carol jacobs-the monstrosity of traslation
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/24/2019 Carol Jacobs-The Monstrosity of Traslation
1/13
Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to MLN.
http://www.jstor.org
Johns opkins University Press
The Monstrosity of TranslationAuthor(s): Carol JacobsSource: MLN, Vol. 90, No. 6, Comparative Literature: Translation: Theory and Practice (Dec., 1975
), pp. 755-766Published by: Johns Hopkins University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2907018Accessed: 08-10-2015 15:19 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
This content downloaded from 200.27.72.251 on Thu, 08 Oct 2015 15:19:32 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhuphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2907018http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2907018http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhuphttp://www.jstor.org/ -
7/24/2019 Carol Jacobs-The Monstrosity of Traslation
2/13
M
L
N
755
TI7HE
ONSTROSITY
OF
TRANSLA-
TION
O
BY
CAROL
JACOBS
O
Darin
besteht
das
eigentliche
Kunstgeheimnis
des
Meisters,
dass
er den
Stoff
durch
die
Form
vertilgt.
Schiller,
cited
by
Benjamin
in
"Zwei Gedichtevon Friedrich
Hblderlin"
In
1923,
when
Walter
Benjamin
published
his
translations
of
Baudelaire's
"Tableaux
parisiens,"
he
prefaced
them
with
a
short
essay
entitled
Die
Aufgabe
des
Ubersetzers."1
Was
this
ntended
to
unfold
for
us
the
nature of
the
difficult
ask
that
claimed
so
many
years
of
Benjamin's life?
Does
it
signify
n
unprecedented
consider-
ation
for
the
understanding
of
his
readers-for
those
to
whom
the
reading of lyricpoetrywould presentdifficulties? o less thanthe
introductory
oem of
Baudelaire's
"The
Flowers
of
Evil,"
("Au
lecteur"),
the
opening
lines of
Benjamin's
essay
close
the
gates
ab-
ruptly
on
such
illusions
of
brotherly oncern.
"The
poem
to
the
reader
closes
with
the
apostrophe:
'Hypocritical
reader,-my
likeness,-my
brother '
The
situation
urns
out to
be
more
produc-
tive
f
one
re-formulatest
and
says:
[Benjamin]
.
..
has
written
n
[essay]
.
..that, from
the
beginning,
had
little
expectation
of
an
immediate
public
success"
(from "Uber einige Motive beiBaudelaire,"
1.2:6072).
"Nowhere
does
consideration
for
the
per-
ceiver
with
respect
to a
work
of art
or an
art
form
prove
fruitful
or
their
understanding
...
For
no
poem
is
intended
(gilt)
for
the
1
Translated
as
"The
Task
of
the
Translator,"
in
Walter
Benjamin,
lluminations
(New
York:
Schocken,
1969).
Harry
Zohn's
lucid
translations
ave
made
a
decidely
meaningful
ontribution
o
the
understanding
of
Benjamin
by
an
English-speaking
audience.
The
criticism
hat
appears
here and
there
n
my
ext
hould
be
recognized
more
as a
play
between
possible
versions
han
as a
claim
to
establish
more
"correct"
translation.
2
All
citations,
nless otherwise
oted,
are from
Walter
Benjamin,
Gesammelte
chrift-
en
(Frankfurt
.M.:
Suhrkamp
Verlag,
197-2).
References
re
made with
he
volume
number in
roman
numerals)
followed
y
the
part
of
that
volume in
arabic
numerals),
a
colon,
and the
page
number.
The
translations,
uch
as
they
are,
are
myown.
MLN
90
755-766
(1975)
Copyright
1975 by
The
Johns
Hopkins
University
ress
All
rights
f
reproductionn
any
form
eserved.
This content downloaded from 200.27.72.251 on Thu, 08 Oct 2015 15:19:32 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/24/2019 Carol Jacobs-The Monstrosity of Traslation
3/13
756 M
L N
reader, no
image for the
beholder,
no
symphony or the
audience"
(IV. 1:9).
What Benjamin's essay performs and in this it is exemplary
among his
works)
is
an
act of
translation.
t is to
begin with
a
translation f
"translation,"which
then
rapidlydemands
an
equally
violent
ranslation f every
erm
promising he
keyto its
definition.
"Die
Aufgabe des
Ubersetzers"
dislocates
definitions
ather than
establishing hem
because,
itself n
uncanny
translation f sorts,
ts
concern is not
the readers'
comprehension
nor
is
its essence com-
munication.
