthinkingitselfinitsattempttorereadtheWesternreligiousand
philosophicaltradition.Itisinthislightthattheactoftranslationisfinallybeingrecognizedinitshistoricalessence.In"ThePrincipleofReason,"speakingaboutthe
greattranslationsofthehistoryofphilosophy,Heideggerwrites:
Bythiswemeanthosetranslationsthat,inaperiodwhentheirtimehascome,transpose(bertragen)aworkofthinkingorpoetry....Insuchcases,thetranslationisnotonly
interpretation(Auslegung)butalsotradition(berlieferung).Astradition,itbelongstotheinnermostmovementofhistory.2

Butthisconcernwithtranslation,inourcentury,doesnotonlydealwithphilosophyandreligiousthinking.Itcanalsobefoundinthefieldofthe"humanities"or,more
precisely,inpsychoanalysis,ethnology,andlinguistics.
Therelationsofpsychoanalysistotranslationarehighlycomplex,andwedonotpretendtomeasuretheirentiremagnitude.ItiswellknownthatFreudarrivedin
Francethroughtranslationsthattendedtodistorttheessentialaspectofhisconceptualandterminologicalinventiveness.ItwasnecessaryforLacan,withthesame
patienceofaHeideggerreadingtheGreektexts,tointerrogateFreud'swritinginanattemptofrereading/translationinordertoopenforusFreud'sGrundwrter
(basicwords)ontheonehand(Trieb,Anlehnung,Verneinung,Verwerfung,etc.),andtheinfinitecomplexityoftheweaveofhislanguageandhisimagesonthe
other.Weseeherehow(re)translationalsobecomesoneofthemajorconcernsofareflection,andapaththatreopenstheauthenticaccessofathinking.But
psychoanalysisundoubtedlystandsinanevenmoreprofoundrelationtotranslation,totheextentthatitquestionsman'srelationtolanguage,languages,andtheso
called"mother"tongueinawayfundamentallydifferentfromthatofthe

Page178

traditionaquestioningaccompaniedbyareflectionontheworkandonwriting,destinedtograduallyupsetourviewofthemand,undoubtedly,tocontributetoa
turningpointinliterature.Thefew,andstillsparse,remarksontranslationfoundinLacan,O.Mannoni,Abraham,andTorokcouldperhaps,whentheyarefurther
developed,alsochangeacertainawarenessoftheactoftranslationandtheprocessesatworkinitcertainlyonthelevelofthetranslatorhimself(inhisdrivefor
translation,thetranslatoristhatindividualwhorepresentsanentirecommunityinitsrelationtoanothercommunityanditsworks),butalsoonthelevelofwhatwe
havecalledthetranslatabilityofthework.Renansaid:
Aworknottranslatedisonlyhalfpublished.3

Whatisatbottomthislacktranslationintendstosupplant?Whathiddenfaceofthework,whatreversesideofthetextshouldappearthroughit?Ifwewanttogo
beyondtheRomanticnotionof"potentiation,"todeepenGoethe'sperceptionoftherejuvenating"mirroring,"perhapsweneedatheoryoftheworkandoftranslation
thatcallsuponpsychoanalyticthinking.
Initsownway,ethnologyalsoencounterstheproblemoflanguages,cultures,andtranslation.Ifitwereonlybecauseit,too,asadiscourseontheforeign(andon
whatissupposedtobethemostforeign:the"savage"),constitutesakindoftranslation,exposedtothesamealternativesasSchleiermacher'stranslator:toleadthe
readertotheforeign,ortoleadtheforeigntothereader.Obviously,amoderntranslatorconcernedaboutstrugglingagainstethnocentrismcanlearnmuchfromthe
reflectionsofaClastresoraJaulin,forinstance.Itisnolessobviousthattheethnologicalwritingshouldattimes(andessentially)becomeatranslation:thinkof
Clastres'sLeGrandParler4 orofthePeruvianwriterethnologistJ.M.Arguedas'stranslationsofQuechapoetry.
Foritspart,linguistics(anditisappropriatetoaddtothistheresearchofAngloSaxonanalyticphilosophy,itselforientedtolinguisticquestions)alsoencounters
translationasanimmanentreality.ThinkofJakobson'sfamoustext,"LinguisticAspectsofTranslation:"
Equivalenceindifferenceisthecardinalproblemoflanguageandthepivotalconcernoflinguistics.Likeanyreceiverofverbalmessages,thelinguistactsastheirinterpreter.No
linguisticspecimenmaybeinterpretedbythescienceoflanguaguewithoutatranslationofitssignsintoothersignsofthesamesystemorintosignsofanothersystem.Any
comparisonoftwolanguagesimpliesanexaminationoftheirmutualtranslatabilitythewidespreadpracticeofinterlingualcommunication,particularlytranslatingactivities,must
bekeptunderconstantscrutinybylinguisticscience.5

Page179

Itisremarkablethatinthistext,Jakobsonshouldsimultaneouslydefinetheobjectoflinguistics(languageanditsprocessof"equivalenceindifference")andthe
practiceofthisscienceintermsoftranslation.Tobesure,thisisanothercaseofgeneralizedtranslation:
Forus,bothaslinguistsandasordinarywordusers,themeaningofanylinguisticsignisitstranslationintosomefurther,alternativesign,especiallybyasign"inwhichitismore
fullydeveloped,"asPeirceinsistentlystated....Wedistinguishthreewaysofinterpretingaverbalsign:itmaybetranslatedintoothersignsofthesamelanguage,intoanother
language,orintoanother,nonverbalsystemofsymbols.6

Thisgeneralizedtranslation,withinwhichJakobson,inanefforttodominatetheunmasterableconceptoftranslation,situates"reformulation,""translationproperly
speaking,"and"transmutation,"isitselfconnectedtowhatwehavecalled,withregardtotheRomantics,thereflexivestructureoflanguage:
Anabilitytospeakagivenlanguageimpliesanabilitytotalkaboutthislanguage.7

Again,asforNovalis(butinarewordingthathasnolongeranythingspeculative),weseereflexivityandtranslatabilityconnected.
Withoutadoubt,linguisticsisnotonlyadisciplinethatclaimstobe"scientific"andwhoseknowledgewouldbeasforeigntoourexperienceasthatofmathematical
physics.Itisacertainperceptionoflanguageandman'srelationtolanguage,evenifitisnot,liketranslation,anexperience.Inthatsense,itmustbeassertedthat
translationcanneverconstituteamerebranchoflinguistics,philology,criticism(astheRomanticsbelieved),orhermeneutics:Whetheritbeofphilosophy,religion,
literature,poetry,etc.,translationconstitutesadimensionsuigeneris.Adimensionwhichproducesacertainknowledge.Butthisexperience(andtheknowledgeit
provides)mayinreturnbeilluminedandpartiallytransformedbyotherexperiences,otherpractices,adifferentknowledge.Anditisobviousthatlinguistics,inthe
twentiethcentury,canenrichthetranslatingconsciousnessandviceversa,forthatmatter.Jakobson'slinguisticsinterrogatespoetsitmightalsointerrogatetranslators.
Andthisis,ineffect,thereciprocalgameproposedbyHaroldodeCamposinBrasil.8
EzraPound'stranslations,andhisreflectiononpoetry,criticism,andtranslation,areofafundamentalimportancehere,anditwouldbeinterestingtoconfrontthe
theoryofcriticismbytranslationwiththeRomantictheoriesoftranslationbycriticism.Pound'sreflections,likethoseofMeschonnic,Po&sie,andChange,attempt
todefinewhatmaybe,inthetwentiethcentury,atheoryandapracticeofpoetictranslation.

Page180

wedidnotintendheretopresentapanorama(necessarilysketchyandpartial)ofthecontemporaryeffortsinthetheoryoftranslation,butabovealltoemphasizethis:
Thefieldoftranslation,whichhasbecomepracticallydecentralizedandstructuredontheinternationallevel,9 isslowly,veryslowly,beginningtobecomelessobscure
andtoassertitselfasafieldofitsown,astheseveraldomainsinwhichthe"problems"oftranslationareposedaregraduallybeginningtoquestionthemselves(often
forthefirsttime)ontranslationanditsdifferentregisters.Fortranslationisnotameremediation:ItisaprocessinwhichourentirerelationtotheOtherisplayedout.
Nowthisconsciousness,alreadypresentinRomanticandclassicalGermany,isreemergingwithaforcethatisallthegreaterinproportionasallthecertaintiesofour
intellectualtraditionandevenour"modernity"areshakenup.Thatmuchneedstoberetranslatedthatwemustgothroughtheexperience[preuve]oftranslation,
incessantlythatinthisexperience[preuve]wemuststrugglerelentlesslyagainstourfundamentalreductionism,butalsoremainopentothatwhich,inalltranslation,
remainsmysteriousandunmasterable,properlyspeakinginvisible(wedonotknowthenatureofthefaceoftheforeignworkthatwillappearinourlanguage,
regardlessofoureffortstomakethevoiceofthatworkspeakinourlanguageatallcost)thatwemustexpectmuchfromthisundertakingof"eccentric"translation,
perhapsanenrichingofourlanguage,perhapsevenaninflectionofourliterarycreativitythatwehavetoquestiontheactoftranslationinallitsregisters,andtoopenit
toothercontemporaryinterrogations,10reflectonitsnature,butalsoonitshistoryaswellasonitsobscuringthisseemstoustocharacterizethepresentageof
translation.
WhenwereadwhattheGermanclassicalandRomanticagemanagedtowriteontheactoftranslatinganditsmeaning(cultural,linguistic,speculative,etc.),wefind
notonlyanumberoftheoriesthat,insomeformorother,stilldetermineourpresent,forbetterorforworse.Wealsofindaconsciousness,andaboveallaninhabiting
oflanguagethatisessentiallylessthreatenedthanours.
Letustake,forinstance,thecaseoftheexpansionofourlanguagethatweexpectfromnonethnocentrictranslation.Clearly,theGermanyofGoetheand
Schleiermacherexpectedthesamegainsfromitstranslationenterprises,eventhoughtheirperspectiveseemstoolimitedtoustoday.Butinthemeantime,something
happenedthathasbeendenouncedbynumerousauthorsofourcentury,andthathastodowiththedestructionoftheSprachlichkeit(thespeakingpowerofthe
greatmodernlanguages)tothebenefitofasystemlanguageofcommunicationbecomingmoreandmoreemptiedofitsowndensityandsignificance.Onemaythink
hereoftheimpoverishmentoforalcreativity,the

Page181

deathofdialects,therecedingofliteratureinanincreasinglyclosedspaceinwhichitisnolongercapableto"figure"theworld.Thedegradationoflanguage(natural
language)iscertainlyacommonplace.Ourcommonplace.AttheendofAfterBabel,SteinermentionsthedangersthreateningplanetaryEnglish.Infact,these
dangersconcernalllanguages,andallthedimensionsofourexistence.Henceforth,theyplacethetaskoftranslatinginanew,oratleastinfinitelymorecrudelight:The
issueistodefendlanguageandtherelationsamonglanguagesagainsttheincreasinghomogenizationofcommunicationsystemsbecausetheyendangertheentire
realmofbelonginganddifference.Annihilationofdialectsandlocalspeechtrivializationofnationallanguageslevelingofthedifferencesamongthemforthebenefitof
amodelofnonlanguageforwhichEnglishservedasguineapig(andasvictim),amodelbyvirtueofwhichautomatictranslationwouldbecomethinkablecancerous
proliferationofspecializedlanguagesatthebosomofthecommonlanguage11thisisaprocessthatthoroughlyattackslanguageandthenaturalrelationofhuman
beingstolanguage.Toreopenthepathsofthetraditiontoopenarelation,finallyaccurate(notdominatingornarcissistic),toothercultures,andnotablythoseofwhat
hasnowbecomethe"ThirdWorld"tomobilizetheresourcesofourlanguagetobringituptothelevelofthoseseveralopeningsallofthis,obviously,istostruggle
againstthatdestructivephenomenon,evenifthereareotherwaystoavertit.Andthatis,perhaps,whatisessentialtothemoderntranslatingconsciousness:amaximal
demandof"knowledge"attheserviceofacertainrealimentationofthespeakingforceoflanguage,toinhabitanddefendBabelwithacertainlucidityatthetime
whentheTowerofManifoldLanguages(i.e.,thatofDifferences)isthreatenedbytheexpansionofanuprootingjargonwhichisnotevenEsperanto,thatnaive
humanistdreamthatnowrevealsitsnightmarishface.
ThehistoryofWesterntranslationhasnotyetbeenwritten.Themoderntranslatingconsciousnessisunthinkablewithoutaknowledgeofitshistory:itsorigins,its
epochs,itswanderings.Maythepresentworkconstituteatleastthebeginningofthewritingofoneofthemostcaptivatingchaptersofthathistory
II.TranslationasaNewObjectofKnowledge
Translationasanewobjectofknowledge:Thismeanstwothings.Firstofall,asexperienceandasoperation,itisthecarrierofaknowledgesuigenerison
languages,literatures,cultures,movementsofexchangeandcontact,etc.Theissueistomanifestandarticulatehisknowledgesui

Page182

generis,toconfrontitwithothermodesofknowledgeandexperienceconcerningthesedomains.Inthissense,translationmustbeconsideredratherassubjectof
knowledge,asoriginandsourceofknowledge.
Inthesecondplace,thisknowledge,inordertobecomea"knowledge"inthestrictsense,shouldtakeonadefinite,quasiinstitutionalandestablishedform,suitedto
furtheritsdevelopmentinafieldofresearchandteachability.Thishassometimesbeencalledtraductology(other,lessfortunatenameshavealsobeensuggested).12
Butthatdoesnotmean,atleastnotinthefirstplace,thattranslationshouldbecometheobjectofaspecific"discipline"concerningaseparate"region"or"domain,"
preciselybecauseitisnotanythingseparateitself.Infact,traductology,asaformorfieldofknowledge,couldprimarilybecomparedtoMichelFoucault's
''archaeology,"JacquesDerrida's"grammatology,"orthe"poetology"developedinGermanybyBedaAllemann.Ratherthanbeing"regional"disciplines,thesetypes
ofreflectionbearupondimensionsalreadyintersectedbyother,establisheddisciplines,butintersectedinsuchawaythattheimmanentwealthoftheircontentcanno
longerfullyappear.
Translationconstitutessuchadimension.Carryingitsownknowledge,itcanonlybecomethesubjectofthisknowledgeifitopensitselftoatraductologyinthesense
outlinedhere.
Theissue,then,willbetofoundortoradicalizealreadyexistingandoftendecisiveattemptsatfoundationaspaceofreflection,andthusofresearch.Aswe
indicatedatthebeginningofthisstudy,thisspacewillcoverthefieldoftranslationwithinotherfieldsofinterlinguistic,interliterary,andinterculturalcommunication,as
wellasthehistoryoftranslationandthetheoryofliterarytranslation"literature"encompassingliteratureinthestrictsenseaswellasphilosophy,thehumanities,and
religioustexts.Theknowledgewhichwilltakethisspaceasitsthemewillbeautonomous:Initself,itwillneitherdependonappliedlinguistics,norcomparative
literature,norpoetics,northestudyofforeignlanguagesandliteratures,etc.,eventhoughalltheseestablisheddisciplines,intheirownway,claimthefieldof
translation.Yet,totheextentthatthisfield,byitsverynature,intersectsamultiplicityofdomains,andchieflythoseofthedisciplinesmentionedabove,therewill
necessarilybesomeinteractionbetweentheseandtraductology.Noreflectionontranslationcandowithoutthecontributionsoflinguisticsandliterarytheory.
Traductologyisinterdisciplinaryparexcellence,preciselybecauseitissituatedbetweenseveraldisciplines,oftenfarapart.
Itsstartingpointrestsonafewfundamentalhypotheses.Thefirstoneisthis:Evenasitisaparticularcaseofinterlingual,intercultural,

Page183

andinterliterarycommunication,translationisalsothemodelforanyprocessofthiskind.Goethehastaughtusthis.Thisdoesnotmeanthatalltheproblemsthatmay
beposedbythiscommunicationappeardecodedand,asitwere,inacondensedformintheoperationoftranslation,andthatitwouldthenbepossibletounderstand
andanalyzetheothermodesofintercommunicationfromtheperspectiveoftranslation.Itmaybesaidthattranslationoccupiesananalogousplacetothatoflanguage
withinothersignsystems.AsBenvenistesaid,inonesenselanguageisonlyasignsystemamongothersbutinanother,itisthesystemofsystems,theonethatmakes
possibletheinterpretationofallothers.Thisfactwillbeconfirmedbytherelationofmutualenvelopmentbetweenthegeneralizedtheoryoftranslationandthe
restrictedtheory.FromNovalistoGeorgeSteinerandMichelSerres,wehavewitnessedtheedificationoftheoriesinwhichanytypeof"change"(of"translation")is
interpretedasatranslation,notonlyintheaestheticdomain,butalsointhatofthesciencesand,finally,inhumanexperienceingeneral.Atraceofthispeculiar
extensionoftheconceptoftranslationisalsofoundinRomanJakobson'sclassictextontranslation.Thisgeneralizedtheoryoftranslationor,asMichelSerressays,of
"duction,"13hasrecentlybeencriticizedbyHenriMeschonnic.Theextensionofthisconceptwouldresultindeprivingitofallcontent,whereas,onthecontrary,much
wouldbegainedinthedevelopmentofarestrictedtheoryoftranslation.Still,itremainsafactthattheconceptoftranslationcontinuestooverflowanylimiteddefinition
itcanbegiven.Thissemanticandepistemologicaloverflowingseemsinevitableand,forthatmatter,itcorrespondstothecommonperceptionthattranslationis
alwaysmuchmorethantranslation.Itwillbebetter,then,toarticulatearestrictedandageneralizedtheoryoftranslation,withoutdissolving(asisthecaseforthe
GermanRomantics)theformerinthelatter.Whichamountstosayingthattherestrictedtheoryshouldfunctionasthearchetypeofanytheoryof"changes''orof
"translations."Thepositionofthisarchetypeischaracterizedbyaparadox:itsuniqueness.Therelationthatlinksatranslationtoitsoriginalisuniqueinitskind.No
otherrelationfromonetexttoanother,fromonelanguagetoanother,fromoneculturetoanotheriscomparabletoit.Anditispreciselythisuniquenessthatmakes
forthesignificantdensityoftranslationtointerprettheotherexchangesintermsoftranslationistowant(rightlyorwrongly)togivethemthesamesignificantdensity.
Traductology'ssecondhypothesisisthattranslation,beitliteratureorphilosophyorevenhumanities,playsarolethatisnotmerelyoneoftransmission:Onthe
contrary,thisroleistendentiallyconstitutiveofallliterature,allphilosophy,andallhumanscience.GiordanoBrunoexpressedthiswithallthelyricismbelongingtohis
epoch:

Page184
Fromtranslationcomesallscience.

