Forum

The translators immobility

English modern classics in Italy
Paola Venturi

University of Bologna

Translations are facts of target cultures, but the perceived status of source texts has a bearing on how these are reflected or refracted in the target language. This proposition is particularly evident in the case of classics: when translators have to work on literary creations occupying a pivotal position in the source/target cultures, they adopt strategies of literalness and ennoblement which betray a quasi-religious awe on the one hand, a desire to ruffle the surface of the revered original as little as possible; and on the other, a determination to reproduce the supposed classical qualities of the classic even when they are not present in the source. In the following article, I examine how the idea of classic influences translation theory and practice, substantiating my theoretical observations by looking at Italian translations of English classics. A marked and historically determined disparity between source and target readerships, and the translators reverence for their prestigious originals, conspire to produce Italian versions which are much more wooden and elegant than their English counterparts. Keywords: descriptive translation studies, comparative literature, translation norms, religious literature, literary classics, history of reading

1.

English classics in Italian translation

Despite the shifting grounds of critical appraisal, some literary works enjoy the commonly accepted and rarely questioned status of classics. Being widely known and recognized as paradigms of literary excellence, these works and their translations have often been the object of single comparative studies. What seems to be lacking, though, is a wider perspective on this constellation of translated literature as a whole, and specifically on how the idea of classical literature can guide translators in their choices (be they aware of this process or not). It is this perspective that I will attempt to sketch, with particular regard to the Italian translations of a few English modern classics.
Target 21:2 (2009), 333357. doi 10.1075/target.21.2.06ven issn 09241884 / e-issn 15699986 John Benjamins Publishing Company

334 Paola Venturi

An examination of the Italian versions of some English narrative texts which are now part of the modern canon shows significant regularities, and provides an insight into the norms (Toury 1995) that govern the act of translation1 of what is perceived as classic. The survey also sheds light on the position that translated classics occupy within the Italian literary polysystem, and on the common repertoire shared with the target culture (Even-Zohar 1978/2004). The brief selection of examples shown below from Jane Austens Emma (1816), George Eliots Middlemarch (18711872), and Virginia Woolf s To the Lighthouse (1927) show two main recurring tendencies: a strict lexical and syntactical adherence to the source text, and an overall heightening of the register.
[] these were the disadvantages that threatened alloy to her many enjoyments [] and many a long October and November evening must be struggled through at Hartfield [] (Austen 1813/1998: 45) [] tali erano gli svantaggi che minacciavano di corrompere la purezza delle sue molte gioie [] e molte lunghe serate di ottobre e di novembre dovevano venir affrontate a Hartfield [] (Austen 2002: 35) A great mistake, Chettam, interposed Mr Brooke, going into electrifying your land and that kind of thing, and making a parlour of your cow-house. It wont do. I went into science a great deal myself at one time; but I saw it would not do. It leads to everything; you can let nothing alone. No, no see that your tenants dont sell their straw, and that kind of thing; and give them draining-tiles, you know. But your fancy-farming will not do the most expensive sort of whistle you can buy; you may as well keep a pack of hounds. (Eliot 187172/1965: 39) Un grosso errore, Chettam, interfer Mr. Brooke pensare di elettrificare la vostra tenuta e cose del genere, e di trasformare la vostra stalla in un salotto. Non servir a nulla. Anchio un tempo ho approfondito molto questi aspetti tecnici; ma mi sono accorto che non sarebbe servito a niente. Coinvolge tutto; non pu tralasciare nulla. No, no controllate che i vostri affittuari non si vendano la paglia, e cose di questo genere; e forniteli di tegole per il drenaggio, sapete. Ma la vostra utopica conduzione agricola non servir a nulla come capriccio il pi costoso. Tanto vale tenere un branco di segugi. (Eliot 1995: 17) Yes, of course, if its fine to-morrow, said Mrs Ramsay. But youll have to be up with the lark, she added. (Woolf 1927/1987: 9) S, di certo, se domani far bel tempo, disse la signora Ramsay. Ma bisogner che ti levi al canto del gallo, soggiunse. (Woolf 1992: 3)2

In the first example, the target text closely adheres to the grammatical construction of the original, and even exposes its hidden etymological level: the verb form must be struggled through is mirrored by dovevano venir affrontate, which rigidly follows the English word order, and sounds rather unusual and stilted in Italian; in rendering alloy as corrompere la purezza (corrupting the purity),

The translators immobility 335

the translator retrieves the pre-figurative sense of alloy as blend of metals, instead of opting for a simpler choice like guastare (spoiling). In the excerpt taken from Middlemarch, the degree of formality in the target text is similarly elevated through a general heightening of register: expressions like going into electrifying your land or I went into science a great deal myself which are part of an informal conversational context become pensare di elettrificare la vostra tenuta (thinking of electrifying your estate) and Anchio un tempo ho approfondito molto questi aspetti tecnici (I delved deep into these technical aspects myself at one time). Through a consistent elevation of register (from land (terra) to tenuta (estate), from science (scienza) to aspetti tecnici (technical aspects), from give them (dategli) to the more formal forniteli di (provide them with), the Italian translation distances itself from the oral mode of the source text and shifts towards a written one (Halliday and Hasan 1976: 22). The last example deserves a separate analysis. Although the same tendency to mirror the grammatical structure of the original can be detected, together with an overall heightening of register the use of the Italian future tense in se domani far bel tempo sounds slightly wooden if compared to the Woolfian if its fine tomorrow; the Italian verb levarsi (awaken) is more formal than the verb be up used in the source text it might be worth noticing that unlike the other, more recent translations, the Italian version of To the Lighthouse published by Garzanti dates back to 19343. On the one hand, this yields interesting implications as to the norms shaping the Italian literary system of the time. The very short span of years between Woolf s book and its translation does not allow for a heightening of formality due to temporal distance therefore, one might infer that the literary system of the target culture was not able to accommodate the smooth, colloquial slant of Woolf s dialogue. On the other hand, the fact that the 1934 translation has been deemed appropriate to our day, and continues to appear in the collection i grandi libri garzanti, testifies (amongst other things) that the same, deeply rooted norms continue to apply. In a word, although they belong to different periods, all the target texts are marked by strategies of strict literalness and, at the same time, by a tendency towards what Antoine Berman identifies as littrarisation4 (literarization; Berman 1999: 39). Within this process Berman more specifically draws attention to ennoblissement (ennoblement; Berman 1999: 57) as one of the possible deforming tendencies ethnocentric translation is subject to as a largely unconscious system of forces:
In the end, translation is finer (formally) than the original. [] The form of aesthetics fulfils the logic of rationalization: every discourse must be a fine discourse. In poetry, this results in poetization; in prose in rhetorization. Embellishing rhetorization consists in producing elegant sentences employing the original, as

336 Paola Venturi

it were, as raw material. Thus, ennoblement is nothing but a re-writing, a stylistic exercise which takes its cue from (and is done at the expense of) the original.5 (Berman 1999: 57; translation mine)

In this respect, the strategies of ennoblement and the close adherence to the letter of the original carried out through a variety of transformational rules at the level of syntax, lexis and register reflect a single, general macro-norm which may be summarized in the somewhat tautological maxim:
TRANSLATE THE CLASSIC SO AS TO HIGHLIGHT ITS NATURE AS A CLASSIC