Is a translationntended gilt)for the readerswho do not under-
stand the
original?
...
What
does
a
piece
of
writing say"?
What
does
it
communicate?
Very
ittle
o him
who
understands
t.
The
essential
s not
communication,
ot
assertion
...
If it
[the
trans-
lation]
were.aimed at the
reader, the
original would
have to be
also.
If
the
original
does not exist
for
him,
how
could
the transla-
tion be
understood
in
this
respect.
(IV.1:9)
If
one by
one once
familiar
words become
incomprehensibly
foreign, f theyrelentlessly urn on their traditional "altherge-
brachte,"
herkdmmliche")
eanings,
f
the
essay
systematically
oots
itself
n
that
radition
nly
to
shift
he very
ground
it stands on,
this,
after
all,
is
the way
in
which
translation
functions.
For
Benjamin,
translation
oes not transform
foreign anguage
into
one we may
call
our
own,
but
rather
renders
radically
foreign
hat
anguage we
believe to be
ours.
Benjamin
cites
Rudolf
Pannwitz:
Our
translations,
even
the best
ones,
proceed from a
false
grounding: theywishto germanizeHindi, Greek, and English
instead of
hindicizing,
grecizing
nd
anglicizingGerman.
They
have
a
much more
significant
espect for
their own
linguistic
usage
than forthe
spirit
f the
foreign
work ..
the
fundamental
error
of the translator s that
he holds fast o
the ncidental tate f
his
own
language
instead
of
letting
t
be
violently
moved
by
the
foreign.
(IV.
1:20)
This invasion of the foreign s perhaps merely prescriptive or
other
translations,
orthe nitial
ttackon
his
audience
immediately
gives way to
a
more amicable
rhetoric of
life,
kinship,
harmony,
fidelity,
eligion,
nd
nature. As
in
Baudelaire,
where
the wounds
inflicted
by
"Au
lecteur"
are soon
to be
soothed
by the balm
of
This content downloaded from 200.27.72.251 on Thu, 08 Oct 2015 15:19:32 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/24/2019 Carol Jacobs-The Monstrosity of Traslation
4/13
M L N
757
"Correspondances,"' so in
Benjamin's essay,
t would seem we find
ourselves again on native
soil.
In
the metaphorical
limatethatnow sets n, translations eem
to
blossom forthfrom the original as a continuation of thatformer
"life"4-as a "transplant,"
"ripening," germination f the
original
"seed."
But
for ll this
pparently bundant flourishing, t no
point
does
translation elateorganically o the text
hatprecedes t.On
this
point
Benjamin is as ironical as he is deceptive.
The
"Entfaltung"
(unfolding5
V.
1:1
1)
that
the
ife
of the
original
achieves
in
transla-
tion
never quite brings ts seeds to flower.
Translation
denies the
linear aw
of nature
n
order to practicethe rule of
textuality.
f
the
original cannotreach
..
[therealm of
inguistic
ulfillment]
oot nd
branch"mitStumpf nd
Stiel,
talics
mine,
IV.
1:15),
this
figure
of
speech, metaphoricalfor completion
n
both German and
English,
must also be taken
in
its
"fullyunmetaphorical reality" IV.
1:11).
Nowhere
in
the essay does translation
develop beyond
the
germ
("keimhaft"
V.
1:12),
the kernel
("Kern"
IV.
1:15),
the
seed ("Sa-
men"
IV.1:17).
More precisely, his
ssentialkernel sdefinable s
that
n
transla-
tion
which,
n
its
turn is untranslatable
...
Unlike the
poeticword of the
original,
t s not translatable ecause
the
relationship
of content o
language
is
completely
ifferent
n
the
original
nd
the
translation.
f
language
and content onstitute certain
unity
in
the
original,
ike
fruit nd
rind,
the
language
of
translation
envelops
tscontents
n vastfolds
ike an
emperor's
robes. For
this
language signifies
loftier
anguage
than its
own and therefore
3
Benjamin's
essay could
well be read as an
ironical
commentary n
the
traditional
reading
of
"Correspondances" (see
"Ober
einige
Motive bei
Baudelaire," 1.2:638-
48, whereBenjaminreinterpretshe"correspondances"as a temporaldisplacement
bound to
the
"essentially
distant," he
"inapproachability"
f the
cult
image.