Thehyperbolicalcharacterofthissentenceshouldnotmaskthetruthofitscontent.Wewillbrieflyexplicatehereinwhatrespecttranslationplaysthisconstitutiverole
andinwhatrespectandthisisadecisivecorollaryitremainedobscuredanddeniedasaconstitutivemoment,soastoappearonlyasasimpleoperationof
mediation(ofmeaning).Iftranslationhadnotbeenobscuredastheconstitutive(andhencehistorical)factorofliteratureandknowledge,somethinglike"traductology"
wouldlongsincehavebeeninexistence,withthesamerightas"criticism."
But,aswehaveseen,whentranslationisbeinginterferedwith,weapproacharepresseddomain,filledwithresistances.
Intheareaofliterature,modernpoetics,andevencomparativeliterature14haveshownthattherelationofworks(firstwriting)andtranslations(secondwriting)is
characterizedbyareciprocalengendering.Farfrombeingonlythemere"derivation"ofanoriginalsupposedtobeabsolute,astheLawstilldefinesit,thetranslationis
aprioripresentinanyoriginal:Anywork,asfarasonecangoback,isalreadytoseveraldegreesafabricoftranslationsoracreationthathassomethingtodowith
thetranslatingoperation,inasmuchasitpositsitselfas"translatable,"whichmeanssimultaneously''worthyofbeingtranslated,""capableoftranslation,"and"havingto
betranslated"inordertoreachitsplenitudeaswork.Thepossibilityandtheinjunctionoftranslationdonotdefineatextafterthefact:Theyconstitutetheworkas
workand,infact,mustleadtoanewdefinitionofitsstructure.ThismayeasilybeverifiedbyanalyzingLatinliteratureormedievalworks.15
Thisisnotwithoutconsequencesfordisciplineslikepoetics,comparativeliterature,orthestudyofforeignlanguagesandliteratures.Theanalysisoftranstextualities,
undertakenmethodicallybypoetics,implies,inadditiontoresearchconcerninghypertextuality,intertextuality,paratextuality,andmetatextuality,areflectiononthat
specifictranstextualityconstitutedbytranslation,followingtheleadJ.L.Borgesintuitivelyindicated:
Noproblemisasconcordantwithliteratureandwiththemodestmysteryofliteratureasistheproblemposedbyatranslation.16

NovalisandA.W.Schlegel,butalsoBaudelaire,Proust,andValry,intuitedthis"concordant"relationbetween"literature"andtranslation.Theyevenwentsofaras
toassertthatthewriter'soperationandthetranslator'sareidentical.17Nevertheless,itisnecessarytomarkthelimitsofthisidentificationthatissotypicallyRomantic:
Theselimitsaredefinedbytheirreducibilityoftherelationbetweenoriginalandtrans

Page185

lation.Notranslationhasmeaningotherthanastranslationofanoriginal.Foritspart,literaturedoesnotknowanyrelationofthiskind,evenifithasanostalgiaforit.
18

Similarly,comparativeliteraturepresupposes"traductology"asapartiallyintegratablecomplement.Thecomparativestudyofdifferentliteraturesisobviouslybasedon
theirinteraction.Now,interactionhastranslationsastheconditionforitspossibility.No"influence"withouttranslation,evenif(weencounteragainthereciprocal
envelopment)theconversecanbestatedaswell.
Inthephilosophicaldomain,translationalsoplaysanessentialrole.Historically,fromtheGreekstotheRomans,fromtheMiddleAgestotheRenaissanceand
beyond,philosophydevelopedthroughaseriesoftranslationsthathavebeenmuchmorethanamere"transferofcontent."AsHeideggerhasshownconcerningthe
translationofAristotelianconceptsorof"theprincipleofreason,"theprincipalGrundwrter(fundamentalwords)thatarticulatephilosophicaldiscoursehavebeen
translatedeverytimebyaprocessinwhichinterpretationandneology,borrowingandreformulation,coexistedoralternated.AndeverytranslationofaGrundwort
hasentailedanewperceptionofpastorpresentphilosophies:thinkofHegel'sAufhebungthatbecamerelveinJacquesDerrida.Thehistoryofphilosophical
translation"errors''constitutesoneofthemostcaptivatingchaptersofthisprocessbecausethese"errors"areneverinsignificant.19Inthetwentiethcentury,
translationhasenteredthephilosophicalhorizonasanexplicitandcrucialquestionwiththinkersasdifferentasWittgenstein,KarlPopper,Quine,Heidegger,
Gadamerand,mostrecently,MichelSerresand,aboveallJacquesDerrida.
Inthemodernhumansciencesthesame"circle"isfound,thesameessentialinterweavingbetweentranslationandtheconstitutionofadiscipline.Aswehaveseen,
psychoanalysisfirstencounteredtranslationasoneoftheproblemsofitsownrenovation.Butthisledittoquestionitselfmoreandmoreabouttheessenceof
translationandthisisimportantforustorediscovertheplacetheconceptoftranslationheldasanoperationalconceptwithinFreud'sownthinking.Thisis
shownbyaletterfromFreudtoFlieshortlybeforetheappearanceofDieTraumdeutung:
Iexplaintheparticularityofpsychoneurosestomyselfbythefactthattranslation,forcertainmaterials,hasnotbeencarriedout,whichhascertainconsequences....Thefailing
oftranslationiscalledrepressioninclinicalterms.Themotiveofthelatterisalwaysadisconnectingofdispleasurethatwouldhappenbytranslation,asifdispleasurewould
provokeadisturbanceofthinkingthatwouldnotallowthelaboroftranslation.20

Page186

Orientalismalsopresupposestheproblematicoftranslation.Ontheonehand,researchitselfisaccompaniedbytranslation,whetheritisofworks,ofquotations,orof
Grundwrter.Ontheotherhand,theveryessenceofitsproject,asMassignonindicated,supposesacertain"decentering"thatisitselfanessentialmomentofthe
operationoftranslation:totranslateoneselftoward....
Inordertounderstandtheother,oneshouldnotannexit,butbecomeitshost....Tounderstandsomethingotherisnottoannexthething,buttotransferoneselfbya
decenteringtotheverycenteroftheother.21

EdwardSad,inOrientalismaverycontroversialwork,forthatmatterhasshownthat,historically,Orientalismfounditselfbadlyarmedtoconfrontthe
problematicofitsnecessarydecentering,inasmuchasacertainideologicalsurcharge,inthenineteenthcentury,leditto"ethnocentric"translations.This"failingof
translation,"totakeupFreud'sterm,signalsanorganic''absence"ofthisdiscipline,withwhichitisgraduallyparting.Butitalsosignalsthepointwhereatraductology
couldcollaboratewithit.Infact,oneoftheaxesoftraductologyistoelaborateatheoryofnonethnocentrictranslationwithageneralizedfieldofapplication.This
theoryisbothdescriptiveandnormative.
Itisdescriptiveinthatitanalyzesthesystemsofdeformationthatweighuponanyoperationoftranslationandisabletoproposeacountersystemonthebasisofthat
analysis.22ItisnormativeinthatthealternativesitdefinesconcerningthedirectionoftranslationaremandatoryThesealternativesgofarbeyondthetraditional
divisionsoftranslationtheoryinto"supportersoftheletter"and"supportersofthespirit."Thus,startingfromthisframework,everydomaincanelaborateitsown
methodologyoftranslation.Forinstance,traductologyisnotsupposedtosettletheproblemsofthetranslationofChinesepoetryfor,ifitdescendedtothatlevel,its
taskwouldobviouslybeempiricallyinfinite.Butthereisalevelwheretheproblemsarethesameforthesinologist,thespecialistofSerbianliterature,orofGreek
tragedy.ThislevelconcernstheproblematicoftranslationitselfandthesystemsofconstraintsthatFrench(andanygreat"national"language)posesfortranslation.
Thislevelisthatofpuretranslatingcompetence.Anditistheonelackinginmostspecialistsofagivendomain,whichtaintstheirattemptsattranslationwith
epistemologicalnavet.Thisisthecasebecause,evenastheyrecognizethattheproblematicoftranslationisessentialforthem(itconcerns,inpart,thebecomingof
theirdiscipline),theyendupdegradingthisproblematictothelevelofasimpletechnicalprocedure.Atthisstage,weareonceagainconfrontedwiththeobscured,
deniedstatusoftranslation,andtheviolentresistancesitarouses.

Page187

Theseresistancesconstituteanessentialchapteroftraductology.Originally,theyseemtobeofareligiousandculturalorder.Atafirstlevel,theyareorderedaround
untranslatabilityasavalue.Whatisessentialinatextisnottranslatableor,supposingitis,shouldnotbetranslated.InthecaseoftheBible,theJewishtranslation
representsthisextremeposition.Justasthe"Law"shouldnotbe"translated"fromtheoraltothewritten,thesacredtextshouldnotbetranslatedintootherlanguages,
lestitloseits"sacred"character.Thisdoublerefusalindicatesinreversetheessentialconnectionbetweenthewrittenandtranslation,inordertobeabletoquestion
bothofthembetter.TherejectionoftranslationtraversesthewholehistoryoftheWest,withthedogma,nevermadeexplicitandcontinuallyrefutedpractically,ofthe
untranslatabilityofpoetry,withoutmentioningthefamous''prejudicialobjection"againsttranslationingeneral.23Averyrecentexamplewillshowthedeafpersistence
ofthisrejection.InanarticledevotedtothenecessityofthediffusionoftheFrenchlanguageandliterature,BernardCatrymentionsthepossibilityofstimulating,onthe
officiallevel,"thetranslationintoforeignlanguagesofFrenchworks."This,theauthorbelieves,mightleadforeignreaderstosubsequentlyreadthosesameworksin
theoriginallanguage,andthustolearnFrench.Andheaddsinpassing:
Tobesure,SartreinEnglishisnolongerSartre.24

The"tobesure"thatopensthisshortsentenceindicatesthatCatryconsiderstranslationamakeshiftandatotaltreason.Itcontainsadevalorizationthatisnevermade
explicit.Obviously,itisanentireculture(inthiscase,Frenchculture)defendingitselfagainstthe"exile"ofits"sacredmonsters."
Oneeasilyunderstandsfromthisthattranslationisconsideredsuspectand,intheend,culturallynegative.Attheotherendofthespectrum,itisratheritssignificant
densitythatisdenied,bytheoppositeaxiomofuniversaltranslatability.Essentialtotranslationwouldbethetransmissionof"meaning,"thatis,theuniversalcontent
ofanytext.Assoonasthisispostulated,translationacquirestheshallownessofahumblemediationofmeaning.InhisAesthetics,Hegelstatedthatpoetrycouldbe
translatedfromonelanguageintoanother(andevenintoprose)withoutanyloss,becausespiritualcontentprevailsinit.Butwhenonestates,moremodestly,that"not
words,butideasaretranslated,"25oneonlyrepeats,atanonspeculativelevel,whatHegelsaid.Everytimetranslationrebelsagainstthenarrowingofthisoperation
andpretendstobeatransmissionofforms,ofsignifiers,resistancesproliferate.Theseresistancesarewellknownbyeverytranslator:Theissuewouldbetoprovide
atranslationthat"doesnotsmackoftransla

Page188

tion,"toproposeatext"thewaytheauthorwouldhavewrittenitifhewereFrench,"or,moretrivially,toproduceatranslationin"clearandelegantFrench."The
resultisthattranslationappearseitherasthemodesttransmissionofmeaning,orasthesuspectactivityofinjectingthelanguagewith"strangeness."26Inbothcases,
translationisdeniedandobscured.
Oneofthefundamentaltasksoftraductologyistofightthisobscuring,whichismanifestadditionallyintheprejudicialobjectionagainstthereflectionoftranslation.
Thisreflectioncollideswithaseriesofoppositions:theconflictbetweentheoristandnontheoristtranslators,oftranslatorsandtheoristsoftranslation.Inthefirstcase,
amajorityoftranslatorsproclaimthattranslationisapurelyintuitiveactivity,whichcanneverreallybeconceptualized.Inthesecondcase,thereisanopposition
betweentheoristswithoutpracticeand"practitioners"withouttheory.Theresultisatenaciousputtingintoquestionofthepossibilityofatraductologythatwould
coverboththetheoreticalandthepracticalfieldandthatwouldbedevelopedonthebasisoftheexperienceoftranslationmorespecifically,onthebasisofitsvery
natureasexperience.Abstracttheoristsandempiricalpractitionersconcurintheassertionthattheexperienceoftranslationisnot,shouldnotandcouldnotbe
theorizable.Now,thispresuppositionisanegationofthemeaningoftheactoftranslation:Bydefinition,thisactisasecondandreflexiveactivity.Reflexivityis
essentialtoit,andwithitsystematicity.Infact,thecoherenceofatranslationismeasuredbythedegreeofitssystematicity.Andsystematicityisunthinkablewithout
reflexivity.Thisreflexivitygoesfromtheinterpretivereadingoftextstothereasonedelaborationofanentiresystemof"choices"oftranslation.Ofcourse,itis
accompaniedbyanecessaryintuitiveness.Butthisreciprocalplayofreflexivityandintuitiveness,aswehaveseen,makestranslationmuchmoresimilartoa"science"
thantoan"art."Inthesamewaythat,inthecaseofascience,anentiresystemofdeformationmustbeovercomebeforeitcanconstitutearigorouscategorialhorizon,
translationlikewise,mustconfrontafieldoflinguistic,literary,andculturaldeformationinordertobeabletorealizeitspureaim.Thatthisendisrarelyattainedonly
confirmsthenecessityofatraductologythatwouldaccomplisha"Copernicanrevolution''oftranslation.
Tofinish,letusclarifythepositionoftraductologyinrelationtothelinguisticapproachtotranslation.Westartfromthepresuppositionthatthetwoapproachesare
bothdistinctandcomplementary.InhisProblmesthoriquesdelatraduction,GeorgesMouninposestheproblemoftheuntranslatables:Morphologically,
syntactically,lexically,etc.,languagestendtomakealltranslationimpossible,exceptatalevelofapproximationwherethe"losses"arehigherthanthe"gains."Thus,

Page189

Mouninsays,thetranslationoftheapproximatelyfiftywordsforbreadintheregionofAixenProvencewouldpose"insolubleproblems"if"aFrenchnovelofsome
meritwouldhavetheworldofbakinginthisregionasitssetting."27Examplesofthiskindmaybemultipliedinfinitelyand,ofcourse,onotherlevelsthanthatofthe
"semanticfields"oftheauthor.Thisobservationisindisputable,evenifMouninattemptstominimizeitsscopeinthelastpartofhisbook.Linguisticallyspeaking,we
arefacingabandofuntranslatability.Butifoneputsoneselfonthelevelofthetranslationofatext,theproblemchangescompletely.Tobesure,everytextis
writteninalanguageandinfact,themultiplicityoftermsmentioned,whetheritappearsinanoralorawrittensequence,remainsinitself''untranslatable"inthesense
thattheotherlanguagewillnothavethecorrespondingterms.Butatthelevelofawork,theproblemisnottoknowwhetherornotthereareequivalentsforthese
terms.Becausetheleveloftranslatabilityisdifferent.Facedwithamultiplicityoftermswithoutequivalenceinhisownlanguage,thetranslatorwillbeconfronted
withdifferentchoices:gallicization(inCaptainGrant'sChildrenJulesVernetranslatespampasas"thepampasianplains"),borrowing(pampaincontemporary
French),orsemigallicization(porteo,inhabitantofBuenosAires,becomesportgne).Theallegeduntranslatabilityisdissolvedintotaltranslatabilitybysimply
havingrecoursetomodesofrelationthatexistnaturallyandhistoricallybetweenlanguages,butadaptedinthiscasetothedemandsofthetranslationofatext:
borrowingandneologismforthelexicaldomain.Itisthestructureitselfofthetextthatwilldictatewhatmustbe"translated"or"nottranslated"(intheusualsense),the
nontranslationofatermcountingasaneminentmodeoftranslation.Othermodalitiescomplementthisrecoursetotypesofinterlingualexchanges.Forinstance,
atermorastructurexwillbecanceledatapointXinthetext,possiblytobereplacedbyatermorastructureyatpointY:thisistheprocedureofcompensation,
recommendedalreadybyDuBellay.OrthepositingofatermorastructurexsituatedatpointXinthetextatanotherpointYofthattextwherethetargetlanguage
canaccommodateitbetter:Thisistheprocedureofdisplacement.Oragain,homologousreplacement:Anelementx,literallyuntranslatable,isreplacedbyan
elementythatishomologoustoitinthetext.Thesearenot,asonetendstobelieve,makeshiftprocedures,butmodalitiesthatdefinethemeaningitselfofallliterary
translation,inasmuchasitencounterswhatislinguistically(andsometimesculturally)untranslatableanddissolvesitinactualliterarytranslatability
without,ofcourse,slippingintoparaphraseoranopaqueliteralness.ThesemodalitiesarebasedtoalargeextentonwhatEfimEtkindcalledthe"potential
language."28Foranylanguage,arigorouscorrespondencewithanotherlanguagemay

Page190

bepostulated,butonavirtuallevel.Todevelopthesepotentialities(whichvaryfromlanguagetolanguage)isthetaskoftranslationwhichtherebyproceedstoward
thediscoveryofthe"kinship"oflanguages.Thistaskcouldnotbesimplyartisticitsupposesanextensiveknowledgeoftheentirediachronicandsynchronic
spaceofthetargetlanguage.Thus,thetranslationofSpanishdiminutivesrequiresathoroughstudyofFrenchdiminutives(theirhistory,themodeoftheirformationand
integration,etc.),withoutwhichonewouldbelieveoneselffacedwith"untranslatables."Theabstracttheoristoftranslationandtheintuitivepractitionerencounterthe
samelimitation,whichcomesfromthefactthattheyhavenoawarenessofthe"heterological''wealthofthetargetlanguage.
ThemodalitiesmentionedaboveareusuallynolongerclassifiedinthecategoryoftranslationforinstancebyJakobsonorMaxBensebutinthatof"creative
transposition,"thedefinitionofwhichforthatmatter,remainsindeterminate.Butinfactthis"transposition"istheveryessenceoftranslation,andtheformercanonlybe
opposedtothelatteronthebasisofapettyandimaginary(theperfectcorrespondence,theadequatio),evenspeculativeconceptoftranslation.Onthecontrary,
translationmustbedefinedonthebasisofitsactualoperation,whichdoesnotatallmeanthatallmodalitiesareequivalent,andthattherewouldnotexistmodalities
thatamounttonontranslationsorbadtranslations.Aswehaveseen,thesephenomenaofnontranslationsandbadtranslationsmustbetakenintoaccountby
traductologyfor,asGeorgeSteinersaid,withoutexaggeratingtoomuch:
ItmustbeadmittedthatsinceBabelninetypercentoftranslationshavebeenwrongandthatitwillremainthatway.29

Theseremarksareaimedatmakingclearthatthelinguisticandthetraductologicalapproacharedifferentand,atthesametime,complementary,sincetranslationcan
onlyrealizeitspureaimonthebasisoflinguisticknowledge,ifatleastitwantstogobeyondanempiricitythatdestines90percentofitsproductstobeing"wrong."In
otherwords,the"Copernicanrevolution"ofthesciencesoflanguagemustmakepossiblethe"Copernicanrevolution"oftranslation,withoutatallbeingtheonly
foundation,andwithouttranslationeverbecomingabranchof"appliedlinguistics."Traductologywillonlybeconstitutedincollaborationwithlinguisticsandpoeticsit
hasmuchtolearnfromsocioandethnolinguistics,aswellasfrompsychoanalysisandphilosophy.
Fromthatpointon,scienceoftranslationwouldhaveadoublemeaning:asciencetakingtheknowledgeoftranslationasitsobject,andthe"scientificization"ofthe
practiceoftranslation.Inthisrespect,itmustbenotedthatFrancehasremainedfarbehindothercountriesin

Page191

thisdomain,likeGermany,theAngloSaxoncountries,theSovietUnion,andtheEasterncountries.Thistheoreticaldelayhasasitscorollaryadelayonthepractical
level,bothquantitativeandqualitative.Theopeningofadomainoftraductologicalreflection,then,willfillthevoidwhosegraveconsequencesareappearinglittleby
little,andwhichcontibutetoachronicalcrisisinFranceofbothtranslationandculture.

Page193

Notes
TheManifestationofTranslation
1.Cf.PierreLeyris,"PourquoiretraduireShakespeare,"forewordtoShakespeare'sOeuvres(Paris:ClubduLivre,196264).
2.ThePoet'sTongues:MultilingualisminLiterature,NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1970.
3.ThispositionmaybecomparedtothatofnonFrenchwriterswritinginFrench.Thisconcernsprimarilytheliteraturesoffrancophonecountries,butalsoworks
writteninFrenchbywriterswhodonotbelongtofrancophoneareasatall,likeBeckett.Weshallcategorizetheseproductsundertheheadingof"foreignFrench."
TheyhavebeenwritteninFrenchby"foreigners,"andbearthemarksofthatstrangenessintheirlanguageandintheirthematics.Thoughitsometimesresemblesthe
FrenchofthepeopleofFrance,theirlanguageisseparatedfromitbyamoreorlesssensibleabyss,liketheoneseparatingourFrenchfromtheFrenchpassagesin
WarandPeaceandTheMagicMountain.ThisforeignFrenchhasacloserelationwiththeFrenchoftranslation.Intheonecase,thereareforeignerswritingin
Frenchandthusimprintingourlanguagewiththesealoftheirstrangenessintheother,thereareforeignworksrewritteninFrench,inhabitingourlanguageandthereby
alsomarkingourlanguagewiththeirstrangeness.BeckettisthemoststrikingexampleoftheproximityofthesetwokindsofFrench,sincehehaswrittensomeofhis
worksinFrenchandhimselftranslatedothersfromEnglish.Inagooddealofthesecases,theseworksbelongtoabilingualormultilingualspace,inwhichFrench
occupiesapeculiarplace:thatofaminoritylanguage,eitherdominatedordominant,andconfrontedinanycasewithotherlanguagesinoftenantagonisticrelations.
ThissituationisverydifferentfromtheoneinFrance,sinceourcountry,despitetheexistenceofregionallanguages,tendstowardamonolingualexistence.It
engendersworksmarkedbyadoublesign:AsforeignworksusingFrench,a"peripheral''French,they

Page194

tendtobeofthevernaculartype,adaptingpopularexpressivity.AsworkswritteninFrench,theytendinordertomanifestabelongingandanoppositionto
dominantneighborlanguagestousea"purer"FrenchthantheFrenchofFrance.Bothtendenciesmaybefoundinthesamework,asinthecaseofanEdouard
GlissantoraSimoneSchwartzBart.Inallofthesecases,theforeignFrenchtextseems"other"thantheFrenchtextwritteninFrance.Thesetwoantagonistic
tendenciesmakeitsimilartothewritingofthetranslatorwho,confrontedwithan"other''foreigntext,istemptedatthesametimetodefendhisownlanguage
(overgallicization)aswellastoopenittotheforeignelement.Thestructuralparallelismisstriking,anditisnosurprisethattheaimofthetranslatortoenrichhis
languageisalsotheaimofagooddealofwriters.TheMauritianpoetEdouardMaunickstates:"IwouldliketoinseminatetheFrenchlanguage"("Ecrire,mais
dansquellelangue?"[Write,butinwhichlanguage?]LeMonde,11March1983).
Introduction
1.InWinfriedSdun,ProblemeundTheoriendesbersetzens(Munich:Hueber,1967),p.50.
2.QuotedinFritzStrich,GoetheunddieWeltliteratur(Bern:Francke,1957),pp.18,47.
3.AugustWilhelmSchlegel,AfterwordtoTieck,inAthenumII,2,p.28081.
4.Novalis,BriefeundDokumente,vol.4ofWerkeBriefeDokumente,ed.EwaldWasmuth(Heidelberg:Schneider,1954),p.367.[LettertoA.W.Schlegel,30
November1797].
5.FriedrichSchleiermacher,"OntheDifferentMethodsofTranslating,"inAndrLefevere,TranslatingLiterature:TheGermanTraditionfromLuther
Rosenzweig(Assen/Amsterdam:VanGorcum,1977),p.88.
6.WilhelmvonHumboldt,"Einleitungzu'Agamemnon',"inLefevere,p.42.
7.InSdun,p.29.
8.Novalis,p.368.
9.Letterof11February1792,quotedinSdun,p.117.
10.JohannGeorgHamann,SmtlicheWerkeII,ed.JosefNadler(Wien:Herder,1950),p.199.(AnexcellentFrenchtranslationofthistext,byJ.F.Courtine,can
befoundinPo&sie,no.3(1980):351).