It is my contention that this behaviour originates from the reverence inspired by the very idea of classic (also entailing its expected readership, and its reception by people-in-the-culture6), and that the constraints imposed upon the translators of canonized works are particularly evident in the Italian versions of English modern classics, due to the different historical and social development of the source and target cultures. Traditionally belonging to the framework of high literature, the classic must be translated in such a way that the target text never falls short of its prestige even if this amounts to ignoring colloquial nuances7, or adding marks of formality which are not present in the original thus forcing the translator into a state of reverential immobility. 2. What is a classic? The classic as a sacred text A closer inspection of the notion of the classic may help us achieve a closer understanding of this attitude. How does a work of art get to be viewed as a classic? What traits does a text display (or are universally attributed to it) so that it is admitted within the closed circle of works which embody culture in its highest form, and are handed down to posterity as universally accepted repositories of truth? Although their value might be questioned, and different works which have fallen into oblivion might not unfavourably be compared to classics8, only a restricted group actually constitutes the canon, and is treated accordingly, both in reception and in translation. Timelessness may be immediately identified as one of the most prominent features associated with the prestige of the classic. A classic, writes Samuel Johnson in his Preface to Shakespeare (1765), is a work of genius enjoying length of duration and continuance of esteem (Smith 1951: 444), whose value has successfully withstood the test of time. The new Oxford dictionary of English (1998) defines the word classic as judged over a period of time to be of the highest quality and outstanding of its kind, and a work of art of recognized and established value. Other adjectives like long-lasting and not greatly subject to changes (used in

The translators immobility 337

the same entry) point in a similar direction, and the word canon is significantly defined in its literary sense as a series of works considered to be permanently established as being of the highest quality. This idea of great literature transcending time recurs in T.S. Eliots Tradition and the individual talent (1919):
Tradition is a matter of much wider significance. It cannot be inherited, and if you want it you must obtain it by great labour. It involves, in the first place, the historical sense [] and the historical sense involves a perception not only of the pastness of the past, but of its presence; the historical sense compels a man to write not merely with his own generation in his bones, but with a feeling that the whole of the literature from Homer and within it the whole of the literature of his own country has a simultaneous existence and composes a simultaneous order. This historical sense, which is a sense of the timeless as well as of the temporal together, is what makes a writer traditional. (Eliot 1975: 38)

The work of the single artist is therefore valuable in terms of the relationships it establishes with the great authors of the past: the new and the old cohere in a traditional system which is slightly altered and brought to readjustment by new forces. Thus, inscribed in history and permeated by a deep consciousness of the past, the individual talent joins the monuments of tradition, and rises above time. Reflecting an idea of both timelessness and sacredness, Eliots words sketch the image of a pantheon of writers, a sacred wood in which the writers of the present coexist with the classical authors who have laid the foundations of modern culture. In its atemporality, the classic enjoys the same quality as the sacred text. Like the sacred text, the classic is perceived as inviolable: it inspires awe; it is read and manipulated with extreme care, particularly in translation. The analogy with the reverent attitude adopted by St. Jerome when dealing with the translation of the Bible immediately comes to mind. Echoing Ciceros distinction between literal and free translation, Jerome encourages the adoption of the latter as far as secular texts are concerned, but strongly asserts the need to be respectful of the letter when it comes to translating the Bible, in which even ordo verborum mysterium est. Given its timeless, sacred nature, the religious canon will therefore require special attention, and a word for word translation is recommended as the most suitable strategy to preserve its holiness. From a historical point of view, the strict, religious respect inspired by the sacred canon gradually shifts to the secular sphere. In European culture, Humanism and the Renaissance may be identified as the periods in which this transfer takes place, through a fervent process of translation of ancient and modern texts, also reshaping translation along theoretical lines. In the basic rules for translating Aristotle from Greek into Latin outlined by the Italian Leonardo Bruni as early as 1426

338 Paola Venturi

(in his treatise De interpretatione recta), an unprecedented regard for the secular text clearly emerges: not only has the translator to convey the inventio and dispositio of the original (the medieval sentence9), but he will also endeavour to render the elocutio of the source text, so that its rhetorical structure may be fully transferred to the target text (Bruni 1996: 162). As paradigms of classical culture in its most prestigious and sacred form, Aristotles works inspire deference, and are translated with the utmost care. The same holds for Latin texts translated into English, with particular regard to Virgil an author who had already achieved canonical status in Roman times a few decades after his death. The Aeneid is the first literary text to receive a quasi religious treatment. In early Renaissance England, the version of the Virgilian masterpiece produced by William Caxton in 1490 (after a French source) is severely reprimanded by Gavin Douglas, whose 1513 translation adheres more strictly to the source text, and reflects a new concern for accuracy imposed by the prestigious nature of the original. The same attitude applies to a few contemporary works translated into English, especially when these texts are perceived as masterpieces of modern thought, i.e. when they embody the fundamental values of what will come to be known as the Renaissance.
The epitome of all these enterprises is Hobys translation of Castigliones Cortegiano (1561), close to the original even to a fault to the point of becoming impervious, at times, for anybody not acquainted with Italian. Hobys reverent intention to follow the very meaning and words of the Author [] finely sums up the awe these early translators felt towards their originals, particularly when they were translating texts of such universal importance as the Cortegiano []. (Morini 2006: 20)

Not only does Hoby devote special care to the rendering of the original on a macro-textual plane, but he also preserves its micro-textual features to the point of reproducing the etymological meaning of Italian words, in such a way that literalness sometimes borders on obscurity10. Despite the persistence of less constrained translation strategies, at a time when even religious texts start to be translated with more latitude (at least in Protestant countries), the reverential attitude producing immobility and a strict closeness to the letter shifts to works commonly viewed as classics. The deferential approach to literary masterpieces, especially as far as their translations are concerned, recurs in different forms throughout the centuries, both in theoretical works and in commonly held views. The idea that literary language is so complex as to baffle all attempts to capture it runs under the surface of recent linguistic theories, and links up with the Romantic concept of the literary work as an organic whole, which only an extremely careful translation may

The translators immobility 339

attempt to reproduce and partially, at that. In this respect, a post-Romantic perspective might be discerned which ascribes priority to the original in its unbroken, quasi-mystical unity of sound and meaning, thus requiring or at least attempting a target version as close to the original as possible. In rejecting a method of translation that bends the original text to the needs of its readers, Friedrich Schleiermacher (1816) advocates a close adherence to the source text in order to transfer its unity of content, sound and rhythm, while at the same time highlighting the difficulties involved in this process, and its frequently unsatisfactory outcome. An ideal thread connects Schleiermachers words to Walter Benjamins reflections (in Die Aufgabe des bersetzers, 1923) on how the primeval unity of all European languages might be recovered through Wrtlichkeit (Benjamin 1961: 66) that is, faithfulness to the words of the original as well as through literal reproduction of source syntax in the target text. In the final analysis, even Lawrence Venutis declared preference for foregnizing rather than domesticating translation (Venuti 1995), or his more recent insistence on minoritizing methods (Venuti 1998: 11), may be said to follow the same line: despite their different focuses and diverse realizations, all these positions build on a sense of deference for the source text. A similar tendency can be found in other recent theorizations. From the point of view of literary translation and its teaching, a case in point is Robert Blys handbook The Eight Stages of Translation (1983). In his illustration of an eight-stage method of translating poetry, the author reaches the conclusion that, even after the final draft, the translator cannot capture the original in its entirety (Bly 1983: 48). In linguistic-based studies, the same notion invariably reappears when literary translation is compared to specialized translation: in Scarpas critical theory (2001: 69) the literary work is defined as an unicum to be recreated every time, with inevitable losses due to its open, multileveled nature, as opposed to the close quality of specialized texts. In a different way, this idea also runs through the widespread myth that sees great literature as ultimately untranslatable, and endorses the commonplace according to which only writers can effectively translate other writers. This awe of literary texts which inspires evident caution in translation, and applies in particular to the works bearing the mark of canonization reflects their perceived status of sacredness. From a broader perspective, this seemingly endogenous status is also dependent on the presence of an external apparatus legitimating its durability. The construction of the classic as a sacred book relies consistently on an extra-textual production including a wide range of materials, from informative notes to essays11. Even the economic Garzanti edition of To the Lighthouse features an introductory twenty-page section providing a historical-critical profile of the authors life and works penned by the poet Attilio Bertolucci, as well as a detailed reference guide

