venuti

118 The Translator’s Invisibilitymuch with us, in spite of the fact that most theoreticians wouldnow subscribe to the concept of dynamic equivalence, which“aims at complete naturalness of expression and tries to relate thereceptor to modes of behavior relevant within the context of hisown culture.”(Lefevere 1981:11) 7Schleiermacher’s concept of foreignizing translation seems odd toLefevere only because the latter prefers to submit to the contemporaryregime of fluency—in Nida’s words, “complete naturalness ofexpression.” The canonicity of fluent translation during the post-World War II period coincides with the emergence of the term“translationese” to designate unidiomatic language in a translatedtext (OED). Lefevere approves of Nida’s “dynamic equivalence,” aconcept that now, with the increasing recognition of Schleiermacher’scontemporary importance, must be viewed as an egregiouseuphemism for the domesticating translation method and the culturalpolitical agendas it conceals. Because this method is so entrenched inEnglish-language translation, Lefevere is unable to see that thedetection of unidiomatic language, especially in literary texts, isculturally specific: what is unidiomatic in one cultural formation canbe aesthetically effective in another. Any dismissive treatment ofSchleiermacher maintains the forms of domestication in Englishlanguagetranslation today, hindering reflection on how differentmethods of translating can resist the questionable values thatdominate Anglo-American culture. Schleiermacher can indeed offer away out.IIWith Schleiermacher’s lecture untranslated, however, this way wasopen to few English-language translators during the nineteenthcentury. A translator could of course formulate a theory of foreignizingtranslation, whether or not inspired by the German tradition, but thetheory would be a response to a peculiarly English situation, motivatedby different cultural and political interests. Such was the case withFrancis Newman (1805–1897), the accomplished brother of theCardinal. In the 1850s, Newman challenged the main line of Englishlanguagetranslation, arguing that “Cowper’s attempt to translateHomer had proved as great a failure as Pope’s” and suggesting that “asensible change is taking place, from our recent acquaintance with the