Page195

11.Fortheanalysisofthisexpression,seeChapter5,p.78.
12.RudolphPannwitz,DieKrisisdereuropischenKultur(Nrnberg:Carl,1947),p.192.
13.WalterBenjamin,DerBegriffderKunstkritikinderdeutschenRomantik,inGesammelteSchriftenI,1(FrankfurtamMain:Suhrkamp,1974),p.76
14.ArmelGuerne,"Hicetnunc,"inLeRomantismeallemand,ed.AlbertBguin(Paris:CahiersduSud,1949),p.357.Guernedevelopsthispointofview
elsewhere:"HowoftendoesNovalis,inhisFragments,dreamofalanguagemoreeuphonicthanhisown!...Thisis...whatenablesustograspwhythereissucha
tendencyinNovalistogallicizehisGerman,rightdowntohisvocabulary,andtomoveaboutinitspirituallyinLatin....ItcannotbedeniedthatNovalis'swork,
internallyhaditsraisond'treinFrench...akindofinitialneed,thesatisfactionofwhichgiveshim,or"giveshimback,"something,despiteeverythingthatgetslostin
theprocessof...therethinking...andthetranslation"(LaDlirante,no.45[1972],p.1856).Whichexplains,thoughwithoutjustifyingitsgreatarbitrariness,
Guerne'sown"gallicizing"translationofNovalis.
15.Novalis,FragmenteI,vol.2ofWerkeBriefeDokumente,ed.EwaldWasmuth(Heidelberg:Schneider,1957)no.1694,p.449.
16.Ibid.,no.38,p.18.
17.FriedrichSchlegel'sLucindeandtheFragments,tr.PeterFirchow(Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1971),p.177(AthenumFragmentno.
121).Cf.thetextbyF.SchlegelquotedbyBedaAllemanninIronieundDichtung(Pfullingen:Neske,1969):"Thegoodcriticandcharacterizershouldobserveina
faithful,conscientious,andversatileway,likethephysicist,measureexactlylikethemathematician,classifycarefullylikethebotanist,dissectliketheanatomist,feel
likethemusician,imitateliketheactor,embracepracticallylikealover,surveylikeaphilosopher,studycyclicallylikeasculptor,bestrictlikeajudge,religiouslikean
antiquarian,comprehendthemomentlikethepolitician,etc."(p.58)Inshort,toturnhimselfintoeverything,tobeversedineverything,toturneverythinginto
everythingthisistheromantic"talentofthetranslator."
18.Novalis,"Monologue,"tr.AlexanderGelley,inGermanRomanticCriticism,ed.A.LeslieWilson(NewYork:Continuum,1982),p.8283.
19.AugustWilhelmSchlegel,AfterwordtoTieck,AthenumII,2,pp.28283.

Page196

20.Novalis,FragmenteII,vol.3ofWerkeBriefeDokumente,ed.EwaldWasmuth(Heidelberg:Schneider,1957),no.1922,p.53.
21.Pannwitz,p.193.
22.Foradiscussionofthe"monologic"andthe"intransitive,"seeTzvetanTodorov,TheoriesoftheSymbolandMikhalBakhtin,TheDialogicImagination.
23.AntoineBerman,"LettresFouadElEtrsurleRomantismeallemand,"inLaDlirante,no.3(1968),pp.85117.
24.NorisitinRomanticism.WeareonlyconcernedherewiththeincessantlymystifiedJenaRomanticism.
25.SeeAntoineBerman,"L'Amriquelatinedanssalittrature,"Cultures6(1979)and"Latraductiondesoeuvreslatinoamricaines,"Lendemains8(1982).
26.SeeourConclusion.
27.Whichclearlyshowstheextenttowhichthethemeoftranslationremainsculturallyandideologicallyobscured.Cf.AndreasHuyssen,Diefrhromantischen
KonzeptionvonbersetzungundAneignung.StudienzurfrhromantischenUtopieeinerdeutschenWeltliteratur(Zrich/Freiburgi.Br.:Atlantis,1969).
28.WalterBenjamin,DerBegriff,p.76.
29."TheTaskoftheTranslator,"tr.HarryZohn,inIlluminations(NewYork:Harcourt,BraceandWorld,1968),p.76.
30.Aftertheselineshadbeenwritten,aremarkableexhibitionwasorganizedbytheDeutscheSchillergesellschaftinMarbach(FederalRepublicofGermany)in
1982,entitledWeltliteraturDieLustambersetzenimJahrhundertGoethes("WorldLiteraturethePleasureofTranslationinGoethe'sCentury").The
catalogueofthisexhibition(700pages)contains,inadditiontoanabundanticonography,almostalloftheavailabledocumentsonthepracticeoftranslationinthe
periodweareexamininghere.HenceforththisbasicworkwillbeindispensableforanyworkontranslationinclassicalandRomanticGermany.
Luther:TranslationasFoundation
1.JohannWolfgangvonGoethe,"NotenundAbhandlungenzurbesserenVerstndnisdesWestostlichenDivan,"inLefevere,TranslatingLiterature,p.35.

Page197

2.JohannWolfgangvonGoethe,TheAutobiographyofJohannWolfgangGoethe[DichtungundWahrheit],tr.JohnOxenford,(Chicago:ChicagoUniversity
Press,1974)vol.2,pp.11213.
3.MartinLuther,"OnTranslating:AnOpenLetter,"tr.CharlesM.Jacobs,revisedbyE.TheodoreBachmann,inLuther'sWorks,vol.35,WordandSacramentI,
ed.E.TheodoreBachmann(Philadelphia:MuhlenbergPress,1960),p.181.
4.Ibid.,pp.18889.
5.Ibid.,p.189.
6.Ibid.,p.18990.
7.MikhalBakhtin,RabelaisandhisWorld,tr.H.Iswolsky(Cambridge,MA:MITPress,1968),p.465.[TheFrenchtranslation,fromwhichBermanquotes,
renders"Thislinedrawnbetweenthelanguages"as"ladlimitationdeslangages"(thedelimitationoflanguages)henceBerman'suseofdelimitationinthenext
line.T R.]
8.Ibid.,p.468andpp.46970.
9.Ibid.,p.470.
10."ThecreationofwrittenGermantookplaceinconnectionwiththetranslationoftheBiblebyLuther."(HermannBroch)
11.NovalistoF.Schlegel,7November1798:"Thereisinyourletteroneofthemoststrikingexamplesofourinteriorsynorganizationandsynevolution.Youmention
yourBibleproject,andinmystudiesofscienceingeneral...I,too,havearrivedattheBibletheBibleastheidealofallbooks.Oncedeveloped,thetheoryofthe
Biblewillprovidethetheoryofwritingoroftheformationofwordsingeneralwhichisatthesametimethedoctrineofthesymbolicandindirectconstructionofthe
creativespirit....Allmyactivity...mustbenothingelsethanacritiqueoftheBibleprojectanessayonauniversalmethodofbiblification."(Novalis,Briefeund
Dokumente,p.404)
12.FranzRosenzweig,"DieSchriftundLuther,"inHansJoachimStrig,DasProblemdesbersetzens(Darmstadt:WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft,1969),pp.
199203.
13.Ibid.,p.215.
14.Luther,"OnTranslating,"p.194.
15.MartinLuther,"DefenseoftheTranslationofthePsalms,"tr.E.TheodoreBachmann,inLutherWorks,vol.35,p.216.(AlsoinStrig,pp.19697.)Regarding
hisowntranslationofthePsalms,MosesMen

Page198

delsohnwritesin1783:"Ihavetakensuchlittledelightininnovationthat,withregardtolanguage,IhaveevenremainedclosertoDr.Lutherthantolater
translators.Wherevertheformerhastranslatedcorrectly,itseemstomehehasalsogermanizedfelicitouslyIhavenotevenfearedtheHebrewphraseshe
onceintroducedintothelanguage,eventhoughtheymightnotbeauthenticGerman"(quotedinWeltliteratur,p.127).
16.Ibid.,p.222(alsoinStrig,p.196).
17.SaintJerome,"LettertoPammachius,"inStrig,p.3.
18.SeeChapter10.
19.WeshallseeinourchapteronHlderlinhowthelatterisverydeeplyconnectedtoLuther,inhisworkasapoetaswellasinhisworkasatranslator.Herder,
Klopstock,andA.W.SchlegelalsorefertoLuther'sBible,butonlyHlderlinmanaged,inacertainway,totakeuptheworkontheGermanlanguagethatLuther
accomplishedasatranslator.TherelationtotheGermanlanguageofsomeonelikeNietzscheasapolemicalthinkerislikewisehardlyconceivablewithouta
longassociationwithLuther.TherelationofthisthinkertoforeignlanguagesprimarilyFrenchandItalianalsoshowsthat,likeHlderlin,heseeksthetruthofhis
ownlanguageinacertain"experience"[preuve]offoreignlanguages.Buttheotherpole,therootednessinwhatHlderlincallsthe"native"andLutherthelanguage
of"thewomaninthehome"orof"thecommonmaninthemarketplace,"ismissinginNietzsche.
20.WalterBenjamin,"ConversationwithAndrGide,"inMytheetViolence,p.281["GesprachmitAndrGide",GesammelteSchriftenIV,1,p.506].
21.Apositionstillworthconsideration:Thecontemporaryflightofthe"historyofmentalities,"i.e.,ofthematerial,social,andculturalbaseofoursocietyandmore
specificallyofitsoralpast,attheverymomentwhenthosefoundations,togetherwithorality,seemtoberadicallybreakingdown,leadstothequestion:Whatisgoing
onhere?Isitnostalgia?Asearchfororigins?Thesolemnburialofvaluesconsideredfascinating,butobsolete?Whatpositiondothehistoriansoftheoralpasttake
withregardtoourpresentandthepossibledefenseofpopularcultures?Thesamequestionwouldbeaskedconcerningethnology.Wehavehereanextremely
importantprocesswhichisbynomeansforeigntothepeculiarinterestsofanhistoricalandculturaltheoryoftranslation.GermanandFrenchRomanticismhavealso
faced,intheirownway,thissetofquestions.Nietzschesawavitaldangerinthe"chameleonticfaculty"constitutedbythe"historicalsense":Heat

Page199

temptedtoreversethesituationbymakingitintoamovementofappropriation.Thisunionofappropriationanddomination,ofidentificationandreduction,etc.,
hasbeencharacteristicoftheEuropeanculturalrealityuptothisday.Nowitisbeingcalledintoquestionfromseveralpointsofview.
22.AthenumFragmentno.229,tr.Firchow,p.194
Herder:FidelityandExpansion
1.Rosenzweig,p.194.
2.AugustWilhelmSchlegel,GeschichtederklassischenLiteratur(Stuttgart:Kohlhammer,1964),p.17.QuotedinLefevere,TranslatingLiterature,p.52.
3.CollardeauhasgivenaremarkablesummaryoftheFrenchproblematicattheendoftheeighteenthcentury:"ifthereisanymeritintranslating,itisperhapsonlyto
perfecttheoriginal,ifpossible,toembellishit,toappropriateit,togiveitanationalairand,insomeway,tonaturalizethisforeignplant."(QuotedinVander
Meerschen,"Traductionfranaise,problmesdefidlitetdequalit,"in"Traduzionetradizione,"specialissueofLectures45[1980],p.18).
4.WolfgangSchadewaldt,"DasProblemdesbersetzens,"inStrig,pp.22526.
5.InSdun,p.21.
6.Ibid.,p.22.
7.TheLiteraturbriefe,whosefulltitleisBriefe,dieneuesteLiteraturbetreffend[Lettersconcerningthenewestliterature],nodoubtconstitutethefirstofthe
Germanliteraryperiodicals.Lessingwasitschiefanimator,togetherwithThomasAbbtandMosesMendelsohn.
8.Aspacewhich,forhim,referstoLuther:"ItisLutherwhoawakenedandliberatedthatsleepinggiant,theGermanlanguage"(Fragmente,quotedinRolf
Zuberbhler,HlderlinsErneuerungderSpracheausihrenetymologischenUrsprngen[Berlin:ErichSchmidt,1969],p.23).
9.InSdun,p.26.
10.InJ.Murat,Klopstock(Paris:LesBellesLettres,1959),p.282.
11.InSdun,p.26.
12.Ibid.,pp.2526.

Page200

13.Ibid.,p.26.
14.Ibid.,pp.2627.
15.JeanPaul,VorschulederAesthetik(Munich:Hanser,1963),p.304.
BildungandtheDemandofTranslation
1.Bild(image),Einbildungskraft(imagination),Ausbildung(development),Bildsamkeit(flexibility,"formability"),etc.
2.MartinHeidegger,"Andenken,"inErluterungenzuHlderlinsDichtung(FrankfurtamMain:Klostermann,1981),p.9On.
3.Novalis,"AufzeichnungenzudenLehrlingenzuSais"inDieDichtungen,vol.1ofWerkeBriefeDokumente,ed.EwaldWasmuth(Heidelberg:Schneider,1953),
p.211.
4.F.Schlegel,"Critical"fragmentno.78,tr.Firchow,p.152.
5.Novalis,FragmenteI,no.1393,pp.36970.
6.Novalis,FragmenteII,no.1837,p.18.
7.FriedrichSchlegel,"berdiePhilosophie(anDorothea),"AthenumII,1,p.27.(KritischeFriedrichSchlegelAusgabe,vol.8:StudienzurPhilosophieund
Theologie,ed.ErnstBehlerandUrsulaStrucOppenberg[Munich:FerdinandSchningh,1975],p.55.)
8.Novalis,FragmenteI,no.1409,p.373.
9.Novalis,FragmenteII,.no.2383,p.162.
10.Novalis,FragmenteI,nos.988,992,p.271.
11.FriedrichNietzsche,BeyondGoodandEvil,tr.WalterKaufmann(NewYork:RandomHouse,1966),p.160.
12.FriedrichNietzscheTheGayScience,tr.WalterKaufmann(NewYork:VintageBooks,1976),pp.13638(no.83).
13.SaintJerome,p.9.
14.F.Schlegel,DialogueonPoetryandLiteraryAphorisms,tr.ErnstBehlerandRomanStruc(UniversityPark,PA:PennsylvaniaStateUniversityPress,1965),
p.64.
15.Ibid.,p.83.
16.F.Schlegel,"berdiePhilosophie,"p.84.

Page201

17.[Here,andthroughout,"translation"isusedtorendertheFrenchtranslation,whichhasthemoregeneralmeaningoftransposition(Latintranslatio),asdistinct
fromtranslation(Frenchtraduction)inthestrictsenseofinterlingualtransposition.T R.]
18.FriedrichSchleiermacher,"OntheMethodsofTranslating,"inLefevere,p.88.SeealsoChapter6.
19."Neverhavetheancientsbeenread...asmuchasnow,theunderstandingadmirersofShakespearearenolongerrare,theItalianpoetshavetheirfriends,the
SpanishpoetsarereadaszealouslyasispossibleinGermany,thetranslationofCaldernpromisesthebestofinfluences,itmaybeexpectedthatthesongsofthe
Provenals,theromancesoftheNorth,andtheblossomsoftheIndianimaginationwillnotremainforeigntousmuchlonger....Underthesepropitiousconditionsit
isperhapstimetoremindourselvesagainoftheolderGermanpoetry."(L.Tieck,quotedinWeltliteratur,p.486).
20.Cf.AlexandervonHumboldt,L'Amriqueespagnoleen1800vueparunsavantallemand(Paris:CalmannLvy,1965).
21.FriedrichSchlegel,DialogueonPoetry,tr.BehlerandStruc,p.77.
22.Novalis,FragmenteI,no.1712,p.458.
23.Athenumfragmentno.297,tr.Firchow,p.204.
24.Astheromanticvoyagecouldsometimesbe,calledbyTieck"thevoyageintotheblue."
25.AugustWilhelmSchlegel,DieKunstlehre(Stuttgart:Kohlhammer,1963),p.230.
26.F.Schlegel,Ideas,no.102,tr.Firchow,p.250.
27.F.Schlegel,Athenumfragmentno.147,tr.Firchow,p.180.
28.Goethe,"NotenundAbhandlungen,"inLefevere,p.36.
29.F.Schlegel,DialogueonPoetry,tr.BehlerandStruc,pp.7879.
30.Humboldt,"Einleitungzu'Agamemnon',"inLefevere,p.42.
31."WedonotwanttopossessGreekculture,itmustpossessus."(Herder,"LettersfortheAdvancementofhumanity,"quotedinWeltliteratur,p.318).Cf.
HammerinthePrefacetohis1812translationofHafitz:"[thetranslator]wantednotsomuchtotranslatethePersianpoettotheGermanreaderthantotranslatethe
GermanreadertothePersianpoet."(quotedinWeltliteratur,p.398)

Page202

32.F.Schlegel,"Critical"fragmentno.46,tr.Firchow,p.149.
33.Athenumfragmentno.277,tr.Firchow,p.201.
34.Nietzsche,TwilightoftheIdols,inThePortableNietzsche,ed.andtr.WalterKaufmann(NewYork:VikingPenguin,1982),p.557.
35.Athenumfragmentno.239,tr.Firchow,p.19596.
36.F.Schlegel,"berdiePhilosophie,"p.62.
37.[TheFrenchwordfornovel(roman)andtheadjectivederivedfromit(romanesque)makesitsplaceinthisfiliationfromancientRometoGermanRomanticism
moreobviousthanitappearsinEnglish.BermanalsoplaysuponthisetymologicalconnectionbetweenRomancultureandthenovelinthenextparagraph
(Roman/roman),aneffectwithisunfortunatelylostinthetranslation.T R.]
38.Novalis,"Blthenstaub,"inSchriftenII,ed.RichardSamuel(Stuttgart:Kohlhammer,1965),p.437.
39.Novalis,FragmenteII,no.1921,p.53.
40.FriedrichHlderlin,letterof4December1801(inEssaysandLettersonTheory,tr.ThomasPfau[Albany,NY:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1988],p.
150.
41.[Seenote37aboveT R.]
42.Klopstockexpressedthisbrutally:"DonottalktomeabouttranslatingsomethingfromtheFrench,oranotherforeignlanguagehoweverbeautifulitmaybe,you
nolongerhavetherighttoit.TheonlytranslationIshallstillallowofaGermanisatranslationfromtheGreek."(LettertoGleim,7September1769,inAusgewhlte
Werke,ed.K.A.Schleiden[Munich:Hanser,1962],p.1164).
Goethe:TranslationandWorldLiterature
1.QuotedinF.Strich,p.54.
2.Ibid.,p.26.
3.JohannWolfgangvonGoethe,"Nature,"inScientificStudies,ed.andtr.DouglasHiller(NewYork:Suhrkamp,1988),p.3.
4.QoutedinStrich,p.24.
5.Ibid.,p.56.
6.Ibid.,p.26.

Page203

7.Ibid.,p.17.
8.Goethe,ConversationswithEckermann,tr.JohnOxenford(SanFrancisco:NorthPointPress,1984),p.133(31January1827).
9.Ibid.,pp.2324.
10.Ibid.,p.24.
11.Ibid.,p.25,ouremphasis.
12.Ibid.,pp.2021.
13.Ibid.,p.18.
14.Ibid.,p.30.
15.Goethe,ConversationswithEckermann,p.62.
16.Goethe'spositionconcerningnationalismisexpressedasearlyas1801inthejournalPropylen:"Perhapspeoplewillsoonbeconvincedthatthereisnosuch
thingaspatrioticartorpatrioticscience.Likeallgoodthings,bothbelongtothewholeworldandcanonlybefurtheredbyageneral,freeexchangeamongall
contemporaries,constantlybearinginmindwhathasremainedandisknowntousfromthepast"(quotedinStrich,p.49).Infact,nationalismputsGoethe'sentire
viewofculturalinteractionsintoquestion,whichisnottosaythathechampionsahollowandabstractcosmopolitanism:"Theissueisnotthatnationsshouldthink
alike,butthattheyshouldbecomeawareofeachother,understandeachother,andeveniftheycannotmutuallyloveeachother,theyshouldatleastlearntotolerate
eachother"(ibid.,p.26)."Onemustgettoknoweveryone'sparticularities,inordertoleavethemtoeveryone,andpreciselytobeabletoenterintorelationwith
them:forthepropertiesofanationarelikeitslanguageoritscurrency,theyfacilitateintercourse,andevenmakeitpossibleinthefirstplace"(ibid.,p.26).
17."NotenundAbhandlungen,"p.3536.TheschemeGoetheproposeshereistriadic,conformtotheconceptofBildung.InthetextdevotedtoWieland,itisdual
(asitisinSchleiermacher,whoreallyonlydevelopsitmoresystematically):"Therearetwomaximsintranslation:onerequiresthattheauthorofaforeignnationbe
broughtacrosstousinsuchawaythatwecanlookonhimourstheotherrequiresthatweshouldadaptourselvestotheforeign....Theadvantagesofbothare
sufficientlyknowntoeducatedpeoplethroughperfectexamples("ZubrderlichemAndenkenWielands,"inLefevere,p.39).
18.QuotedinStrich,p.19.
19.Goethe,"berLiteraturundLeben,"inGedenkausgabe,Bd.9,p.633.

