Translation Historiography in The Modern World: Modernization and Translation Into Persian

Translation historiography in the Modern World
Modernization and translation into Persian

Omid Azadibougar
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
Nearly all scholarly works about the encounter of Iran with European modernity emphasize the role of translation not only in introducing new literary forms into the Persian literary system, but also in becoming the main engine of change and modernization of the culture. This paper concerns itself with this constructivist narrative of the available historiographical discourse and the translational environment between 1851 and 1921 in Iran. After describing the field of translation in the period in question, I challenge the uncritical conception of translation as a positive force by, on the one hand, investigating hypothetical cultural and linguistic implications, and on the other hand, questioning the power of translation per se, as ascribed to it in the above mentioned historiographical discourse, in socio-cultural modernization. This will prioritize the individual and cultural translational effects over the supposed institutional ones. Keywords: modern Persian prose, translation movements, the Darolfonun, the Constitutional Revolution, translation historiography, Iranian modernity
1.
Translation studies in Iran and the Persian language
Even though translations are historical phenomena, it is only relatively recently that they have been taken seriously by historians; at least history or rather historiography has generally been written without any reference to translational phenomena. Hence, it is all the more remarkable when, in certain circumstances, in certain cultural environments, historians take translation (more) seriously. It is true that neither history nor historiography are well-defined kinds of narrative writing. Most universities recognize history or historiography mainly as a national genre in which the history of the local/national culture is an object of study. International historiography may be linked with the tradition of national
Target 22:2 (2010), 298329. doi 10.1075/target.22.2.06aza issn 09241884 / e-issn 15699986 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Translation historiography in the Modern World 299
history, but it is generally considered additional to the history of the national culture. In most cases, various kinds of relations with the surrounding cultures are part of this historiography, but translation is rarely an object of study in this field. At the same time, the history of translation(s) has become an object of study at a relatively late stage in Translation Studies, and is often considered to be a subtopic within the cultural approach to translation. However, some national historians are aware of the phenomenon of translation, and in this article, I want to observe such a case, namely the situation of Iranian cultural history in recent centuries. This is particularly significant because the desire for participation in international cultural networks coupled with a fear of isolation has led to the local historiographies uncritical reiteration of those formulated abroad. In my discussion, I cannot yet answer larger cultural questions concerning the explanation of the sudden interest in translation among Iranian historians, and whether this is a general interest in translation among historians, or rather a specific interest in connection with particular moments in the countrys history. This would require me to take into account the historiography of the surrounding countries (Israel, Turkey, India, etc.), including the history of colonization and shifts in colonial (or postcolonial) relationships, e.g. in the transition from more Europe-oriented partnerships into more USA-oriented partnerships (and/or globalization), and that is beyond the scope of the present article. Not only history and historiography are complicated concepts in the context of the (Middle) East.1 In presenting a study of narratives and narrativity, I cannot establish a clear distinction between literature and cultural history as most WestEuropean historical handbooks would do more or less explicitly. It is clear that no historian would reduce his object of study only to literary texts nor to literary writings, but the Great Books in many cultures tend to have literary qualities and also literary prestige. In Iranian culture, however, literary writings have a rather explicit position in the history of textual traditions, but unlike European traditions, Iranian Literature, with a capital letter, was not supposed to be written in prose until a given moment in the early 20th century, which implies that there are genre complications to the extent that narrative prose writing is the result of import (and translation) from European languages. This may be one of the explanations of the unavoidable link, from the Iranian perspective, between narrative prose (in literature) and translation. Nevertheless, writing about translation in Iran is a difficult task for various reasons. To begin with, we are dealing with a colorful linguistic scene as there are other languages and dialects in use in todays Iran in addition to Persian (Farsi), which happens to have been the dominant and official language and the main source of cultural change; however, only 58% of the population speaks Persian
300 Omid Azadibougar
and Persian dialects as their mother tongue, whereas 27% use Turkish and Turkish dialects, 9% Kurdish, 2% Luri, 1% Balouchi, and 1% Arabic, in addition to 2% who use still other languages at home.2 Therefore, it is important to note that Persian is only a sub-set of Iranian which has been (mis-)presented as its equivalent by literary historians.3 In effect, the historiographies of translation have always concerned themselves only with Persian and there is no mention of translation between Persian and other Iranian languages; likewise, translation between these languages themselves, or of other languages into them, has been completely ignored. Thus, although Persian as a noun names a language and should not be confused with the adjective Iranian, in terms of cultural influence the two signifiers tend to collapse into each other, primarily because, as the official language, Persian appears to have been the only linguistic path for importation through translation, affecting the speakers of all Iranian languages. At the same time, the Persian language has a very long history, and has always been in a network of translational give and take; the period under investigation in this paper comes after four historical periods of transformation of the Persian language: (1) the Samanid period (820998); (2) the Ghaznavid, Seljuq, and Kharazmian period (9981220); (3) the Mongol and Timurid period (12201502); and (4) the Safavid period (15021796) (Kamshad 1966: 3). In the first period, prose is extremely simple, straightforward, and objective. No particular attention is paid to making phrases rhyme [and] the authors prime concern was to make themselves understood. During the second period and under the influence of the imported Islamic-Arabic culture, authors used a copious terminology as a result of which early simplicity was lost and Persian prose became labored and highly artificial reaching