Where is the “History” in Translation Histories?

Abstract

This paper explores two interrelated problems of method of concern to translation historians and that are part of the overarching issue of interdisciplinarity. The first has to do with conflicting methods used in history and the second with deciding whether or not it is necessary for a translation scholar to define her or his philosophical position with regards to history. This article is part of a book project on the history of translation in Louisiana, which has been understudied. The writing of a translation history implies the act of rendering visible what has been obscured by the official grand narrative of History, or what Nietzsche called “monumental” history. To look for translation where officially there was none, or very little, amounts to search for multiple histories of people who do not necessarily fit into the dominant definition of what it means to be American, because they spoke languages other than English and adhered to cultural practices that resisted melting into the common pot. From this perspective history is viewed as discourse because, very much like translation, it is made up of language, seen as living matter shaped and manipulated by power relations. The focus of the study is two local 19th-century historians from Louisiana who repeatedly doubled up as translators—from French to English and back into French—to produce histories of Louisiana. The conclusion states that translation historians are first historiographers, imbued with all the disciplinary and ethical responsibilities that entails. Since historiography forms a nexus for history and translation, it is not only necessary to theorize both but also to develop methods that can be integral to both.Cette étude se penche sur deux problèmes méthodiques reliés entre eux qui préoccupent les historiens de la traduction et font partie de la question globale de l’interdisciplinarité. Il s’agit premièrement des méthodes divergentes utilisées en histoire et deuxièmement, il s’agit de savoir s’il est nécessaire qu’un/e traductologue définisse sa propre position philosophique en ce qui concerne l’histoire. Le présent article est un fragment d’un futur livre sur l’histoire de la traduction en Louisiane, un sujet jusqu’ici peu étudié. L’écriture d’une histoire de la traduction oblige à remettre au jour ce qui a été occulté par l’Histoire officielle, ou ce que Nietzsche a appelé l’«histoire monumentale ». Chercher des traductions là où, officiellement, il n’en existe pas, ou si peu, signifie aller à la recherche des multiples histoires de gens qui ne correspondent pas à l’identité américaine dominante parce qu’ils parlaient des langues autres que l’anglais et adhéraient à des pratiques culturelles qui les empêchaient de se fondre dans le creuset américain. Dans cette perspective, l’histoire est discours parce que, à l’instar de la traduction, elle est faite de langage, elle est une matière vivante modelée et manipulée par les relations de pouvoir. Notre étude analyse le cas de deux historiens de la Louisiane du XIXe siècle qui, dans une sorte d’a...

History of science and history of translation: disciplinary commensurability?

“…He is, rather, re-asserting the historical character of the history of science and reminding us that, as history, the history of science shares some basic similarities with historical analyses of non-science subjects. This view is very much echoed by Malena (2011) in relation to translation studies and history. On the basis of her study of the history of translation in Louisiana, she argues that translation scholars need to be aware of their own historiographical activities and need to "think like historians" (ibid.…”