Rambling Man

It’s been about a week since I’ve posted, so I’m feeling a little behind. However, I had good reasons! Over the weekend, I was in sunny New York, and I’m far too distrustful of cell phones to come anywhere near moblogging. Since then, I’ve been too busy with lesson plans, interviews, &c. to get the time to actually write something serious.

However… While in New York, I got to visit my old proff and patron Jon Haynes, and the daunting Cultural Theory section of St. Mark’s Bookstore in the East Village. Both of these were pleasant, but humbling experiences: there’s still a lot — a heck of a lot — that I don’t know, but really, really should. I believe myself to be a competent ethnographer (based on my sole fieldwork and writing experience), but there’s a lot to understanding how we humans work that I don’t understand, or should understand better.

Dustin Wax (no, I don’t have a man-crush), on his Intro. to Anthropology course website has written one of the best explanations I’ve yet seen on the logic of the quadripartite division of academic anthropology into physical, linguistic, and cultural anthropology, and archaeology: four complementary studies of the why humans are the way they are.

That grouping had always seemed somewhat arbitrary to me: As a self-proclaimed cultural anthropologist, I feel far more of an intellectual kinship with sociology and cultural studies than I do with archaeology or physical anthropology. Sadly, while I’ve read a great deal of the theoretical musings of fellow cultural and social anthropologists, my knowledge in the fields of sociology and cultural studies is sadly lacking. So, I’m beginning a new section of my blog, entitled ‘The Making of an Anthropologist’, in which I will document my efforts to become a more capable social researcher and social theorist. That section will not begin here.

On the Rigours of an Art

While at the Strand, I picked up a copy of Sheila Faria Glaser’s translation of Jean Baudrillard’s Simulacres et Simulation. Even in English, Simulacra and Simulation is resolutely foreign. (My coworker: “I didn’t know there were other words that began with S-I-M-U-L…”) It is decidedly written for an audience with a certain sort of education, and that education includes an exposure to Borges. Baudrillard begins with a sort of exposition on Borges’ übershort story Del Rigor de la Ciencia. I was unfamiliar with this story, and Googled up a copy:

Del Rigor de la Ciencia

…En aquel Imperio, el Arte de la Cartografía logró tal Perfección que el mapa de una sola Provincia ocupaba toda una Ciudad, y el mapa del Imperio, toda una Provincia. Con el tiempo, esos Mapas Desmesurados no satisficieron y los Colegios de Cartógrafos levantaron un Mapa del Imperio que tenía el tamaño del Imperio y coincidía puntualmente con él. Menos Adictas al Estudio de la Cartografía, las Generaciones Siguientes entendieron que ese dilatado Mapa era Inútil y no sin Impiedad lo entregaron a las Inclemencias del Sol y de los Inviernos. En los desiertos del Oeste perduran despedazadas Ruinas del Mapa, habitadas por Animales y por Mendigos; en todo el País no hay otra reliquia de las Disciplinas Geográficas.

Suárez Miranda: Viajes de varones prudentes,
libro cuarto, cap. XLV, Lérida, 1658.

My Spanish is solely academic, and receives infrequent use, but it’s fairly good despite that, so I essayed a provisional translation:

Of Scientific Rigour

…In that Empire, the Art of Cartography reached such Perfection that the map of a single Province took up all of one City, and the map of the Empire, all of one Province. With time, these Inordinate Maps no longer satisfied and the Colleges of Cartography created a Map of the Empire that had the size of the Empire and coincided exactly with it. Less Devoted to the Study of Cartography, the Following Generations understood that this vast Map was Useless and not without Impiety they surrendered it to the Inclemencies of the Sun and of Winter. In the deserts of the West remained torn Ruins of the Map, inhabited by Animals and by Beggars; in all of the Country there is no other relic of the Geographic Disciplines.

Suárez Miranda: Travels of Wise Men
Book Four, Chap. XLV, Lérida, 1658.

Shortly after my own attempt, I encountered the following translation, by Andrew Hurley:

On Exactitude in Science

…In that Empire, the Art of Cartography attained such Perfection that the map of a single Province occupied the entirety of a City, and the map of the Empire, the entirety of a Province. In time, those Unconscionable Maps no longer satisfied, and the Cartographers Guilds struck a Map of the Empire whose size was that of the Empire, and which coincided point for point with it. The following Generations, who were not so fond of the Study of Cartography as their Forebears had been, saw that that vast Map was Useless, and not without some Pitilessness was it, that they delivered it up to the Inclemencies of Sun and Winters. In the Deserts of the West, still today, there are Tattered Ruins of that Map, inhabited by Animals and Beggars; in all the Land there is no other Relic of the Disciplines of Geography.

Suarez Miranda,Viajes de varones prudentes, Libro IV,Cap. XLV, Lerida, 1658

And then, again, this translation by Norman Thomas de Giovanni:

Of Exactitude in Science

…In that Empire, the craft of Cartography attained such Perfection that the Map of a Single province covered the space of an entire City, and the Map of the Empire itself an entire Province. In the course of Time, these Extensive maps were found somehow wanting, and so the College of Cartographers evolved a Map of the Empire that was of the same Scale as the Empire and that coincided with it point for point. Less attentive to the Study of Cartography, succeeding Generations came to judge a map of such Magnitude cumbersome, and, not without Irreverence, they abandoned it to the Rigours of sun and Rain. In the western Deserts, tattered Fragments of the Map are still to be found, Sheltering an occasional Beast or beggar; in the whole Nation, no other relic is left of the Discipline of Geography.