For
a
general
discussion
of
the
concept of
symbolic
anguage
which the
Baudelaire
piece
poses,
see
Paul de
Man,
"The Rhetoricof
Temporality,"
n
nterpretation:
heorynd
Practice
Baltimore: The
Johns
Hopkins
Press, 1969)
as well
as
Walter
Benjamin,
Ursprung
es deutschen
rauerspiels .1:336-7
and
342.
4
The
connectionbetween
original
and translation
may be
called a natural one,"
Benjamin writes, more
precisely
connection of life,"
"ein Zusammenhang des
Lebens,"
V.
:10).
To make
his
meaningdear,
he
repeats he
syllables Leben"sixteen
times
n
the course
of the paragraph,
and
midway hroughclears
t of ts
traditional
meaning.
The
"life" to which
translations re
bound is itself
woven into
textual
history. The sphere of lifemustultimately e fixed n history, ot in nature ....
Thus the
task arises for the
philosopher
o
understand
ll natural
ifethroughthe
more
encompassing
ife
of
history"IV.
1:11).
5
Harry Zohn translates
Entfaltung" s
"flowering"-and
understandably o, for
this xtension f the
metaphorical
web s
a naturalone. It
s
not,
however,Benjamin's.
This content downloaded from 200.27.72.251 on Thu, 08 Oct 2015 15:19:32 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/24/2019 Carol Jacobs-The Monstrosity of Traslation
5/13
758
M
L N
remains
non-adequate,
violent
nd
foreign
with
espect
o ts
own
content.
(IV. 1:15)
The natural
metaphors
for
translation
produce
the
opposite
of
organic
fruition.The "Nachreife"
(IV.
1:12 and
13)
hardly
com-
pletes the
maturing
process of the
original,
but
rather
withers he
fruitof
meaning.
The
"unfolding"
of the
original
paradoxically
results
n
a
proliferation f
abundant
folds hat
violently amouflage
the content
while
maintaining
t
as
non-adequate
otherness. No
further germination s
possible:
"This
brokenness prevents any
[further] ranslation, nd at the same time makes it superfluous"
(IV.
1: 15).
The
Ver-pflanzungtransplant, V. 1:
15)
of the original
bespeaks
far
less the
continued
life
of
the
plant
than a
displacement of its
ground.
This
problemof
ripening he
seed of pure
language in
translation
seems neverto be
solvable,
o be definable
n
no
solution.For isn't
the
ground
pulled out
from
under
such
a
language
if
the restitu-
tion of
meaning
[Sinnes]
ceases
to be
decisive?
And
indeed no-
thingelse-to turnthe phrase negatively-is the significance f
all the
foregoing.
(IV. 1:17)
With
this
negative
turn
of
the
phrase,
Benjamin
definestranslation
as
undefinable. The unfixable task of
translation
s to
purify
he
original
of
meaning: only poor
translations seek to
restore it
(IV. 1:9).
This is
why translations
re
themselves
untranslatable.
"Translations
on the other
hand show
themselves to
be un-
translatable-not because of the heaviness, but because of the all
too
fleeting
manner
in
which
meaning
[Sinn]
attaches
to them"
(IV.
1:
20).
The
relation between
translation and original
then,
although
"seemingly
angible,"
s
alwayson
the
verge of
eluding understand-
ing IV. 1:
1).
And
eluding of
understanding
Erkenntnis)s precisely
what
translation
performs
darstellt). enjamin
insistson the verb
"darstellen," s
opposed
to
"herstellen" r
"offenbaren"
IV. 1:12),
for ranslation
either
presentsnor reveals
a
contents.6 ttoucheson
6Translation s then
ultimately xpedient for
the
expression of the
innermostrelation of
languages to one
another. It
cannot
possibly reveal [offenbaren]
his hidden
realtionship
itself,
annot
possibly
stablish
t
herstellen],
ut can perform t
darstellen] ya
germinating
or intensive
realization.
(IV.1:12)
This content downloaded from 200.27.72.251 on Thu, 08 Oct 2015 15:19:32 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/24/2019 Carol Jacobs-The Monstrosity of Traslation
6/13
M L N
759
the meaning of the original only by way of marking ts indepen-
dence, its
freedom-literally-to go off on a tangent: the point
it
chooses remains rrelevant.