340 Paola Venturi

on Virginia Woolf s works and their Italian translations, with a selection of varied critical literature. If the modern text has achieved canonical status, it will not be allowed much freedom of movement: glosses, notes to the text, prefaces, commentaries of various sorts, writers biographies and bibliographical lists still remain the almost mandatory accompaniment to the editions of modern classics, a proof of their stature, a reinforcement of their reputation. The cage of commentary contributes to the presentation and preservation of the sanctified text (and may even be exploited to introduce new classics into the system). The canonized book will not simply be read: it will be interpreted and analysed within a more serious framework of reception that may not be without consequences for the act of translation itself. With its aura of unquestionable, enduring value, surrounded as it is by the imposing walls of commentary, the classic will not allow much leeway to its translator either, and will direct his/her choices towards a style at the same time extremely respectful of the original and, paradoxically, ennobling, where the height and decorum associated with canonized texts should appear to be lacking. Once more, Humanism and the Renaissance provide the grounds of a cultural and historical explanation: in a period of profound interest for the classics in their original form as opposed to the corrupted re-elaborations produced and transmitted in medieval times the ancient texts were not offered to the study of scholars without a suitable accompaniment. The prestige of classical works was signalled by a consistent amount of glosses and commentaries:
The humanist reader in the age of print [] did not expect classical works to reach his desk untouched. The more important the author and the subject, the thicker the blocks of commentary which surrounded them. Eventually, humanist publishers and readers decided that even non-classical Latin literary texts needed glosses; there was no other way to legitimate their literary pretensions. [] Paradoxically, therefore, the humanist text had reverted to the position of medieval auctoritas. [] But the new commentary imprisoned and moulded the text as forcefully as its ancient counterpart. Crowned by humanist exegesis, the text was not only important in itself, but also, once again, by virtue of its interconnections with a system of instruction and interpretation.12 (Grafton 1995: 232; translation mine)

A closer look at the history of reading shows that the rigid encapsulation of the classic is already at work in Roman times, when (towards the end of the third century) the volumen was substituted by the sometimes imposing codex, mainly collecting religious and legal corpora. The study of these books had a lot in common with meditation, and the pleasurable otium associated with literary works was excluded from its horizon (Cavallo 1995: 67, 68). The high, prescriptive status of the texts contained in the codex required both a serious effort of concentration and a difficult task of interpretation on the part of the reader, which qualified them as sacred books constituting the cultural and moral bases of society.

The translators immobility 341

In a word, the sacredness of the text, apparently inscribed in its very nature, also derives from the external apparatus in which the text is encased, and from its reception13. The translation of the classic will take place within the boundaries of this territory, and will therefore involve a number of constraints:
The epistemological approach clearly indicates that the sacredness of a text as a subjective factor has enormous relevance []. Translating the Bible is evidently not the same as translating a newspaper article: not because the Bible is the word of God, but because it will be received as such by the majority of the translation addressees. The two things are completely different.14 (Salmon 2003: 69; translation mine)

The dogmatic conception underlying the field of religious translation also extends to the translation of artistic works, which may not be the word of God but are nonetheless perceived as the voice of the spirit. They will therefore demand devotion to the letter of the original, and will put a sort of ontological constraint on their translators: in approaching the classic, the translator has to display the noblest writing qualities; he/she is to identify with the text ; he/she must be rather than do something15. Significantly enough, as is shown by the history of the ancient Greek modernizations of Homers works (Montanari 1991), this attitude of reverence can be spotted well before the Christian era, and may be related to a widespread anthropological tendency of cultures to identify sacred books on which to lay their foundations. Thus, the deference towards the original does not necessarily stem from its content whether it belongs to doctrine or law, philosophy or literature but rather from the necessity of cultures to reinforce their identities by means of mythical references and mythical objects. In the specific case of literature, this amounts to the election of cult texts (Salmon 2003: 70), whose prestige is legitimated by the authority of critics, expert readers, and extratextual appendices. If a deferent approach inspired by the eminence of the original is particularly evident for the translation of religious and classical works of the past, its presence and its effects are still detectable when it comes to rendering modern literary classics. This is true of narrative works which have achieved canonical status sometimes, after enjoying immense popularity in their time, like Dickens novels and even more of poems, as poetry is commonly seen as superior to all other literary forms. In a 2002 Italian version of Love Letter, by Sylvia Plath (1962), the fluent opening line Not easy to state the change you made is transformed into the more rigid Non facile dire il cambiamento che operasti (It is not easy to say the change you operated), in which the quasi-religious morphological adherence to the original (one-word verb form in English amounts to one-word verb form in Italian) leads the translator to the choice of a past tense which sounds rather stilted

342 Paola Venturi

in Italian, and also produces an unnecessary elevation in the register of the source text. Thus, if the choices displayed by the target text ratify it, on the one hand, as belonging to high literature, they also crystallize it in a project of sur-littrature (hyper-literature; Berman 1999: 35) which does not appear to inform the original. It is not difficult to see how the perceived superiority of canonized texts may confine their translations and translators to a dimension of respectful immobility. 3. English writers, Italian readers, and immobile translators In analysing the power of the source in translation, Susan Bassnett observes that the commonly held myth of literary translation as causing more difficulties than technical translation is only true in the sense that the power and authority of the source text is more likely to be threatening to the translator where literary texts are involved, particularly if they are regarded as canonical, and that the status of the source text in its context, as well as the expectations of the designated readership will inevitably put a constraint on the translators choices (Bassnett 1997: 87, 88). This anxiety of the original seems to be shared by most Western cultures, and its effects show with remarkable regularity throughout the centuries, whether in young literary systems importing foreign texts as a means of consolidating their own tradition, or in mature cultures with a well established literary canon. At the same time, the reverence towards the literary text closely intertwines with the norms of the target culture, which will invariably affect the final outcome of the translating process: translations, versions of classic texts included, are, in the end, facts of the culture which hosts them, with the concomitant assumption that whatever their function and identity, these are constituted within the same culture and reflect its own constellation (Toury 1995: 24). Two examples, relating in this case to the development and consolidation of young literary polysystems, suffice to show how the norms of the target culture can affect the translation of canonical texts at least as much as the awe of the original16. In the early decades of the twentieth century, noucentisme, a movement which aimed at raising the standards of Catalan literature to the level of the rest of Europe, relied heavily on the translation of English and American modern authors (like Dickens or Twain) whose stature as classics had long been acknowledged. The Catalan versions displayed innovative features, but were also marked by a high degree of formality and rigid adherence to the grammatical structure of the original. In his study of Carner, one of the most prominent noucentista writers and translators, Josep Marco notices a tendency to calque, to mirror (perhaps too) closely the form and structure of the original text, mixed with a high degree of

