![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
In the past two decades, the field of translation studies has increasingly focused on the role of ideology in literary translation and cross-cultural transfer. This paper presents findings from the close textual comparison of original works of Hebrew literature and their English translations published in the United States during the 1970s and 1980s. I specify translation strategies that have had ideological effects on the source texts, and demonstrate how historically or ethically charged subject matter was manipulated so as to subdue “problematic” aspects of the text for the (largely Jewish) target audience. The two major categories of manipulations had to do with the moral dimension of the portrayal of Israel and Israeli society, particularly in subject matter related to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict; and with the relationship between Israel and other nations, and between Israel and Diaspora Jews. As stressed by recent sociological studies of translation, the translations can be seen both as reflective of contemporary socio-political trends of thought, and as practices playing an unseen role in strengthening these trends.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes on contributor
Omri Asscher is a postdoctoral fellow at the Ruderman Program at the University of Haifa. His work deals with cultural and ideological aspects of literary translation, and the interaction between Israeli and Anglophone cultures. Articles by him have appeared in international and Israeli journals.
Notes
1. For a history of the translation from Hebrew in the United States in the first half of the twentieth century, see Asscher (Citation2014a). In general, relatively few works were translated from Hebrew and published in America during this period, and these were mostly anchored in the shtetl experience of Eastern Europe. Hebrew literature's preoccupation with life in Palestine and the national and cultural revival of the people was scarcely represented. This was distinctly transformed in the 1950s and 1960s, in the subject matter of the selected works and in their reception, although the scope of translation changed more gradually.
2. These figures rely on the bibliographical database of Hebrew works in English translation compiled in Amit (Citation2008), in particular 227–253 and 281–286, and the tables on 63–64. Amit's is the most exhaustive bibliography available of English translations of Hebrew works. For an explanation about the sources for the database, their advantages and disadvantages, and the reasons why his bibliography cannot be complete, see Amit (Citation2008, 12–14). While the figures I present here refer to all the translations done from Hebrew in the 1970s and 1980s, including those of non-fiction books, works of literature have consistently composed a sizeable number of the translations, as shown in Amit (Citation2008, 61–62). My figures are different from Amit's because I focus on translation in the United States; unlike Amit, I did not include any English translations published in Israel or England in my count. These (much fewer) titles were not distributed in the United States in the same way as those published by American publishers and did not attain the same number of reviews; in general, they were not available to American readers in the same way as titles published in America. The rise in the number of English translations of Hebrew titles, particularly those published by commercial publishers in America, would continue at least through the 1990s.
3. Mintz (Citation2001, 249) explains that exact sales figures are unattainable, as they are regarded as proprietary information, and publishers are not willing to disclose them for various reasons.
4. Unlike Alter and Shaked, Mintz is sceptical about a truly meaningful integration of Hebrew literature into Jewish–American discourse. He attributes this, among other things, to the fact that “the difficult and problematic knowledge of Israel provided by reading Israeli literature [ … ] is the kind of demystifying knowledge that many American Jews would prefer not to have” (Mintz Citation2001, 61).
5. Wolf refers here not only to the actual translations but also to the selection of titles for translation. While this is not the subject of this paper, it is, of course, crucial for the mediation of a foreign literature in the target culture. Indeed, Hebrew works were selected for translation into English not according to literary criteria alone. For example, S. Yizhar's 1949 subversive “Khirbet Khizeh,” which describes the expulsion of Palestinians from their village by an Israeli department in the War of Independence, did not appear in English for six decades, even though it has been considered a cornerstone of Hebrew literature (and while other, less canonical stories by Yizhar were translated, not to mention dozens of stories by less important writers).
6. I thank Erez Volk for calling my attention to this source.
7. Hillel Halkin, Nicholas de Lange, Dalya Bilu, Yehuda Safran and Mildred Budny described working in close collaboration with the authors in the translation process (Halkin and de Lange with Amos Oz, Bilu with David Shahar, Safran and Budny with Benjamin Tammuz). Dorothea Shefer described rather little interaction with Amnon Jackont and Yitzhak Ben-Ner, and added that, as far as she remembered, there was no editor involved in the work on Jackont's novel. Philip Simpson could not be reached. Misha Louvish is no longer alive.
8. Yitzhak Ben-Ner, Aharon Megged and A.B. Yehoshua told me that they were unaware of the changes made to their works, and were displeased by them. Amos Oz wrote me that he remembered nothing of the changes, done so long ago, but that in any case his considerations were never political. Amnon Jackont could not be reached. David Shahar, Yoram Kaniuk and Benjamin Tammuz are no longer alive.
9. The first three subcategories overlap at times; their main purpose is to simplify the presentation of the interferences found in the text.
The examples presented here are representative; for a more complete account that covers a longer period of time, and relates to other forms of mediation such as book reviews, paratexts and the selection of stories in literary anthologies, see Asscher (Citation2014b).
10. An interesting counterexample, in itself ideologically determined, is found in Vivian Eden’s 1988 translation to the autobiographical novel Arabesques by Anton Shammas. The translation was done in collaboration with the author. Shammas, a Palestinian Israeli, and his translator perhaps felt more at ease to give voice to the Palestinian narrative of the conflict with an English-reading audience in mind. See, for instance, the following sentences which relate to Shammas’s family history in 1948:
1) Now they had decided to continue northward to see the rest of their relatives who have departed from [been driven out of] Ja'ooneh in 1948 and come to Tarsheeha [as refugees]. (E: 32; H: 31)
2) That was on the morning of Friday, April 23, 1948. Haifa , as the Arabs would say, had already fallen. (E: 187; H: 169)
11. In personal correspondence, Halkin described his close collaboration with Oz on the translation's final draft, as Oz came to stay at his house for a week of intense work. Oz did not only play an integral role in the translation process, according to Halkin, but also later introduced further changes to the text, together with the editor of his American publisher, most of which Halkin does not approve of.
12. In personal correspondence, Yehuda Safran wrote me that, as far as he remembered, Tammuz was responsible for this shift in translation, borne out of Tammuz's “diplomatic discretion.” Mildred Budny told me that most of the decisions concerning the translation were conducted in person with Tammuz. In this translation, it seems that Safran was more in charge of the Hebrew, and Budny of the English.
13. In personal correspondence, Bilu described her close collaboration with Shahar on the translation, as Shahar was her neighbour at the time. She confirmed to me that Elie Wiesel was the target of his satire. She was surprised to hear of the changes in the translation (apparently made by the editor), and believed Shahar would have been extremely upset to learn about them.