Page204

20.Goethe,TheAutobiographyofJ.W.vonGoethe,tr.JohnOxenford,vol.2,(Chicago:ChicagoUniversityPress),p.112.
21.Ibid.,p.131.
22.QuotedinStrich,p.65.
23.Ibid.,p.55.
24.Goethe,ConversationswithEckermann,p.133.
25.''Alliseternallypresentinher....Thepresentiseternityforher"(Goethe,"Nature,"p.5).
26.Strich,p.2425.Thisremark,thoughcorrectinitself,isfarfromexhaustingtheproblem.TheRomanticshaveadifferentperceptionofthepresentthanGoethe.
Buttheycannotbecharacterizedasinfatuatedwiththepasttheyareratherfuturists.Cf.ourchapteronA.W.Schlegel.
27.QuotedinStrich,p.3738.
28.Ibid.,p.34.
29.Ibid.,p.34.
30.Ibid.,p.33.
31.Ibid.,p.36.
32.Ibid.,p.36.
33.Ibid.,p.36.
34.Ibid.,p.35.Approximatingtranslation:"Irecentlypickedabunchofflowersofthefield,broughtthemhomepensivelythewarmthofmyhandmadethecrowns
benddownIputtheminaglassoffreshwater,andwhatamarvelitwas!Thelittleheadsraisedthemselvesagain,stemsandleavesbecamegreen,anditallseemed
ashealthyasiftheflowerswerestillintheirmaternalsoil.ItwasthiswayformewhenI,fullofawe,heardmysonginaforeignlanguage."[Forapoetictranslation,by
VernonWatkins,seeSelectedPoems,ed.ChristopherMiddleton(Boston:Suhrkamp/Insel,1983),pp.25455.T R.]
35.Hofmannsthaldevelopsthesameidea:"Languagesbelongtothemostbeautifulthingsonthisworld....Theyarelikemarvelousmusicalinstruments....Andyet,
itisimpossibletomakethemvibratecompletely.Yes,whenwehavebecomedeaftothebeautyofourownlanguage,thefirstforeignlanguagetocomeonthescene
hasanindescribablemagicforusweonlyhavetotransferourfadedthoughtsinto

Page205

ittowatchthemcomealivelikeflowersputinfreshwater."(DieprosaischenSchriftengesammelt,Bd.2[Berlin:Fischer,1907],p.105).
RomanticRevolutionandInfiniteVersability
1.F.Schlegel,DialogueonPoetry,tr.BehlerandStruc,p.7374.
2.FriedrichSchlegel,KritischeSchriften(Munich:Hanser,1964),p.532.
3.Ibid.,p.83.
4.Furthermore,F.Schlegelconsiderslettersanddialoguestobefragments:"Adialogueisachainorgarlandoffragments.Anexchangeoflettersisadialogueona
largerscale,andMemorabiliaconstituteasystemoffragments"(Athenumfragmentno.77Firchow,p.170).Translation,foritspart,isplacedintheframeworkof
notesandandcommentaries:"Notesarephilologicalepigramstranslationsarephilologicalmimesmanycommentaries,wherethetextisonlythepointofdepartureor
thenonI,arephilologicalidylls"("Critical''fragmentno.75Firchow,p.152).
5.Novalis,FragmenteI,no.1256,p.339.
6.Novalis,SchriftenII,p.623.
7.F.Schlegel,KritischeSchriften,p.419.
8.Athenumfragmentno.444,tr.Firchow,p.239.
9."berdiePhilosophie,"p.3.
10.Novalis,"DialogueI,"tr.AlexanderGelley,inGermanRomanticCriticism,p.80.
11.Novalis,BriefeundDokumente,p.459.
12.Novalis,FragmenteII,no.1839,p.19.
13.Athenumfragmentno.434,tr.Firchow,p.237.
14.Novalis,FragmenteI,no.26,p.15.
15.Ibid.,no.1466,p.391.
16."Critical"fragmentno.115,tr.Firchow,p.157.
17.Athenumfragmentno.255,tr.Firchow,p.199.
18.Novalis,FragmenteII,no.1902,p.44.
19.Ibid.,no.1925p.55.

Page206

20.Ibid.,no.1968,p.70.
21.Novalis,FragmenteI,no.1152,p.307.
22.Novalis,FragmenteII,no.2263,p.132.
23.Athenumfragmentno.418,tr.Firchow,p.231.
24.Athenumfragmentno.121,tr.Firchow,pp.17677.
25.Novalis,FragmenteII,no.2281,p.139.
26.Ibid.,no.2263,p.132.
27.Ibid.,no.2128,p.104.
28.Athenumfragmentno.394,tr.Firchow,p.227.
29.Novalis,FragmenteI,no.1054,p.292.
30.Athenumfragmentno.242,tr.Firchow,p.196.
31.Novalis,FragmenteII,no.1913,p.49.
32.Ibid.,no.1921,p.53.
33.Novalis,FragmenteI,nos.61,236,1710.
34.DuBellay,Dfenseetillustrationdelalanguefranaise(Paris:Gallimard,1967),p.221.
35.Novalis,FragmenteII,no.2369,pp.15960.
36.Ibid.,no.2431,p.172.
37.Novalis,FragmenteI,no.1733,p.467.
38.Ibid.,no.1695,p.449.
39.Novalis,FragmenteII,no.2307,p.143.
40.Ibid.,no.1820,p.13.
41.Athenumfragmentno.37,tr.Firchow,p.166.
42."Critical"fragmentno.55,tr.Firchow,p.149.
43.Novalis,FragmenteII,no.2173,p.114.
44.Novalis,FragmenteI,no.1711,p.457.Hencetheconceptof"magicalidealism."
45.Ibid.,no.291,p.94.
46."Critical"fragmentno.37,tr.Firchow,p.147.
47.Novalis,"DialogueI,"tr.AlexanderGelley,inGermanRomanticCriticism,p.8081.Cf.alsoFragmenteI,no.68:"Arslitteraria.

Page207

Everythingascholardoes,says,speaks,suffers,hears,etc.mustbeanartistic,technical,scientificproductorsomesuchoperation.Hespeaksinepigrams,actsin
aplay,heisadialogist,herepresentsconferencesandscienceshetellsanecdotes,stories,fairytales,novels,hefeelspoeticallywhenhedraws,hedrawsasan
artist,asamusicianhislifeisanovelthusheseesandhearseverythingthushereads.Inshort,thegenuinescholaristhecompletelycultured(gebildete)
manwhogiveseverythinghetouchesandeverythinghedoesascientific,ideal,andsyncriticalform"(p.29).
48.Athenumfragmentno.116,tr.Firchow,p.175.
49.Ibid.
50.Novalis,FragmenteI,no.40,p.18.
51.Ibid.,no.1335,p.358.
52.Ibid.,no.239,p.79.
53.Novalis,FragmenteII,no.1952,p.64."Familylikeness"isinFrenchinthetext("airdefamille").
54.Novalis,FragmenteI,no.120,p.40."Oneandindivisible"isinFrenchinthetext("unesetindivisibles").
55.Ibid.,no.1694,pp.44849.
56.Ibid.,no.308,p.99.
57.Ibid.,no.61,p.27.
58.Novalis,FragmenteII,no.2084,p.93.Novalisgoeson:"Ontheconfusionofthesymbolwiththesymbolizedortheiridentificationonthebeliefinatrue,
completerepresentationandtherelationofimageandoriginalontheappearanceandthesubstance...allsuperstitionandallerror,inalltimesandallpeoples
andallindividuals,rest."Theinterchangeabilityofsymbolsandcategoriesexcludestheirabsolutization.Oneoftheconsequencesofthispositionisthatthereisno
naturaltruthoflanguagehencetheromanticcriticismoftheNatursprache.Seethenextchapter.
59.Themetaphorofmoneyisalsofoundin"ThePaintings,"adialoguebyA.WSchlegelpublishedintheAthenum(II,1:4449),inwhichthecopyofanancient
workispresentedasaprocessoftranslation:"Ah,ifmydrawingwereatranslation!Butitisbarelyadestituteabstract....IfIwanttotranslate(bertragen)
everythingthatIperceiveattheedges,theresultwouldbe...pettyandwitheverypartthatImelttogetherintolargermassessomethingoftheoriginalmean

Page208

ingislost....IwatchinsistentlyandrepeatedlyIcollecttheimpressions...butthenImusttranslatethemintowordsinternally....Societyandmutualsocial
contactaretheessential....Itiswithspiritualwealthaswithmoney.Whatisthegoodofhavingalotandkeepingitlockedaway?Fortruecomfortwhatmatters
mostisthatitcirculatesmultiplyandrapidly"(QuotedinWeltliteratur,p.502).ThistextshowshowtheJenaRomanticsinterpreteverythingfromtheviewpoint
oftranslation,andhowtranslationinturnisreferredbacktoalarger"circulation,"ofwhichmoney,asforGoethe,isthesymbol.Theromantic"sympilosophy"isa
translation.
60."Thetreemaybecomeablossomingflame,manaspeakingflameananimalawalkingflame"(Novalis,FragmenteI,no.967,p.267)."Animalnatureofthe
flame"(FragmenteI,no.994,p.272).Bachelardwouldspeakhereofmetaphorsofthematerialimagination.
61."Thephilosophertranslatestheactualworldintotheworldofthoughtandviceversa"(Novalis,FragmenteII,no.1956,p.65)
62.ClemensBrentano,WerkeII,p.262.SeeChapter7.
LanguageofArtandLanguageofNature
1.Itisonlyin1808thatF.SchlegelpublisheshisEssayonthelanguageandthephilosophyoftheIndians.
2.Novalis,FragmenteI,no.1394,p.370.
3.Ibid.,no.1272,p.343.
4.Ibid.,no.1277,p.345.
5.Novalis,FragmenteII,no.1865,p.30.
6.Ibid.,no.2032,p.83.
7."Critical"fragmentno.37,tr.Firchow,p.147.
8.Novalis,FragmenteI,no.1271,p.343.
9.Ibid.,no.1411,p.373.
10.Ibid.,no.395,p.123.
11.Ibid.,no.163,p.55.ThelastsentenceisinFrenchintheoriginal:"Ilestbeaucouppluscommoded'trefaitquedesefairesoimme."
12.F.Schlegel,KritischeSchriften,p.471.

Page209

13.DialogueonPoetry,tr.BehlerandStruc,pp.89,115.
14.F.Schlegel,KritischeSchriften,p.471.
15.Novalis,"Blthenstaub,"p.440.
16.Novalis,FragmenteII,no.1916,p.50.
17.Athenumfragmentno.428,tr.Firchow,p.234.ItisperhapsinthiscontextthatGuerne'sremarkontherelativegallicizationofNovalis'slanguagemaybebetter
understood,aphenomenonwhichisafterallevidentinthechoiceofthepseudonym"Novalis"byamanwhoserealnameisHardenberg:inLatin,novalismeansa
plotoflandnewlyclearedforcultivation(novaliainEnglish).ThenativeGermanwouldbetheNatursprache,FrenchtheKunstsprache,asFrenchand,aboveall,
asotherlanguage.Therecourseto"Romance"expressionswouldservetoraisethenaturallanguagetothelevelofanartificiallanguage,toenhancethedistancewith
theformer.ThisisthereverseofLuther'smovement,whichseeksbothapopularlanguageandgoodGerman.NovalisnotedthisparticularityofLuther'slanguage,
thoughseemingtoconfuseitwiththeromanticminglingofthenobleandthebase:"Mixofthecrude,thecommon,theproverbial,withthenoble,thehigh,thepoetic.
Dr.Luther'slanguage"(FragmenteI,no.1402,p.372).AnabyssseparatesLuther'spositionfromNovalis's,i.e.,thepositionoftheidealistdialecticofthe
constitutionofatranscendental,poeticalphilosophicallanguage.ThesameprocessofdeGermanizationcouldbeseenatthestylisticlevelinF.Schlegel:theliterary
formoftheWitzofthefragmentremainstheFrench"motd'esprit,"the''trait"(Chamfort).
18.Novalis,FragmenteI,no.1360,p.363.
19.FriedrichSchlegelhasexpressedthistastefortheartificialanditsconnectionwithreflexivityverywell:"Itissublimetastealwaystolikethingsbetterwhenthey
havebeenraisedtothesecondpower.Forexample,copiesofimitations,evaluationsofreviews,commentariesonnotes....(Athenumfragmentno.110,Firchow,
p.174).Apartfromthestrikingmodernityofthetext,therelationtotranslationcalledelsewhere"philologicalmimes"("Critical"fragmentno.75,tr.Firchow,p.
152)isobvious.Hereartificialityconsistsofremovingoneselfeverfurtherfromwhateveroriginal.
20.ClemensBrentano,WerkeII(Munich:Hanser,1963),p.262.
21.Novalis,FragmenteI,no.479,p.149.
22.Ibid.,no.1296,p.348.
23.Novalis,FragmenteII,no.1957,p.65.

Page210

24.Ibid.,no.2228.p.126.
25.Novalis,FragmenteI,no.1473,p.392.
26.Ibid.,no.1285,p.347.
27.Ibid.,no.1275,p.344.
28.Blthenstaub,p.412.
29.Ibid.
30.Novalis,FragmenteII,no.1916,p.50.
31.Novalis,FragmenteI,no.1327,pp.25455.
32.QuotedinEvaFiesel,DieSprachphilosophiederdeutschenRomantik(Hildesheim/NewYork:Olms,1973),p.33.
33.Cf.theastonishing"MathematicalFragments"inFragmenteI,no.401,pp.12426.
34.Novalis,FragmenteII,no.1855,p.24.
35.Novalis,FragmenteI,no.343,p.111.
36.Ibid.,no.328,p.109.Cf.alsonos.387and291.
37.Ibid.,no.401,p.126.
38.Ibid.,no.1320,p.353.
39.Ibid.,no.1326,p.354.
40.Ibid.,no.1313,pp.35051.
41.Ibid.,no.1383,p.368.
42.Ibid.,no.1400,p.371.
43.Athenumfraagmentno.444,tr.Firchow,p.239.
44.Novalis,FragmenteI,no.1398,p.371.
45.NootherliteraryromantictextmeasuresuptothismusicalizingreflexivityadvocatedbytheAthenum.Onewillhavetowaituntilthetwentiethcenturytosee
suchtextsemerge.AlarecherchedutempsperdubyProustandVirgil'sDeathbyBrocharethemoststrikingillustrationsoftheliteraryfecundityofNovalis'sand
Schlegel'sprinciples.AsregardsProust,AnneHenry'sworksnotablyMarcelProust:thoriespouruneesththique(Paris:Klinksleck,1981)haveshownthe
influenceofSchelling,thephilosopherclosesttotheAthenumgroup,onthisauthorandhisliteraryproject,throughawholeseriesofmediations.Reflexivityis
inherentinProust'swritingandinscribedinthevery

Page211

titleofthework(recherche).TheremarkbyProust,accordingtowhichthetaskoftheauthorisidenticaltothatofthetranslator,andanotheroneassertingthat
everywork,aswork,seemstobewritteninaforeignlanguage,testifytohisbelongingtothe"literaryspace"openedbytheAthenum."Withhim,weenterintoa
newaestheticthatnolongerhasitsrootsinthelived,butinthesolidityofthetheoretical"(R.Jaccard,"Proustthoricien,"LeMonde,5August1982).This
aestheticisnotnew:ItistheaestheticofreflexivitydevelopedbyF.Schlegel.
46.Novalis,FragmenteII,no.2431,pp.17172.
47."MysteryinLiterature,"inMallarm:SelectedProse,Poetry,Essays,andLetters,tr.BradfordCook(Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1956),p.
33.
48."Nowordinthepoem(Imeanhereevery'and'or'the,''a'or'it')isidenticaltothecorrespondingwordinconversationandeverydayusethepurerlawfulness,
thelargerrelation,theconstellationitoccupiesinverseorartisticprose,changesittothecoreofitsnature,makesituseless,unusableformereintercourse,
untouchableanddurable."QuotedinGeorgeSteiner,AfterBabel(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1975),p.241.
49.Novalis,FragmenteI,no.1043,p.288.
50.Ibid.,no.1434,p.381.
51.Ibid.,no.1687,p.446.
52.Ibid.,no.1752,p.472.
53.Novalis,FragmenteII,no.2386,p.163.
54.Novalis,FragmenteI,no.133,p.43.Cf.alsonos.91(p.33)andthefamousfragmentno.1847:"Poetrydissolvestheforeignexistenceintoitsown"(Novalis,
FragmenteII,p.22).
55.HeinrichvonOfterdingen,tr.PalmerHilty(NewYork:Ungar,1964),p.32.
56."Romanticism.AbsolutizationUniversalizationclassificationoftheindividualmoment,oftheindividualsituation,etc.,istheactualessenceof
romanticizing"(Novalis,FragmenteI,no.1440,p.383).
57.AsBenjaminobserved,whenhesaidoftranslation,"Thustranslation,ironically,transplantstheoriginalintoamoredefinitivelinguisticrealm,sinceitcannolonger
bedisplacedbyasecondaryrendering....Itisnomerecoincidencethattheword"ironic"herebringstheRomanticstomind"("TheTaskoftheTranslator"in
Illuminations,p.7576).

Page212

58.InLaPartdufeu,Blanchotadmirablyexpressedthismovement:"Letusadmitthatoneoftheobjectsofliteratureistocreatealanguageandaworkwherethe
deadwordwouldbereallydead....Itappearsthatthisnewlanguageshouldbetothecommonlanguagewhatatexttobetranslatedistothelanguagethattranslates
it:asetofwordsoreventswhichwenodoubtmarvelouslyunderstandandgrasp,butwhichintheirveryfamiliaritymakeusfeelourignorance,asifwediscovered
thattheeasiestwordsandthemostnaturalthingsmaysuddenlybecomeunknowntous.Thattheliteraryworkwantstokeepitsdistances,thatitseekstoremove
itselffromanyintervalthatalwaysmakesthebesttranslation...intoaforeignwork,thisexplains(inpart)thesymbolisttasteforrareterms,thesearchofexoticism..
..Traduitdusilence[Translatedfromthesilence],thistitlebyJoBousquetislikethewishofanentireliteraturethatwouldwanttoremaintranslationinthepure
state,alightenedtranslationofsomethingtobetranslated,anefforttoretainoflanguagetheonlydistancethatlanguageseekstokeepinregardtoitselfandthat,atthe
limit,mustresultinitsdisappearance"(p.181).WeareveryclosetoRomanticismhereasthereferencetoBousquetconfirms.Orrather,Blanchot'sreflection
seemstotallycaughtinthespaceofliteratureopenedbytheAthenum.
59.Quitethecontrary:Goethe'stheoryof"occasionalpoetry,"assertedmanytimesinhisconversationswithEckermann,isradicallyopposedtothatofromantic
poetry.Forhim,theoccasionisthatbywhichpoetryisrootedincontemporaneityandnaturalness.
60.MichelFoucault,TheOrderofThings,(NewYork:RandomHouse,1970),p.300.
TheSpeculativeTheoryofTranslation
1.Novalis,FragmenteI,no.10,p.11.
2.Ibid.,no.1280,p.346.
3.Ibid.,no.489,p.153.
4."Critical"fragmentnos.73,76,119Athenumnos.229,392,393,402.
5.F.Schlegel,DialogueonPoetry,p.79.
6.Ibid.,p.87.
7.Novalis,BriefeundDokumente,pp.36768.
8.SeeChapter9.

