Volume 19, 2007 - Brown University

Writing, Translation, and Re-Constellation 133
After defining his subject-position, Arnold proceeds to explain his own
conception of a successful translation of Homer. He believes it is crucial that
he [the translator] is eminently rapid; that he is eminently plain and direct,
both in the evolution of his thoughts and in the expression of it, that is, both
in his syntax and in his words; that he is eminently plain and direct in the
substance of his thought, that is, in his matter and ideas; and finally that he is
eminently noble. (Arnold, 1883: 149).
Arnold deconstructs his own notion of a good Homeric translation and defines
four criteria that determine the success of a translator. His clear assertion of the
four qualities necessary for a smooth translation is similar to Spivak’s “re-constellation”
of literature according to her own ideas. Arnold believes that his
authority as a Greek scholar gives his four criteria a certain credibility.
However, since it is impossible to know the original intents of the Homeric
poets, there is no authorial authority that threatens to challenge Arnold’s
opinions. Consequently , his subject-position is different than Spivak’s because
he does not have to address the ideas of the original authors, but must instead
define his interprettations in relation to other critics and translators.
For example, Arnold believes that Chapman takes too many liberties with
the text and that he ruins his translation by setting it within the bounds of his
own cultural mores. He remarks, “One might say that the minds of the Elizabethan
translators were too active; that they could not forbear importing so much
of their own, and this of a most peculiar and Elizabethan character, into their
original, that they effected the character of the original itself” (Arnold, 1883:
163). Arnold criticizes translators who are too quick to impose their own perspectives
and interpretations on Homer. He believes that if an author becomes
too concerned with his own ideas, his translation might be unfaithful to the original
text. Thus Arnold does not believe that the subject-position of the translator
includes freedom to alter the style of the text significantly. He goes on to cite a
dedication to Prince Henry, which removes the text from its position as an
ancient Greek epic, and makes it more Elizabethan (Arnold, 1883: 163). Furthermore,
he believes that Chapman does not respect Homer’s “plainness and directness
of ideas” and thus fails as a translator (Arnold, 1883: 149). Arnold does not
think that Homer should be re-situated in a different historical context, but
instead believes that a translator should be faithful to the original text.
Therefore, the translator should not shape the text, but the text should shape the
translation.
At the same time, Arnold is aware that it can be difficult for a translator to
recognize his own subject-position in relation to the text. He comments that
[i]t may be said of that union of the translator with his original, which alone
can produce a good translation, that it takes place when the mist that stands
between them—the mist of alien modes of thinking, speaking, and feeling on