the point of absurdity, and an almost incomprehensible style. The third period begins with the pagan Tartars disregard for Islamic institutions, coupled with the overthrow of Caliphate which reduced the influence of Arabic to the unexpected advantage of the Persian language, making this period notable for the number of historians it produced, since the Mongol Ilkhans had a keen interest in recording their campaigns and achievements. In this period, Persian prose has neither the ease, simplicity, and precision of early writings nor the richness and elegance of later styles (Kamshad 1966: 46). The fourth period, preceding the modernization of Persian, was in many respects a great one but notoriously poor in the field of literature, both in prose and poetry (Kamshad 1966: 7) due to the fact that the rulers of the Safavid dynasty devoted the greater part of their energies to the propagation of the Shiite doctrine which threw the Persian language and its prose into unparalleled confusion as Islamic tracts were either written for laymen in plain and jejune style (nonetheless full of Arabic grammatical constructions), or else they were composed by Shiite
doctors imported from Arabia, who had little knowledge of Persian and wrote in an Arabicized style. Nevertheless, these pedantic and garrulous discourses which were only written to show off and achieve eminence as propaganda of piety do not qualify as Persian prose proper (Kamshad 1966: 7).4 The modernization of Persian prose occurs in the Qajar dynasty (1794 1925) during which several factors contribute to cultural revival: the importation of texts from India by Nadir Shah (reign: 17361747) and their impact on the new educated elites of the Qajar era;5 the political stabilization and a period of relative security, with an interest in culture and learning along with the rise of a new class of people, civil servants, with the leisure time to cultivate letters; the efforts of religious leaders to promote the enlightenment (in a positive meaning) of the masses and the royal classs support for art; increasing contacts with and influence of Britain, France and Russia together with the introduction of new technologies, like the telegraph, and becoming conscious of the weakness of the country as a result of political defeats; and finally, the importation of the printing press in 1812 (Kamshad 1966: 1011). It is during this period that the first newspaper (1837) and the first weekly (1851) are published and the first modern school, established (1851). The final result of all these changes was the Constitutional Revolution of 19059 (Kamshad 1966: 11). It is claimed by the historiographers quoted further on that early translations from European languages introduced new ideas into the Iranian culture whose modernization would not have been possible without translation. This asserted modernization through translation between 1851, when the first modern educational institution, Darolfonun, was established, and 1921, when Mohammad Ali Jamalzadehs manifesto on the necessity of simplifying prose was published, is the focus of this paper. This was a period during which translations role as the modernizing engine of language and culture was determined. The main concern is questioning the claimed modernizing role of translation, assumed to have motivated and been fulfilled in alliance with a general political will to change the political structure from a monarchical dynasty into a parliamentary one.6 Another difficulty of writing about translation in Iran is that we are struggling against some institutional insufficiencies and a lack of research in the field;7 we rarely come across an analysis of translation into the Persian literary system in the available historiographies, which are mostly (more or less) similar chronological accounts of the translated works. Besides, research in the field has not yet led to the formulation of any theories expressive of contextual specificities, if any, indicative of methodological inadequacies. Hence, even though the limited number of available publications on Translation Studies can function as the basis for further research to specify significant issues facing translation and culture in Iran, they rarely move beyond a chronological narration or, alternatively, a comparative/
contrastive analysis of source and target texts. Such a simplistic view of translation as a neutral introducer of other cultures ignores the cultural impacts of translation; the irony is that even though translation is the most obvious mode of cultural exchange, there has rarely been interest in considering translation into Persian in an intercultural frame.8 Moreover, it is bizarre that translation channels and possibilities between Iranian languages have been ignored with nearly all publications focused only on translation from or into Persian. What is more, in dealing with historiographies we need to ask some fundamental questions: who writes the historiography and to what extent is it possible to ignore the influence of the authors position, the asymmetrical political relations, and (de-)colonization? That is, when one claims that translation benefits the culture, we need to specify who actually benefits, and to whose detriment. And, given the vast territorial changes in the past two centuries, how can one assume that contemporary Iran has nothing to do with neighboring cultures and countries?9 It is from such a standpoint that I have raised the issue of the asymmetrical political relations with the lending dominant cultures as counter-evidence to the claims about the modernizing role of translation. My main aim is to bring Translation Studies in Iran out of itself and to locate it in an international framework, by re-writing the historiography of translation and its impacts on the Iranian context through the Persian language, and account for other languages, if substantial translations from/into them actually happened; this paper is a first step in that direction. It poses some questions, without necessarily aspiring to re-write the historiography. 2. The unanimous agreement The general narrative of the positive and constructive role of translation in the formation of modern Persian prose,10 unanimously agreed upon and repeated by nearly all scholars and historians of modern Persian prose (Kamshad 1966; Aryanpour 2003; Balay 2006 and 2008; Rahimian 2006; Ahmadzadeh 2003; Mirabedini 2007),11 presents the following scenario: from the early to the mid nineteenth century, contact between Iran and Europe increases, and the growing self-awareness of Irans backwardness, coupled with the desire for progress, necessitates translation. The importation of the printing press in 1812 makes publication easier and with the institution of the first modern European-style school in 1851 and the growing number of students sent to Europe to learn the new sciences, the translation of educational materials aimed at technological advancement increases; the implied translation purpose is education, with the central ideologies of reformation, change and, later, revolution. The establishment of newspapers (Kaghaz
