mans sviests

31.3.09 21:51
"To grasp the genuine relationship between an original and a translation
requires an investigation analogous to the argumentation by which a critique of
cognition would have to prove the impossibility of an image theory. There it is a
matter of showing that in cognition there could be no objectivity, not even a claim to
it, if it dealt with images of reality; here it can be demonstrated that no translation
would be possible if in its ultimate essence it strove for likeness to the original. For in
its afterlife -- which could not be called that if it were not a transformation and a
renewal of something living -- the original undergoes a change. Even words with
fixed meaning can undergo a maturing process.[..]

Where a text is identical with truth or dogma, where it is supposed to be
"the true language" in all its literalness and without the mediation of meaning, this
text is unconditionally translatable. In such case translations are called for only
because of the plurality of languages. Just as, in the original, language and revelation
are one without any tension, so the translation must be one with the original in the
form of the interlinear version, in which literalness and freedom are united. For to
some degree all great texts contain their potential translation between the lines; this is
true to the highest degree of sacred writings. The interlinear version of the Scriptures
is the prototype or ideal of all translation."
Walter Benjamin, "The Task of the Translator"