From Travels of Praiseworthy Men (1658) by J. A. Suarez Miranda

It has seemed to me, for some time, that there’s an important relationship between ethnography and translation — both essentially attempt to make a meaningful something from one context understandable in another context. Ethnography usually does its work through explication, while translation usually does its through approximate equivalation. But there’s an enormous amount of crossover: with increasing difference between language and context, translations are hard-pressed to make do without some amount of explanation. Similarly, constantly at a loss to transport things-in-themselves, ethnography must always trade one thing-for-us for another. (Ethnography also regularly has a good number of internal translation issues.)

But beyond these interesting, but somewhat abstract differences, there’s a highly felicitous and fundamentally tangible one. In Works and Lives, Clifford Geertz writes:

The highly situated nature of ethnographic description—this ethnographer, in this time, in this place, with these informants, these commitments, and these experiences, a representative of a particular culture, a member of a certain class—gives to the bulk of what is said a rather take-it-or-leave-it quality…

Even if, as is now increasingly the case, others are working in the same area or on the same group, so taht at least some general checking is possible, it is very difficult to disprove what someone not transparently uninformed has said. One can go look at Azande again, but if the complex theory of passion, knowledge, and causation that Evans-Pritchard said he discovered there isn’t found, we are more likely to doubt our own powers than we are to doubt his—or perhaps simply to conclude that the Zande are no longer themselves…

Ethnography’s meaningful something takes place in linear time, and is accessible only once (despite ethnographers’ tendency toward generalisation). Translation usually works with a static meaningful something that can be accessed time after time by a multitude of people. Issues of theory and practice which are highly meaningful for ethnography are sometimes best examined through analogy in translation.

Back to Borges, Hurley, de Giovanni, and Offer-Westort. A few differences in our three translations struck me as especially interesting. Our three titles indicate some fundamental attitude differences. Mine is the most word-for-word literal. Hurley’s demonstrates a somewhat deeper understanding and skill: Instead of simplistically substituting ‘de‘ with English ‘of’ (as de Giovanni and I did), Hurley uses ‘on’, which is a fairly common introductory preposition for essays on abstract topics in this language. De Giovanni and Hurley both used the term ‘exactitude’ for Spanish ‘rigor‘, while I stuck with the obvious cognate. I’d give kudos to both for that choice. Though not an incorrect translation, ‘rigour’ is rarely used in the sense meant by this piece in English. (It is interesting, though, that de Giovanni then goes on to use the term ‘rigour’ in place of ‘inclemency’ toward the end of the piece.)

After this, things become more interesting… Of the three translators, only I stuck with Borges’ specific capitalisations. Hurley’s and de Giovanni’s variance is confusing. Had they mimicked the usage of capitals in an earlier age of our language (capitalising all nouns, say, or some other clear scheme), I would understand, and perhaps consider an improvement on my practice. However, in the current circumstances, this seems to be unnecessary modification and innovation. Equally confusing is the abbreviation to which de Giovanni subjects Borges’ false citation. I do believe that my decision to translate the citation is better for the piece than is Hurley’s decision to leave it untranslated.

A similar issue comes up with certain word choices and phrasings. Hurley translates ‘Colegios de Cartógrafos‘ as ‘Cartographers Guilds’. It may be that Hurley’s knowledge of Spanish is superior to mine and de Giovanni’s. If not, this is a peculiar choice. On the one hand, it perverts the meaning unnecessarily. On the other, the meaning shift is hardly important, and the term ‘guild’ helps give the piece an antique character which the term ‘college’ would have done nothing to promote. Less advantageous is his reversal of the order of the clauses in the sentence beginning ‘The following Generations…’

Two points for de Giovanni: His maps ‘were found somehow wanting’, which is far more fluid than Hurley’s and my more literal ‘no longer satisfied’ (an awkward phrasing in English). At the end of the piece, he converts our literal animals and beggars into ‘Beast or beggar’, which gives the piece an alliterative touch, absent in the original, but in keeping with its literary spirit. (Spanish has a cognate for ‘beast’ — ‘bestia‘ — but it would have provided Borges little advantage to use this term over ‘animales‘ as it would not have led to any alliteration in the original. Would he have used the other term, had it been available to him? We don’t know. Translators are always stuck making certain guesses.) And one point for both of the professionals: translating ‘punctualmente‘ as ‘point for point’ not only gets the general meaning of the term across (which I was also able to do), but also carries the etymology of the original, and is far more specifically exact a translation than my ‘coincided exactly’.

But there are also areas in which we all failed. To my mind, the most prominent is our translation of the word ‘desmesurado‘: I say ‘inordinate’, Hurley ‘unconscionable’, and de Giovanni ‘extensive’. To reverse that order: de Giovanni’s ‘extensive’ completely misses the extremity and excess implied by the original term; Hurley’s ‘unconscionable’ implies a certain moral condemnation absent in the original; my ‘inordinate’ is probably the best of the three for meaning, but it flows extremely poorly. The decision is a difficult one. Having had the chance to review these translations, I would now probably opt for ‘inordinately large’.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, 20 April 2005 at 08:22 and is filed under Translation. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.