Akhbar 1837; Vaghaye Etefaghie 1851; Akhtar 1875 in Istanbul; Qanoon 1890, in London; Tarbiat 1896) helps the propagation of such ideas, and translation becomes the essential tool for modernization and for the insertion of new and progressive ideas into the Iranian cultural system. The noteworthy issue in this narrative is the commonly acknowledged beneficial effect of translation. Nearly all works credit translation with an undeniable constructive role. In Rahimians words, translation is one of the factors that developed knowledge and transformed Iranians thoughts (Rahimian 2006: 55).12 In Ahmadzadehs terms the effects of translation and its role in transferring modern thought[s] to countries like Iran is so obvious that it is impossible to imagine what Iranian society would look like if there were no translation (Ahmadzadeh 2003: 91). For Kamshad, many factors contributed to a cultural revival in the Qajar era, one of which was translation from European languages that facilitated, and even mandated, broader socio-cultural changes which led to literary change as well (Kamshad 1966: 1011). Aryanpour argues that had these translations not existed, todays literary style, which is close to the language of common conversation and at the same time enjoys the beauty of European literary prose, might never have come into existence (Aryanpour 2002a: 260, Julie Meissamis rendering, quoted in Ahmadzadeh 2003: 95). Finally, Balay asserts that translation has had an indisputable effect on Iranians because the translated Western works influenced all classes of society (Balay 2006: 11, my emphasis). The assumption of all these scholars is that the benefits of translation are distributed equally between all participating parties, that translation essentially leads to change, that change is necessarily for good, and that transformation is in essence positive. To unpack this narrative, some qualifications are required, especially for those unfamiliar with Iranian literary history. The first issue is that the early 19th century contacts between Iran and Europe were asymmetrical as they occurred through Russias colonial pressures and the rivalries of France and Britain (Balay 2008: 28).13 This colonial encounter and the ensuing political defeats of Iran against Russia (Balay 2008: 28) led to a belated worrying apprehension among Iranians because the military and political superiority of Russia and Britain, and the states capitulation to these foreign powers became a significant cause for concern as successive Qajar regimes responded to Western aggression with complacency and weakness (Yeganeh 1993: 3). Complacency and weakness was of course not one option among many, but the only option. Therefore, measures were taken to compensate for the national deficiencies, and the grave role of translation was to provide a socio-political model of progress, namely Europe. In this search for a model for his political career, Prince Abbas Mirza ordered translations of Voltaires History of Charles XII 1731, Peter the Great, and Alexander the Great from English (Balay 2006: 42). The selection of the correct model was
so imperative that the translation of The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon (17371794) was terminated because reactions to it were so severe (Balay 2006: 43). Considering the demise of the political strengths of the Qajars and the intent of these translations to set up models of grandeur and glory, it is hardly surprising that a narrative of the inevitable fall of an empire was considered inappropriate by the heirs to a weak Empire about to vanish.14 The second notable issue is that translation, modernization and revitalization of letters and culture are inseparable, making the encounter with Europe the most significant cultural problem/question of the pre-Constitution [late 19th century] era (Mirabedini 2007: 18). Literary changes are effected through translators by the introduction of new literary forms, among them plays and the novel. The encounter with Europe caused intellectual awareness of the intelligentsia and the adopting of new political and cultural outlooks (Mirabedini 2007: 18) which involved the rereading of classical literature and the achieving of a new understanding of literature and its social functions, necessary for new prose forms (Mirabedini 2007: 19). Kamshad reports that before The Travelogues of Ibrahim Beig (roughly 1903), the first Persian novel, and the translation of James Moriers The Adventures of Hajji Baba of Isfahan (translated in 1880s, published 1905), some plays had been translated in 1871 and were enacted at the royal court (Kamshad 1966: 1920). Ahmadzadeh (2003: 91) claims that translators are the pioneers of modernization and it is through translation that the seeds of the new literary genres, especially the Persian novel, have been sown and Rahimian (2006: 55) confirms that it was through translation that Iranian authors were familiarized with [new] story writing and playwriting techniques. It is of course natural that new forms had a good chance of being imported through translation, as we can see if we compare the importation of prose forms with that of poetry: as Persian classical literature had a rich poetic tradition, not much poetry was imported, whereas prose was in great demand. In prose literature as in politics, Europe was the origin: the first Persian novels are written modeled after French historical novels (Balay 2006: 69).15 The literary revival was such a representative of change that the Novel was synonymous with modernity and Westernization (Balay 2006: 230). Motivated by the progress drive Iranians prioritized texts that were able, based on their nature and quality, to give them a better knowledge of the external [advanced] world [i.e. Farang16] (Balay 2006: 70). This was done through translations of historical and educational works. Translators were convinced that if they translated the books they chose into Persian, modernization would be achieved and transformation realized. In this vein, Ahmadzadeh (2003: 103, my emphasis) comments on the naturalness of taking Western literary forms as models:
the rich tradition of Persian literature in the genres of lyric, epic, and didactics did not provide an archetype for modern literary genres. Thus, it was natural that pioneering writers tried to initiate the new literary forms originating from Western literary discourse.17
The main obsession was modernization motivated by a yearning for radical political change and the installment of a European model of governance: democracy. The third point relates to one of the measures that the Qajars took to tackle the shortcomings of the nation: dispatching students to study in Europe. The first delegation (two students) left in 1809 and the second in 1812 for England to specialize in painting, medicine, and pharmaceutics, military sciences, engineering, chemistry, medicine, English (literature), philosophy, and locksmithry (Ahmadzadeh 2003: 99; Balay 2006: 42; Vahdat 2002: 2728); educational efforts climax with the establishment of the first modern school, Darolfonun [literally: The House of Skills], in 1851.18 Thus modernization assumes concrete forms, and the final result of all these changes is the stirring of progressive thoughts in the minds of Iranians (Kamshad 1966: 11).19 What makes an awareness of this important is that it was from those students that the main translators and theocrats were created (Ahmadzadeh 2003: 73). Regarding their fields of study, which were more often than not in technology