Page213

9.Novalis,FragmenteII,no.1890,p.41.Thattheactoftranslatingeffectivelyrestsonsuchapenetrationoftheforeignindividualityandona"geneticmimic"is
attestedtobytheexperienceofanyliterarytranslator:Thetranslator'srelationtothetextheistranslating(toitsauthoranditslanguage)issuchthatheentersintothe
zoneoftheworkwhereitis,thoughfinished,stillbeinggenerated.Thetranslatorpenetrates,sotospeak,intotheintimacyoftheauthorwithhislanguage,therewhere
hisdeprivedlanguageseekstoinvestandmetamorphosizethecommon,publiclanguage.Anditisonthebasisofthepenetrationofthisrelationthatthetranslatormay
hopeto"mime"theforeignworkinhislanguage.Thecriticalact,onthecontrary,restsonanapproach,notapenetration.Inthissense,itisnotanexperience,and
thetranslatorisclosertotheactororthewriterthantothecritic.Orratherhismodeofidentificationisdifferent.TheRomanticstendtoconfusetheserelationsunder
thegenericterm"mimic."Thefieldofthis''mimic"isinfiniteandwithoutdelimitations:Onceagainwefindthetheoryofinfiniteversability,atheorythatmaybeableto
accountforthecriticalactivity,butcertainlynotforthetranslating,orafortiorithepoeticactivity.Thetheoryofselflimitationhereisnothingbutaninsufficient
parapet.
10.Novalis,FragmenteI,no.236,p.77.
11.Athenumfragmentno.393,tr.Firchow,p.226.Seealsono.401:"Inordertounderstandsomeonewhoonlypartiallyunderstandshimself,onemustfirst
understandhimcompletelyandbetterthanhehimselfdoes,butthenonlypartiallyandpreciselyasmuchashedoeshimself"(tr.Firchow,pp.22728).Obviously,all
theseaxiomsarevalidforbothcriticismandtranslation.SchleiermacherwilldrawalessonfromF.Schlegel'sreflection,byedifyingasystematictheoryof
hermeneutics,i.e.,ofinterpretationandunderstanding,andbydevelopinghistheoryoftranslationagainstthisbackground.SeeChapter10.
12.Novalis,FragmenteII,no.2411:"Eachworkofarthaswithinitselfanaprioriideal,anecessityinitselftobethere.Onlybythisdoesanauthenticcriticismof
paintersbecomepossible."
13.Benjamin,DerBegriffderKunstkritik,p.67.
14.A.W.Schlegel,inhislecturesonartandliterature,doesnotsayanythingmorethanNovalisandValry:Poetryis"thesummitofscience,theinterpreterand
translatorofthiscelestialrevelation,theonetheancientsrightlycalledalanguageofthegods"(DieKunstlehre,p.227).SeeourchapteronA.W.Schlegel.
15.Thus,GrardGenettetellsus,EnglishappearstoMallarmasthatperfectlanguage"whereatadistanceallthevirtuesareprojectedof

Page214

whichtheownlanguageasreallanguageisdeprived....Anotherlanguage,orratheranyotherlanguage,mightjustaswellhavedonethejob,i.e.,theofficeof
'supreme'language...thesupremelanguagebeingalways,foreverylanguage,theoneacrossthestreet"(Mimologiques[Paris:Seuil,1976],p.273).Thatis
whytheGermanShakespearewouldbebetterthantheEnglish.
16.Athenumfragmentno.297,tr.Firchow,p.204.
17.Thattranslationshouldbea"progressive"process,isobvious:itisneverdefinitiveandcomplete,norcanitimagineitselfsuch.Letussaythattranslationsaremore
mortalthanworks.Andthatanyworkauthorizesaninfinityoftranslations.Thus,theactoftranslatingbelongstothespaceoffragmentarywritingwhichtheRomantics
seektodefineandtolegitimate.Thetheoryofthefragmentshouldincludeatheoryofwritingintranslations.
18.QuotedinGeorgeSteiner,AfterBabel,pp.4045.[Ihaveprovidedaliteraltranslationofbothversionsintherighthandcolumnforthebenefitofthosereaders
whodonotknowFrenchand/orGerman.Needlesstosay,Iclaimnopoeticvalueforit.T R.]
19.Novalis,"Blthenstaub,"pp.43940.
20.FollowingwhichWilhelmandCarolineSchlegelpublishedadialogueentitled"ThePaintings"intheAthenumin1799.
21.Novalis,FragmenteII,no.1868,pp.3536.
22.Ibid.,no.2100,p.96.Cf.alsofragmentno.1954,"SymbolsandMystifications"(p.65).
23.Novalis,SchriftenI,p.177.
24.Novalis,"ChristendomorEurope,"inHymnstotheNightandOtherSelectedWritings,tr.CharlesA.Passage(Indianapolis:BobbsMerrill,1960),p.59.The
veiledMadonnaisalsoSophie,thefianceewhodiedprematurely.Theimageislinkedtodeath.
25.Athenumfragmentno.235,tr.Firchow,p.195.
26.Novalisevadestheprobleminhis"Blthenstaub,"saying:"Severalnamesaresuitableforanidea."Whichindicatesadeliberateterminologicalwaveringmaking
romanticthinkinglabyrinthineandshowstowhatextentlanguageisarelativethingforthisthinking.Thereisnotheoryhereofthe''rightname!"
27.F.Schlegel,DialogueonPoetry,tr.BehlerandStruc,pp.1023.ThesedreamylinesbyF.Schlegelmayhelpusunderstandbetterwhata

Page215

mythictranslationis:atranslationthatraisestheoriginaltotheleveldifficulttodefine,tobesureofmyth.Afterall,bydintoftranslationsandcritiques,Don
Quixotehasreallybecomeamyth.Andthismyth,thesocalled"Idea"ofthework,leavestheactualbookfarbehinditself.Thisprocessisaprocessof
destructionoftheoriginal.Whathappenswiththe"masterworksofuniversalliterature"constitutestheactualsideofwhattheRomanticsformulatespeculatively:
Hypertranslated,hyperknown,theyarebarelyread,andinhabitourworldlikemythicalshadows.ItisunnecessarytosubscribetotheRomanticdialecticto
recognizethat,historicallyspeaking,theymanagedto"mythify"Dante,Cervantes,Petrarch,andShakespeare.OftheirworksonlythepureIdea,thepure,empty
imagehasremained.Theissueforcontemporarycriticismandtranslationistofindagain,underneaththisemptyimage,thelinguisticandempiricaldensityofthese
works.
Buttheconceptofa"mythicaltranslation,"asdistantasitmayseemfromactualtranslation,maywellturnouttobeafertileconcept.Italludestotheprofound
relationofmyth,history,andtranslationintuited,eachintheirownway,byRosenzweigandBenjamin.Arelationwhichweshouldbeabletoretrievefrom
speculativethinking.
28.BehindwhomGermancriticismhasrecognizedGries,translatorofthesepoetsandCaldernatthebeginningofthenineteenthcentury.PossiblyBrentanoalso
thoughtofA.W.Schlegel,themost"rationalist"memberoftheAthenum,astheallusionstothetranslationofDante,Shakespeare,andtheItalianrenaissancepoets
seemtoindicate.
29.Brentano,WerkeII,p.25862.
30.Brentano,WerkeI,p.619.Literaltranslation:"Ostarandflower,spiritandgarb,/Love,sufferingandtimeandeternity."
31.QuotedinFiesel,p.40.
TranslationasCriticalMovement
1.Cf.BedaAllemann,IronieundDichtung(Pfullingen:Neske,1969),p.63.
2.Athenumfragmentno.116,tr.Firchow,p.175.
3."Critical"fragmentno.117,tr.Firchow,p.157.
4.Novalis,FragmenteII,no.1869,p.36.
5.F.Schlegel,KritischeSchriften,pp.376,381.

Page216

6.Ibid.,pp.42425.Cf.MmedeStal,inDel'Allemagne:"Germanliteratureisperhapsthefirsttohavestartedwithcriticism"(p.130).
7.Benjamin,DerBegriffderKunstkritik,p.67.
8.Athenumfragmentno.297,tr.Firchow,p.204.
9.F.Schlegel,"TheEssenceofCriticism,"inKristischeFriedrichSchlegelAusgabe,vol.2:CharakteristikenundKritiken,ed.HansEichner(Munich:Ferdinand
Schningh,1975),p.118.
10.Athenumfragmentno.393,tr.Firchow,p.226.
11.Athenumfragmentno.287,tr.Firchow,p.201.
12.ThisishowF.Schlegeldefinesthefragment.Cf.Athenumfragmentno.206,tr.Firchow,p.187.
13.Benjamin,DerBegriffderKunstkritik,p.119.Cf.Lautramont:"Judgmentsonpoetryareworthmorethanpoetry.Theyarethephilosophyofpoetry...
."(MaldororandPoems,tr.PaulKnight[Harmondsworth,England:Penguin,1978],p.277).
14.Becausetheworkcallsforcriticalandhermeneuticalapproaches,isthebasisfortheirnecessity,butalsoescapesfromthemanddestinesthemtoeternal
incompletion.
AugustSchlegel:TheWilltoTranslateEverything
1.Cf.thewelldocumentedandsympatheticarticlebyMarianneThalmann,"AugustWilhelmSchlegel,"inA.W.Schlegel17671967(BadGodesberg:
Internationes,1967):"ThecourseofVienna,whichknewthreeeditionsbetween1809and1841,isthemostwidelyreadworkonliteraryhistory.Itistranslatedinall
languages...andlaunchedmovementscorrespondingtoGermanRomanticisminNorthernandSlaviccountries.Itdeterminedthejudgmentonthe'classical'andthe
'modern'inforeigncountries"(p.20).
2.Cf.LacoueLabartheandNancy,TheLiteraryAbsolute,pp.512,andMauriceBlanchot,"TheAthenum,"tr.DeborahEschandIanBalfour,Studiesin
Romanticism22(1983):16372.
3.WithregardtotheSchlegels,Wielandspeaksof"exuberantlittlegods."Attheendofhislife,Goetheexpressedhisillhumor,castigatingtheSchlegeleiby
homonymywithFlegelei,boorishnessi.e.,toomuchartificialityandversatilityinthemforthe"natural"manhewantstobe.

Page217

4.QuotedinThalmann,"Schlegel,"p.13.
5.Whocalledhimself"improvingmediator"(ibid.,p.10).
6.Ibid.,p.9.
7.A.W.Schlegel,"EtwasberWilliamShakespearebeyGelegenheitWilhelmMeisters,"DieHoren,2,no.4(1796),p.11012.
8.Ibid.Whichentails,forinstance,abandoningthealexandrine,whichisillsuitedforShakespeare'sverses.
9."MytranslationhastransformedtheGermantheater,"hewrotetoTieckon3September1837."OnlycompareSchiller'siambsinWallensteintothoseinDon
Carlos,andyouwillseehowmuchhehasbeeninmyschool."(QuotedinFrankJolles,A.W.SchlegelSommernachtstraumindererstenFassungvomJahre
1789[Gttingen:VandenhoeckandRuprecht,1967],p.34).
10.QuotedinThalmann,"Schlegel,"p.9.
11.QuotedinM.Thalmann,RomantikeralsPoetologen(Heidelberg:LotharStiehm,1970),p.49.
12.A.W.Schlegel,fromGeschichtederklassischenLiteratur,inLefevere,TranslatingLiterature,p.52.
13.A.W.Schlegel,DieKunstlehre,p.232.
14.Thisapologyofformgroundsthenecessityofpoetictranslation,justliketheapologyofcontentmotivatesGoethe'stoleranceinmattersoftranslation.
15.A.W.Schlegel,GeschichtederklassischenLiteratur,inLefevere,pp.5253.
16.A.W.Schlegel,DieKunstlehre,p.349.
17.Ibid.,p.349.Thetextcontinueswiththeintroductionofthethemeofmythologyandpoetryastheinterpreterandtranslatorofthelanguageofthegods.The
similaritytoNovalisandValryisstriking.Here,too,translationistranslationoftranslation.Thus,A.W.SchlegelshowshimselftobefaithfultotheRomantic
monologicalprinciple:Poetrycanonlybepoetryofpoetry,translationcanonlybetranslationoftranslation,etc.True,atthisstage,A.W.Schlegelallowshimselfan
outrightpasticheofhisbrother.Buthisowndomainasatranslatoristhemetricalpoeticformsforhispart,F.Schlegel(asacritic)studiesthetextualpoeticand
literaryforms.Theformerprovidesatheoryofmetrics,thelatteratheoryofgenres.Thetwotheoriescomplementeachother,andhavetheir"formalism"incommon.

Page218

18.Hencethecorrectbutindeterminateaxiom:"Everything,eventheconceptoffidelity,isdeterminedaccordingtothenatureoftheworkwithwhichoneisdealing
andtherelationofthetwolanguages"("berdieBhagavadGita,"inStrig,p.99).
19."Itisclearthatthemostperfecttranslationcanneverequalthetext"(A.W.Schlegel,GeschichtederklassischenLiteratur,inLefevere,p.53).Translationis"a
thanklesstask...notonlybecauseeventhebesttranslationisnevervaluedashighlyastheoriginalwork,butalsobecausethetranslator,themorehisinsight
increases,themorehemustfeeltheinevitableimperfectionofhislabor"("berdieBhagavadGita,"p.98).Tobesure,threelinesdownthetonechanges,andthe
translatorbecomes"amessengerfromnationtonation,amediatorofmutualrespectandadmiration,whereotherwisetherewasonlyindifferenceoreven
aversion"(ibid.).Theeternalbalancingofthetranslator'sconsciousnessbetweenabsoluteprideandabsolutehumility,undoubtedlyexacerbatedbytheunstable,and
ultimatelyinferior,statusoftranslationinRomanticthinking.
20.As,forinstance,theGreekisforHlderlin.
21.Novalis,SchriftenII,ed.Samuel,p.250.
22.AfterwordtoTieck,inAthenum,II,2,p.281.
23.AsBlanchotsays,DonQuixoteis"theromanticbookparexcellence,inasmuchasthenovelreflectsitselfandincessantlyturnsagainstitself"(L'Entretien
infini,p.239).Infact,Cervantes'sworkhaseverythingtoseducetheRomantics.Andevenmoresobecauseitstandsinaprofoundrelationtotranslation,arelation
wellobservedbyMartheRobertinL'Ancienetlenouveau(Paris:Grasset,1963).ThestoryCervantesproposestohisreadersisallegedlyatranslationfromthe
Arabic(acertainCidHametbenEngeliwrotetheoriginal,andCervanteshastopaysomeonetotranslateit).Moreover,DonQuixoteandtheCanonhaveakeen
interestintheproblemstranslation.A.W.SchlegelquotedthespeechDonQuixoteheldontranslationintheprintinghouseinBarcelonaatleasttwice.Andagreat
numberofthebooksthatmadethehero"mad"arethemselvestranslations.itisnotdifficulttoimaginethatunderthosecircumstancestheRomanticsshouldhaveseen
inthisbookastrikingexampleofa"reflexive"work,a"copyofimitation."ThefactthatDonQuixoteshouldbepresentedasatranslationmaycountasanironization,
arelativizationintheromanticsense.AndthisishowMartheRobertinterpretsit:"Translation,here,isthesymptomofadisruptionoftheunityoflanguage,itmarks
thedismembermentitiscalledupontoremedybyanungratefullabor,destinedinthebestcasetoasemidefeat''(p.11819).Butintruth,thefactthatthegreatest
novelof

Page219

classicalSpanishliteratureshouldbepresentedbyitsauthorasatranslationfromtheArabiccouldleadtoareflectionthatmovesinanentirelydifferent
dimension:thatofthemodeofaffirmationoftheSpanishlanguage,culture,andliteraturethatDonQuixoterepresentsaselfaffirmationinwhich,oncemore,
"translation"(thoughasafiction)ispresent.Thereflexivityofthisworklosesitsmeaningifonemakesofitapure"agile,fantastic,ironic,andbrilliant
mobility,"(Blanchot,L'Entretien,p.239)divorcedfromanyhistoricalsoil.Moreover,Cervantes'sartificereferstothatcategoryofworkswhichwanttopresent
themselvesastranslations.Thus,forthatmatter,itismorethananartifice:itisoneofthepossibilitiesofinteractionofwritingandtranslation.Oralso:the
indicationthatallwritingissituatedconcretelyinaspacewherethereistranslationandlanguages.Think,forexample,oftheworksofTolstoy,T.Mann,or
Kafka.
24.AthenumII,2,p.281.
25.F.Schlegelalsosays:"Thus,onemustknoweverythinginordertoknowsomething"("berdiePhilosophie,"p.73).
26.Andyet,thefateofthefragmentaryseemstostrikehimaswellinhisworkastranslator:"Assuch,itgoesstrangelywiththis...Shakespeare:Icanneither
abandonhimnorproceedtotheend,"hewritestoTieckin1809(quotedinWeltliteratur,p.149).Infact,Tieckandhisdaughterwillcontinueandfinishthegreat
enterpriseofthepoetictranslationofShakespeare.
27.WhocontributestothisprogrambytranslatingCervantes,butalsobyhelpingA.W.SchlegelfinishhistranslationofShakespeare.TieckisclosetotheJena
group.Sincehebarelywroteontranslation,wedonotdealwithhiminthisstudy.ButheisagreatRomantictranslator:hisDonQuixotehasremainedunequalled.
28.BytranslatingtheBhagavadGita,A.W.Schlegel,atbottom,followstheinjunctionoftheDialogueonPoetry:"Wemustseekthehighestromanticisminthe
Orient"(tr.BehlerandStruc,p.87).AndTieck:"IbelievemoreandmorethattheOrientandtheNorthareinacloseconnectionandmutuallyelucidateeachother,
andthattheyalsoelucidatetheancient,andmoderntimes"(inThalmann,"Schlegel,"p.29).
29.InThalmann,"Schlegel,"p.24.
30."Theauthenticallynewsproutsonlyfromtheold,/Thepastmustgroundourfuture,/Thedullpresentshouldnotretainme."(A.W.Schlegel,dedicationto
Blumenstrusseitalinischer,spanischerundportugiesischerPoesie,1804quotedinWeltliteratur,p.505).

Page220

31.FortheGermanRomantics,Frenchclassicismsometimesincarnatesthisnegative.Cf.F.Schlegel,theDialogueonPoetry,tr.BehlerandStruc,p.75:
Camilla.YouhavehardlymentionedtheFrenchatall[inthehistoryofpoetry].
Andrea.IthappenedwithoutparticularintentionIfoundnoreasontodoso.....
Ludoviko.Throughthisunderhandtrickheindirectlyanticipatedmypolemicalworkonthetheoryoffalsepoetry.
32.ArmandRobin,Lemonded'unevoix(Paris:Gallimard,1970),p.178.
33.Ibid.,p.160.
34.Ibid.,p.93.
35.Ibid.,p.81.
36.Ibid.,p.98.ThedoublemovementmustbenotedbywhichRobinentitleshistranslations"Posienontraduite"[Untranslatedpoetry]andotherwisewritesa
poetryinwhichtheactoftranslatingitselfbecomesamajorpoetictheme:translationofpoetryandpoetryoftranslation.ArmandRobin'srelationtopoetry,languages,
dialects,andtranslationwouldwarrantanentirestudy.
37.Cf.FrankJolles,Sommernachtstraum.
38.ErichEmigholzwrites,in"ThirtyfivetimesMacbeth:""Thesecondpartofthesceneoftheporter(II,3)containsquitecoarseobscenities.Theyareabsentin
DorotheaTieck'stranslation.Thereasonforthisissoonunderstood,forshetranslates'lie'as'Lge,'[alie]andnotaswhatthiscanandmustmeanhere,namely'lying
with.'Theresultalmostnonsensical....Inacertainway,suchamistake(ormisunderstanding)ischaracteristicoftheRomantics.Thoughfarfrombeingprudish,they
didnotliketoletobscenitiesgobyinapoetofShakespeare'slevel.Whatistoocrudecontradictsthepoeticsenseofromanticism.WhichiswhyDorotheaTieck
substitutesanelevatedpoeticformulaforShakespeare'sdirectremark.Moreover,itisnotinfrequentfortheromanticunobtrusivenesstodeterminethechoiceof
wordsaswell"(inA.W.Schlegel17671967,pp.3334).OnewillbenefitfromEmigholz'sbriefanalysisofDorotheaTieck'sMacbethtranslation,ananalysisin
whichthelimitsofromantictranslationclearlyappear.
39.JenaischenAllgemeinenLitteraturZeitung,quotedinJolles,p.32.

Page221

40.SeeourChapter10.
41.F.Schlegel,KritischeSchriften,p.403.
42.QuotedinErnestTonnelat,Histoiredelalittratureallemande(Paris:Payot,1952),pp.16577.
SchleiermacherandW.vonHumboldtTranslationintheHermeneuticalLinguisticSpace
1.SchillerwritestoHumboldtin1796:"Inmyeyes,youhaveanaturethatwouldprohibityoufrombeingcountedamongthespeculativeandscholarlymenofthe
conceptandaculturethatexcludesyoufromthegeniussonsofnature.Yourpathiscertainlynotthatofproduction,butyouhavethejudgmentandthepatient
fervortoaccomplishyourself"(quotedintheIntroductiontoHumboldt'sworks,tr.PierreCaussat,Paris:Seuil,1974,p.17).The"fervor"andthe"judgment"concern
thestudyoflanguage.
2."Thesymbolicsystemisformidablyintricate,itismarkedbythatVerschlungenheit[which]designatesthelinguisticintersectioneveryisolablelinguisticsymbolis
notonlysolidarywiththewhole,butcutthroughandconstitutedbyaseriesofaffluences,ofoppositionaloverdeterminationsthatconstituteitinseveralregistersat
once.Isthissystemoflanguage,intowhichourdiscourseisdisplaced,notsomethingthatinfinitelysurpassesanyintentionthatwemayputinitandthatisonly
momentaneous?"(JacquesLacan,LeSminaire,vol.I[Paris:Seuil,1975],p.65).
3.Cf.PeterSzondi,"Schleiermacher'sHermeneuticsToday,"inOnTextualUnderstandingandOtherEssays,tr.HarveyMendelsohn(Minneapolis:Universityof
MinneapolisPress,1986).
4.Crudelyspeaking,theoriesofunderstandingpostulatethatthemeaningofits"expressions"isaccessibletothesubjectbyvirtueofahermeneuticmovementofself
understanding.Theoriesofinterpretationpostulatethatthesubject,inacertainway,doesnothaveaccessassuchtosuchanunderstanding.Thisisthewholeconflict
betweenpsychoanalysisandphenomenologyasitappearedwithMerleauPontyandRicoeur.Steiner'sworkontranslationissituatedintheframeworkofatheoryof
understanding,anditisstrikingthatheneveroncementionsthediscoveriesofpsychoanalysis,thoughtheseareofanaturetochangeourviewofinterlingualand
intralingualprocesses.
5.Ineffect,Schleiermacherproposesareadingoforalexpressions,i.e.,thoseof"conversation."Cf.Szondi,pp.98101.

Page222

6.H.G.Gadamer,TruthandMethod(NewYork:SheedandWard,1975),p.350.
7.Schleiermacher,"OntheDifferentMethodsofTranslating,"inLefevere,p.71.
8.LettertoSchiller,quotedbyCaussat(tr.),Introduction,p.17.
9."LatiumundHellas,"p.20.
10.InLefevere,p.88.
11.ThusSchleiermacherstudiestherelationsofnationallanguagesinconjunctionwithtranslation,thecaseofbiormultilingualism,theconditionsfortheaccessofthe
mothertonguetothestateof"cultivated"language.Translation,then,findsitselfinan"intersected"spacewheretherelationtolanguagescantakeonathousandforms.
Humboldtstudiestherelationoflanguagestotheirdialects,theircommunities,etc.
12.Thissystematicremainsintheprogrammaticstage.
13.InSzondi,p.99.
14.InLefevere,p.82.
15.Thesamedistinctioncanbefoundinhermeneutics,wherenoteverythingisworthanactofunderstanding.Cf.Szondi,p.99.
16.InLefevere,p.86.
17.Ibid.,p.71.
18.Foucault,pp.28791.
19.InLefevere,p.76.
20.Ibid.,p.72.
21.Ibid.,p.74.
22.Ibid.,p.74.
23.Ibid.,p.75.
24.Ibid.,p.74.
25.Ibid.,p.85.
26.Ibid.,p.83.
27.Ibid.,pp.7980.
28.Ibid.,p.81.