What meaning Sinn] remains of significancen the relationbe-
tween ranslation
nd
original
an be
grasped
n
a simile.
Just s a
tangenttouches the
circle
fleetingly
nd
only
at one
point,
and
just as it s the touching nd
not
the
particularpoint
that
dictates
the law according to
which t
takes
off
on
its
straight rajectory
further nto nfinity,o translation ouches the
originalfleetingly
and
only
at
an
infinitely
mall
point
of
meaning
in
order to
...
follow ts
own
trajectory.
(IV.1:19-20)
Certainly,
t
is its own
trajectory
hat "Die
Aufgabe des Uberset-
zers" follows
when
touchingon
such terms
s
fidelity,iterality,nd
kinship.These it translates rom
familiarGerman to another that
hardly seems germane.
But
that, fter ll, is the point. Nowhere is
thisunfamiliarity ore
ntensely ensed thanwhen theessayturns o
the familialrelationsbetween
languages. The "kinship" Benjamin
setsout to describegathers
much of its strangeness rom he discrep-
ancy between his mode of
defining and his ultimate ntentionof
definition.fwe are made at all familiarwith henotionofkinship,t
is
by earning
what
kinship
s not.
Kinship
between
anguages
is
not
similarityIV.
1: 12 and
13)
nor can it
guarantee
the
preservation,
n
translation, f the original's
form and sense.
Benjamin
touches
fleetingly
ere on
a
point
of
epistemological
concern.
In
order to grasp the genuine relation between original and
translation,
we must
set up a deliberationwhose design is com-
pletely nalogous to the train
of thought
n
which a critique of
cognitiondemonstrates the impossibility f a mimetictheory.
[And tangentiallyhe mpossibilityf traditionalpistemology.]
f
it is
shown here
that
there
could
be no
objectivity
n
knowledge-not
even
a
claim
to it-if
it
consisted
n
duplication
of
the
real,
then
t
can be
proven here
that no translation
would be
possible
if
it
strove with
ts total
being
for
similarity
with the
original.
(IV.
1:
12)
This explains why kinship
may only
be defined
negatively.
The
kinshipbetween anguages generatestheirdifference:n what basis
could translation
claim to
duplicate
the
original
if no
language,
however
original,
n
turn
guarantees
the
objective reality
of that
which t names?
This content downloaded from 200.27.72.251 on Thu, 08 Oct 2015 15:19:32 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/24/2019 Carol Jacobs-The Monstrosity of Traslation
7/13
760
M L N
For all this
nsistence
on kinship
as
differentiation,
inship
sets
forth certain ameness
as well. The elusive nature
of this
ameness
presentsparticulardifficulties o theEnglishtranslator.n the ong
passage
that
speaks of this
sameness,
Harry
Zohn
remains
far
less
"true" to
the
original,
far
ess "literal" han
the
textdemands.
This is
because he
maintains
a
significant
espect
for his own
linguistic
usage, and,
traditionally,
hat s
to hiscredit.
Understandably
hen,
his translation
esults
n
phrases such
as "the
same thing,"
the
same
object," where
the German
speaks
neither
of objects nor
things.
n
an
admittedly
ermanized
English, the
passage
would
read as fol-
lows:
[A]ll
suprahistorical
kinshipof
languages
rests n the
fact
that n
every
one of
them as a
whole ..
. one
and the same
is
meant
[gemeint],
which,
however, s not
reachable by any
one of
them,
but
only by
the
totality of their
mutually
supplementing
intentions-pure
language.
While,
namely, all
individual
ele-
ments of
foreign anguages-the
words,
sentences,
contexts-
exclude
one
another,
hese
anguages
supplement
one
another
n
their ntentions. o
grasp
this
aw,
one of the fundamental
aws
of
the philosophy f language, s to differentiatehat s meant [das
Gemeinte]
rom
he manner of
meaning die
Art
es
Meinens]
n
the
intention.
n
"Brot" and
"pain"
what s meant
s ndeed
the
same,
the
manner of
meaning t,
on the other
hand,
is not..
..
While
n
this
waythe
manner
of
meaning
n
these two
words s
n
conflict,
t
supplements
itself
n
both
languages
from
which
they
are
de-
rived. The
manner
of
meaning
in
them
supplements
tself
nto
what is
meant.