rather than in the humanities, it is possible to draw some conclusions about the translatorial and possibly translational norms, for as Mirabedini writes these intellectuals were not sufficiently and deeply familiar with cultural and philosophical issues in Europe (2007: 1819; also Vahdat 2002: 25). The next issue concerns the changes of Persian prose from pre-modern to modern Iran. Before the modernization of the Qajar era (17941925), Persian prose of the Safavid period (15021736) is, as mentioned above, notoriously poor in the field of literature, both in prose and in poetry, was over-ornamented, Arabicized [and] ecclesiastical (Kamshad 1966: 4) due to the propagation of Shiite doctrine which interrupts the development of Persian language and throws it into unparalleled confusion by the imported Shiite doctors who have little knowledge of Persian (Kamshad 1966: 7). But things changed with the installment of modernization measures. Translation was a principal agent, as it not only provided new material for the Persian reader, but also a new generic and stylistic model for the Persian writer (Ahmadzadeh 2003: 92). That is, translation fetched from faraway lands spaces and materials for simpler writing and broader communication; likewise, the purpose of modern writers was to simplify language and to bridge, or as Kamshad says, to remove, the gap between the lively spoken language and the ossified inaccessible written language: it is with the removal of this gap that modern writers have been principally concerned a rhetorical written language could be used only by the educated minority the exclusive possession of a few (Kamshad 1966: 39).
An example of this intellectual will for the revitalization of the language and the negotiation of the gap between writing and speech is its critical Lutheran moment in 1921 when, after about a century of translations from European languages, Mohammad Ali Jamalzadeh in his manifesto-like preface to Once Upon a Time recommended a simplification of literary language and invited others to write in a style closer to colloquial speech with copious use of everyday expressions (Kamshad 1966: 58) to democratize language and literature.20 But the linguistic simplification met with resistance, as one might have expected, which slowed it down: most of the development of prose literature, as opposed to journalism, between 1905 and 1921 was extremely languid (Kamshad 1966: 40). And some other writers just ignored Jamalzadehs 1921 manifesto advocating the democracy of letters; Hijazi, writing some 20 years after the 1921 pleas of Jamalzadeh, writes his novels in an elevated and educated language and does not insist on recording the natural idioms and expressions of the people; he makes them speak in his own turn of phrase (Kamshad 1966: 83). As a matter of fact, this combination of traditional style with new genres is inevitable. Traditional conceptions of literature and literariness were significant factors contributing to resistance by writers and illustrating how strong literary traditions can resist change through their firmly established, aristocratic conceptual institutions. The fifth point to bear in mind is that, resistances notwithstanding, it was easier to revitalize Persian prose than poetry, because of the peripheral position of prose in the Persian literary system: the fact that prose fiction had no precedent in classical Persian literature was an important factor in its unhampered and undiluted success: it did not change or replace any existing traditions; it created a new and socially relevant channel for literary expression (Katouzian 1991; quoted in Ahmadzadeh 2003: 100). Katouzians conception of unhampered and undiluted success for prose fiction requires some qualification, but it is significant that the traditional attribution of literariness to poetry alone did facilitate the development of prose.21 And this was more than a simple, non-literary use of prose, for, as Jazayery writes, in 1893, literature in Persian still meant almost exclusively poetry as it continued to do up until quite recently (and does for most people even today) (Jazayery 1970: 257). Poetry had after centuries of institutionalization completely monopolized the literary space and the cultural division of labor assigned other functions, historical or didactic, or, in one or two instances, allegoristic (Jazayery 1970: 257), to prose. In the historical absence of fictional prose any attempt to assume the cultural functions of poetry would have had to deal with an intricate maze of frames of intelligibility which implies the difficulties, or impossibility, of creating a literary prose in a short time, unless by radical modifications, as discussed later in this paper. Additionally, Balay (2006: 14), affirming the peripherality of prose narrative due to which transformations occur slower
but easier, mentions the marginality as the reason it was easier for the translated materials in prose to move to the center of the literary system by displacing poetry as the literary form, entering the literary system and subsequently moving toward the center (Balay 2006: 19).22 The transformations of the literary system were to the advantage of prose, the periphery, and to the detriment of the center, poetry. However, this being said, I have to express my reservations about the success of prose to actually move to the center of the literary system, even though I could not agree more with Balay on the destabilization of poetry as the literary form: in the transformations of Persian prose, the results of translation and modernization to Kamshad, were rendered only basically through translation but accompanied by two other forces in Balays interpretation: tradition and national innovations (Balay 2006: 96), with translation acting as the engine of transformation at the heart of change paving the way for local innovations. Translation plays a very decisive role by providing the model for the recycling of the classical by offering the form and the means of local innovations injecting new blood in literatures veins (Jazayery 1970: 261). Accordingly, two scenarios are possible for prose transformations: in the first scenario, modern Persian prose was completely simplified and constructed through translation because there were no target language norms except the creation of language and coinage of terms and an arbitrary choice of equivalents for the imported concepts; translation is, in this case, the agent which writes modern Persian and which denies the authority of the established language as a fixed reference point and as a socially accepted contract for communication; by insisting on creating language for the contextually absent concepts as the accepted norm, the Persian language gradually dissolves and becomes radically chaotic to the point of dysfunctionality, becoming a space of confusion, disagreement and miscommunication instead of interaction and comprehension. In the second scenario, translation made modern Persian prose, but used the already existing ordinary spoken language;23 that is, translation made way for the oral to flow into the written by providing the material for an already existing oral linguistic device; this scenario can explain the appropriation of discourses by another language in which the incoming discourse is clad in the receiving language, not necessarily conceptually coinciding with the original language.24 In this scenario, translation is a catalyst and provides a space where the spoken language, in combination with the classical, stretches itself to grasp the imported discourses mainly by appropriation. Therefore, translation has, in a way, modified the written language by facilitating the flow of ordinary language into the written culture, implying that it did not completely create a brand new language: a synthesis, but not the complete formation by importation. The most important problem of this scenario is the extent to which the spoken language is capable of accommodating
