Carol Jacobs-The Monstrosity of Traslation

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/


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.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


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



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.



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)



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?



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-



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)



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)



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.



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."



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.



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

Carol Jacobs-The Monstrosity of Traslation

Documents

Transcript of Carol Jacobs-The Monstrosity of Traslation