Page223

29.Ibid.,p.79.
30.Ibid.,p.79.
31.Ibid.,p.79.
32.Ibid.,p.84.WeshouldnotforgetthatSchleiermacherwastalkingtotheBerlinAcademy.
33.Ibid.,p.80.
34.Ibid.,pp.8889.
35.Humboldt,"Einleitungzu'Agamemnon',"inLefevere,p.41.
36.Ibid.,p.42.
37.Ibid.,p.41.
38.InCaussat(tr.),Introduction,p.22.
39.InLefevere,p.41.
40.Ibid.,p.41.
41.Ibid.,p.41.
42.Ibid.,p.42.
43.Ibid.,p.42.
44.Ibid.,p.42.
45.[Inquitantetranget(disturbingstrangeness)intheusualFrenchtranslationofFreud'sUnheimliche.InEnglish,ofcourse,theusualtranslationis"the
uncanny".T R.]
46.Inthefieldoftranslation,thelimitsofhermeneuticaltheoryfromSchleiermachertoSteinerseemtobethefollowing:todissolvethespecifityoftranslatingby
makingitintoaspecialcaseoftheinterpretiveprocess,tobeunable,asatheoryofconsciousness,toapproachtheunconsciousdimensioninwhichlinguistic
processesandhence,translationareplayedout.
Regardingthefirstpoint,toassertthattranslationisaninterpretation,anactof"understanding,"isamisleadingobviousness.Thatthereisinterpretationineach
translationdoesnotmeanthateverytranslationisnothingbutinterpretationorthatitdependsessentiallyoninterpretation.Therelationtotheforeignworkandthe
foreignlanguageplayedoutintranslationissuigeneris,capableofbeingseizedonlyonthebasisofitself.Interpretationalwaysaimsatameaning.Now,
translationdependssolittleonthetotalcapturingofameaningthat,strictlyspeaking,oneshouldalwaystranslatetextsonedoesnotentirely"under

Page224

stand."Theactoftranslatingproducesitsownmodeofunderstandingtheforeignlanguageandtheforeigntext,whichisdifferentfromahermeneuticalcritical
understanding.Fromthisitfollowsthatatranslationneverrestsonapreexistinginterpretation.Forexample,thecertaintyofaphilosophicaltranslationdoesnot
dependonthecriticalunderstandingofthetexttobetranslated,evenif,tobesure,someworkofinterpretationandanalysisisindispensable.itmightbesaidthat
thetextualanalysistowhichthetranslatorhastoapplyhimselflikethechartingofthenetworkoffundamentaltermsandassociationsinanovel,the"system"of
itswriting,etc.isdeterminedaprioribythefactthatheisgoingtotranslate:Toreadinordertotranslateistoillumineatextwithalightthatisnotonlyofthe
orderofhermeneutics,itistocarryoutareadingtranslationapretranslation.Thispretranslationmayappearwhenonelooksatthewords,sentences,or
segmentsofsentencesthatthetranslatorhasunderlinedinthetexttobetranslatedbeforestartingontheactualtranslation:notonlythewordsandpassageshe
doesnot"understand"(whichwillsupposedlybefew),butthosethat,atafirstreading,presentaproblemoftranslationbecauseoftheirgreatdistanceinrelation
tothe"targetlanguage."Thosearetheskylinesofthestrangenessofthework,oritslineofresistancetotranslation.Andbyandlargethislinecoincideswiththe
originalsystemoftheworkinitslanguage.Fromthispoint,acertainreadingoftheworkispossiblewhichmaybetransformedintoa"critical''reading.Inthis
sense,translationisaknowledgeofthework.
Criticismbytranslationisamodeofcriticismirreducibletointerpretivecriticism.Hermeneuticaltheoryoverlooksthisdimension.Logically,itisledtoconsider
thetranslatorasthepoorrelativeofthecritic.Itdoesnotseethepositivityofatranslatingreading.Forhermeneutics,itwillalwaysbebettertoreadtheworkin
theoriginallanguagetranslationwouldbeamakeshiftsolution.Butthatisnotthecase:Justasfortheworkthefactofbeingtranslatedisanenrichingmovement,
andnotanuprooting,thereadingofatranslationisanoriginaloperationforthereader,notonlybecauseitconcernsaforeigntext,butbecauseitisaspecialtype
ofwritingandaspecialtypeoftext.
Wemayalsopointoutthatthe"normal"modeofreadingforaforeigntextisthereadingofitstranslation.Toreadabookinitsoriginallanguagewillalwaysbean
exception,andanoperationfulloflimitations.Thatisthenormalculturalsituation,whichnolearningoflanguagescanorshouldremedy,becausethereisnothing
negativeinit.Theissuehereistoproceedtoaradicalreversalofvalues.
Translationisnotamakeshift,butthemodeofexistencebywhichaworkreachesusasforeign.Agoodtranslationretainsthisstrangenessevenasitmakesthe
workaccessibletous.

Page225

Infact,itisalwaysassumedthattheonewhocanreadtheworkinitsoriginallanguageisbetterequippedtotasteandknowitthantheonewhohastosettlefora
translation.Thelatterwouldbetotheoriginalwhatthepictureofawomanistotheactualwoman.Butbothreadersaredealingwithaforeigntext,whichalways
remainsforeigntothem,whetherithasbeentranslatedornot.Thisstrangenessisirreducible.WeFrenchwillneverreadanEnglishpoemthewayanEnglish
readerdoes.Thedifferencebetweenthetworeadersisonlygradual.
Tofighttheperennialobfuscationofthissituation(whichisanhistoricalphenomenonthatshouldbestudied,justlikestudieshavebegunonwhata"bad"
translation,culturallyspeaking,is)isoneofthetasksofatheoryoftranslation.
Forthatmatter,thatatranslationthat"smacks"oftranslationshouldbeconsideredbadisacontradictionwhichoverlooksthatthewritingofatranslationisan
irreduciblemodeofwriting:awritingthatwelcomesthewritingofanotherlanguageinitsownwriting,andthatcannot,lestitbeanimposture,suppressthefact
thatitisthisoperation.Weshouldevengofurther,andsaythatinallliterarywritingthereisalwaysatraceofsucharelation.Justlikeinourspeech,asBakhtin
says,thereisalwaysthespeechoftheother,andjustlikethisthisinterlacingoftwospeechesconstitutesthedialogicstructureofhumanlanguage.ifeverywriting
impliesahorizonoftranslation(andthis,inaprofoundway,isthemeaningofGoethe'sWeltliteratur),itisabsurdtodemandthatatranslationappearasa"pure"
writingwhichisitselfamyth.Adisciplinelikecomparativeliteraturelivesbytheobfuscationortheforgettingofthisproblematic,whichwehavealready
mentionedinrelationtoDonQuixote.
Hlderlin:TheNationalandtheForeign
1.FriedrichBeissner,HlderlinsbersetzungenausdemGriechischen(Stuttgart:Metzler,1961)W.Schadewaldt,prefacetoSophokles:Tragdien.Deutsch
vonFriedrichHlderlin,ed.W.Schadewaldt(FrankfurtamMain:Fischer,1957),etc.
2.Benjamin,"TheTaskoftheTranslator,"pp.8182.
3.JeanLaplanche,Hlderlinetlaquestiondupre(Paris:PUF,1961),p.275.Cf.alsoLouisWolfson,LeSchizoetleslangues(Paris:Gallimard,1970),where
thisnegativerelationappearsthatpushestheschizophrenictowardforeignlanguagesandasortofmythicallanguagedestinedtoneutralizethelanguageofthe
"mother."
4.Laplanche:"Apoetbecauseheopensschizophreniaasaquestion,heopensthisquestionbecauseheisapoet"(p.133).

Page226

5.Zuberbhler,p.18.
6.Ibid.,p.78.
7.Ibid.,p.81
8.Ibid.,p.94.
9.Ibid.,p.101.
10."IwanttospeaklikeyourLutherspeaks"("DieMeinige,"inSmtlicheWerkeBd.I,1,ed.FriedrichBeissner(Stuttgart:Kohlhammer,1946),p.15.
11."Butwearefated/Tofindnofoothold,norest."Hlderlin,PoemsandFragments,tr.MichaelHamburger(NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1980),p.
79.
12.Zuberbhler,p.24,n6.KingJamesversion:"ForuntoyouitisgiveninthebehalfofChrist...tosufferforhissake."
13.InhisarticleonShakespeare,A.W.Schlegelwrites:"Notallthatisoldisarchaic,andLuther'ssententiouslanguageismoreGermanevennowthanmany
fashionableaffectations"(DieHoren,p.112).
14.Ontheinfluenceofdialects,seeLotharKempter,HlderlininHauptwil(Tbingen:Mohr,1975).
15.Cf.GerardManleyHopkins'poetry"ThemixofLatinandAngloSaxonwasahistoricalfact....Nevertheless,onecouldattempt,ifnottoexcludeLatin
entirely,atleasttosignificantlyreduceitspart...bysubordinatingittotheoriginalSaxonelementbecomedominant.ThisiswhatHopkinsdid.Insearchofthisnew
dosage...hewasledtoappropriatewords,ormeanings,thathadbecomeobsolete....Likewise,expressionsgatheredfromaWelshpeasant'slipslosetheir
limited,regionalcharacterentirelywithhim....ItisbecauseHopkinsappropriatedforhimselfthislocalspeech,thoseancientwords,forprofoundreasons,and
becausehebringsthemintoplayaccordingtothelaws"(G.M.Hopkins,Pomes,tr.andintr.PierreLeyris[Paris:Seuil,1980],pp.1011).
16.Heidegger,Erluterungen,p.115.
17.Hlderlin,letterno.236,EssaysandLetters,pp.14950.
18.Hlderlin,"Remarkson'Antigone',"EssaysandLetters,p.114.
19.Ibid.
20.Hlderlin,letterno.244,inSmtlicheWerke,6,1,p.437.
21.Ibid.,p.436.

Page227

22.Heidegger,Erluterungen,p.87.
23.Ibid.,p.90.
24.FriedrichHlderlin,PoemsandFragments,tr.MichaelHamburger,pp.39395.
25.Ibid.,p.447.
26.FriedrichHlderlin,HymnsandFragments,tr.RichardSieburth(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1984),p.421.
27.Hlderlin,Poems,p.537.
28.Hlderlin,Hymns,p.11719.
29.SmtlicheWerkeBd.2,1:p.163.
30.Ibid.2,2:p.608.The"colony,"asHeideggersaysinhiscommentaryof"Remembrance,""istheforeigncountry,buttheforeigncountrywhichsimultaneously
evokesthehomecountry"(p.93)."Thecolonyisthedaughtercountrythatrefersbacktothemothercountry''(ibid.).TheappearanceinHlderlin,inapoemthat
dealswithwhatisforeignandwhatisone'sown,ofthenotionof"colony,"isremarkable.Fromthepoet'sperspective,italludestotheancient"Greekcolonies"(the
settingofEmpedoklesisAgrigenta,acolony)whichwere,ineffectlike"daughters"toa"motherhomecountry,"aswellastothemoderncoloniesofthe"Indies,"
mentioned,withColumbusorVascodaGamo,inmanyofHlderlin'slatepoems(cf."TheTitans").Now,thosemoderncolonies,whichareestablishedonthe
"fragrantisles"ofAsiaandAmerica(theoldandthenewIndies),maintainadifferentrelationtothe"motherhomecountry":Thelatterisperpetuatedinthem,butthe
"daughters,"itcouldbeargued,arecrossbredinit:Themoderncolonyistheplaceinwhichwhatisone'sownandforeignareunited.Thedaughterhasbeenmarried
totheforeign.AndthisissomethingthatcouldnothaveescapedHlderlinduringhisstayinthe"colonial"portofBordeaux.
Inthissense,thepoet's"Indies"havenothingtodowiththoseofRomanticism:theydesignatetheimmensehistoricalspaceopenedbythenavigatorsandthe
conquistadores,whohaveinstitutedanewformof"colony,"andhenceoftherelationtotheforeign.Thatthisrelationhashistoricallybeenexperiencedwith
referencetotheGreekcolonizers,isborneoutbyCamons'sLusiades,whichGermanydiscoveredatthetimewhenHlderlinwrotehispoems.A.von
Humboldt'svoyagetoSouthAmericaisanexplorationofthereignofthemoderncolony.
31.Hlderlin,Poems,p.477.

Page228

32.Ibid.,p.557.
33.Hlderlin,EssaysandLetters,p.113ouremphasis.
34.Hlderlin,SmtlicheWerke2,1,p.325.
35.Hlderlin,Poems,p.559.Aconfusionforwhich,perhaps,anexamplemaybefoundinthefollowingfragmentfromtheTbingenperiod:
TendeStrmfeldSimonetta.
TeufenAmyclaeAveiroontheriver
VougathefamilyAlencstroits
nametherefromAmalasunthaAntegon
AnathemArdinghellusSorbonneCelestine
AndInnocentinterruptedthe
disquisitionanddubbedit(theSorbonne)
thenurseryofFrenchbishops
AloisiaSigeadifferentiaevitae
urbanaeetrusticaeThermodon
ariverinCappadocia
ValtelinoSchnbergScotusSchnbergTenerife
SulacoVenafro
Region
ofOlymposWeisbrunninLower
Hungary.ZamoraJaccaBaccho
Imperiali.GenoaLarissainSyria
(Hlderlin,Hymns,p.235).

36.Cf."Remembrance:""Manyaman/Isshyofgoingtothesource"(Hlderlin,Poems,p.491).
37.Forhispart,Goetheratherwantstokeepthelanguageatanequaldistancefromdialectsandforeignlanguages.
38."Dequois'agitildonc?Quelquepropostetourmente,c'estclair."Antigone(Paris:LesBellesLettres,1967).
39."Qu'yatil?Tusemblesbroyerunpourpredessein."Hlderlin,L'AntigonedeSophocle,tr.PhilippeLacoueLabarthe(Paris:Bourgois,1978).
40.InZuberbhler,p.1821.
41.Hlderlin,lettertoFriedrichWilmans(28September1803)inSmtlicheWerke6,1:p.434.
42.BeaufretinRemarquessurOedipeetAntigone(Paris:10/18,1965),p.35.

Page229

43.Hlderlin,lettertoFriedrichWilmans(2April1804)inSmtlicheWerke6,1:p.439.
44.Beaufret,p.37.
45.Ibid.,p.39.
46.Hlderlin,"Remarkson'Antigone',"inEssaysandLetters,p.114.Bygoingbackfromthefigurativetotheproper,literalmeaningoftheGreekverb.
47.Tr.ElizabethWyckoff(TheCompleteGreekTragedies,ed.GreneandLattimore,vol.III[NewYork:ModernLibrary,1956]).Cf.Beaufret'sdiscussionofthis
pointinhisintroductiontotheRemarques,pp.3637.Hlderlinhimselfjustifiesthisdivergence,saying:"Tobringit[thefigureofDana]closertoourmodeof
presentation"(EssaysandLetters,p.112).
48.ItsufficestothinkofNietzsche,Hofmannsthal,orK.Reinhardt'sSophocles(tr.HazelHarveyandDavidHarvey,Oxford:BasilBlackwell,1979).
49.QuotedinSteiner,p.346.
50.Hlderlin,"Remarkson'Oedipus',"p.107.
51.Thismodernityshouldbesituated,aboveall,inthewaytheessenceofpoetryisconceived:toopenaspaceofdifferentiationinthedoublerelationtothe"native"
andthe"foreign."ThisisbynomeansparticulartoHlderlin,andwesuggestedthatananalogousviewmaybefoundinaG.M.Hopkins.Herepoetryisconceived
asdialogue(Gesprch),anditselement,morethanever,istheNatursprache.Now,thespaceoftheNaturspracheisalsothatoflanguages,ofBabel.Modern
poetryhasdifficultylivinginthisspace,inasmuchasitislargelyconnectedtoRomanticthinking.Andpoetictranslationhasthesamedifficulty.
52.Virgil,L'Enide,tr.P.Klossowski(Paris:Gallimard,1964).
53.Ibid.,tr.Klossowski,sintroduction,pp.xixii.
54.Itsufficestothinkofthegrowingmassofmoderntexts,largelyoverflowingtheareaoftechnicsorofdiplomacy,"edited"inFrench,Spanish,German,etc.,tobe
sure,butappearinglikebadtranslationsfromabadEnglishwhichis,nevertheless,theirsuprememasterandinwhich,ultimately,theyaredestinedtoberetranslated.
"Confusionoftongues,"genuine"conflagration,"infactthereverseofacrossbreeding.Whenalanguageinveststheothersbyvirtueofitsdominantposition,and
agreestotransformitselfinordertobecomea"universal

Page230

language,"aprocessofgeneralizeddestructionemerges.Linguisticcrossbreedings,ontheotherband,arefertile:Think,intheFrenchdomain,ofCreolespeech,
oroftherenovatedandenrichedlanguagethatisslowlybeingelaboratedinblackAfrica.
55.Whichwouldperhapsdependonpsychoanalysisandtextualanalysis.Thinkofthe"corrections"LacanhasbroughttoBaudelaire's"canonic"translationofEdgar
AllanPoe:TheyclearlyshowthatBaudelaire'stranslation,whollywithinthewakeofRomanticism,missesthecomplexplayofsignifiersinPoe(Ecrits[Paris:Seuil,
1966],p.33).
56.In"HlderlinetSophocle,"KarlReinhardthasexcellentlylaidbarethemeaningofHlderlin'sundertaking:"Hlderlin'stranslationsareradicallydifferentfromall
othertranslationsfromtheGreek,evenfromallothertranslationsingeneral....Ineffect,forthepoettranslatingconsistsingivingspeechtoavoicewhichhad
hithertoremainedmutebecauseoftheinsufficienceofallthesuccessiveformsofhumanism:baroque,rococo,orclassicism..."(Po&sieno.23[1982],p.21).
Further,Reinhardtspeakspreciselyof"theoftenabruptandbluntliteralismofhistranslations,"of"theirenigmaticdivergence,nolessfrequent,fromtheGreek
original"(ibid.).''If,forclassicalpurism,GreekisneverGreekenough,Hlderlin'stranslation,ontheotherhand,ischaracterizedbyitswilltostrengthenthenon
GreekelementintheGreek,the'oriental'"(p.24).Inthisrespect,andwithregardtothe"enigmaticdivergences,"theauthormentions"thelackofscruplesofthe
translator,whoreplacestheGreeknamesofthegodsbydenominationsforgedinhisownhymniclanguage.HisHespericpoetic,consciousofitsorientalorigin,allows
himtocrosstheintermediarystageofGreek'nationalconformism.'Otherwise,Zeus,Persephone,Ares,Eros,etc.,wouldremainprisonersofconventionalpoetic
language,andtheHespericearcouldnotbereachedbyitthewayitshouldbe"(ibid.).ThusHlderlintranslatesZeusas"FatherofTime"(ibid.).Theeffacementof
thenamesofthegods,prisonersof"conventional"(humanist)poeticlanguage,inadditiontothereturntothearchaicmeaningsoftheGreek,isanothersideofthe
emphasisonthe"oriental"elementwhichcharacterizesHlderlin'stranslationofSophoclesfirstandforemost.Thus,abruptandbluntliteralnessontheonehand,and
enigmaticdivergenceontheother,gointhesamedirection.Inbothcases,itisanemphasis.Forus,emphasis(inanothercontext,JacquesDerridasaid:"Agood
translationmustalways'abuse'")isthefundamentalprincipleHlderlinbequeathedtoWesterntranslation.Itisemphasiswhichgivesall,andspecificallysyntactic,
literalnessitsspaceandwhichdistinguishesitfromservilecopying.Likewise,emphasisallowsdivergencesoftranslationthatwouldremainoftheorderofaesthetic
andtranstex

Page231

tualvariationwithoutit.Itisemphasis,equally,whichrendersnullandvoidthephenomenonofwreckage,whichallegedlymenaceseverytranslation,andwhich
hasmotivateditsliteraryandethicaldevaluationatalltimes.Itisemphasiswhich,throughitsviolenthousebreaking,bringstheoriginalworktoourshoreinits
purestrangeness,andwhichsimultaneouslybringsitbacktoitself,asGoethealsointuitedforeveryworkonitsoriginalsoilisdistancedfromitselfinoneway
oranother.Thatisthedangerofthe"native."The"experience[preuve]oftheforeign"concernstheworkasworkaswell.Andthemoreitisanchoredinits
"native"element,thericherthepromiseoftranslation,bothforusandforthework.And,ofcourse,thegreatertherisk.
ButHlderlinalsoteachesustocounterbalancethisprincipleofemphasisbytheoppositeprincipleof"WesternandJunoniansobriety."Therecanonlybeabuse,
housebreaking,inthespaceofasobriety.Sobrietyreveils,sotospeak,whatemphasisunveils.Thebalanceofthesetwoprinciplesiswhatmakesforthegreat
successofKlossowski'sEnide,andwhichsetsitapartfromaservileandabsurdinterlinear.
Todeepenthesetwoprinciples,emphasisandsobriety,thisisthetaskofamodernreflectionontranslation.
Conclusion
1.MatthiasClaudiushasexpressedthiseffacementoftranslationalmosttragically"Werbersetzt,deruntersetzt"theonewhotranslatesgetsswallowedup.
Translationistherealmofdarkness.
A.W.Schlegel's"manifesto,"aswefinditinhisafterwordtoTieck,isincrediblymodestincomparisontotheliteraryandcriticalmanifestosofhisbrotherorNovalis.
2.InStrig,p.36970.
3.Ibid.,p.viii.
4.Clastres,LeGrandparler(Paris:Seuil,1974),p.15:"TotranslatetheGuaraniistotranslatethemintheguaranilanguage...Fidelitytotheletterinorderto
conserveitsspirit."
5.RomanJakobson,"OnLinguisticAspectsofTranslation,"inSelectedWritingsII(TheHague:Mouton,1971),p.262.
6.Ibid.,p.261.Doesthismovementbywhichasignisbeingtranslatedbyanotherthat"developsitmorefully"notremindoneoftheRomantic"potentiation?"Tobe
sure,modernlinguisticsconsidersthepoemuntranslatable,butcouldonenotreflectonthepositiveaspectsofthemovementofatranslatingreformulation,ratherthan
to