The translators immobility 343

formality in lexical choice, and the use of archaisms, dialectisms and borrowings from other languages (Marco 2004: 82). Despite its attempt to give shape to a new form of literature, noucentisme turns to prestigious canonized texts, and the translations it produces end up condemning themselves to a certain immobility. All the same, the use of dialect and archaic words also assimilates these translations to autochthonous production, thus making them acceptable within the Catalan literary polysystem. Another instance of this process is provided by the first Hebrew versions of Shakespeares sonnets produced by Schwartz between 1916 and 1923: on the one hand, the target texts are marked by a stylistic elevation (Toury 1995: 108)17 and by an adherence to the older norms which may have been reinforced by the status assigned to the original texts as classics (Toury 1995: 121). On the other hand, they strictly conform to the norms of the receiving culture, so that the innovation they represent through the reflection of the source-text features will be tempered by habitual and established practices sufficient to ensure that the text as a whole will not deviate unduly from the prevalent norms (Toury 1995: 122). Similarly, Shaloms Hebrew translation of the complete Shakespearian Sonnet Cycle, published between the late thirties and 1943, also owed its canonization and long permanence in the target literary system to the enormous conformity of this translation to the norms dominating Hebrew literature at the time, original and translated alike (Toury 1995: 125), i.e. in this specific case the principles underlying the poetics of Hebrew modernism. In consideration of the prospective recipients of Shakespeares works, both poetic and dramatic, it is Hebrew as a poetic language, whether traditional or innovative, that sets the standard for translation18. If the power of the original is particularly threatening in the case of canonical texts, this attitude and the consequent adoption of ennobling strategies applies to a much wider range of literary works, its manifestations being affected by the norms of the expected readers. Mandelbaums versions of Ungarettis poems in the United States shows how even disruptive texts aiming at defying tradition in the source culture can be moulded according to the values of the target system, so that they can finally fit its canon and be accepted as part of it. In his 1958 translation, Mandelbaum keeps a fairly strict lexicographical equivalence and even mirrors Ungarettis syntax and line breaks. Yet, his claim to follow in the footsteps of the poet in an effort to defy what Mandelbaum calls the cadaver of literary Italian (Venuti 2004: 492) through a clear-cut poetic language deprived of all ornament merges with a different aim which has more to do with a positive reception of his translation in the target culture: although strictly adherent to the verse division of the original, the American translation elevates its register rendering morire (die) as perish, or sonno (sleep) as slumber so that the target text is eventually imbued with a noticeable strain of Victorian poeticism (Venuti

344 Paola Venturi

2004: 492) which sounds more appealing to the domestic community. Once more, the translation of a literary text which is not yet a classic, but may aspire to reach that status opts for a rigid observance of the word order and syntax of the original, at the same time making use of poeticism and embellishing devices featuring register elevation. In the case of Mandelbaums translation, this strategy proves successful, as the work is finally acknowledged as canonical by the host culture. Despite the claims made by his translator, Ungarettis ground-breaking achievements in renovating Italian poetry are reinstated within a recognizable historicized tradition that will contribute to the canonization of this poet in the United States:
Mandelbaums translation not only positioned Ungaretti in English-language poetic traditions, but affiliated him with the dominant trends in contemporary poetry translation. [] Mandelbaums version bridged the cultural gap between Ungarettis actual Italian readership and his potential American audience. Translating a modern Italian poet into the discourse that dominated American poetry translation was effectively a canonizing gesture, a poetic way of linking him for American readers to canonical poets like Homer and Dante (not to mention the echoes of Tennyson, Shakespeare, Marlowe). Yet this domestic inscription deviated from Ungarettis significance in the Italian poetic tradition []. The ornate English version was addressing another audience, distinctly American, poetry readers familiar with British and American poetic traditions as well as recent translations that were immensely popular. (Venuti 2004: 494)

The translations produced by Noucentisme, the Hebrew translations of Shakespeare, and the borderline case of the American versions from Ungaretti confirm, on the one hand, the presence of an attitude of deference towards the original especially when it is perceived as a classic but they also point to the crucial role played by the expectations of the target audience in shaping the final product. The norms created and assumed by the interpretive communities, by the informed reader (Fish 1980: 48,171) of the domestic system seem to have an impact on the translating event which is at least as powerful as that imposed by the prestige of the source text. The power of the norms shaped by the target culture, and the threatening influence of the source text, surface with special evidence in the Italian translations of English modern classics. Here, a phenomenon common to most Western cultures in different periods of time is magnified by the distinctive features of the Italian literary system. If translations are essentially facts of the target culture and a conditioned type of behaviour (Toury 1995: 174) whose appropriateness is subject to the norms of the receiving system the corollary is that translations are also facts of the target readership, whether real (historically contextualized), or implied. As a literate member of an interpretive community sharing strategies

The translators immobility 345

which exist prior to the act of reading and therefore determine the shape of what is read (Fish 1980: 11), the reader makes literature no less than the writer, or the translator. What, then, are the assumptions of Italian interpretive communities when it comes to the reception of modern classics, and how do these assumptions influence translation? Who is the model reader19 (Eco 1979: 55), or the implied reader (Iser 1978: 73) of English modern classics in Italy, and what stylistic norms does he/she set up? Finally, how faithfully do these constructions reflect, from a historical and social point of view, the different evolution of reading habits in Italy and in Great Britain? A closer look into the historically significant (Toury 1995: 30) highlights a divergence between the rapid growth of the English reading public and the slower diffusion of Italian reading habits. One of the most conspicuous features that mark this divide has its roots in religion: Protestantism is, in the words of lie Halvy, a book religion (Altick 1957: 24), and, from the time it begins to shape English culture in the sixteenth century, it lays a crucial emphasis on private reading. This practice is almost totally absent, if not actively discouraged, in Catholic countries like Italy, where the knowledge of the Bible is mainly confined to the oral sphere20. Although it is promoted for strictly edifying purposes sometimes verging on the polemical side, as is shown by the incredible number of tracts and pamphlets, rejoinders and counter-rejoinders that flooded the book market during the Civil War the direct approach to the sacred texts advocated by the Reformation favours the diffusion of reading in Protestant countries, also contributing to the consolidation of a literary vernacular form through translation21. It is commonly accepted, as Jean-Franois Gilmont (1995: 274) observes in analysing the influence of Reformation on reading habits, that a fronteer divides the Western world in this respect: on the one hand, the Protestants, great consumers of the written word; on the other, the Catholics, who rely more on oral tradition, and tend to see books as precious, almost sacred objects destined to the restricted elite of the highly educated. However, the immense growth of the reading public in Great Britain22, which reaches its acme in Victorian times, is the result of many forces, some of them openly supported by the religious and political powers, others more obscure and less easy to control, but not less vigorous. The religious struggles of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries had given enduring impulse to a reading practice aimed at the elevation of the spirit: people read to achieve spiritual improvement and cultivate moral virtues. But people also read and had always done so for utilitarian purposes. Since Shakespeares days, reading had served the purpose of conducting business transactions, interpreting legal documents, and keeping records; later on in the centuries, reading continued to be seen as a useful means to improve ones knowledge of the world, whether from a scientific, political, educational, historical or social point of view. In his Miscellaneous Observations Relating

346 Paola Venturi

to Education, published in 1778, Joseph Priestley, an educational theorist of the time, suggested the reading of good books, both modern and classical, not as an end in itself, but for the purpose of enhancing morality and enlarging knowledge: [however] unsatisfactory its quasi-utilitarian bias seems to us today, the later eighteenth century academy unquestionably helped spread the reading habit (Altick 1957: 44). Reading was not only a way to religious truth although the fear that literacy might spread sedition was a powerful counterforce but also an instrument of wider self-improvement. In the nineteenth century, the evangelicals and the utilitarians, two of the major groups shaping the cultural tone of Victorian England, both pursued the same exterior aim, although for different reasons. However, outside the direct influence of both evangelicals and utilitarians, reading for relaxation and pleasure was perhaps the most formidable and therefore most deplored force at play in the book market of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The virulence with which this habit is denounced bears witness to its strength23: the birth and spread of circulating libraries (the first of which appears in Scotland in 1725), mainly dealing with fiction, the wide circulation of cheap books and periodicals24, as well as the growing popularity of the novel from Richardsons Pamela (17401741) to sensational novels and the highest achievements of Victorian writers all testify to the fact that the British reading public, both male and female, read a great deal, and read for pleasure. The mass reading audiences that Wilkie Collins had defined the Unknown Public in 1858, and whose attitude to literature had been the object of Dickens warm defence in a letter to Charles Knight25, show how a practice of reading for spiritual enrichment, instruction, and most of all amusement was already deeply rooted in Great Britain by the nineteenth century, when it reached its peak. English authors of both prose and poetry who had already achieved the status of classics in Victorian times Pope, Scott, Defoe, Thomson, Addison were reprinted in cheap editions, and were the object of popular passion. In a word, by the end of the nineteenth century, English readership was made up of numerous and keen readers from all social backgrounds, passionate consumers of a literature (be it light, or of a higher quality) that reflected their lives and language with ensuing norms and standards for the written production as well, as influenced by the readers expectations. If reading as a form of pleasurable relaxation came to be accepted in Britain during the Victorian age, also shaping the way in which works were written, and the British mass reading public had reached its present dimension and character by 1900, how does the Italian situation compare? That Italy has never been a nation of keen readers, at least in modern times, has the contours of a stereotype which nonetheless contains a good measure of truth: recent surveys26 have shown that, although literacy is almost universal, less than 40% of the adult population read books, and only 5% can be considered strong readers (people who read more

