Theo Hermans

Friedrich Schleiermacher 1813 lecture ‘On the Different Methods of Translating’: “...either the translator leaves the writer in peace as much as possible and moves the reader towards him; or he leaves the reader in peace as much as possible and moves the writer towards him.” ‘ domesticating’ vs ‘foreignising’ WRONG ! Venuti Berman etc.

My argument: The 1813 lecture presents the application of the principles of hermeneutics to translation. Schleiermacher developed his hermeneutics largely as a result of translating Plato. 1 Schleiermacher’s translation of Plato 2 Schleiermacher’s early hermeneutics 3 The 1813 lecture ‘On the Different Methods of Translating’

Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher Philosopher and liberal theologian Involved with Romantic circle in Berlin c (Friedrich and A.W. Schlegel, Wilhelm von Humboldt,…) Prominent role in setting up the University of Berlin 1810; professor of theology Collected works, 31 vols, Critical edition (Kritische Gesamtausgabe) 35 vols in print, 67 vols planned.

Early translations Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1789 (mss, incomplete) Aristotle, Politics, 1793 (mss) Hugh Blair, Sermons (chapters), 1795 Joseph Fawcett, Sermons, 2 vols, 1798 With Henriette Herz: Mungo Park, Reisen im Innern von Afrika, 1799 (Travels in the Interior Districts of Africa, 1799) “More than usual diligence has been expended on the translation, it reads like an original.” (“Auf die Uebersetzung ist mehr als gewöhnlicher Fleiss gewendet, sie liest sich wie ein Original.”)

Translating Plato Translation begun jointly with Friedrich Schlegel, 1799; Continued by Schleiermacher on his own. Nearly complete translation: 5 volumes , volume General introduction, plus introductions to individual dialogues. Letter, September 1803: ‘Not only is there much to be elucidated as regards Plato, but Plato is also the right author to demonstrate understanding as such.’ (“Es ist nicht nur am Plato selbst gar Vieles aufzuklären, sondern der Plato ist auch der rechte Schriftsteller um überhaupt das Verstehen anschaulich zu machen.“)

Translating Plato Principles: Understand each dialogue as part of the writings as a whole. Plato as a ‘philosophical artist’: specific thought as articulated in Greek. Greek deficient as a philosophical language in Plato’s time. Assess where Plato is cramped by the language at his disposal and where he creatively extends it. Hence constant reflection on the adequacy of the German translation, in the form of conscious stylisation and extensive annotations.

Translating Plato Introduction: ‘The principles according to which this translation was produced will be easy to discern; to justify them would be partly superfluous, partly pointless.’ (“Die Grundsäze, nach denen diese Übersezung gearbeitet ist, wird Jeder leicht erkennen; sie zu vertheidigen, würde theils überflüssig sein, theils vergeblich“; 1804: iii) Georg Spalding, letter 18 December 1803: ‘Your principles regarding nestling up to the original, without overdoing it, seem to me to be the right ones.’ (“Ihre Grundsäze wegen Anschmiegung ans Original, mit Vermeidung des Punkthaften scheinen mir die wahren.”)

Phaedrus 1 Syntax 2 Compound words 3 Wordplay ANALOGY: Phaedrus analyses discourse and rhetoric, and reflects on reaching true understanding. Schleiermacher analyses Plato’s use of language, reaching an understanding of Plato.

Hermeneutics First notes and systematic reading 1805 Began lecturing on hermeneutics c Book mss drafted and lost 1810 (Twesten’s copy 1811) ‘Compendium’ 1819 Elaborated 1820s, Academy lectures

Hermeneutics Starting point: non-understanding (within and across languages) Cognitive gap between speaker/writer and listener/reader. Whereas “common discourse in business matters” is transparent and hence of no hermeneutic interest, hermeneutic effort is most needed when language and thought are most individual and creative. Since complete understanding cannot be reached, hermeneutics is an endless task. In seeking to understand another person, the interpreter should set his own opinions aside. Interpretation requires context. The context of utterances in a foreign language is available to us in fragmentary form only. Different languages encapsulate different and incompatible modes of thinking and combining. This is the irrationality of languages.