Page232

perenniallyunderscoreitsinsufficience?Aregainandloss,destructionand"morecomplete"developmentsituatedonthesamelevelhere?Thatisadimensionthat
shouldbeexplored.
7.Ibid.,p.262.
8.HaroldodeCampos,"Delatraductioncommecrationetcommecritique,"inChange,no.14(1973),pp.7184.
9.Tobesure.Butnationalcharacteristicssurvive.FranceremainsaculturalsphereinwhichthereislesstranslationthaninGermany,andinwhichethnocentric
translation,thoughmoreandmoredisparaged,retainssolidstrongholds.
10.Notablythosewhichseektoexpresstheconditionsofadialoguewithotherculturesculturesthatareother.ThinkoftheworksofaMassignon,aBerque,a
Clastres,etc.Moderntranslationmustbedialogic.
11."Forspeciallanguagesandtheyhavealwaysexistedwhichinearliertimescoexistedverywellwiththecommonlanguage,nowpenetrateitwellbeyondany
necessitiesthatcouldjustifyit.Thewordscholarlydoesnotsomuchsupplementtheproperwordthanconfirmitssuperfluity:noonehasaneedtosignifyproperly
toshowsomething.Thereistalkof'newdivisions'therewheretheonlyconcernistheinterpretationofthe'real'as'divisible'intoproblemsthatarenoteven'new
objects'"(E.Martineau,"Lalangue,crationcollective,"inPo&sieno.9[1979],pp.99121).Thisprocess,inconnectionwithalltheothers,establishesvast
dimensionsofnontranslationinculturallife,orratherdimensionsinwhichtranslationhaslostallitsmeaning.
12.[Ihavechosento"not"translateorto"semianglicize"theFrenchtraductologiebecauseitisobviousthatBermanhassomethingelseinmindthanthe
established,thoughfairlyamorphous,bodyofresearchandteachingknownintheUSAas"TranslationStudies."T R.]
13.[BermanreferstothethirdbookinMichelSerres'sseries"Herms":LaTraduction(Paris:Minuit,1974),fromwhichItranslatetheopeninglines:"Weonly
knowthingsbythetransformationsystemsoftheensemblesinwhichtheyareincorporated.Thereareatleastfourofthosesystems.Deductioninthelogical
mathematicalsphere.Inductionintheexperimentalfield.Productioninthepracticaldomains.Translation[traduction]inthetextualspace.Itisnotentirelyobscure
whytheseshouldrepeatthesameword.ThatthereisphilosophyonlyasphilosophyofDuction...isastateofaffairstotheilluminationofwhichonecoulddevotean
entirelife"(p.9).T R.]
14.See,forinstance,theworkofM.Bakhtin,G.Genette,J.Lambert.

Page233

15.Bakhtin:"ItcouldevenbesaidthatEuropeannovelproseisbornandshapedintheprocessofafree(thatis,reformulating)translationofothers'works"(The
DialogicImagination,p.378)."Oneofthebestauthoritiesonmedievalparody,PaulLehmann,statesoutrightthatthehistoryofmedievalliteratureanditsLatin
literatureinparticular'isthehistoryoftheappropriation,reworkingandimitationofsomeoneelse'sproperty'"(ibid.,p.69).Bakhtinonlyscratchesthesurfaceofthe
historyoftranstextualitiesandtranslations.
16.J.L.Borges,"Lasversioneshomricas,"quotedinSteiner,p.4.
17.P.Valry:"Towritewhateveritmaybe...isalaboroftranslationexactlycomparabletotheonethatcarriesoutthetransmutationofatextfromonelanguage
toanother"(VariationssurlesBucoliques,p.24).
18.Hence,asW.Benjaminhasshown,thetranslationofatranslationisimpossible,becauseitisdevoidofmeaning.
19.Cf.,forthesciences,A.Koyr:"Traduttoretraditore:proposdeCopernicetdeGalile,"Isis34(1943).
20.Quotedin"CommentpeutontraduireHafiz...ouFreud?"byBernardThisandPierreThves,p.41oftheveryimportantissueofMeta(translators'journal)on
"PsychoanalysisandTranslation,"publishedinMontralinMarch1982,whichadducesdecisiveelementsontherelationofpsychoanalysisandtranslation.Onthe
placeoftheconceptoftranslationitselfinFreud'swork,seePatrickMahony'sarticleinthesameissue,"TowardtheUnderstandingofTranslationinPsychoanalysis,"
pp.6371.
21.QuotedinMeschonnic,PourlaPotiqueII(Paris:Gallimard,1973),p.41112.
22.Thesystemofdeformationcanbedefinedinthefirstinstancebytendencieslikerationalisation,illumination,extension,qualitativeimpoverishment,quantitative
impoverishment,homogeneization,destructionofrhythms,ofunderlyingnetworksofmeaning,ofsystematismsofatext,destructionorexotizationofvernacularterms,
effacementofoverlaysoflanguages,functioningofinadequateliteraryhorizons.Forapartialanalysisofthesetendencies,seeourarticle:"Latraductiondesoeuvres
latinoamricaines,"inLendemains8(1982).
23.Onthispoint,cf.J.R.Ladmiral,Traduire:thormespourlatraduction(Paris:Payot,1979).
24.BernardCatry,"L'ditionfranaisefaceBabel,"LeDbatno.22(1982),p.898.

Page234

25.DanielMoskowitz,inLadmiral,p.220.
26.DuringtheThirdConferenceoftheInternationalFederationofTranslators,JeanDutourdstates:"Ithinkthat,sincefifteenortwentyyears,translationhasplayeda
catastrophicroleinFrenchliterarylife,becauseithasaccustomedthepublictojargonandcontaminatedthewriters"(quotedinVanderMeerschen,p.68).
27.GeorgesMounin,Lesproblmesthoriquesdelatraduction(Paris:Gallimard,1963),pp.6566.
28.EfimEtkind,Unartencrise:essaidepotiquedelatraductionpotique,tr.WladimirTroubetzkoy(Lausanne:L'Aged'homme,1982),p.99.
29.AfterBabel,p.365.

Page235

SelectedBibliography
1.PrimarySources
Athenum.2vols.Munich:Rowohlt,1969.
Brentano,Clemens."Godwi,"inWerke,ed.FriedhelmKemp,vol.2.Munich:Hanser,1963.
Goethe,JohannWolfgangvon.GedenkausgabederWerke,BriefeundGesprche.25vols.Ed.ErnstBeutler.Zrich:Artemis,19481960.
Goethe,JohannWolfgangvon.TheAutobiograpbyofJohannWolfgangvonGoethe.[DichtungundWahrheit].Tr.JohnOxenford.Chicago:ChicagoUniversity
Press,1974.
Goethe,JohannWolfgangvon.ConversationswithEckermann.Tr.JohnOxenford.SanFrancisco:NorthPointPress,1984.
Goethe,JohannWolfgangvon.SelectedPoems.Ed.ChristopherMiddleton.(Goetheedition,vol.1)Boston:Suhrkamp/Insel,1983.
Hamann,JohannGeorg.SchriftenzurSprache.Frankfurt:Suhrkamp,1967.
Herder,JohannGottfried.SmtlicheWerke.33vols.Ed.B.Suphan,C.RedlichandR.Steig.Berlin:WeidmannscheBuchhandlung,18771913.
Hlderlin,Friedrich.EssaysandLettersonTheory.Ed.andtr.ThomasPfau.Albany,NY:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1988.
Hlderlin,Friedrich.HymnsandFragments.Tr.RichardSieburth.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1984.
Hlderlin,Friedrich.PoemsandFragments.EnlargedEdition.Tr.MichaelHamburger.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1980.
Hlderlin,Friedrich.SmtlicheWerke(Gro eStuttgarterAusgabe).8vols.Ed.FriedrichBeissner.Stuttgart:Kohlhammer,19451985.

Page236

Humboldt,Wilhelmvon.GesammelteWerke.Berlin:Reimer,18411852.
Humboldt,Wilhelmvon.Introductionl'oeuvresurlekavietautresessais.Tr.P.Caussat.Paris:Seuil,1974.
Humboldt,Wilhelmvon."Einleitungzu'Agamemnon'."PartialEnglishtranslationinAndrLefevere,TranslatingLiterature:TheGermanTraditionfromLutherto
Rosenzweig.Amsterdam:VanGorcum,1977.
Novalis.WerkeBriefeDokumente.4vols.Ed.EwaldWasmuth.Heidelberg:Schneider,195357.
Novalis.Schriften.5vols.Ed.RichardSamuel.Stuttgart:Kohlhammer,19651988.
Schlegel,AugustWilhelm.KritischeSchriftenundBriefe.Ed.EdgarLohner.Vol.2:DieKunstlehre,vol.3:GeschichtederklassischenLiteratur.Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer,196364.[ExtractsinLefevere,TranslatingLiterature,pp.5154.]
Schlegel,Friedrich.DialogueonPoetryandLiteraryAphorisms.Tr.ErnstBehlerandRomanStruc.UniversityPark:PennsylvaniaStateUniversityPress,1965.
Schlegel,Friedrich.KritischeFriedrichSchlegelAusgabe.Vol.2:CharakteristikenundKritikenI(17961801),ed.HansEichnervol.8:Studienzur
PhilosophieundTheologie,ed.ErnstBehlerandUrsulaStrucOppenberg.Munich:FerdinandSchningh,1967,1975.
Schlegel,Friedrich.KritischeSchriften.Ed.WolfdietrichRasch.Munich:Hanser,1971.
Schlegel,Friedrich.LucindeandtheFragments.Tr.PeterFirchow.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1971.
Schleiermacher,Friedrich.SamtlicheWerke.Berlin:Reimer,1838.
Schleiermacher,Friedrich."OntheDifferentMethodsofTranslating."InAndrLefevere,TranslatingLiterature,pp.7789.
2.TextsonGermanRomanticism
Allemann,Beda.IronieundDichtung.Pfullingen:Neske,1969.
Ayrault,Roger.LaGenseduRomantismeallemand.4vols.Paris:AubierMontaigne,19611976.

Page237

Benjamin,Walter.DerBegriffderKunstkritikinderdeutschenRomantik.InGesammelteSchriftenI,1,ed.RolfTiedemannandHermannSchweppenhuser.
FrankfurtamMain:Suhrkamp,1974.
Berman,Antoine."LettresFouadElEtrsurleRomantismeallemand."InLaDliranteno.3(1968),pp.85117.
Blanchot,Maurice."L'Athenum."Tr.DeborahEschandIanBalfour.StudiesinRomanticism22(1983),pp.16372.
Fiesel,Eva.DieSprachphilosophiederdeutschenRomantik.HildesheimandNewYork:Olms,1973(repr.of1924ed.).
GermanAestheticandLiteraryCriticism.Ed.KathleenM.Wheeler.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1984.[Acollectionoftextsandexcerptsfrom
GoetheandtheGermanRomantics,someofthemtranslatedhereforthefirsttime,includingallofNovalis's"Dialogues."T R.]
GermanRomanticCriticism.Ed.A.LeslieWilson.ForewordErnstBehler.NewYork:Continuum,1982(TheGermanLibrary,vol.21).[Anotherrecent
anthology,reprintingpreviouslypublishedtranslationstogetherwithhithertountranslatedtexts.T R.]
Guerne,Armel."HicetNunc."InLeRomantismeallemand,ed.AlbertBguin.Paris:CahiersduSud,1949.
Guerne,Armel."Novalis."InLaDliranteno.45(1972).
Huyssen,Andreas.DiefrhromantischeKonzeptionvonbersetzungundAneignung.StudienzurfrhromantischenUtopieeinerdeutschenWeltliteratur.
Zrich:Atlantis,1969.
Jolles,Frank.A.W.SchegelSommernachttraumindererstenFassungvomJabre1798.Gttingen:VandenhoeckundRuprecht,1967.
LacoueLabarthe,PhilippeandJeanLucNancy.L'Absolulittraire.Thoriedelalittratureduromantismeallemand.Paris:Seuil,1978.
LacoueLabarthe,PhilippeandJeanLucNancy.TheLiteraryAbsolute:TheTheoryofLiteratureinGermanRomanticism.Tr.PhilipBarnardandCheryl
Lester.Albany,NY:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1988.
Stal,Mme.de.Del'Allemagne.Paris:Garnier,1868.
Szondi,Peter.OnTextualUnderstandingandOtherEssays.Tr.HarveyMendelsohn.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1986.
Thalmann,Marianne."AugustWilhelmSchlegel."InA.W.Schlegel17671967.BadGodesberg:Internationes,1967.

Page238

Thalmann,Marianne.RomantikeralsPoetologen.Heidelberg:LotharStiehm,1970.
Todorov.Tzvetan.TheoriesoftheSymbol.Tr.CatherinePorter.Ithaca,N.Y.:CornellUniversityPress,1982.
Weltliteratur.DieLustambersetzenimJahrhundertGoethes.Ed.ReinhardTgahrt.Marbach:DeutscheSchillergesellschaft,1982.
Wilhem,Daniel.LesRomantiquesallemands.Paris:Seuil,1980.
3.WorksonGoethe,Humboldt,andSchleiermacher
Gadamer,HansGeorg.TruthandMethod.NewYork:SheedandWard,1975(Schleiermacher).
Meschonnic,Henri.LeSigneetlePome.Paris:Gallimard,1975(Humboldt).
Schadewaldt,Wolfgang.GoetheStudien.Zrich:Artemis,1963.
Strich,Fritz.GoetheunddieWeltliteratur.Zweite,verbesserteundergnzteAuflage.Bern:Francke,1957.[Englishtranslationofthefirstedition(1946)inGoethe
andWorldLiterature,tr.C.A.M.Sym,London:RoutledgeandKeganPaul,1949.]
4.WorksonHlderlin
Beaufret,Jean."HlderlinetSophocle."PrefacetoRemarquessurOedipeetAntigone.Paris:10/18,1965.
Beissner,Friedrich.HlderlinsbersetzungenausdemGriechischen.Stuttgart:Metzler,1961.
Bertaux,P.Hlderlin.FrankfurtamMain:Suhrkamp,1978.
Heidegger,Martin.ErluterungenzuHlderlinsDichtung.(GesamtausgabeBd.4).FrankfurtamMain:Klostermann,1981.
Heidegger,Martin.ApprochedeHlderlin.Tr.HenriCorbin,MichelDeguy,FranoisFdier,JeanLaunay.Nouvelleditionaugmente.Paris:Gallimard,1973.
Laplanche,Jean.Hlderlinetlaquestiondupre.Paris:PUF,1961.
Reinhardt,Karl."HlderlinetSophocle."Po&sie23(1982),pp.1631.
Schadewaldt,Wolfgang.PrefacetoSophokles:Tragdien.DeutschvonFriedrichHlderlin.FrankfurtamMain:Fischer,1957.

Page239

Zuberbhler,Rolf.HlderlinsErneuerungderSpracheausihrenetymologischenUrsprngen.Berlin:ErichSchmidt,1969.
5.WorksonTranslation
Benjamin,Walter."TheTaskoftheTranslator."InIlluminations,ed.HannahArendt,tr.HarryZohn.NewYork:Harcourt,BraceandWorld,1968.
Blanchot,Maurice."Traduitde..."InLaPartdufeu.Paris:Gallimard,1949.
Blanchot,Maurice."Traduire."InL'Amiti.Paris:Gallimard,1967.
DeCampos,Haraldo."Delatraductioncommecrationetcommecritique."InChangeno.14(1973),pp.7184.
Etkind,Efim.Unartencrise.Essaidepotiquedelatraductionpotique.Tr.WladimirTroubetzkoy.Lausanne:L'Aged'homme,1982.
Jakobson,Roman."OnLinguisticAspectsofTranslation."InSelectedWritingsII.TheHague:Mouton,1971.
Koyr,Alexandre."Traduttoretraditore:proposdeCopernicetdeGalile."InIsis34(1943).
Ladmiral,J.R.Traduire:thormespourlatraduction.Paris:Payot,1979.
Larbaud,Valery.Sousl'invocationdesaintJerme.Paris:Gallimard,1946.[PartialEnglishtranslationin"TheTranslator'sPatron,"tr.WilliamArrowsmith,in
Arionno.3(1975):31457.]
Lefevere,Andr.TranslatingLiterature:TheGermanTraditionfromLuthertoRosenzweig.Assen/Amsterdam:VanGorcum,1977.[Ihaveusedextractsfrom
Goethe,A.W.Schlegel,Schleiermacher,andHumboldtcollectedinthisanthology.T R.]
Leyris,P."Introduction"toGerardManleyHopkins,"Pomes.Paris:Seuil,1980.
Leyris,P."PourquoiretraduireShakespeare?"ForewerdtoShakespearosOeuvres.Paris:ClubduLivre,19621964.
Meschonnic,Henri.LesCinqRouleaux.Paris:Gallimard,1970.
Meschonnic,Henri.PourlapotiqueII.Paris:Gallimard,1973.

Page240

Meschonnic,Henri.PourlaPotiqueIII.Paris:Gallimard,1973.
Meschonnic,Henri.PourlaPotiqueV.Paris:Gallimard,1978.
Meta27,no.1(1982).Specialissueon''Psychanalyseettraduction."
Mounin,Georges.Lesbellesinfidles.Paris:Cahiersdusud,1955.
Mounin,Georges.Lesproblmesthoriquesdelatraduction.Paris:Gallimard,1963.
Pannwitz,Rudolf.DieKrisisdereuropischenKultur.Nuremberg,1947.
Paz,Octavio.Traduccion:literaturayliteralidad.Barcelona:Tusquet,1971.
Rosenzweig,Franz."DieSchriftundLuther."InStrig,pp.194222.
Schadewaldt,Wolfgang."DasProblemdesbersetzens."InStrig,pp.23341.
Sdun,Winfried.ProblemeundTheoriendesbersetzensinDeutschlandvom18.biszum20.Jahrhundert.Munich:Hueber,1967.
Steiner,George.AfterBabel:AspectsofLanguageandTranslation.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1975.
Strig,HansJoachim(ed.).DasProblemdesbersetzens.Darmstadt:WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft,1969.(Wehaveoftenquotedtextsontranslationby
Goethe,A.W.Schlegel,Humboldt,Schleiermacher,Schadewaldtfromthisexcellentanthology).
Valry,Paul.VariationssurlesBucoliques.Paris:Gallimard,1957.
VanderMeerschen."Latraductionfranaise,problmesdefidlitetdequalit."Lectures,no.45(1980).
6.Other
Bakhtin,Mikhal.RabelaisandhisWorld.Tr.HelenIswolsky.Cambridge,MA.:MITPress,1968.
Bakhtin,Mikhal.TheDialogicImagination:FourEssays.Ed.MichaelHolquist,tr.CarylEmersonandMichaelHolquist.Austin,TX:UniversityofTexasPress,
1981.
BenjaminWalter."GesprchmitAndrGide."InGesammelteSchriftenIV,1,ed.TillmanRexroth.Frankfurt:Suhrkamp,1972.("ConversationavecAndrGide."
inOeuvresI:MytheetViolence,tr.MauricedeGandillac,Paris:Denol,1971.)

Page241

Berman,Antoine."L'Amriquelatinedanssalittrature."Cultures6(1979).
Berman,Antoine."Histoireetfictiondanslalittraturelatinoamricaine."Canal.Paris,1980.
Berman,Antoine."Latraductiondesoeuvreslatinoamricaines."Lendemains8(1982).
Catry,B."L'ditionfranaisefaceBabel."InLeDbatno.22.(1982).
DuBellay,Joachim.Dfenseetillustrationdelalanguefranise.Paris:Gallimard,1967.
Forster,Leonard.ThePoet'sTongues:MultilingualisminLiterature.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1970.
Foucault,Michel.TheOrderofThings:AnArchaeologyoftheHumanSciences.NewYork:RandomHouse,1970.
Genette,Grard.Mimologiques.Paris:Seuil,1976.
Hofmannsthal,Hugovon.DieprosaischenSchriftengesammelt,vol.II.Berlin:S.Fischer,1907.
Jaccard,R."Proustthoricien."InLeMonde,August5,1982.
Jacottet,Philippe.Pomes.Paris:Gallimard,1976.
Klossowski,Pierre.L'Enide.Paris:Gallimard,1964.
Lacan,Jacques.LeSminaire.I.Paris:Seuil,1975.
Lacan,Jacques.Ecrits.Paris:Seuil,1966.
Luther,Martin.Luther'sWorks,vol.35WordandSacramentI.Ed.TheodoreBachmann.Philadelphia:MuhlenbergPress,1960.
Martineau,E."Lalangue,crationcollective."Po&sieno.9(1979),pp.99121.
Murat,J.Klopstock.Paris:LesBellesLettres,1959.
Nietzsche,Friedrich.BeyondGoodandEvil.Tr.WalterKaufmann.NewYork:RandomHouse,1966.
Nietzsche,Friedrich.TheGayScience.Tr.WalterKaufmann.NewYork:VintageBooks,1974.
Nietzsche,Friedrich.TwilightoftheIdols.InThePortableNietzsche,ed.andtr.WalterKaufmann.NewYork:Viking,1954.