and expressing the modern imported discourse, and to what extent this language is more expressive than the classical pre-translational language. Both scenarios combined, a third option could be imagined: part compromise and part resistance, concurrently affected by/constructed by the imported discourse and remaining as before ultimately double-standardizing the language. If we consider the construction of modern Persian prose through translation as valid, the first scenario will apply to that part of language which was shaped by translation. In this case we can conclude that there were no resisting linguistic norms and that the target language gave itself up to the original language to be re-made. However, target language norms were not all utterly affected because tradition and national innovation (Balay 2006: 39; Ahmadzadeh 2003: 77) resisted transformation.25 The problem is that we cannot measure the changes; we can only think of language as not so thoroughly hollowed out, but as a liminal partitioned space: it was detached from its origins and refilled by new concepts but was not totally hijacked; a neither-nor state of language: the elite [khavas] knew it partly, and the masses [avam] recognized a different part of it but none had any idea what the whole was about, projecting its own fragment as the whole. Besides translation, there is another contributing factor to the simplification and revitalization of prose: the press. With the spread of newspapers, Persian prose, complying with the requirements of the medium, becomes accessible and understandable for the general public and distances itself from difficult, unnecessarily bombastic, incomprehensible archaic terminology (Balay 2006: 49). The encounter with Farang [i.e. Europe], therefore, had convinced many intellectuals, including translators, that, in their frantic search for a model of progress, classical native culture and language had to be left behind and the European model assimilated:
Secular intellectuals were the pioneers of adapting Western values and expanding them in all dimensions of life realization of progress, democracy, freedom and justice, according to most Iranian intellectuals, was only possible through adaptation of the European model to these intellectual pioneers, who believed in freedom and the reign of reason, modernity was equal to Western civilization, and the acceptance of this civilization was on their agenda the extent of Europeanization had no limitation for Taqizadeh [as chief editor of Kaveh, a progressive journal published in Europe] and he believed that Iran must become Europeanized, in appearance and in essence, physically and spiritually the journals motto was unconditional acceptance of Western civilization (Ahmadzadeh 2003: 74, my emphasis).
To scholars, this central role of translation in the formation and construction of modern Persian prose has momentous cultural implications because through translations a civilization [which] was largely oral, was becoming written (Balay
2006: 19). In any case, everyone seems to agree on this point: without translation and the introduction of a new stylistics into Persian, modern prose as it is would not have existed, nor would it have new forms, like the novel;26 some even go so far as to say modern Persian prose without translation would have been inconceivable (Ahmadzadeh 2003: 91). That is, they claim that the construction of modern prose is entirely energized and facilitated by translation without which it could not have existed. At any rate, the linguistic revitalization coinciding with the introduction of new Western socio-political models of governance and ideas reaches its orgasmic climax in the Constitutional Revolution (19056) and the establishment of the first parliament in 1906.27 Having said all this, what concerns us here is not the soundness of historical details, which I have quoted from historians, but the influence of this wave of translations on Persian prose and language and its effect on Iranian culture,28 the significance and ramifications of which reach beyond the linguistic to wider frames of culture and politics. It must be clear that the transformations were not gradual and considered, neither were they rendered by the active participation of Iranians in the careful cultural appropriation of Farangi norms, but were the side effects of national passivism, socio-cultural inferiority, and backwardness as compared to Farangs power and prestige, in a frenzied struggle to navely become ones own Other. It is the purpose of this paper to challenge the Whiggish narrative of the constructive role of translation in Persian literature by posing some hypothetical questions to provide a more comprehensive vision of how translation has functioned; this will show translation is not essentially and always constructive and can lead to further insoluble cultural complexities. Our task is to de-mystify the transformative powers of translation and to reexamine the history of modern Persian prose. 3. Problems and inadequacies How adequate is such a clear-cut account of the role of translation in the Persian literary system? The scholars quoted above seem to believe in a constructive role for translation: translation, therefore propagation of new ideas, therefore cultural change, therefore successful modernization,29 therefore mission accomplished. Transfer happens only through translation and translation does not have any preconditions, except knowledge of the language from which translation occurs. This blind, quasi-theological faith in the immediate and unhampered realization of the textual in the actual, needless of the mediation of institutional or social factors, is problematic. Take this example: the change in prose, during the years before the Constitutional Revolution, was the result of changes in thought,
which in its turn was the result of cultural encounter with the West (Ahmadzadeh 2003: 98). The nave assumption here is that an encounter with the West happens on equal grounds and is necessarily cultural, and that it leads to a change of thought and prose, and, consequently, to wider social and political transformations. This ignores the fact that
the existence of a specific repertoire per se is not enough to ensure that a producer (or consumer) will make use of it. It must not only be available, but also legitimately usable. The constraints of legitimate usage are generated by institutions in correlation with the market For many members in a society, large parts of a repertoire, most importantly the dominating one, may not be accessible due to lack of knowledge or competence (such as lack of education, etc.) (Even-Zohar 1997: 21).
