In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

254 Book Reviews though, is his eminently accessible style, which is aimed at a general audience but does not "talk down" to readers. In summary: Die Zauberflöte: Oper und Mysterium can serve as an example of cultural studies that makes an eighteenthcentury work of art speak to a contemporary audience. University of Vermont Dennis F.Mahoney Susan Bemofsky, Foreign Words: Translator-Authors in the Age of Goethe. Detroit:Wayne State UP, 2005.239 pp. Bernofsky's study, part of Wayne State's Kritik series, is not a broad-based study of translator-authors in the Goethezeit as the tide suggests, but rather an in-depth study of the role translation plays in the works of Kleist, Hölderlin and Goethe. As should be apparent from her focus on these three figures, Bemofsky is less interested in translators who happened also to be authors and more on canonical authors who also produced translations during their careers. Although the readings of individual works are insightful, the greatest contribution Bemofsky makes in her book is the dichotomy between service and authorial translations. Lawrence Venuti's concept of "foreignizing translation" as articulated in his The Translator's Invisibility underlies Bernofsky's distinction between types of translation. Whereas Venuti contrasted foreignizing and domesticating translations on the basis of the degree to which translators employ "cultural references and linguistic structures specific to the work being translated and its original language ," Bemofsky postulates service translation as attempting "to emulate the characteristic features of the individual original work" (2, 3)· Both foreignizing and service translations attempt to preserve a high degree of fidelity with the original text. In contrast, authorial translation represents a writer's appropriation and "shaping of the translated text in a particular direction" (x). Bemofsky argues that this type of translation only became possible in light of the rise of service translation during the Age of Goethe. Bemofsky devotes her first chapter to this rise of service translation, best exemplified by Johann Heinrich Voß's translations of Homer and August Wilhelm Schlegel's translations of Shakespeare. Although Voß and August Schlegel were authors in their own right, they are, as Bemofsky notes, best known for their translations. The converse, of course, is true with Kleist, Hölderlin and Goethe, with the possible exception of Hölderlins Pindar translations. Thus, the emphasis on this generally overlooked aspect of the works of these three authors is worthwhile. Heinrich von Kleist's Amphitryon bears the subtitle Ein Lustspiel nach Molière. Bernofsky's strongest pages are those in which she details how Kleist transforms Molieres seventeenth-century comedy into "a tool to serve his [Kleist's] own aesthetic, literary, political, and philosophical ends" (48). Although the first two acts of Kleist's play are examples of "service-translation perfection" (90), the third act is a prominent example of authorial translation that ultimately turns the play into a tragicomedy far removed from the original. After analyzing closely the difference between Molière's and Kleist's versions of several key scenes, Bemofsky then turns to the issue of the role of translation in Kleist's oeuvre , arguing persuasively that "Amphitryon is Kleist's only important work of translation, yet a leitmotiv of translation, adaptation, transplantation, and other sorts of cultural shifts appears" (86) in works as diverse as Die Familie Schroffenstein, Die Marquise von O. . . , Penthesilea, and Der zerbrochne Krug. Goethe Yearbook 255 In the case of Hölderlin, Bernofsky's service is to focus attention not only on his translations of Pindar and the clear influence of his poetry on Hölderlin 's work, but also on Hölderlins lesser-known translations of Sophoclean chomses, themselves as opaque in Hölderlin's renderings as Pindar's odes. Hölderlins translations of these chomses, as Bemofsky notes, influence, above all, his "late hymns, particularly in the use of anticipatory adjectives and other means of creating hypotactic structures" (129-30). In her chapter on Goethe, Bemofsky moves away from close readings of particular sections of text; she instead focuses on Goethe's reworkings of Denis Diderot's Le neveu der Rameau and his "Essais sur la peinture." The changes Goethe made reflect his own differences with Diderot.Thus, Goethe...


Additional Information

Print ISSN
pp. 254-255
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.