Subject: summary : translation of philosophical texts , textual criticism

the following list contains all references i got in the various , although regrettably not too many , responses to my query concerning the application of translational theory to philosophical texts and issues in textual criticism : aland , aland 1987 - kurt aland and barbara aland : the text of the new testament : an introduction to the critical editions and to the theory and practice of modern textual criticism , trans . by erroll f . rhodes . grand rapids , mi : eerdmans publishing co . baker - mona baker : in other words . ( a text for teaching translation , including the teaching of the effect of context and discuourse analysis on translation . ) hewson , martin 1991 - ? hewson , ? martin : redefining translation : the variational approach . routledge . london . iser 1978 - ? iser : the act of reading : a theory of asthetic response . johns hopkins university press ; baltimore . jauss 1982 - ? jauss : toward an asthetic of reception . harvester press ; brighton . mc carter 1986 - p . kyle mccarter : textual criticism : recovering the text of the hebrew bible ( philadelphia : fortress press , 1986 ) metzger 19 ? ? - bruce metzger : the text of the new testament : its transmission , corruption and restoration , oup neubert , shreve 1992 - ? neubert , ? shreve : translation as text . kent state university press . kent , ohio . snell - hornby 1988 - m . snell - hornby : translation studies : an integrated approach . john benjamins ; amsterdam - see esp . pp 13-22 on the illusion of equivalence . west 1973 - martin l . west : textual criticism and editorial technique applicable to greek and latin texts . b . g . teubner , 1973 . further information i gathered : i was told that what i called " textual criticism " is , nowadays , more commonly referred to as " scholarly editing " . another reference brought me to the interpreting ancient manuscripts web at http : / / www . stg . brown . edu / projects / mss / overview . html , which is devoted to new testament textual criticism ( and was very helpful , indeed ) . although i am confident that a thorough reading of at least some of the above-given sources will no doubt broaden my horizon and deepen my understanding immensely , my curiosity about the translation of philosophical texts still remains largely unsatisfied for the moment . to clarify what this curiosity is all about - here is what i consider to be peculiar to and characteristic for the translation of philosophical texts , say , some generalized observation from my specific situation as translating ancient indian and tibetan philosophical texts . - the " temptation of consistency " . once a text is acknowledged as being a philosophical work , it is invariably presupposed that it is consistent , coherent , and thoroughly rational . the author is not supposed to make self-contradictory statements unless some assumptions of the philosophy in question provide an explanation for these . while this presupposition is necessary and adequate to a certain extent , it tends to yield rather questionable results when uncritically combined with the " temptation of evaluation " , or the " temptation of justification " . especially when translating philosophical texts from foreign , " exotic " cultures , the translation does not only present itself as a translation , but also as an argument why the text in question merits translation in the first place . in other words : because of the marginalization of " exotic " philosophy - in the introductory classes of philosophy i got to hear at university , i was still told that there is no philosophy to the east of greece - , a translation has to justify its appearance by justifying that the translated text contributes to a presupposed universal philosophy in a relevant manner . this is highly problematic for various reasons . the specific factor i have in mind , however , is that , when a translator has decided upon translating an " exotic " philosophical text , the value and content of the text are beyond questioning - its philosophical character and quality are presupposed to an extent which can severely damage and undermine the very project of translation . " mistakes " which the author made ( statements which would render the text less valuable for comparative philosophy ) are tacitly " corrected " ( read : deleted ) , terminology is adjusted etc . - this phenomenon itself is grounded in the personal union of translator and historician , translator and interpreter , translator and commentator . while a translation of a novel can be done by one person , who is a translator in a more technical sense , and can be thoroughly researched in its historical impact by somebody else , who is a literature-historian , this is not only uncommon in the field of comparative philosophy ( or the study of other cultures ' philosophies ) , but also hardly feasible - for in most cases , even the philological constitution of the texts in question has to be informed by the interpretation . this results in a quite difficult ( and peculiar ) position of translation in the whole hermeneutical process - in most cases , the translation will serve as a " second-language " - commentary to the translated texts , not presenting an otherwise inaccessible philosophical text in its own right to those who do not understand the source-language , but a ) justifying the constitution of the text , b ) clarifying the interpretation on part of the translator and c ) ( see above ) justifying the project of translation for those who not only do understand the source-language , but who are already basically familiar with the historical and philosophical environment . in this context , translation loses much of its " mediating " function between two languages , but becomes a tool of explanation , which , in some contexts , can even be dismissed with ( i have seen and heard many specialists in indian philosophy whose explanations are basically made up of sanskrit terms , only vaguely connected by english copula ) . while this can naturally be explained on account of different target audiences ( translations for specialists will be different from translations for non-specialists ) , i find that this different function of translation is not recognized within the " specialists ' " group at all . in other words : criteria which would apply to judging a translation in a broader context ( e . g . a translation of a novel ) are applied to translations which are carried out in this specific context , without even considering a possible difference in the pragmatic environment . i would thoroughly appreciate any opinions on this , birgit kellner institute for indian philosophy university of hiroshima