A similar analysis in sociology of religion asserts the same by labeling the merely present (and in my use imported) discourse as unwarranted: lacking the proof of actual existence; it is the individual meanings and institutionalized behaviors and intentions [that] warrant the existence of organizations and institutions and constitute the basic reality of such social phenomena (Blasi and Weigert 1976: 198) and not the other way round. Thus,
socio-cultural symbols cannot of themselves warrant the existence and type of institutionalized individual meaning. Nor do institutional or organizational structure and dynamics warrant the existence and type of institutionalized individual meaning it is the behavioral and intentional meanings externalized by individual actors which are the stuff or the final warrant for abstractions referring to other levels of analysis. Clearly, socio-cultural symbols may be concretely embodied in material artifacts which currently exist independent of the action of individual actors but from an interpretive perspective, they remain inert and ultimately unintelligible except as actualized by the behavior and intentions of individual actors (Blasi and Weigert 1976: 196197, my emphasis).
In other words, the effectiveness of the imported repertoire is conditional on institutions and the market that can facilitate access to the repertoire; and even if these conditions are met, the problem remains that present historiography expects that the behaviors and intentions of the individual actors in the socio-cultural sphere must essentially actualize the translated contents, that is, the expropriation of the receptive population. Nevertheless, without meeting these conditions, the imported discourse remains unintelligible, failing its translational purpose unless only individually operationalized, falling short of a modernization of culture. An institution consists of the aggregate of factors involved with the control of culture. It is the institution which governs the norms, sanctioning some and rejecting others. It also remunerates and reprimands producers and agents (Even-Zohar 1997: 3132). That is, the institution controls culture and the norms
311
by selecting from the trafficked ones; it might even take disciplining measures to effect its control and mediates between social forces and repertoires of culture. However, mere institutionalization30 cannot contribute to culture, because
in the absence of a market there is no space where any aspect of the culture repertoire can gain any ground. The larger the space, the larger the proliferation possibilities. Clearly, a restricted market naturally limits the possibilities of culture to evolve (Even-Zohar 1997: 33).
A vibrant market implies the legitimacy of the institutionalized repertoire; the mere availability or institutional confirmations of a repertoire does not guarantee it cultural success; the market is the condition of proper functioning. So, obstacles arise: the mere availability of a discourse, the discourse of modernity for example, is not sufficient and requires accompanying elements of legitimacy, institution, and market to effectively interact with the consumers of the discourse and take hold. In this view, a simpler prose, as modified or produced by translation, would not suffice so long as material access is not provided; that, however, does not even imply automatic legitimacy for a foreign discourse, the novel for instance. Even-Zohars cultural model, drawn from Jacobsons linguistic model, posits six elements necessary for proper and complete cultural communication; on the two sides are the producer and the consumer mediated by four elements for effective communication: Institution, Repertoire, Market, and Product (Even-Zohar 1997: 20). The market is a space where the producer meets the consumer and sells them a product with its specific repertoire, regulated by institution; however, in cases when there is no demand for the producers product, the market cannot function. Demand is indeed significant in the study of a culture: why, when, and how will a specific idea or repertoire (particularly an imported one) be in demand? And what conditions the demand? For a population regulated by a different cultural set of values, pre-existing the foreign discourse, the demand for the imported repertoire might be almost nil because the population is already culturally conditioned and institutionally regulated. Therefore, translation of concepts into a culture alone cannot signify anything specific nor does it suggest any meaningful impact. A repertoire, modernity or the novel, must be agreed between the producer and the consumer to have any impact. Any analysis that leaves the consumer and the reception of the repertoire out of its calculations is merely engaged in idealistic reveries with no meaningful links to cultural reality. What I would like to emphasize here is that such uncritical narratives are concerned with translation causes in an abstract unwarranted sense, as constructive, without having seriously engaged in translation effects, like readers change of mental state and/or their subsequent action. These effects presuppose readers access and competence and merit serious investigation.