Hermeneutics Hermeneutics consists of ‘grammatical’ and ‘technical’ (or: ‘psychological’, ‘divinatory’) interpretation. Grammatical interpretation regards speakers and utterances as conditioned by language. Technical interpretation requires knowledge of the speaker’s individuality, their unique ‘style’ in moulding the language. Hermeneutic circle: “One must already know a man in order to understand what he says, and yet one first becomes acquainted with him by what he says.” Untranslatability: the unique individuality (Eigentümlichkeit) of creative linguistic expression is untranslatable.

Brief Outline of the Study of Theology, 1811 All understanding of spoken or written discourse is an art because it requires creative production following laws, the application of which is not in its turn subject to laws.

Brief Outline of the Study of Theology, 1811

Brief Outline of the Study of Theology, 1811, expanded 1830; English translation 1850 §16. No discourse can be fully understood except in the original language. Not even the most perfect translation overcomes the irrationality of language. § 17. Even translations can be fully understood only by someone who is conversant with the original language. §18. Although the original language of the canon is Greek, much in it is translated directly from the Aramaic, and more is to be regarded as indirectly translated.’ The language of the New Testament is hybrid: common Greek, spoken Aramaic palimpsest, echoes of Old Testament Hebrew infused with Christian meaning, traces of the Greek Septuagint translation.

‘On the Different Methods of Translating’, 1813 Oral interpretation vs translation proper: Spoken, common, transparent vs written, artistic, challenging discourse Mechanical translation vs organic ‘transplanting’ Translation proper is concerned with discourse that poses a hermeneutic challenge. It faces two problems: (a)the irrationality of languages, and (b) the dual orientation towards language present in every utterance: language ‘preordains’ a person’s thought, but creative minds can nevertheless build new forms out of the material of language. KEY PASSAGE 1

‘On the Different Methods of Translating’, 1813 Translation an impossible task? The translator has to -make the reader understand (“verstehen”) not only the spirit of the foreign language (“den Geist der Sprache”) in which the author felt at home (“einheimisch”) and the latter’s particular (“eigenthümlich”) way of thinking and feeling as articulated in that language, AND -using his own language, intimate to his readers the understanding (“Verständniss”) he himself has reached, the effort (“Mühe”) it took to get there, the pleasure (“Genuss”) it yielded, and the feeling of the foreign (“das Gefühl des fremden”) that continues to inhere in the insight gained. How to accomplish this impossible task?

‘On the Different Methods of Translating’, 1813 “...either the translator leaves the writer in peace as much as possible and moves the reader towards him; or he leaves the reader in peace as much as possible and moves the writer towards him.” BUT BUT: 1.Option 2 is not really an option. It is a “fiction”, “null and void”; it denies “the inner, essential identity between thought and expression [which] forms the basis for the entire art of understanding speech and thus of all translation as well” (”…dass wesentlich und innerlich Gedanke und Ausdrukk ganz dasselbe sind, und auf dieser Ueberzeugung beruht doch die ganze Kunst alles Verstehens der Rede, und also auch alles Uebersezens.”) 2.Option 1 is not the mirror image of Option 2…

‘On the Different Methods of Translating’, 1813 Option 1 involves moving the reader to the translator: KEY PASSAGE 2

On the Different Methods of Translating’, 1813 Option 2, Author to Reader: Option 1, Reader to Author? No: Reader to Translator: RA T R A T

On the Different Methods of Translating’, 1813 To convey the sense of foreignness which the foreign text retains, the translator needs to ‘bend’ his own language towards the foreign tongue, making it ‘snuggle up’ to the foreign expression. Not strictly literal or metrical translation, but granted a degree of flexibility. The language of translation will inevitably be less coherent than that of original works. National perspective: translation proper requires a language supple enough to be bent to foreign likenesses, and a community of readers prepared to accept such innovations. ‘A good beginning has been made’: Homer translated by Voss, 4 vols, 1793; Shakespeare translated by A.W. Schlegel, 9 vols, ; Plato translated by Friedrich Schleiermacher, 5 vols, ?

Thank you