All 3 entries tagged Related

translation and real presence

Translation and Real Presence ————–A lecture by Theo Hermans on 20th. Feb. 2006 at University of Manchester
This lecture is a reflective analysis of the relationship between the original and the translation.
Traditionally translation is believed as a form of derivation, i.e. the original gives a life to the translation. Such genetic relationship may not be the only possible explanation for what had happened between the original and the translation. In this lecture, Prof. Hermans brought out the concept and different understandings of "Real Presence". Through analyzing different historical approaches in reading this term, he suggests alternative ways to view translation.
Hermans started his lecture with three questions:
1.How does translation represent/stand for the original, and how does the original present itself through/under translation?
2.In what senses can we regard the translation and the original as the SAME?
3.Are translators entitled to make such a declaration as"This is my work?"
This last question is particularly central to Hermans argument as he tries to draw a parallel between"this is my work" and the Christ's "this is my body".
For anyone who knows a bit about Christianity, the scene of Last Supper should be quite familiar. Jesus Christ holds up the bread and declares: "This is my body". This simple statement left his followers centuries of argument. There has always been a debate on whether any real effective change occurred to the bread. Some believe the bread is only a symbolic icon of the body of the Christ, while some believe the bread becomes the body itself.
The second way of understanding this sentence, which later on becomes the general belief in most churches, is that this declaration of Christ actually turned the bread substantially into his body. This idea is known as "transubstantiation". Paclo Uccello illustrated this idea more vividly in his famous painting The Profanation of the Host, in which the bread is actually bleeding when some disbelievers stab it with a knife. In a sense, Jesus Christ's "this is my body" is speech–act, which has the most powerful strength to change the substance of the bread without changing its appearance, which can not be explained by any scientific reasoning, but only by that of faith and belief. "The eye of faith" should see beyond appearance. This demands "a leap of faith".
Hermans also mentioned other explanations of this sentence. Luther, for example, believe the body of the Lord is in, with and under the bread, which means the bread exhibits, instead of represents, the true, substantial, and real presence of the body. Another theory by Wycliff and Zwingli tries to explain the bread as the sign of the body, hence the"signifying quality" of the bread. Jean Calvin added to these explanations that this declaration actually set the bread and the body into affinity and similitude at the same time.
Hermans kind of suggests that if different understandings can be offered for the bread–body relationship, we might also attempt to reinterpret the translation–original tie. He focused his argument with "transubstantiation". By the Lord's declaration, and by the believers?? faith, the substance of the bread is changed. Correspondingly in Translation, Hermans suggested that the decisive moment is not the making of a translation, i.e. the process of translating, but the moment when the Author declares "this is my work".
It seems to me that Hermans is trying to say a translated text can be produced by the translator, but without the authorizing claim from its original author, the translated text can not be considered as a translation. This opinion can be backed up at least by the modern copyright law which stated clearly a translator only can be protected as the creator of the form of a text, while the substance of the text should be regarded as the property of the author. The translation should experience "transubstantiation" in the sense that the form/the visible is different from the original, while the substance/the invisible remains the same with the original. The decisive moment of such transubstantiation can only occur when the author authorizes his work be translated by making a declaration "this is my work". Besides the author, there is another important element for completion of the speech–act, which is "faith". The bread IS the body only to those who believe in the Christ; while the translation IS the original only to those who believe in the author's declaration.
Hermans stopped his analysis there, leaving an open ending for us to ponder. This is definitely a very daring and original idea in remapping original–translation relationship. If we accept such an analysis, at least there are going to be certain aspects of translation that we should revisit: 1) what is the implication of this "decisive moment" in translation in reality? In public domains that are not guarded by the copy–right law, such as internet, there are translations that never get any authorization from any author yet somehow enjoyed by a huge readership. How are we going to define translation then? 2) what role does "faith" play in this theory? "The leap of faith" seems to be a must for transubstantiation, which is illustrated by the painting of bleeding bread. The believers do not need the bread to bleed in order to believe it is the body of the Christ; therefore the bread is bleeding for the disbelievers so that they eventually have to believe, and experience a "leap of faith". Then can we expect something in translation, some thing vivid, or observable that can help the readers to achieve such "leap of faith"? 3) what happens if the author is no longer available to declare "this is my work", which is exactly the case when it comes to translation of all classics? Can we say that the translated texts for the classics are never going to get the chance to be recognized as translation? If not, what are those texts?
There are not going to be any definite and easy answer to any of these questions Hermans brought out. It somehow leads us to think again about the essence of transition, and the fundamental question of "what makes a translation".