The fundamental factor of translation is that it depends for its success not only on solving the specific coordination problems presented by the immediate situation, but also on the relative positions and qualities of the participants, and on the values and interests at stake. In order to grasp the role of norms and models, as social realities, in these processes (Hermans 1996: 28) we need to recognize this social dimension of the production and reception of translations, as distinct from the psychological reality of the translation process (Hermans 1996: 28). Some statistical information might help focus our attention on this dimension. It is of course true that books and newspapers were published in Iran, but the percentage of the people who could actually contribute to this writing of the oral culture, as Balay (2006: 19) has it, through reading or writing is not incorporated in his analysis. Literacy rates are telling: the rate of literacy in the Ottoman Empire in 1900 was 15 percent, in Egypt 10 percent, and in Iran well below 5 percent (Ahmadzadeh 2003: 77). Half a century later things do not look much better in Iran: in the 1950s out of the countrys total population of nearly 20 million, an estimated 12 million are peasants living in some 45000 villages. Only 5 percent of the villagers are literate (Kamshad 1966: 88). The data available through the same scholars on publication statistics reveal the extent of cultural impact of translation: the number of publications in Iran during the period 18501914 is 162 the number of publications in the Ottoman Empire during the same period was around 10,00020,000 and in Egypt something similar (Ahmadzadeh 2003: 85). These numbers indicate the very narrow reach of translation and the limited cultural effect it could have on the population as a whole; nevertheless, we cannot ignore its influence on those who were involved, directly or indirectly, in the changes, and we must contextualize any analysis without unnecessary orientalist generalizations putting Iran, Turkey, and Egypt in the same category: they might have a lot in common in their relationship to the West, but they have their own determining differences. Furthermore, and considering that education was the purpose or skopos of translation, the causal relationship, translation hence education, fails; translational skopos, by definition, is the intended effect on intended readers. This is perhaps the main parameter for the consideration of translation errors (Chesterman 1998: 19).31 Inadequacy occurs when translation fails to have the effect it was supposed to have; if translation cannot or does not communicate, it engenders errors and, accordingly, it errs in Iran.32 In the absence of sufficient empirical data, it remains doubtful whether, as claimed by Katouzian and Balay, prose actually moved to the center of the literary system;33 prose might have gained importance for the privileged educated few, but for the majority of people, speech remained not only the main form of communication but also the only one available, so that oral poetry was by far the most important and preferred literary mode, as data available to us on the institutional
strengths of modern schools to disseminate education also indicates. Balay mentions the number of Darolfonun graduates after 40 years of institutional functioning as only 1100 graduates in the 1890s (Balay 2006: 43). Irans population in 1900 was about 10 million34 which means that Darolfonun had accommodated only .01% of the people; even if we include additional potential indirect institutional impact and unofficial educational forms as well, and multiply the number by a hundred (110,000), we reach 1% only. Not all of the people began translating, reading, and writing and not all of them were concerned with literary-cultural activities; this throws the wholesomeness of modernization claims in doubt, indicating the limited cultural spaces translation could actually affect. In my opinion, the modernizing role of translation in Iranian culture has been unreasonably romanticized in the available historiographies because of contextual and conceptual errors. Contextually, it is true that books were translated but, first, in comparison with the books written in Farang they were simply an insignificant number and hence incapable of giving a true idea of European modernity and culture (to be assimilated);35 secondly, in a largely agrarian and illiterate society relying on poetry and oral culture, access to books, both financially and competently, was the privilege of a very few. So, when Kamshad (1966: 11) claims that the changes made the late 19th century the age of rapidly produced and widely disseminated pamphlets by reformists and the reproduction of text-books and of translations of European works [which] played an important role in stirring the minds of progressive thinkers and bringing about the subsequent revolution, one should be aware of the elitist thrust of the statement, as all the fuss and fret happens among, at best, only 5 percent of society; this, also, reveals the inherent contradictions of the Constitutional Revolution as a democratic revolution led by privileged aristocrats who were determined to annihilate the system which had preferred them. Conceptually, and this is much more complicated, how feasible is modernizing through translation using the Other as the model? As a perfect case for comparison with the above definition by Taqizadeh, (quoted in Ahmadzadeh 2003: 74), consider De Graefs understanding of European modernity (2007: 145, my emphasis):
One way to continue thinking about the modern is by casting it as a condition of enforced representational responsibility: a human being feels called upon to represent what in this representation figures as its condition: its world, the whole messy mass of it suddenly requiring representation beyond its being already there beyond mere transcription, that is, it requires re-inscription. The point of this feeling of feeling called upon is that there is no call, only the sense that there is a call for it, and that sense itself is what performs and is performed in the representations of the modern. The sense of enforcement attending modern representational practice derives from the perception of the absence, or the loss, of an agent properly
in charge of representation let us say, to cut an extremely long story short, the absence, or the loss, or the disappearance of God.