In
the
individual,
unsupplemented
languages,
what
is meant
is never found
in
relative
ndependence,
as
in
individualwords or sentences;rather tis grasped in a constant
state f
change
until t
s
able
to
step forward rom
he
harmony
f
all
those
manners of
meaning as
pure
language.
(IV. 1:
13-14)
What
s
meant n
"Brot" and
"pain" is "the
same,"
but this s
not to
say that
theymean the
same
thing. he
same that
s
meant is "pure
language."
Benjamin
statesthis quite
literally t the
beginning
and
end ofthepassage,buta hungerfor ubstancecould well allowus to
forget
t.
What
is
meant
by
"pure
language"?
Certainly not the
materialization
f truth n
the
formof a
supreme
language.
Benja-
min
ets
this
emptation
side with
passage from
he "Crise de
vers"
(IV. 1:17).
He
displaces his own
text
with the
foreignnessof Mal-
This content downloaded from 200.27.72.251 on Thu, 08 Oct 2015 15:19:32 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/24/2019 Carol Jacobs-The Monstrosity of Traslation
8/13
M L N
761
larme's
in
which the latter nsistson the insurmountable
disparity
between languages. The "pure
languge" of the lengthy
citation
above does
not
signify he apotheosis of an ultimate
anguage
but
signifiesrather that which is purely language-nothing but lan-
guage. "What is meant" is never
somethingto be found
indepen-
dently f
language nor even independently n language, in
a single
word or
phrase,but arises ratherfrom he mutual
differentiationf
the various manners of meaning.
There isn'tquite so much
differ-
ence as one
might uspect then,
between kinship" s sameness and
"kinship"defined as differentiation,
or ach generates he
other, n
language, indefinitely.
In
a sense, one could argue,
the kinship of language
as here
defined saysnothing fter ll. If so, the translation fBenjamin has
been
rendered with the great
fidelity he essay requires. For the
translator's ask of "fidelity"Treue)
calls foran
emancipation from
all
sense of
communication IV. 1: 19),
a
regaining
f
pure
language.
The "one and
the same"
which s meant
in
pure language
means
nothing.
[T]o
win
back
pure language
formed
n
the
flux
of
language
s
the
violent and
single power of translation.
n
this pure
language,
which no longermeans anything nd no longer expresses any-
thing,which,
s
expressionless
nd
productiveword,
s
that
which
is meant
n
all
languages,
all
communication,
ll
meaning
and
all
intention
ultimatelymeet
with
a
stratum
n
which
they
are
de-
stined to
extinction.
(IV.
1:
19)
This
productive word which renders meaning extinct s
that of
literalityWortlichkeit).n the textof translation, he wordreplaces
sentence
and
proposition
s
the fundamental lement IV.
1:18).
A
teratogenesis nstead of
conventional, atural, e-production
esults
in
which the limbs of the progeny
are dismembered,
all
syntax
dismantled.
Literality horoughly
overthrows
ll
reproduction
of
meaning
with
regard
to the
syntax
nd threatens
irectly
o lead
to
ncom-
prehensibility.
n
the
eyes
of
the
nineteenth
entury,
Hdlderlin's
translationsfSophoclesweremonstrous xamplesof suchliter-
ality
...
[T]he
demand
for
iterality
s no
offspring
f an
interst
in
maintainingmeaning.
(IV.
1:
17-18)
This content downloaded from 200.27.72.251 on Thu, 08 Oct 2015 15:19:32 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/24/2019 Carol Jacobs-The Monstrosity of Traslation
9/13
762
M
L
N
The
demand
is
Benjamin's,
for t
s this
monstrosity
hat
he
praises
above all
as
the most
perfectof all
translations.7
This exaction of literality, he passage continues,must not be
understood as an
interest n
meaning,
but
"aus
triftigeren usam-
menhangen"
(IV.
1:18).
Must it
be
understood
then
"in
a
more
meaningful
ontext"
s Zohn's
translation
nsists
p.
78, op.
cit.)?
Or
is
the
con-textualityf
original nd
translation uch
that
his
phrase
too
must be
taken
literally.
he
linking ogetherof
the two
would
then be
"triftig"
n
its
etymological
ense-from
treffen-as
triking,
fragmentary.
his is
certainly he
point
f
not
the
tone of
the
simile
that
follows.