Xiu Wang : 22 Feb 2006 17:00 |  Tags: Related Translation |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

responsibilty

Follow-up to translators in china from XIULU

This article is from XinHua News, 23rd, Dec. 1998. It is written in memory of the establishment of Central Editorial and Translation Bureau of China 45 years ago. The purpose is to eulogize the translators? virtues and achievements and to sing praise for their lofty lives.
In the news report, all the translators working for the bureau are aloof from worldly interests and material pursuits. The only thing they care about is translation. There is one deputy bureau director, who translates the whole collection of Lenin, died in his office because he overworked himself for too long; there is also a director of English section, who entrusted her child totally to her mother?s care because she has no time at all but for translation; and there is a new graduate who gave up all the other better paid and more promising job offers and joined the bureau to translate.
One might wonder: why are they doing these? The ending of the news report gave a very peculiar answer: they chose the career that will benefit the human beings, and therefore they are prepared to accept all the hardships and sacrifices.
An indeed stylized answer, I would say. I actually believe if I search for more governmental organizations, I will find all of the staffs there are working for the interests of mankind.
?The interests of mankind?, ?the benefit of human beings?, ?the glory of our country? and ?the prosperity of socialist society?. I am not sure how abounded the official discourse is in phrases like these. The more I encounter them, the more I feel chilled.
The sense of responsibility has always been key elements in ethics. Many people may proudly assert that it is the most precious heritage we got from traditional Chinese culture. In my opinion, however, this collective responsibility means no more than a slave ideology.
People claim to work for the future of a country or human beings, however, they never consider if that is something they should / can responsible for. When everyone in a society is claiming to be responsible for its propensity, most often what we will see is the society ends up in a disaster. Cultural Revolution is one example that comes to mind. After such occasions, those who previously declared to be responsible for their country naturally retreated from their grand and heroic promises.
I sincerely believe that only when an individual claims for something that he indeed wishes to do, and at the same time is able to do, can we regard it as a responsible act. Responsibility, after all, belongs first to oneself rather than to the far away goals. It is an internal RIGHT, rather than an external OBLIGATION. Individuality defines a truly responsible person.

Xiu Wang : 20 Oct 2005 02:15 |  Tags: Related Translation |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Salman Rushdie

Writing about web page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie

Salman Rushdie (born Ahmed Salman Rushdie on June 19, 1947, in Bombay, India) is an Indian–born British essayist and author of fiction, most of which is set on the Indian subcontinent. He grew up in Mumbai (then Bombay) attended Rugby School, Warwickshire, then King's College, Cambridge in England. Following an advertising career with Ayer Barker, he became a full–time writer. His narrative style, blending myth and fantasy with real life, has been described as connected with magic realism. In 2004, Rushdie married for the fourth time, this time to prominent Indian model and actress Padma Lakshmi.

The publication of The Satanic Verses in September 1988 caused immediate controversy in the Islamic world due to its allegedly irreverent depiction of the prophet Muhammad. India banned the book on October 5; South Africa banned it on November 24. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Somalia, Bangladesh, Sudan, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Qatar followed within weeks. The book was ceremonially burned in Bradford, England, on January 14, 1989. On February 12, five people were killed by police gunfire during a protest in Islamabad.

On February 14, 1989, a fatwa promising his execution was proclaimed on Radio Tehran by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of Iran, calling his book "blasphemous against Islam." Furthermore, Khomeini condemned Rushdie for the crime of "apostasy"?attempting to abandon the Islamic faith? which according to the Hadith is punishable by death. This was due to Rushdie's communication through the novel that he no longer believes in Islam. Khomeini called on all "zealous Muslims" to execute the writer, as well as those of the publishers of the book who knew about the concepts of the book:

In the name of God Almighty. There is only one God, to whom we shall all return. I would like to inform all intrepid Muslims in the world that the author of the book entitled The Satanic Verses, which has been compiled, printed, and published in opposition to Islam, the Prophet, and the Qur?an, as well as those publishers who were aware of its contents, have been sentenced to death. I call on all zealous Muslims to execute them quickly, wherever they find them, so that no one will dare insult the Islamic sanctions. Whoever is killed on this path will be regarded as a martyr, God willing. In addition, anyone who has access to the author of the book, but does not possess the power to execute him, should refer him to the people so that he may be punished for his actions. May God?s blessing be on you all. Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini.
On February 24, Khomeini placed a three–million–U.S. dollar bounty for the death of Rushdie. Rushdie lived for a time under British–financed security.

At the University of California at Berkeley, bookstores carrying the book were firebombed. On February 24 in Bombay, 5 people in a protest at the British Embassy died from police gunfire. Several other people died in Egypt and elsewhere. Muslim communities throughout the world held public rallies in which copies of the book were burned. In 1991, Rushdie's Japanese translator, Hitoshi Igarashi, was stabbed and killed in Tokyo, and his Italian translator was beaten and stabbed in Milan. In 1993, Rushdie's Norwegian publisher William Nygaard was shot and severely injured in an attack outside his house in Oslo. Thirty–seven guests died when their hotel in Sivas, Turkey was burnt down by locals protesting against Aziz Nesin, Rushdie's Turkish translator.

…

Xiu Wang : 20 Oct 2005 00:55 |  Tags: Related Translation |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Trackbacks (1) |  Report a problem