The translators immobility 347

than ten books a year). In Italy, as journalist and childrens writer Ermanno Detti (2002: 9) observes, reading for practical reasons tends to prevail over reading for pleasure: reading and writing are not taught to endow students with a capacity to enjoy literature for its own sake, but are meant to improve knowledge, and enable people to employ receptive skills when they need them. Good books are attributed a prestigious value, but they remain distant objects to be admired, and seldom used. If the main purpose of reading is elevation, it is the concept of sacrifice (Detti 2002: 106) that rises above pleasure in the attitude of the average Italian reader27. A brief historical account of the development of Italian public libraries serves to illustrate both the scarce diffusion and the utilitarian character of reading in Italy. Towards the middle of the nineteenth century, at the threshold of political unification, Italian libraries are perceived more as national monuments worth preserving, rather than as centres of book circulation. A detailed study conducted by Paolo Traniello (2002) highlights the disproportion between the huge amount of volumes hosted by Italian institutions of this kind, and the almost immaterial number of actual users: as can be inferred from a report dating to 1865, of the four million books making up the Italian legacy to the newly formed Reign, almost none had been read that year28, not to mention the fact that libraries mainly contained ancient books and ecclesiastical texts, very few scientific publications, and virtually no modern or foreign works (Traniello 2002: 26, 27). It is easy to imagine that the readers availing themselves of this service belonged to the very restricted circle of the highly educated who had reached university level. In a period marking the highest expansion of a long-established reading practice in Great Britain, Italy ranks among the least literate countries in Western Europe, its regional fragmentation also hindering the formation of a common, unifying language: Confined to scholars, reading comes to be seen as inseparable from hard study, sacrifice, and noble purposes of elevation29. Although there is some evidence of a book production especially meant for the lower classes, and of scantily present circulating libraries (Traniello 2002: 62), at the beginning of the twentieth century, Italy is far from featuring a mass reading public, and very little sign can be detected of reading as a form of entertainment. The British and American experiences of public libraries, frequently and ostensibly taken as a model by Italian administrators, are at the same time censured for encouraging light literature. Public libraries have not yet been set up here, writes Guido Biagi, director of the Biblioteca MediceoLaurenziana in Florence in 1905, but should they become only reading cabinets, and collections of novelettes and short stories, it is far better not to have them, and the word library must not be used to cover this merchandise.30 (Traniello 2002: 114; translation mine). Sustained by both the secular establishment and the catholic church, reading is (and remains on the whole up to the sixties) either

348 Paola Venturi

an elitist activity for the happy few, or a pedagogical instrument to educate the masses, and enhance their moral values. Again, the level and expectations of real readers, mingled with the aura of sacredness surrounding the reading practice in Italy, cannot but have consequences for the norms governing the writing activity of authors and translators alike. In a nation divided by dialects, the nineteenth century writers effort to forge a shared modern literary language closely matches the idea of sacrifice implied in the act of reading. What emerges from this struggle is the pompos, partially Tuscan-based, artificial Italian, moulded by Alessandro Manzonis epigones, a yardstick against which the stylistic choices of all Italian authors were and are more or less overtly gauged to our day, whether or not they choose to conform to the model. Struggling with the Italian language, writes an Italian novelist in a recent newspaper article, with this unnatural, rigid, unvaried Tuscan proves very hard for those who write after Manzoni31. Writing in Italian defined as an unbending, capricious language amounts to fighting against a rigid cage of subjunctives, auxiliary verbs and consecutio, so as to force it to give you all it was not born to give. The stylistic macro-norm dominating the Italian literary polysystem has its origins in a set of highly formal literary dicta, from which it is very difficult to deviate: freedom of style, in Barbara Albertis words, is to be conquered with a gun (translation mine). Indeed, contemporary attempts to challenge this norm are often attacked by critics and reviewers: in a contribution to the literary supplement of La Stampa, a national Italian newspaper, Giorgio Ficara complains that contemporary novelists have renounced the continuity with their own tradition which equals literary quality to linguistic refinement in favour of a planetary idiolect, an airport language that he finds too plain:
Todays Italian writers have, in point of fact, renounced the continuity with Italian literature, while critics, on their part, in their small world, apply to that continuity, above all in linguistic terms: the Italian novel, for instance, chose from its very start (from Manzoni) and up to Gadda, to Fenoglio, not the way to narrative progression, but the linguistic way, a visible loom, audible in its creaking, [] which the present novelists forsake and ignore.32 (Ficara 2008: iii; translation mine)

The slightly derogatory tone with which deviations from the norm are rejected as unworthy of a high literary tradition, shows how powerfully the norm acts upon Italian cultural circles: those who write literature in the Italian language are constantly reminded of the stylistic standards they should conform to, and all attempts to stray from the beaten path (even those which are commercially successful) incur disapproval33. It may easily be foreseen that Italian translated literature, which is inscribed within the same framework, will be subject to similar constraints. In the course of

The translators immobility 349

the translating act, it will be hard for the translator, as it is for the Italian writer, to escape the weight of the language (in Ficaras terms), the more so if the source text is canonized, and its projected readers are mainly restricted to the highly educated (or, at most, to students) who wish to improve their knowledge, rather than enjoy reading in itself. In this respect, Italian versions of English modern classics confirm Even-Zohars observations on the peripheral position of translated literature within the literary polysystem of the receiving culture:
Contending that translated literature may maintain a peripheral position means that it constitutes a peripheral system within the polysystem, generally employing secondary models. In such a situation it has no influence on major processes and is modelled according to norms already conventionally established by an already dominant type in the target literature. Translated literature in this case becomes a major factor of conservatism. While the contemporary original literature might go on developing new norms and models, translated literature adheres to norms which have been rejected either recently or long before by the newly established center. (Even-Zohar 1978/2004: 202)

Italian translations of modern canonical books fit the image of this ossified systme dantan which preserves traditional taste, and is often fanatically guarded by the agents of secondary models against even minor changes (Even-Zohar 1978/2004: 202). Italian writers, readers, and translators alike, (in their capacity of readers-mediators-writers) have to move within the range of the strict norms of a target system that privileges a highly formal, traditional language over a less contrived style. The inflexible character of these norms is particularly noticeable in the Italian versions of English modern classics, where frequent register elevation and the somewhat rigid Italian syntax, closely mirroring the original, deviate from the more varied, less constrained language of the source texts, especially in dialogue construction. Seamus Heaneys translation of the Italian poem LAquilone (1897) by Giovanni Pascoli, presented by the writer in the course of a recent reading of his own works (University of Bologna at Forli, 18th June 2008), confirms these observations by way of contrast: in the English version, qualcosa [] dantico (something [] ancient) is turned into the simpler something older (qualcosa di pi vecchio); similarly, the term fanciulli (a formal word for children) acquires a more natural, almost spoken flavour in the expression us kids (noi bambini): the poetic register of the source text is subjected to a higher degree of variation in the target language, the whole poem thus acquiring a more spontaneous tone. A reverse process informs most translations of modern English canonized works into Italian, owing to the perceived prestige of the original and the norms set by the domestic culture, and thus restricting the translators range of available options34.

