Visibility now: Historicizing foreign presences in translation - English ...

Downloaded by [Florida State University], [Anne Coldiron] at 07:12 30 March 2012
Translation Studies 195
as well as ‘‘I never drank of Aganippe well’’ and others, continue the visibly
recusatory attitude toward prior poetry, which for some readers comes to look as
disingenuous as the persona’s other protestations. Regardless, these poems insist on
our attention to intertextuality and to the imitation of foreign poetry. Recusatory
sprezzatura actually makes the foreign presences showily visible.
Watson’s thoroughly visible metatexts and Sidney’s deny-and-display may be
endpoints on a spectrum of visible Renaissance lyric engagements with foreign
literature. But they are not unrepresentative: the work of Spenser, Shakespeare and
any number of other early modern English poets, not to mention continental poets
after Trissino in Italy and the Pléiade poets in France, followed similar methods.
Most worked harder at the appearance of ease than Watson, while nevertheless
keeping their interlingual engagements visible to the Renaissance reader. Just as
medieval translators’ visibility supported the value placed on auctoritas, visibility in
early modern literature supported the value placed on competitive imitatio (even
when modulated by sprezzatura). Considered from a slightly different angle, the
changing construction of the visibility of the translator reveals literary values
gradually shifting from what we have retrospectively come to periodize as ‘‘medieval’’
into what we now call ‘‘early modern’’ or ‘‘Renaissance’’ literature. In that great age
of translation, the translator’s presence and the presence of the foreign continue to
show, less as marks of authority than as marks of artistic agency, but, as ever, in
concert with broader aesthetic and cultural agendas.
Beyond Babel: Future potentials for visibility in translation?
My first qualification to the historical sketch above is that it ignores non-Western
translation histories, which certainly have their own ways of construing and valuing
the translator’s in/visibility. The second problem with this kind of brief overview
is that it risks reinforcing the very fallacies of periodization that we know translation
challenges so effectively (Coldiron 2009). Yet to stretch Venuti’s concept back to
periods prior to those for which it was designed shows how usefully elastic it is;
visibility in translation served identifiable values in the history of European literary
systems prior even to the problematic he poses. Since visibility and invisibility have
meant such different things in different times and places, they are an important index
to ideological and aesthetic change. Just as invisibility has been a key concept for
translation studies, perhaps visibility, considered historically, can become a
methodological key to broader cultural and aesthetic agendas in contemporary
and future translation studies.
Against visibility in translation, of course, there have been some powerful ideas.
First, invisibility has sustained specific literary-aesthetic values since the eighteenth
century, as Venuti and others following him have confirmed. As long as a chief
benchmark of literary value remains the unique genius of individual authors working
alone, translators and their work must remain invisible, as Venuti shows. To the
degree that literary modernity remains committed to Romantic conceptions of
originality and to single-author confessional modes, invisibility will rule. Neither the
visibility of the translator (who disrupts the fiction of original authorship), nor the
visibility of the foreign (which disrupts fictions of purity and national literary
identity), can hold much aesthetic sway. In national literary canons and curricula,
which are after all based on national literary identities, marks of the foreign will have