venuti

Canon 69intelligent readers will probably be uniform. But, as it is not to bedenied, that in many of the examples adduced in this Essay, theappeal lies not so much to any settled canons of criticism, as toindividual taste; it will not be surprising, if in such instances, adiversity of opinion should take place: and the Author havingexercised with great freedom his own judgment in such points, itwould ill become him to blame others for using the same freedomin dissenting from his opinions. The chief benefit to be derivedfrom all such discussions in matters of taste, does not so mucharise from any certainty we can obtain of the rectitude of ourcritical decisions, as from the pleasing and useful exercise whichthey give to the finest powers of the mind, and those which mostdistinguish us from the inferior animals.(ibid.:vii–viii)For Tytler, it is possible both to translate successfully and to evaluatetranslations because he assumes that linguistic and culturaldifferences do not exist at a fundamental level, invoking a universal“reason and good sense” that distinguishes a public sphere ofcultural consensus (“readers”) but extends to the species,“intelligent” human beings. 10 Yet he subsequently narrows thissphere, first excluding consensus (“settled canons of criticism”) andthen appealing to the “freedom” of “individual taste.” Tytler’s“common sense” approach to translation rests on a liberalhumanism that is stated with a fugitive democratic gesture (a publicsphere of cultural debate), but lapses ultimately into an individualistaesthetics with skeptical consequences: “in matters where theultimate appeal is to Taste, it is almost impossible to be secure of thesolidity of our opinions, when the criterion of their truth is so veryuncertain” (ibid.:11).The strain of individualism in Tytler’s treatise is so powerful,however “uncertain” the contours of subjectivity may seem, that henever shows the slightest skepticism about aesthetic judgment andin fact constructs a concept of “correct taste” based on “exquisitefeeling.” The translator’s every choice should be governed by it—even to the point of violating the “laws” for good translation. Theseinclude, first, “That the Translation should give a completetranscript of the ideas of the original work,” and, second, “That thestyle and manner of writing should be of the same character withthat of the original” (Tytler 1978:16). The “man of exquisite feeling,”however, is invested with the “liberty” of “adding to or retrenching