Just
s
fragments f a
vessel, n
order to
be
articulated
ogether,
must
follow one
another in
the
smallest
detail but
need not
re-
semble
one
another, so,
instead
of
making
itself
imilar to
the
meaning
Sinn]
of the
original, the
translation
must
rather,
ov-
ingly
nd in
detail,
n
its own
language,
form tself
ccording to
the
manner
of
meaning
Artdes
Meinens]
fthe
original,
o
make
both
recognizable s
the
broken
part
of a
greater
anguage,
ust as
fragments
re
the
broken
part of
a
vessel.
(IV. 1:18)
In
this,
ts
iteral
ranslation,8
he
passage
leaves
things
ncomplete.
With
the
oining together
of
translation nd
original,
anguage
re-
mains a
Bruchstick.
uch is
the mode
of
Benjamin's
articulation
despite ts
pparent
reference o
organic
growth,
inship,
ameness,
fidelity.
nd
it
s after
ll
also
the vision
of the
"angel
of
history"
n
7
Hblderlin's translations re touched
upon at
three otherpoints
n the
essay-and
always
spoken
of
as
exemplary.
Here as in
everyother essential
regard, Holderlin's
translations,
specially
those of the
two
Sophoclean tragedies,
resent
themselves s
a confirmation.
he
harmony f the languages
is so
deep
in
them, hat
he
meaning Sinn]
s
touched
by
the
anguage
only
s
an aeolian
harp
is touched
by
the
wind.
Holderlin's
ranslationsre
originarymages
Urbilder] f
theirform:
they
relate themselves ven
to the most
perfect
ranslations
f
their texts s
the
originary-
image to the
example
....
(IV.1:20-21)
8
Zohn's translations perhaps more logical,certainlymore optimistic, utdoesn't
quite form
tself
n
detail
according to
the strange mode
of
Benjamin's
meaning.
In the ame
way
translation,nsteadof
resembling he
meaningof the
original,
must ovingly
and in detail
incorporate
the
original's
mode of
signification,
hus
making
both
the
original
and the
translation
ecognizable
s
fragments
f a
greater
anguagejust
as
fragments
re
part
of
a
vessel.
(Zohn, op.
cit, p. 78)
This content downloaded from 200.27.72.251 on Thu, 08 Oct 2015 15:19:32 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/24/2019 Carol Jacobs-The Monstrosity of Traslation
10/13
M L N
763
the "Geschichtsphilosophische Thesen" (part IX)9 and that
-of
Baroque allegory n Ursprung es deutschen rauerspiels
"Allegorie
und
Trauerspiel").
Perhaps this helps account for the involuted formulation-
translationmust
awaken from ts own language the original's
echo,
This is not to say that
translation choes the original. Translation
relates
o
theoriginal
s to pure language-in
a
way
that
he
original,
so laden
with
ts
apparent content,
s
rarely
deemed to function.
In this ies a
characteristic f translation otallydifferent
rom
that of poetic
works, since
the
intention of the
latter s never
towards anguage
as such,
its
totality,
ut rather
solely
and
di-
rectly owardsdefinitive inguistic oherencesof content.Trans-
lation,however,does not view tself s does poetry
s
in
the
nner
forest
of
language,
but rather as outside
it, opposite it,
and,
without ntering,
t
calls
into
the
original,
nto that
single place
where,
n
each case,
the echo
is
able
to
give
n tsown
anguage
the
resonance of a work
n a
foreign tongue.
(IV.1:16)
To locate the source of these reverberations s not an easy
matter.
Though, logically, he originalshould originate he call, Benjamin's
formulation eaves
this task to translation.
9
Gershom
Scholem, in
writing
bout
this
text,
relates
the
figure
of the
angel of
history o
the
Tikkun
f the
Lurianic
Kabbalah.
Yet
tthe
ame
ime,
enjamin
as n
mind
he
kabbalistic
oncept f
he
ikkun,
hemessianic
restoration
nd
mending hich
atches
ogether
nd
restores
he
oginal
Being
of
things,
shatterednd
corrupted
n
the
Breaking
f
Vessels,"
nd
also
the
riginal
eing
f]
history.
("Walter
enjaminnd
ein
ngel,"
nZurAktualitat
alterBenjamins
Frankfurt:
uhrkamp,
1972], p. 132-33.)
If
Scholem
recognizes
the
failure
of the
angel
of
history
o
carry
out
this
task,he
nevertheless
ees
evidence of
this
redemption
elsewhere
in
Benjamin
(ibid,
pp.
