SHIFTING FORM, TRANSFORMING CONTENT: STYLISTIC ALTERATIONS IN THE GERMAN TRANSLATIONS OF HEMINGWAY’S EARLY FICTION By Copyright 2009 Christopher Dick Ph.D., University of Kansas 2009 Submitted to the Department of English and the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Kansas In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy ______________________________ James Hartman, Chair ______________________________ James Carothers ______________________________ Philip Barnard ______________________________ Janet Sharistanian ______________________________ Frank Baron Date defended: 20 November 2009 The Dissertation Committee for Christopher Dick certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: SHIFTING FORM, TRANSFORMING CONTENT: STYLISTIC ALTERATIONS IN THE GERMAN TRANSLATIONS OF HEMINGWAY’S EARLY FICTION Committee: ______________________________ James Hartman, Chair ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ Date approved: 20 November 2009 ii Abstract The general purpose of this study is to investigate the German translations of the early fiction of Ernest Hemingway. Unfortunately, the work of translators is too frequently minimized or ignored, and this dissertation seeks to highlight the inevitable shifts that occur as a text is moved from source language to target language. The end result of such a study is not a random list of translational anomalies but rather a better holistic understanding of the translated text. As Heidegger reminds us, “Every translation is . . . interpretation” (107), and in this study I look to explore how Annemarie Horschitz interprets (and ultimately diminishes) Hemingway’s important stylistic techniques. These alterations in translation, as my study shows, are not “merely” stylistic adjustments. Hemingway’s stylistic choices—metaphors in The Sun Also Rises that represent post-war reality, repetition in the stories of Men Without Women that reinforces an ironic vision, understatement in A Farewell to Arms that is a reaction against traditional war rhetoric, and fragmentation in In Our Time that reflects a varied and order-defying worldview—are linguistic manifestations of Hemingway’s principal concerns. By modifying the surface-level linguistic features, Horschitz subsequently alters the conceptual framework of Hemingway’s fiction. To accomplish this analysis, I ground my study in translation theory and stylistics. My investigation of the translated texts is supported by various translation theories, including Schleiermacher’s distinction between foreignizing and domesticating approaches to translation and Nida’s analysis of equivalence. In utilizing stylistics, I lean heavily on Halliday’s analysis of functional grammar and Lakoff’s work with conceptual metaphor. I also aim to contextualize my study of Hemingway in translation by giving attention to Hemingway’s early literary career, his position as an interwar writer, and his relationship to Germany. The hope is that such a study might result in a deeper awareness of the translation process, a clearer understanding of the German translations of Hemingway’s texts, and a deeper appreciation of Hemingway’s stylistic choices. Christopher Dick English Department University of Kansas November 2009 ii i Acknowledgements Initial thanks go to colleagues, administrators, and students at Tabor College for flexibility, patience, and support as I have undertaken this long and worthwhile journey. Special thanks to my colleagues in the English Department—Deborah Penner and Sara Hill—who have had to compensate for my occasional absences. Thanks also to family and friends. Thanks Mom and Dad for instilling in me a love of learning and a tenacious interest in language, literature, and history. I also am deeply appreciative to extended family members for words of encouragement along the way. Additional thanks go to a supportive group of friends who faithfully humored me by listening to my belabored explanations of my research. My deep appreciation is also extended to my mentors at the University of Kansas. As I embarked on this project, many warned me that I would not be able to find professors who would work with me on such a unique topic. I feel very fortunate to have been able to match my research interests with a group of professors with unique talents and areas of specialization. Professor Sharistanian, your course on World War I literature provided the context for much of this dissertation. Professor Carothers, thank you for reintroducing me to Hemingway and giving me a great appreciate for his work. Professor Barnard, your interest in translation and translation studies helped me develop a theoretical framework for the paper. And Professor Baron, thank you for working with me on specific German translation issues and taking repeated interest in my work. And deep gratitude goes to my advisor, Professor Hartman, for not only your classes on grammar and metaphor that inspired this dissertation but also your tireless help in guiding me through the latter half of my doctoral studies. Thanks to all of you for your help as I have worked on this dissertation. Your suggestions and encouragement have been much appreciated. Finally, profound thanks to my wife, Christine Crouse-Dick. Thank you for your patience, love, and support throughout my graduate school endeavor. Thank you also for your interest in my research and the numerous hours spent reading, editing, and commenting on my work. You have read more about Hemingway, stylistics, and translation than you ever cared to! Thank you. iv Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Chapter One Translation Analysis and Stylistics: Challenges and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Chapter Two “A Representative Poet of Our Time”: Hemingway in German(y): 1922-1933 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Chapter Three Shifting the Iceberg: Conceptual Metaphoric Loss in the Translation of The Sun Also Rises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Chapter Four Men Without Women and the Translation of Ironic Repetition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Chapter Five Transforming Frederic Henry’s Narrative: In einem andern Land and Translational Embellishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .172 Chapter Six Shoring Up the Fragments: The Cohesive Translation of In Our Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 v Introduction Jede Übersetzung ist aber schon Auslegung. (107) —Martin Heidegger In 1946 a letter written by Ernest Hemingway found its way from the peaceful Finca Vigía to publisher Ernst Rowohlt in war-ravaged Germany. It had been fourteen years since a Hemingway text had been published in Germany and thirteen years since Hemingway’s name had infamously appeared on Wolfgang Herrman’s list of un-German literature—a move that led to book burnings and bans. Hemingway, following the end of hostilities in Europe, was anxious to restart the publication of his works in German. After breaking the ice by engaging in some good-natured ribbing regarding the outcome of the war, Hemingway mentions the woman responsible for the German translations of his works to date: “Please write to Anne Marie (sic) Horschitz for me and tell her I look forward to having her translate my works again. She was the finest translator I ever