On the virtuality of translation in Orientalism

Abstract

The relationship between translation and Orientalism is usually reduced to a binary distinction in which the Orient is either domesticated or foreignized in translation. In fact, translation in the context of Orientalism entails a more complex problem of representation that involves the positioning of agency and the reversal of power between Orientalists and local scholars. In order to offer an explanation of such a relationship, this article borrows from Edward W. Said the notions of the inside/outside paradox and “sufficiency” in Orientalist representation. Accordingly, translation in Orientalism is seen as the process of virtualization – it seeks to produce a version that is endowed with sufficient “virtue” to represent, or even replace, the original. The term “virtual” used in this article combines three senses derived from its etymology – power, virtue and potentiality. These three senses are seen as joining forces at work in the Orientalist translation. Virtuality also accounts for the manipulation that occurs when local scholars “translate back”, by pointing out the paradox they encounter when facing the challenge of representing themselves through translation. The translation of the Sanskrit drama Śakuntalā in nineteenth-century Europe will be discussed as a case of the virtualization process in Orientalist translation.

Keywords:

• translation
• Orientalism
• postcolonial studies
• Sanskrit literature
• Śakuntalā
• virtuality

Note on contributor

Phrae Chittiphalangsri received her PhD from University College London in 2009. In her doctoral research, which explored the role of translation in Orientalism, she analysed translations into English and French of the Bhagavad Gītā and Śakuntalā in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. She is currently a lecturer in the department of comparative literature at Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand, where she teaches modern literary theory, translation theory and practice. She was a member of the editorial team of the International Association for Translation and Intercultural Studies' New Voices in Translation Studies from 2009 to 2012. Her current research project is the study of Thai translation history in the period of modernization.

Notes

1. According to Romila Thapar, there is no single agreement on the dates of both the kāvya (poetry) in the epic and Kālidāsa's dramatic piece. The dramatist Kālidāsa is usually placed in the fourth century CE, while the epic version is believed to predate the play by a few centuries, or even more, due to its origin in oral tradition. Thapar writes that “the bracket of 400 [BCE] to 400 [CE] would probably be the most appropriate for the text” (1999, 7).

2. The OED categorizes the sense of power (i.e. “being powerful”) associated with the term “virtual” as obsolete; the sense of being “effective in respect of inherent natural qualities or powers” (“Virtual, adj. (and n.).” 1989) still exists, though rare.

3. Devanāgarī or Nāgarī is an alphabet used in Sanskrit, Hindi, Nepali and Marathi. It is used to record a number of Sanskrit scripts and nowadays it is widely known as the standardized script of Hindi.

4. Sandhi is a Sanskrit term for the phonological joining or fusing of morphemes.