133-34).
Scholem
might
have
turned
to
"Die
Aufgabe des
Ubersetzers,"where the
mage
of
the
broken
vessel
plays a
more
direct
role.
Harry Zohn's
(mis)translation
f this
passage
(cited in
footnote
8)
along
with
Benjamin's
carefully
rticulated
messianic
rhetoric eem
to
speak
here
of
the
successful
realization
of
the
Tikkun.
et
whereas
Zohn
suggests
hata
totality
f
fragments
re
brought
ogether,
enjamin
nsists
hat
the
final
utcome of
translation
s
still a
broken
part."
n
the
Lurianic
doctrine,
hen,
translation
would
never
progress
beyond
the
stage
of
the
Shevirath
a-Kelim.
For a
description f this Breaking ofVessels"as Benjaminknew t, ee GershomScholem,
Major
Trends
n
Jewish
Mysticism
New
York:
Schocken,
1973].)
In
the
closing
passage
of
"Die
Aufgabe
des
Tbersetzers,"
he
messianic
valorization
of
the
holy
scriptures
ironically
erves
o
usher
n
the
fundamental
ragmentation
hich
nterlinear
ransla-
tion
performs.
This content downloaded from 200.27.72.251 on Thu, 08 Oct 2015 15:19:32 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/24/2019 Carol Jacobs-The Monstrosity of Traslation
11/13
764
M L
N
There is
an
unmistakable
cho here
of a
German saying
hatboth
amplifies
and clarifies
the
predicament:
"Wie man
in
den Wald
hineinruft,o schallt'sheraus."'" Translation'scall into the forest f
language
is not
a repetition
f
the original
but
the awakening
of
an
echo of
itself.
This signifies
ts
disregard
for coherence
of
content,
for
the
sound
that
returns
s itsown tongue
become
foreign.
Just
s
thevase
of translation
uiltunlike
fragment
n
unlikefragment
nly
to achieve
a final
fragmentation,
o
the
echo of
translation
licits
only
fragments
f
anguage,
distorted
nto
disquieting
oreignness.
But
who
pieces the
vase
together?
Who sounds
the
echo?
Which
s
to say,who writes hetext ftranslation? r are thesequestionsthat
necessarily
ose their
meaning
n the
context
f the
essay.
By now t
s
evident
that
when
Benjamin
speaks
of
"translation,"
he does
not
mean
translation,
or
t has never
ceased
to aquire
other,
foreign,
meanings.
One is
tempted
to read
"translation"
s
a metaphor
for
criticism,
o
offer
he answer that
the critic
writes
ranslations.
ow
else
to
explain
the
following:
Translation
transplants
herefore he
original
nto
a more-in
so
faras ironically-conclusive language realm,since it cannot be
displaced
from
it
through
further
translation
...
The word
"ironically"
does
not recall
thoughts
of the
romantics
n vain.
They
above
others
possessed
insight
nto the
life of works of
which ranslation
s
the highest
estimony.
o
be sure
they
did
not
recognize
translation
s such,
but
turned
their
ntire
ttention
o
criticism
....
(IV.
1:
15)
Translation
may
ndeed
be
metaphorical
for criticism,
ut
the
criti-
cal text s inexorablybound to a certain rony.That ironydislocates
the
syntax
f
Benjamin's
phrase
as
well as
the tentative olution
to
the
question
"who
writes,"
n
whichour
own critical
istance
was
not
ironical
enough.
"Translatability,"
hich
we might
lso call
the
critical
ext
within,
is
a
potential
of
the
work tself.
Translatability
elongs
to
certain
works
essentially-which
s not
to
say
thattheirtranslation
s
essential
to
them,
but rather
that
a
certain significance wellingwithin he originalsexpresses itself
in their translatability.
(IV.1:1O)
10
"As one
calls
nto
the
forest,
o it will
resound."
This content downloaded from 200.27.72.251 on Thu, 08 Oct 2015 15:19:32 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/24/2019 Carol Jacobs-The Monstrosity of Traslation
12/13
M L N
765
This, then, s the text-ness f the text or a criticismwithout
ritic.
From the very beginning, the
essay dismisses the necessityof a
translator or translation.
[C]ertain relational conceptsmaintain their good, perhaps best
sense, when they re not
a
priori exclusively
eferred o man.
In
thisway
one
might peak of an
unforgettableifeor moment
ven
if
all men had forgotten t.