350 Paola Venturi

In the final analysis, the process of canonization of both ancient and modern works triggers a sense of deference towards the sacredness of the source, usually prompting a conscious and cautious translation of the original text which borders on immobility. This tends to produce an effect of littrarisation on the linguistic plane, so that elevated use of language in the target text always matches the high status of the source text, heightening the style and register of the original when this deviates from the standard. The workings of these norms are particularly evident in those cultures like Italy in which a very formal, somewhat artificial literary language is given preference, and an idea of hard labour, aimed for the most part at the enhancement of personal knowledge, is commonly associated with the prospective readership of great books. In this respect, there is little doubt that, following Ciceros distinction, Italian readers of foreign classics are supposed to read more for utilitas than for voluptas (Cavallo 1995: 41). But the modern English books which have achieved canonical status were first and foremost also meant to provide pleasurable entertainment, and might deserve to reach a wider potential target audience, without being confined to translational immobility. And yet again, as suggested by Machiavellis passionate description of his reading experience, a high and a low level can coexist, and even mingle, in the consumption of the classics: minor poets like Ovid can be read for pleasure; while at the same time, the study of the ancients for which the writer prepares himself almost religiously is described through words which, surprisingly, link up with voluptas rather than utilitas:
After leaving the wood, I walk to a small stream; and thence to a bird-catching ground of mine. I have a book with me, either Dante or Petrarch, or one of these minor poets, like Tibullus, Ovid and the like: I read about their amorous passions, and their loves remind me of mine: I cherish this thought for a while. [] When night falls, I come back home, and I enter my cabinet: and on the doorstep I divest myself of my everyday garments, covered in mud and mire, and I wear my regal, courtly robes; thus suitably attired, I enter the ancient courts of ancient men; where I am lovingly received, and I nourish myself on that food which solum is mine, and which I was born for. Where I am not ashamed to talk to them, and to ask them why they acted as they did; and out of humanity, they answer my questions; and for a full four hours, I do not feel any boredom, I forget all cares, I do not fear poverty, and death does not frighten me: all of myself is transferred into them.35 (Machiavelli 1984: 425426; translation mine)

Five centuries after Machiavellis lifetime, Italy seems to have forgotten the pleasurable side of reading, at least as far as great books are concerned. The classics are sifted through with the aim of gathering useful information and instruction, rather than for the aesthetic pleasure they afford. Accordingly, the translators tend to erase all signs of pure, uninstructive aesthetic pleasure from their productions.

The translators immobility

351

Other traditions, of course, may display a more balanced attitude to the translation of classics36 and with other forces counteracting the elevating pull of canonization Seamus Heaney, after all, does translate fanciulli as us kids. But it is Italys unbalanced attitude to the classics, and to literature in general, which makes it an invaluable field of research for the empirical study of a phenomenon common to all Western cultures.

Notes
1. A distinction might be drawn here between translation act and translation event (Toury 1998: 19), the latter being the outcome of the former in terms of actual product inscribed in a certain context. It is through the analysis of a translation event that norms can be inferred. 2. All the sections of the target texts which display one of the strategies outlined below are italicized. 3. Only recently have two Italian publishing houses (Mondadori and Feltrinelli) felt the need to re-translate this work, both using the same translation by Nadia Fusini. 4. In analysing a French translation of Kafkas Prozess, Berman (1999: 39) distinguishes between littralit (literalness) and littrarisation (literarization): [] la diffrence peut paratre mince, mais entre arme dun livre et un livre la main , entre dtacha son regard et leva les yeux , il y a toute la distance entre la littrarisation et la littralit . Applique chaque phrase de loeuvre, la lgre touche de littrature de Vialatte finit par produire un autre Kafka, et bien sr par biffer sa langue (the difference may seem slight, but between armed with a book and a book in his hand, between he lifted his gaze and he looked up, there is all the distance separating literarization and literalness. Applied to all the sentences of the work, Vialattes light literary touch ends up producing another Kafka by crossing out his language; translation mine). 5. On aboutit ceci, que la traduction est plus belle (formellement) que loriginal. [] Lesthtique vient ici complter la logique de la rationalisation : tout discours doit tre un beau discours. En posie, cela donne la potisation ; pour la prose, une rhtorisation . [] La rhtorisation embellissante consiste produire des phrases lgantes en utilisant pour ainsi dire loriginal comme matire premire. Lennoblissement nest donc quune r-criture, un exercice de style partir (et aux dpens) de loriginal. 6. Toury (1998: 31) draws attention to the fact that it is not only producers, but also consumers of literature who play a role in the activation of norms. 7. Berman (1999: 51) observes that it is precisely this dimension of polylinguisme (polylingualism), a certain mal crire (bad writing), or non-contrle (non-control) typical of great fictional works, which tends to be disregarded and flattened the most in translation. 8. Jane Tompkins (1984 2001: 133, 134) argues that a literary classic is a product of all those circumstances of which it has traditionally been supposed to be independent, and that the literary works that now make up the canon do so because the groups that have an investment in them are culturally the most influential.

352 Paola Venturi 9. Cf. Folena (1991) on the medieval concept of translation as a free transfer of content, involving re-creation rather than close adherence to the letter of the source text. 10. Cf. Morini (2006: 79, 80) for a detailed comparative analysis of the source and target texts, as well as an exhaustive study of translation theory and practice in Tudor times. 11. On a more general plane, these features may fall into what Lefevre (1982/2004: 252) calls refractions: It is through translations combined with critical refractions (introductions, notes, commentary accompanying the translation, articles on it) that a work of literature produced outside a given system takes its place in that new system. It is through refractions in the social systems educational set-up that canonization is achieved and, more importantly, maintained. A similar concept is developed by Berman (1995: 17) when he identifies as translation the process through which a foreign work establishes itself in the target culture by means of nontranslational textual or even non-textual transformations, including criticism. 12. Il lettore umanista nellet della stampa [] non si attendeva che i classici giungessero intatti sulla sua scrivania. Quanto pi autore e argomento erano importanti, tanto pi profondamente dovevano essere immersi in blocchi di commento. Infine, editori e lettori umanisti decisero che anche i testi letterari latini di argomento non classico abbisognavano di glosse; non cera altro modo per legittimarne le pretese letterarie. [] Paradossalmente dunque, il testo umanistico era tornato nella posizione dellauctoritas medievale. [] Ma il nuovo commentario imprigionava e modellava il testo con altrettanto vigore di quelli antichi. Incoronato dallesegesi umanistica, il testo appariva importante non solo per se stesso, ma anche in quanto legato, una volta ancora, ad un sistema di istruzione e di interpretazione. 13. Laura Salmon (2003: 64) writes: Non ce niente dentro la Bibbia che sia materialmente sacro; il sacro del testo sacro sta fuori, nella realt extratestuale (There is nothing inside the Bible that is materially sacred; the sacred of the sacred text lies outside, in extra-textual reality; translation mine). 14. Lapproccio epistemologico indica chiaramente che la sacralit di un testo come fattore soggettivo ha enorme importanza [] Tradurre la Bibbia evidentemente non la stessa cosa che tradurre un articolo di giornale: ma non perch la Bibbia la parola di Dio, bens perch verr recepita come tale dalla maggior parte dei destinatari della traduzione. Le due cose sono profondamente diverse. 15. In his survey of English late seventeenth- and eighteenth-century translation theory, T.R. Steiner identifies as a general norm that sympathetic identification between translator and original which was regarded [sic] the core of successful translation, and emphasizes the wide talent, the almost Olympian stature which was required of translators of classical texts (Steiner 1975: 58, 53). 16. As Berman points out, [une] traduction nacquiert auto-consistance quen se constituant comme un texte (ou une oeuvre ), et cela, elle ne le peut quen se fondant sur ltat littraire ou potique contemporain de sa langue (A translation acquires auto-consistency only constituting itself as a text (or a work), and it can do this only by founding itself on the contemporary literary and poetic conditions of its language Brisset 1990: 15). 17. Actually, these terms appear in Tourys analysis of nineteenth-century Hebrew translations of Goethes poems.