had in any language” (SL 615). What Hemingway was basing this glowing assessment on is unfortunately never specified. Hemingway’s grasp of German was limited compared to his knowledge of Italian, Spanish, or French, and so he was certainly unable to read and comment on the quality of the German translations of his work with any authority. Perhaps his remarks should be taken merely as the ever-strapped-for-cash writer’s attempt to ingratiate himself to Rowohlt in hopes of tapping into another source of funding, since in the same letter Hemingway mentions the financial advantages to renewed publication in Germany. Whatever the reason for the praise, Hemingway’s opinion, combined with the author’s popularity in German-speaking countries, seems 1 to have provided for several decades the definitive proof of the overall quality of Horschitz’s German translations. This positive assessment persisted despite intermittent critical voices that cast doubts on the quality of her translations. Eighty years since the translations appeared, however, the basic question remains: Are Horschitz’s translations of Hemingway’s texts—the only authorized translations of Hemingway into German—“good”? Unfortunately, this simplistic and misleading question is frequently the first and only one raised concerning not only Horschitz’s translations of Hemingway but also most literary translations. The frequent pronouncements of translations as “good” or “bad” not only oversimplifies the act of translation but also tends to close the door on future research. If the translation is deemed “good,” readers simply trust the translated text as true and faithful to the original. If the translation develops a negative reputation, it is dismissed by critics as inaccurate with the expressed hope that a future translator will eventually get it right. While questions about the quality of translations are valid, such evaluations of translations often appear without a careful study of the texts in question. More often, though, readers, and even critics and scholars, completely ignore the fact that what they are reading in the translated text are not the author’s words and assume that the translator is a personality-less conduit through which the source text passes unmodified. This misguided assumption has led to a phenomenon that Lawrence Venuti refers to as the translator’s invisibility: 2 A translated text . . . is judged acceptable . . . when it reads fluently, when the absence of any linguistic or stylistic peculiarities makes it seem transparent, giving the appearance that it reflects the foreign writer’s personality or intention or the essential meaning of the foreign text—the appearance, in other words, that the translation is not in fact a translation, but the “original.” (TI 1) As Andre Lefevere reminds us, however, “Translators . . . are image makers, exerting the power of subversion under the guise of objectivity” (6-7). While some theorists might resist labeling translation as subversive, most would agree that translation is far from an unbiased activity. In fact, the very act of translation represents a particular reading of the text. Responding to those who see translation as an objective enterprise, Susan Bassnett argues that “it is absurd to see translation as anything other than a creative literary activity, for translators are all the time engaging with texts first as readers and then as rewriters, as recreators of that text in another language” (“Writing” 174). In my dissertation I aim to highlight Horschitz’s role as a recreator of Hemingway, to clarify her interpretation (whether intentional or unintentional) of Hemingway’s texts, and to demonstrate the undervalued significance of the translation process. The end result of such a study is not a simple pronouncement of the translation as good or bad; it is, rather, an increased understanding of forces at work in language, in the text as a whole, and in source and target cultures. 3 In recent years, thanks to growth of translation studies, the critical focus has begun to shift away from unsubstantiated evaluations of translations (such as Hemingway’s own comments about Horschitz’s work) to careful examinations of shifts that inevitably occur in translation. My dissertation provides such an examination of translation shifting by analyzing the German translations of Hemingway’s early fiction. I argue that an understanding of this shifting is important for three primary reasons: 1) it reveals the linguistic and cultural complexity of the translation process; 2) it highlights the importance of stylistics for literary analysis; and 3) it allows for a reassessment of interpretations of Hemingway’s early fiction— the original English versions and the German-language iterations. For Hemingway’s prose, these translational modifications are significant. While not discussing the art of translation specifically, Hemingway himself in Death in the Afternoon indicates the importance of such transformations. In a passage frequently quoted in stylistic analyses of Hemingway, the author outlines his now- famous iceberg theory: If a writer of prose knows enough about what he is writing about he may omit things that he knows and the reader, if the writer is writing truly enough, will have a feeling of those things as strongly as though the writer had stated them. The dignity of movement of an ice-berg is due to only one-eighth of it being above water. (192) Providing his own metaphoric take on T.S. Eliot’s objective correlative, Hemingway indicates that if the right words are chosen, the reader will be able to construct 4 accurately the hidden material underneath, what Carlos Baker refers to as the “substructure of symbolic meaning” that is evident in Hemingway’s early novels (Writer xiv). This precise style of writing may even be more evident in Hemingway’s short fiction. In an analysis of In Our Time, Linda Wagner refers to Hemingway’s “tight writing,” which demands that readers “value every word, every scene, every character . . .” (126). So what happens when Hemingway’s carefully chosen words are translated into another language? How does the inevitable distortion of Hemingway’s “tight writing” alter the “substructure of symbolic meaning” that is so crucial for a reading of the texts? These questions provide the foundation upon which my dissertation is built. After outlining key issues in translation and stylistics in Chapter 1, I devote a chapter to a general discussion of Hemingway’s early connections to Germany and the translation of Hemingway’s texts into German. I then turn to translation issues that emerge in German translations of Hemingway’s early major works: The Sun Also Rises (1926; translated 1928), Men Without Women (1927; translated 1929), A Farewell to Arms (1929; translated 1930), and In Our Time (1925; translated 1932). My claim is that the German translations of Hemingway’s early fiction represent a surprising and important loss in complexity, texture, depth, and content. In his insightful study of translation, John Sallis observes that there is a high probability that translations will “have the effect of flattening the text, of closing off possibilities, of resolving multiplicities that remain intact as such in the original” (76). I seek to uncover how this flattening occurs in Horschitz’s translations and what the 5