When, namely, ts essence demands
not to be forgotten, hen that
predicate would not correspond to
somethingfalse,but ratherto
a demand which does not corres-
pond
to
man,
and
would at the same time nclude
a
reference o a
realm to which t does
correspond-to a remembrance of God.
(IV.1:1o)
The translatabilityf the text excludes the realm of man and with
him the translator, he figure o
which Benjamin's essay s devoted.
The "Aufgabe" of the translator
s ess his task han his surrender:he
is "aufgegeben," given up,
abandoned. This is its nitial rony.
Yet no sooner is the figure of man abandoned, than another
appears to offer tself.At the
beginning nd the end Benjamin turns
to
therealm of religionwhich
eems to redeem thismonstrous oss if
also,
in a
sense, to cause it). This is the way,
n
the essay's closing
paragraph, he writesof Holderlin's translations-the most perfect
of
their kind.
The
overwhelmingdanger they
create
may only
be
contained
by
the
holy script.
[B]ecause of this there lives
in them [Holderlin's translations]
above all the monstrous nd
originary anger
of
all translation-
thatthe
gates
of a
language
so
expanded
and
controlled
may
fall
shut
and enclose the translator
n
silence
....
In
[these
transla-
tions]
..
meaning plunges
from
byss
to
abyss
until
t
threatens
to lose itselfn the bottomlessdepthsof language. But there s a
halt
[Halten]. However, no
text
guarantees
it but
the holy
text
(IV.1:21)
What
s
t
exactly hat he holy
cripture ouchsafes? s
it
really halt
to
the precipitous oss of
meaning or must we translate"Halten"
rather
s a holding and retaining f that oss.
For
in
the holy scrip-
tures
meaning
no
longer separates
language
and
revelation.
The
holytext s totally iteral,nBenjamin's sense of the word,which s to
say,
because no
meaning
stands behind
its
language,
because
lan-
guage
and
revelation oincide
absolutely,
t
s as
absolutelymeaning-
less as an original may be.
This content downloaded from 200.27.72.251 on Thu, 08 Oct 2015 15:19:32 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/24/2019 Carol Jacobs-The Monstrosity of Traslation
13/13
766
M
L N
However,
no text
guarantees
t but
the holy
text,
nwhich
mean-
ing has
ceased to
be a watershed
for
the flow
of anguage
and
the
flowof revelation.Where a textbelongs to a truthor doctrine
immediately,
without
he
mediation
ofmeaning,
n
its
iteralness
of true language-that
text
s
absolutely
translatable
...
Such
boundless
trust
with
respect
to
it is demanded
from
the
transla-
tion
that
ust as
in this [holy
text]
anguage
and
revelation
are
united without
ension,
o
in
the
translation,
iterality
nd free-
dom
must
oin in
the
form
f the
nterlinear
ersion.
For to
some
degree,
all
great
writings,
ut
above
all the
holy scriptures,
on-
tain
their
virtualtranslation
between
the
lines.
(IV.1:21)
And
whatof
Benjamin's
"between
the lines,"
for
from
he
begin-
ning,
we
recognized
thisessay
as a
translation
f
sorts.
Between
the
lines
of German,
he has
slipped
in a
phrase
from
he
original
of
the
holy
writ: v
a&Q~Xjr6v
yog
IV.
1:
18).
These
are the opening
words
of
The
Gospel
ccording
o
John,
and
the text
to which Benjamin's
clearly
efers
when
t
speaks
of the
holy
criptures.
Die Aufgabe
des
Obersetzers"
erves
s
a translation
or
thefollowing
ines
which
re
givenbelowin an interlinear,iteral, ranslation romLuther'sver-
sion
of the
text.
1.
Im
Anfang
war
das Wort,
und
das
Wort
war
bei
Gott
1. In
the
beginning
was
the
word,
and
the
word was
with God
und
Gott war das
Wort.
and
God was the
word.
2.
Dasselbige
war im Anfgang
bei
Gott.
2. The same (the
word)
was
in
the
beginning
with
God.
3.
Alle
Dinge sind
durch
dasselbige
gemacht
und
ohne
3. All things re throughthe same made and without
dasselbige
ist
nichts
gemacht,
was
gemacht
st.
the
same is
nothing
made
which made
is.
This
is the final
rony.
TheJohns
Hopkins
University