The translators immobility 353 18. A similar process of register elevation due to the influence of target culture norms in the translation of modern classics is highlighted by Rodica Dimitriu (2006) in her study of four subsequent Romanian versions of Robinson Crusoe. In the canonized translation by Petru Comarnescu (1943), at the level of register, the general style is more formal than that of the English text. This has to do with Romanian norms when translating classics, a status [sic] that Defoe had reached in 1943 (Dimitriu 2006: 78). 19. Like Wolff s intendierte Leser (intended reader; Wolff 1971), Ecos idea of Model Reader (Eco 1979) relates to the image of the reader that the author has in mind an idealized reader who cooperates with the author from an interpretive point of view, and shares the same lexical and stylistic heritage. On a slightly different plane, Isers implied reader is not inscribed in an empirical outside reality, but has his roots firmly planted in the structure of the text (Iser 1978: 34). 20. See Dominique Julia (1995: 286) for a study of the strict conditions that regulated the access to the sacred texts and their translations in Catholic countries during the Counter-Reformation. A complete translation of both the Old an the New Testament was not available in Italy until 1778. 21. Martin Luthers claim (in his 1530 Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen) to have used the authentic language spoken by German people in his translation of the Bible, so that they could reach salvation through the full knowledge of the Word of God, is well-known: Youve got to go out and ask the mother in her house, the children in the street, the ordinary man at the market. Watch their mouths move when talk[ing], and translate that way. Then theyll understand you and realize that youre speaking German to them (Robinson 1997: 87; trans. Douglas Robinson). 22. A special, although peripheral, mention must be made here of the contribution of Scotland to the spreading of literacy and reading: The reading habit was democratized above the border long before it was farther south, thanks to the strong Calvinist tradition of Bible study and the consequent emphasis upon schooling for all. Despite the terrible poverty, in the eighteenth century the Scottish educational system was responsible for an incidence of literacy and book reading strikingly greater than in England (Altick 1957: 9, 10). 23. From the 1580s to the Root and Branch petition of 1640, which attacked the prevalence of lascivious, idle and unprofitable Books and Pamphlets, Play-Books and Ballads, the Puritan divines ceaselessly denounced the reading of books which offered no more than idle entertainment (Altick 1957: 26). 24. Even the introduction of railway travel in Great Britain seems to have given impulse to the consumption of books. From the 1850s, what became known as railway literature cheap books bought and sold at railway terminals constituted a large part of the market. 25. The straightforwardness of Dickens words is remarkable: The English are, so far as I know, the hardest-worked people on whom the sun shines. Be content if, in their wretched intervals of pleasure, they read for amusement and do no worse (Altick 1957: 379). 26. See Ermanno Detti (2002: xii). 27. The idea that amusement in reading can spoil the seriousness of the educational process led a Commission of the Italian Ministry for Education to ban Pinocchio from some Italian schools

354 Paola Venturi a few years after its publication in 1883: apparently, the book was so gay and frivolous as to deprive teaching of all serious import (Detti 2002: 5). 28. It might be interesting to note that mechanics institutes (set up in Britain for utilitarian purposes at the beginning of the nineteenth century, as a form of adult education) featured by 1850 610 institute libraries that owned almost 700,000 volumes including popular works by George Eliot and Ruskin and circulated 1,820,000 a year (Altick 1957: 198). 29. Even when attempts are made at supporting the spread of reading habits among common people, in the decades following the unification, the guiding principles remain fixed along the same lines: as transpires from the words of Desiderio Chilovi, a librarian advocating, in 1904, the free distribution of books to all citizens, reading serves the purpose of spreading culture, fostering education, and diffusing knowledge which may be useful for the intellectual, moral and economic progress of Italian citizens (Traniello 2002: 122). 30. Da noi le public libraries non sono sorte ancora ma quando dovessero diventare soltanto gabinetti di lettura, e raccolte di romanzetti e novelle, meglio assai che non ci siano, e che la parola biblioteca non sia adoperata a coprire codesta merce. 31. Barbara Alberti, Io e i classici, Specchio (La Stampa, monthly supplement), 24 May 2008. 32. [Gli] scrittori italiani oggi hanno, di fatto, rinunciato alla continuit con la letteratura italiana, mentre i critici, da parte loro, nel loro piccolo mondo, richiamano a quella continuit, innanzitutto linguistica: il romanzo italiano, ad esempio, fin da principio (da Manzoni) e fino a Gadda, a Fenoglio, scelse non la via della progressione narrativa, ma la via linguistica, un telaio visibile e udibile nel suo scricchiolio, [] che gli attuali romanzieri abbandonano e ignorano. Giorgio Ficara, Tocca al critico ristabilire il vero, Tuttolibri (La Stampa, weekly supplement), 3 May 2008. 33. An article contained in the literary supplement of the financial newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore (25th may 2008) shows an apparently more balanced approach to this issue: according to the journalist and academic, Giuseppe Antonelli, the current Italian used by novelists has taken the correct, fluent, mildly brilliant or moderately literary language of modern translations of English best-sellers as its model. This linguistic practice, however, is quite openly criticized: the article warns writers against a normalized, flattened, syntactically simplified language, a neostandard, an anonymous traduttese (translationese) stigmatized as an apathetic non-style. Again, the norm brings back to a limited field of options which tend to exclude all linguistic forms perceived as low, or colloquial, from its horizon. 34. Even-Zohar (1990: 40) distinguishes between the availability and the accessibility of a specific repertoire: for a producer, or a consumer, to make use of it, the repertoire has to be available, that is legitimately usable not only accessible. The tendency, as Toury points out, is normally to adhere to prevalent norms (Toury 1995: 163), rather than defy them. 35. Partitomi dal bosco, io me ne vo a una fonte; e di quivi in un mio uccellare. Ho un libro sotto, o Dante o Petrarca, o uno di questi poeti minori, come Tibullo, Ovidio e simili: leggo quelle loro amorose passioni, e quelli loro amori ricrdonmi de mia: godomi un pezzo di questo pensiero. [] Venuta la sera, mi ritorno in casa, ed entro nel mio scrittoio; e in sulluscio mi spoglio quella veste cotidiana, piena di fango e di loto, e mi metto panni reali et curiali; e rivesto condecentemente, entro nelle antique corti delli antiqui uomini; dove, da loro ricevuto

The translators immobility 355 amorevolmente, mi pasco di quel cibo che solum mio e che io nacqui per lui. Dove io non mi vergogno parlar con loro e domandarli della ragione delle loro azioni; e quelli per loro umanit mi rispondono; e non sento, per quattro ore di tempo, alcuna noia, sdimentico ogni affanno, non temo la povert, non mi sbigottisce la morte: tutto mi transferisco in loro. 36. Observing the francophone polysystem may prove particularly fruitful here. In presenting the outcome of the GRETI group re-translation into French of William Faulkners The Hamlet (1940) at a lecture given in Forl (University of Bologna at Forl, SITLeC Department, 4th May 2009; cf. Chapdelaine and G. Lane-Mercier 2001), Canadian scholar Annick Chapdelaine pointed to the dichotomy between the official French versions of Faulkners work which silences and elevates its vernacular voices for the sake of the bien crire exagonal (exagonal referring to the geographical shape of France) and the more mimetic approach of the GRETI translation, which draws its sociolects from the Qubcois repertoire, and moves within the less constrained domain of that peripheral system. Even more noticeable is the shift between the partially sanitized translation of The Hamlet by Hilleret, published by Gallimard in the economical folio edition of 1959, and the 2000 Pliade version revised by Coupaye and Gresset (also for Gallimard), in which virtually all the illegitimate vernacular forms disappear. One may infer that the French literary system is inscribed within the same norms dominating Italian culture: when Faulkner enters the sacred wood of the classics and his works gain access to the prestigious Bibliothque de la Pliade, The Hamlet undergoes a canonizing treatment resulting in a respectable version nettoye (polished version) in which the oral code is sacrificed to a more elegant literary style.