Page242

Robert,Marthe.L'Ancienetlenouveau.Paris:Grasset,1963.
Robin,Armand.Maviesansmoi.Paris:Gallimard,1970.
Tonnelat,Ernest.Histoiredelalittratureallemande.Paris:Payot,1952.
Wolfson,Louis.LeSchizoetleslangues.Paris:PUF,1969.

Page243

Index
A
Abbt,Thomas,40,199
Abraham,Nicholas,178
Adequatio,190
Aeschylus,Agamemnon,152
alchemy,84
alienation,32,127,138
allegory,8890,93,106,108,113
andselfreference,89,90,92
Allemann,Beda,21,182
IronieundDichtung,195,215
alterity,33,45
relationtoBildung,136
Amyot,Jacques,30
analyticphilosophy,178
Antigona(CarlOrff),157
Antigone(Sophocles),157,158,167,169,170
antiquity,13,30,38,46,4951,6970,107
appliedlinguistics,1,182,190
appropriation,46,49,198n.21
aorgic(Hlderlin),161
archaeology(Foucault),176,182
Arguedas,J.M.,19,178
Ariosto,Ludovico,51,101,115,129
Arnim,Bettinavon,157
Aufhebung,177
Ayrault,Roger,87
B
Baader,Franzvon,94
Babel,7,17,28,138,181,190,229n.51
Bachelard,Gaston,6,208n.60
Bakhtin,Mikhal,21,26,101,167,196n.22,225n.46,232n.14,233n.15
Baudelaire,Charles,9,92,98,102,175,184,230n.55
Beaufret,Jean,168,169
Beckett,Samuel,3,9,193n.3
Bguin,Albert,19
Beissner,Friedrich,20,225n.1
Benjamin,Walter,7,9,2021,32,34,76,98,100,12426,158,175,176,215n.27,233n.18
onBaudelaire,98
DerBegriffderKunstkritik,19
TheTaskoftheTranslator,211n.57
Bense,Max,190
Benveniste,Emile,183
Berman,Antoine,196n.25
Bible,the,2,11,12,60,140,159,168,171,173,176,177,187,197n.11,198n.19
Luther'stranslation,2333
biblification,27,197n.11
Bildung,13,39,41,45,47,64,71,7781,98,105,133,136,140,143,150,152,155,175,203n.17
circularnatureof,4647
dialecticof,134
andexperience,44
Goetheon,5863
Hlderlin'sreformulationof,158,162
asmediation,47
andtranslation,47,108,153
Bildungsroman,98

Page244

bilingualism,148,222n.11
Blanchot,Maurice,18,19,212n.58,218n.23
Boccaccio,Giovanni,51,101,129,138,139
Boehme,Jakob,13
Bhlendorff,CasimirUlrichvon,158,160
Bopp,Franz,87,129
Borges,JorgeLuis,184
borrowing,189
Brecht,Bertolt,157
Breitinger,JohannJakob,3537,40
Brentano,Clemens,72,85,92,104,115,157,215n.28
Godwi,104,115,11820
Breton,Andr,19
Broch,Hermann,197n.10,210n.45
Bruno,Giordano,183
Buber,Franz,27,177
Brger,GottfriedAugust,111,129,131
C
CalderndelaBarca,Pedro,11,51,63,78,126,129,138,201n.19
Camons,Luisde,129,227n.30
Campos,Haroldode,179,232
Carlyle,Thomas,56,65
Catry,Bernard,187
Celan,Paul,109,110,112
Cellini,Benvenuto,54
Cervantes,Miguelde,2,11,51,55,63,74,101,126,138,139,176
DonQuixote,9,115,135,215n.27,218n.23,219n.27
Chamfort,SbastienRochNicolas,71,209
Chomsky,Noam,141
Cicero,1,31,36
Clastres,Pierre,178
communication,5,30,47,88,92,93,127,134,142,145,147,178,18083
comparativegrammar,13,87
comparativeliterature,182,184,185,225n.46
compensation,189
Conrad,Jospeh,3
content(vs.form),4,27,29,36,60,8891,101,106,111,11518,124,143,145,168,182,18385,187,217
"Copernicanrevolution",70,74,75,95,121,123,188,190
copying,23On.56
Corneille,Pierre,54
cosmopolitanism,134,203n.16
creativetransposition,190
creativity,72
Creole,23On.54
criticism,6,7,21,33,41,53,61,6566,69,70,7174,82,86,213n.9,213n.11,215n.27,216n.6,224n.46
Athenumtheoryof,14,86,10307,114,12126
generalizedvs.restricted,121
andtranslation,128,184
seealsointerpretation
"criticismbytranslation"(Pound),179,224n.46
"crossbreeding",4,17173,22923On.54
D
D'Alembert,JeanleRond,83
DanteAlleghieri,2,27,29,51,63,92,114,117,119,126,129,138,176
decentering,4,19,20,146,186
seealsodialogicprinciple
delimitation(oflanguages),47,16667
Derrida,Jacques,182,185,230n.56
desire,7,9,53,78,128,136,137,159
Deutschheit(Germanness),34
dialectic,39,125,215n.27
andBildung,134
Idealist,128,209n.17
andtranslation,5,127,138
dialects(Mundarten),2526,140,16667,181,220n.36,222n.41,226n.14,228n.337
seealsospeech

Page245

dialogicprinciple,4,9,51,101,150,167,180,196n.22,225n.46,232n.10
dialogue(Gesprch),165,229n.51
Dichtung,14,99
Dichtkunst,133
Diderot,Denis,54,83
Diez,FriedrichChristian,129
difference,39,60,62,64,76,79,83,85,155,160,165,166,173,181
amonglanguages,8,16,143,148,153,181
ontological,91
Dilthey,Wilhelm,142
distance,126,212n.58
Distant,the,9899,108,119,136,139
Dolet,Estienne,32
DonJuan,136
Dostoevsky,Fedor,29
DuBellay,Joachim,26,78,189
duction(Serres),183,232n.13
E
Eckhart,Meister,27
eclecticism,5051,80
"elevationtothestateofmystery"(Novalis),84,99,114,127
emphasis,23031n.56
Encyclopedia(Novalis),15,68,78,80,82,83,85,86,100,104,108,112,114,122,134,135
Encyclopdie(DiderotandD'Alembert),13,83
Enlightenment(Aufklrung),12,21,36,41
preuve,seeexperience
equivalenceindifference(Jakobson),17879
Esperanto,181
ethnocentrism,173
seealsotranslation,ethnocentric
ethnology,17778
etymology,159,168
Etkind,Efim,189i1Euripides,54
event,30
excess,169
existenziell(Heidegger),150
expansion(Enweiterung),27,3538,40,41,47,76,108,148,152,18081
experience,19,38,39,4448,170,198n.19
andBildung,47
oftheforeign(preuve),39,44,45,46,136,158,160,16263,165,166,170,180,231n.56
Kantvs.Hegel,44
oftheother,143
andtranslation,54,58,67,180,188
F
"facture"(Faktur),89,108,133
faithful,seefidelity
Fichte,JohannGottlieb,13,41,43,70,71,74,78,83
fidelity,35,3538,40,41,127,131,135,143,147,154,218n.18
finitude,81
"firefromheaven"(Hlderlin),16062,16466,169
Fliess,Wilhelm,185
foreign,seeexperiencestrangeness
form,105
Forster,Leonard,2,4
Foucault,Michel,100,130,182
seealsoarchaeology
fragment,14,7173,83,122,125,126,130,136,214n.17,216n.12,219n.26
seealsowriting
Frenchrevolution,70
Freud,Wilhelm,7,142,143,155,177,185,186,233n.18
future,32,58,75,92,122,124,136137
futurism,137,204n.26
G
Gadamer,HansGeorg,142,185
Geheimniszustand(stateofmystery),97
Genette,Grard,213n.15,232n.14

Page246

geniology,78
genius,38,40,41,82,103,104,11112,121,122,132,139
oflanguage,103
natural,139
inSturmundDrang,89
theoryof,7780
genre,40,71,73,91,8283,121,126,128,217n.17
George,Stefan,9,102,175
Gide,Andr,32,198n.20
Gleim,JohannWilhelmLudwig,202n,42
Glissant,Edouard,194n.3
Goethe,7,11,13,16,20,2328,3234,39,41,4345,47,49,5169,77,78,89,98,100,102,106,108,109,111,112,115,120,124,126,128,12931,
134,136,140,143,144,154,155,160,17073,175,176,178,180,183
GongorayArgote,Luis,91
Gottsched,JohannChristoph,36
grammatology,182
Grimm,JacobandWilhelm,13,87
Grundwrter(basicwords),177,185,186
Guerne,Armel,15,19,195,209
GuimaraesRosa,Joao,19
Gundolf,Friedrich,13
H
Hamann,JohannGeorg,14,87,141
Hebel,JohannPeter,160
Hegel,GoergWilhelmFriedrich,43,44,46,64,72,125,158,162,185,187
Heidegger,Martin,44,141,142,150,160,162,177,185,227n.30
Hellingrath,Norbertvon,157
Henry,Anne,210n.45
Herder,JohannGottfried,4,1113,26,27,3541,43,49,58,61,77,87,100,106,112,126,128,141,149,151,152,159,160,171,175,198n.19,201n.31
hermeneutics,13,17,33,128,14144,176,179,213n.11,216n.14,221n.4,222n.15,22324n.46
"historicalsense"(Nietzsche),79
historicity,28,29,91,157,162,172
Hofmannsthal,Hugovon,50,204n.35,229n.48
Hlderlin,Friedrich,7,9,11,13,16,18,20,26,29,32,34,47,50,51,53,54,102,131,140,152,155,15776,198n.19218n.20
Homer,28,29,40,49,55,111,161,163
homogenization,181
homologousreplacement,189
Hooft,PieterCorneliszoon,2
Hopkins,GerardManley,166,226n.15,229n.51
Horace,1
humanism,60,68,143150,23On.56
Humboldt,Alexandervon,227n.30
Humboldt,Wilhelmvon,8,1114,16,17,20,34,47,50,57,59,63,87,120,126,128,130,131,140,141,143,15255,175,176
Husserl,Edmund,142
hypertextuality,184
I
Idealism,13,39,44,45,53,95,128,158
identity,83
imitation,48,49,69,85,88,89,95,106,107,113,218n.23,233n.15
"infiniteversability",14,69,78,79,82,86,100,213n.9
influence,185
interpretation,85,142,16971,173,177,183,185,213n.11,221n.4,223n.46
seealsohermeneutics
intertextuality,184
intratranslation,13,8586
intransitive(principle),18,94,101,119,196n.22
seealsomonologic
irony,9,77,83,89,99

Page247

J
Jacottet,Philippe,19,176
Jakobson,Roman,85,178,179,183,190
James,Henry,173
jargon,181
JeanPaul[Richter],33,41,115
Joyce,James,9,29
Junoniansobriety(Hlderlin),161,166,169,231n.56
K
Kafka,Franz,29,219n.23
Kant,Immanuel,13,44,55,70,71,74,81,95
Kaufmann,Walter,23
Klopstock,FriedrichGottlieb,26,38,140,159,160,198n.19,202n.42
Klossowski,Pierre,172,173,231n.56
Knstlichkeit(artificialness),89
Kunstsprache(languageofart),88,93,100,106,134,160,209n.17
L
Lacan,Jacques,143,177,178,221n.2,230n.55
LacoueLabarthe,Philippe,21,101,228
language,7,89,9293,125,133,134,143,146,158,190
ofart,8688
confusionof,168,171
andexpression,146,154
andmeaning,88,92,93
natural,17,86,9092,94,96,97,99,100,108,109,11820,125,133,134,144,160,181,209n.17
ofnature,8789,91
ofpoetry,91
reflexivepowerof,96,179
scienceof,17,87
theoryof,20,87,88,97,132,140,152
seealsodialectsdifferenceKunstspracheNatursprachespeech
Laplanche,Jean,225n.3
Larbaud,Valery,1,7
Leibniz,GottfriedWilhelm,11,36,37,152
Lessing,GottholdEphralm,13,41,12224,152,199n.7
Lied(song),67,119
linguafranca,25
linguistics,16,18,126,141,143,17779,188,231n.6
applied,1,182,190
Literaturbriefe,38,40,199n.7
logos,166
Lukcs,Georg,34
Luther,Martin,11,12,21,2333,41,49,60,139,140,159,160,167,168,171,172,175,199n.8,209n.17,226n.10
M
Mallarm,Stphane,9,86,91,96,97,102,110,112,175,213n.15
Mann,Thomas,52,219n.23
mathematics,94
Maunick,Edouard,194
measure,165,167
mediation,4,12,29,47,48,143,150,151,180,184,187
Mendelsohn,Moses,197,199,221
Meschonnic,Henri,177,179,183,233
metaphysics,44,103,162
metatextuality,184
"methodofreversal"(Umkehrungsmethode[Novalis]),77,84
metrics,132,134,135
Milton,John,2
mimesis,8,94,95,134
seealsoimitationNachbildung
mirroring(Spiegelung),65,6668,128,172
seealsoreflection
modernity,91,180
monologicprinciple,18,96,101,109,136,217n.17
seealsointransitive
multilinguialism,23,222n.11
Mundarten,seedialects
music,52,72,89,90,94,98,113,117,119,120
mysticism,94

Page248

N
Nachbild(reproduction),4849,63
Nachbildung,146,148
Nancy,JeanLuc,21,101
Natursprache,88,9091,109,160,207n.58,209n.17,229n.51
neologism,189
Nerval,Grardde,9,66,102,175
Nietzsche,Friedrich,13,23,33,34,46,47,50,52,79,107,136,142,161,172,198n.21,229n.48
Novalis[FriedrichvonHardenberg],6,7,1117,21,35,4548,51,57,68,7073,75,7784,8799,103,104,10514,118,119,121,122,12427,130,132
36,143,179,183,184,217n.17,231n.1
O
omnitranslation,136
onomatopeia,134
orality,131,139,171,198n.21,221n.5
seealsoSprachlichkeit
Orff,Carl,157
orientalism,186
Other,the,4,33,136,180,225n.46,232n.10
P
Pammachius,31
Pannwitz,Rudolf,15,18,134,139,172
paraphrase,20,146,189
paratextuality,184
pathos,71,161,162,169
Peirce,CharlesSanders,179
Petrarch,11,51,63,129,215n.17
philology,13,33,34,41,49,72,73,80,100,107,121,125,128,130,141,179
pietism,160
Pindar,29,168
Plato,11,141
Plautus,33
Poe,EdgarAllan,110,230n.55
poetics,83,84,98,110,120,182,184,190
poetology(Allemann),182
poetry,87,96,166,216n.13
ofart,82,89,94,119
popular,38,119
theoryof,18,75,86,87,132,135
universalprogressive,14,15,82,83,86,100,133
poiesis,133
polytranslation,8,134,136
Pope,Alexander,111
Popper,Karl,185
potentiation,6,7,76,77,84,8889,107109,112,124,128,133,178,231
pretranslation,224n.46
Proust,Marcel,86,184,210n.45
psychoanalysis,6,18,78,158,17778185,190,221n.4,230n.55,233n.20
Q
Quine,WillardVanOrman,185
Quintillian,36
R
Rabelais,Franois,26,139,176
Racine,Jean,54
Raphal,111,113
Rede,142,144
reflection,2,1920,44,49,65,68,7479,8384,86,87,89,90,97,122,128,132,133,178,218n.23
rejuvenation,172
representation,37,84,9293,113,118,133,146,153,161,207n.58
repression,168,176,184
retranslation,2,18,33,173,176
reversal,77,84,98,99,109,119
rewording,85
rewriting,127
Ricoeur,Paul,142,221n.4
Rilke,RainerMaria,9,86,92,97,109,155
Rimbaud,Arthur,60,79
RoaBastos,Augusto,19
Robin,Armand,7,8,137,138
romantization,77,99,113,118
Rosenzweig,Franz,3,18,2730,34,35,91,171,173,176,177,215n.27

Page249

S
Sad,Edward,186
SaintJerome,1,31,37,172
Sartre,JeanPaul,187
Schelling,FriedrichWilhelmJoseph,13,44,71,130,158,162,210n.45
Schiller,Friedrich,14,28,43,51,53,58,63,66,129,130,157,217n.9,221n.1,222n.8
Schlegel,AugustWilhelm,7,1117,1921,29,33,35,47,49,54,60,64,82,86,102,104,10507,111,112,114,126,12936,13840,143,144,151,152,
154,155,184,198n.19,207n.59,213n.14,215n.28,226n.13,231n.1
Schlegel,Dorothea,130
Schlegel,Friedrich,14,21,33,4751,6974,76,77,7983,8790,92,9597,103,104,10508,11114,119,12125,130,132,135,136,140,161,162,
205n.4,208n.1,217n.17,219n.25
Schleiermacher,FriedrichD.E.,3,4,8,1113,17,20,32,34,47,57,59,64,106,112,128,131,14152,154,175,178,180,203n.17,213n.11
SchwartzBart,Simone,194n.3
selftranslation,3,108
Serres,Michel,18,183,185
Shakespeare,2,11,13,15,20,28,29,41,51,55,59,63,69,74,78,91,92,10508,110,114,115,117,119,126,129,131,132,13840,176,215n.27,
215n.28,217n.8,219n.26,220n.38,226n.13
sociability,80
sociolinguistics,190
Solger,KarlWilhelmFriedrich,71
Sophocles,29,40,158,168,169,230n.56
sourcelanguage7
speech,8,25,31,58,59,91,100,143,145,160,171,181,225n.46,226n.15,230n.56
Spiegelung,seemirroring
Sprachlichkeit(speakingforce),7,61,159,160,166168,180181
Stal,GermaineNecker,Madamede,129,216n.6
Steiner,George,2,18,21,110,173,181,183,190,221n.4,223n.46
Strig,HansJoachim,21
strangeness(Fremdheit),3,5,38,45,50,60,127,140,147,154,155,188,193n.3,22425n.46,231n.56
Strich,Fritz,55,56,63,136
subjectivity,44,7072,77,78,80,81,101,144,162
Supervielle,Jules,109,110
symbol,16,67,84,92,106,11214,141,196,207n.58,221n.2
Symbolists,96
syncretism,51,80
"syncriticism",51,80,126
Szondi,Peter,21,221,222
T
targetlanguage,7,189,190,224n.46
Tasso,Torquato,51,56,115,116
taste,122
"tendency"(ofthework),107,124
textualcriticism,13
Thalmann,Marianne,21,130
Tieck,Ludwig,11,14,20,29,33,92,114,115,131,133,135,136,139
Todorov,Tzvetan,196n.22
Torok,Maria,178
tradition,11,19,20,24,27,35,69,79,124,139,172,17578,180,181
traductology,18291,232n.13
tragedy,152,169,170,186
translatability,1416,29,63,8286,119,120,126,127,13435,178,179,184,185,187,189
seealsountranslatability
translation
authenticvs.inauthentic,14750
asagentofBildung,47
asdialogue,4
essenceof,172,177,190

Page250

asexpansion,134,152
ethnocentric,46,14749,180,186,232
aftertheFrenchmanner,35,36,143,148,154
''gainsandlosses",188
generalized,68,85,86,108,14445,179
seealsotranslation
historicpowerof,30,68,105,126,157,17172
andinterpretation,223n.46
interlinear,28,59,231n.56
vs.interpreting(oral),145
asknowledge,6,54,88,101,171,179,181,22324n.46
lettervs.spirit,5,186
literal,127,147,154,168,169,17273,230n.56
asmediation,151,180
mythical(Novalis),11213,215n.27
andnationallanguage,2527
andreading,170
as(self)reflexive,109,179,188
resistanceto,127,184,186187,224n.46(seealsorepression)
reproduction,133
restricted,85,86,108,145,183
theoryof,1,144,180
bersetzung,10708
andunderstanding,144,224n.46
andthework,127,224n.46
transmission,183,187
seealsomediation
transtextuality,184,233n.15
treason,35,8,35,38,99,119,138,187
seealsofidelity
troubadours,2,91
U
bersetzungstalent(A.W.Schlegel),14,64,82
Unheimlichkeit(theuncanny),46,155,223n.45
seealsostrangeness
unreadability,91
untranslatability,16,39,60,61,85,11720,126,127,187190,231n.56
Urbild(archetype),4849,63
V
Valry,Paul,86,87,96,170,184,213n.14,217n.17,233n.17
Vega,Lopede,51
Vernderung(transformation),111,127
Verdeutschung,24,26,27,30,31,171
Verne,Jules,189
"versatility",14,69,78,79,82,83,86,100,213n.9
versatility,33,48,49,62,78,108
Verschlungenheit(intrication),143,221n.2
Vinci,Leonardoda,139
violence,155,171
Virgil,172
Voltaire,54
Vorbild(model),48,50
Voss,JohannHeinrich,12,28,29,32,35,36,41,47,49,50,54,63,104,120,131,140,151,154,155,157,159
W
Wackenroder,WilhelmHeinrich,95
Wagner,Richard,52
Wieland,ChristophMartin,12,131,203n.17,216n.3
willtopower,46
Wilmans,Friedrich,158
Winckelmann,JohannJoachim,13,49,50,69,161
Wittgenstein,Ludwig,185
Witz,77,80,83,86,209n.17
work(oeuvre)7,72,89,119,178,184,224n.46
Writing,91,178
fragmentary,72,126,130,214n.17,219n.26
vs.spokenlanguage,140
Z
Zuberbhler,Rolf,159,160,168