References
Altick, Richard D. 1957. The English Common Reader. A Social History of the Mass Reading Public 18001900. Chicago-London: Phoenix Books-The University of Chicago Press. Austen, Jane. 1816/1998. Emma. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Austen, Jane. 2002. Emma. Trans. Anna Luisa Zazo. Milano: Mondadori. Bassnett, Susan. 1997. Text Types and Power Relations. Anna Trosborg, ed. Text Typology and Translation. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 8798. Benjamin, Walter. 1961. Illuminationen. Ausgewhlte Schriften. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Berman, Antoine. 1995. Pour une critique des traductions : John Donne. Paris: Gallimard. Berman, Antoine. 1999. La traduction et la lettre ou lauberge du lointain. Paris: ditions du Seuil. Bly, Robert. 1983. The Eight Stages of Translation. Boston: Rowan Tree Press. Brisset, Annie. 1990. Sociocritique de la traduction. Thtre et altrit au Qubec (19681988). Longueil: Les ditions du Prambule. Bruni, Leonardo. 1996. Opere letterarie e politiche. Torino: Utet. Cavallo, Guglielmo. 1995. Tra volumen e codex. La lettura nel mondo romano. Cavallo and Chartier 1995. 3769. Cavallo, Guglielmo and Roger Chartier, eds. 1995. Storia della lettura nel mondo occidentale. Bari: Laterza-ditions du Seuil. Chapdelaine, Annick and Gillian Lane Mercier, eds. 2001. Faulkner. Une exprience de retraduction. Montral: Presses de lUniversit de Montral. Detti, Ermanno. 1987/2002. Il piacere di leggere. Firenze: La Nuova Italia. Dimitriu, Rodica. 2006. From Robinson Crusoe to Robinson in Wallachia. The intricacies of the

356 Paola Venturi reception process. Anthony Pym, Miriam Shlesinger, Zuzana Jettmarov, eds. Sociocultural Aspects of Translating and Interpreting. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 7382. Eco, Umberto. 1979. Lector in fabula. Milano: Bompiani. Eliot, George. 187172/1965. Middlemarch. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Eliot, George. 1995. Middlemarch. Trans. Michele Bottalico. Milano: Mondadori. Eliot, T.S. 1975. Selected Prose of T.S. Eliot. London: Faber & Faber. Even-Zohar, Itamar. 1978/2004. The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem. Lawrence Venuti, ed. The Translation Studies Reader. New York-London: Routledge. 199204. Even-Zohar, Itamar. 1990. Polysystem Studies. Tel Aviv-Durham: The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics-Duke University Press. [Poetics Today 11:1] Fish, Stanley. 1980. Is There a Text in this Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities. Cambridge (Mass.)-London: Harvard University Press Folena, Gianfranco. 1991. Volgarizzare e tradurre. Torino: Einaudi. Gilmont, Jean-Franois. 1995. Riforma protestante e lettura. Cavallo and Chartier 1995. 243 75. Grafton, Anthony. 1995. Lumanista come lettore. Cavallo and Chartier 1995. 199242. Halliday, M.A.K. and Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman. Iser, Wolfgang. 1978. The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Julia, Dominique. 1995. Letture e controriforma. Cavallo and Chartier 1995. 277316. Lefevere, Andr. 1982/2004. Mother Courages Cucumbers: Text, System and Reflection in a Theory of Literature. Lawrence Venuti, ed. The Translation Studies Reader. New York-London: Routledge. 239255. Machiavelli, Niccol. 1984. Lettere. Torino: Einaudi. Marco, Josep. 2004. Translating style and styles of translating: Henry James and Edgar Allan Poe in Catalan. Language and Literature 13:1. 7390. Montanari, Franco. 1991. Tradurre dal greco in greco. Salvatore Nicosia, ed. La traduzione dei testi classici. Teoria prassi storia. Napoli: DAuria. 22136. Morini, Massimiliano. 2006. Tudor Translation in Theory and Practice. Aldershot: Ashgate. Plath, Sylvia. 2002. Opere. Trans. Anna Ravano. Milano: Mondadori. Robinson, Douglas, ed. 1997. Western Translation Theory from Herodotus to Nietzsche. Manchester: St Jerome. Salmon, Laura. 2003. Teoria della traduzione. Storia, scienza, professione. Milano: Vallardi. Scarpa, Federica. 2001. La traduzione specializzata: Lingue speciali e mediazione linguistica. Milano: Hoepli. Schleiermacher, Friedrich. 1816. ber die verschiedenen Methoden des bersetzens. Abhandlungen der philosophischen Klasse der Kniglich-Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften aus den Jahren 18121813. Berlin: in der Realschul-Buchhandlung. 14372. Smith, James Harry, ed. 1951. The Great Critics. New York: W.W. Norton. Steiner, George. 1975. After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation. New York- London: Oxford University Press. Tompkins, Jane. 2001. Masterpiece theater: The politics of Hawthornes literary reputation. James L. Machor and Philip Goldstein, eds. Reception Study. From literary theory to cultural studies. New York-London: Routledge. 13354. Toury, Gideon. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and beyond. Amsterdam- Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

The translators immobility 357 Toury, Gideon. 1998. A Handful of Paragraphs on Translation and Norms . Current Issues in Language and Society 5. 1032. Traniello, Paolo. 2002. Storia delle biblioteche in Italia dallUnit a oggi. Bologna: il Mulino. Venuti, Lawrence. 1995. The Translators Invisibility. A History of Translation. London: Routledge. Venuti, Lawrence. 1998. The Scandals of Translation. Towards an ethics of difference. LondonNew York: Routledge. Venuti, Lawrence. 2004. Translation, Community, Utopia. Lawrence Venuti, ed. The Translation Studies Reader. New York-London: Routledge. 482502. Wolff, Erwin. 1971. Der interdierte Leser: Oberlegungen und Beispiele zur Einfhrung eines literaturwissenschaftlichen Begriffs. Poetica 4. 14166. Woolf, Virginia. 1927/1987. To the Lighthouse. London: Grafton Books. Woolf, Virginia. 1992. Gita al faro. Trans. Giulia Celenza. Milano: Garzanti

Rsum
Les traductions sont des phnomnes de la intrieur de la culture cible. Cependant, la perception des textes source a son impact sur la manire dont les traductions se dfinissent dans la langue darrive. Une telle conception est dune vidence particulire dans le cas des textes classiques : ds que les traducteurs se proccupent doeuvres littraires qui ont une position-clef dans les cultures de dpart/darrive, ils optent pour des stratgies littrales et de littrarisation qui dnotent une fascination en quelque sorte religieuse : dune part, lambition de toucher aussi peu que possible la surface de loriginal et, dautre part, la dtermination de reproduire les qualits reconnues comme classiques de loeuvre en question, mme, la rigueur, lorsquelles ne sy prsentent pas de manire objective. Dans le prsent article, Paola Venturi examine comment au juste l ide de loeuvre classique oriente la thorie et les pratiques en matire de traduction. Elle fonde ses observations thoriques sur lobservation des traductions italiennes de classiques anglais modernes. Le dcalage manifeste conditionn par un statut historique bien particulier entre les audiences source et cible, ainsi que le respect de la part des traducteurs pour loriginal tout prestigieux et en quelque sorte sacr, tendent gnrer des versions italiennes bien plus mcaniques et lgantes que leurs quivalents anglais.

Mots-clefs : tude descriptive de la traduction, littrature compare, normes en matire de traduction, littrature religieuse, oeuvres classiques, histoire de la lecture

Authors address
Paola Venturi University of Bologna at Forl Dipartimento di Studi Interdisciplinari su Traduzione, Lingue e Culture (SITLEC) Corso Diaz 64 47100 Forl Italy paoven02@libero.it