The Iranian modern, however, was conceptually constructed not by the absence or loss of God, but by his/her replacement; it remained essentially a transcription of its Other who was properly in charge and the reference of the representation. This non-self-referential character makes the whole project ambiguous: it nominally claims modernity but it has not shifted fundamentally. The self-referential thought would critically attempt to account for the vast multitude of facts awaiting comprehension which are actually not fully comprehensible due to the lack of a point of reference with which one can close representation. We do not know what adequate representation is, but we know what inadequate representation can be: any representation is suspected of inadequacy; there will be an eternal friction between the desire to comprehend and the irritatingly ungraspable complex condition. In other words, as we cannot know if we have truly overcome the complexities of our condition, infinite critical questioning is the condition of remaining modern. The closure of representation is non-modern, and so, setting an external reference point of approximation, that solid, existent Other, Farang, as the condition of modernity, negates and cancels the whole project. The utter inexhaustible self-reflexivity of the modern postpones any claims to a full comprehension and as a result volatilizes the absolute. Having the referential quality of Iranian modernization in mind, one could say that the only significant change effected by the Iranian turn to modernity through translation, might have been the replacement of the master religious narrative (absolute 1) by the master European narrative (absolute 2) for that so-called progressive class of society. However, the culture remained fundamentally referential, locating knowledge externally, and transcendentally constructing a new organization of socio-cultural life. This would include the hypothetical condition in which translation were capable of importing knowledge completely, that is if it had managed to bring the whole of European knowledge into the Iranian cultural sphere without a trace of loss or fragmentation; even then, modernization would have remained referential, not having achieved the condition of the modern: critical immanent self-reflexiveness.36 Therefore, and this is the question, with the essential re-refentiality of translation, what remains to be investigated is whether translation truly can be a modernizing force in a peripheral culture. Returning to the issue of institutional insufficiencies: these were of course not confined to translation or to schools. There are instabilities of newspapers and magazines reflecting the unstable social conditions which normally affect the growth and development of the novel (Balay 2006: 1432), caused, among other things, by political strife, and since the novel is intricately linked with translation,
315
this made the path of translational influence less than smooth. On the other hand, as I mentioned above, prose writing had its own inconsistencies as well, preventing the proper institutionalization of a standard language. Both the instabilities of the press and the inconsistencies of prose can significantly affect the accommodation of the (foreign) cultural discourses transplanted into the Iranian texture. Even institutionally, limitations aside, translation could not have been a straightforward modernizing or democratizing force. Indeed, the imported modern education was, in the feudal social structure, accessible only to a limited class of people. The first group who began studying in the school [Darolfonun] was composed of one hundred students, who were princes, sons of aristocrats and high-ranking government officials constituting the main body of translators later (Ahmadzadeh 2003: 73). Given that this modernization by the aristocracy disadvantaged the less privileged people, one cannot help asking what sort of, and whose, modernization is meant here? In Aryanpours version of the history of modern Persian literature, one important quality shared by nearly all novelists is that they owe their careers as novelists to a family tradition of literature and culture (Aryanpour 2002b: 239), betraying the aristocratic thrust of modern Iranian culture and Persian literature. All in all, it would not be improper to conclude that the modern language structured translationally was foreign to the language of daily use inside the country informed by the immediate realities of the people. The language may have been renewed, but it was most definitely emptied of its immediacy for people not only because of the concepts used, and the reshaping of diction, but also because it imposed unrealistic expectations on a society that lived a different kind of life. This was intensified by the elite social location of translators who were students and graduates of schools in and out of the country who helped to create new types of translators and writers (Ahmadzadeh 2003: 86). Consequently, language could not work as a tool for making the components of reality linguistically and conceptually visible and manageable if produced only by translation. The translated language, however appropriated, was new and was partly formed through European subjectivity: the cognitive tools were designed differently and filtered aspects of Iranian reality out; besides, it inserted European elements that were unreal in the Iranian context; this was how Iranian subjectivity was formed, based on distance and distractedness of its language: it was focused on the reality of the Other, prioritized over its immediate reality and replacing the direct, unpleasant reality with the desired version, the Other. Wanting to be its own Other, it was self-estranged. Insofar as reality substantiates language, the Persian language was hollowed out and lost touch with reality. Divorcing its own reality has led to a double reality or double consciousness: one subjected and immediate, but postponed, the other dominant and remote, but desired.
Translational norms come once again to the fore: Who qualifies as a translator? Does anyone who studies at University and knows two languages translate well? What social and cultural norms determined the quality of, and assessed, translations? In the absence of proper institutions, how was language change regulated and who ensured that change would not derail language as a social contract? And considering the fact that many translators were educated in technical fields, how reliable were their translations and how capable were they of using their designated model in the service of genuine transformation? And if translations had been correct and properly institutionalized, would it have meant that the modernization project could have succeeded? None of the narratives discussed here has accounted for the relationality of cultures and languages; even though Balay resorts to Even-Zohars polysystem theory to explain why prose transforms more easily than poetry, he fails to articulate the relationality between Persian and European languages by including issues of inter-linguistic and inter-cultural hierarchy in his interpretation. The political asymmetrical relations between Iran and the West could not help but reproduce the asymmetry on the cultural level in the relationship between classical Persian and modern European languages, with its colonial implications, setting the former as the borrower and making translation the forerunner of modern culture. Even-Zohar believes that translation enters the peripheries of a literary system (Even-Zohar 1990: 45); however, we need to consider the extra-literary force that this marginality can have; in the marginal systems, the peripheral translated material can exert a powerful centrifugal pull, deregulating and de-centering the established institutions (religious, literary etc.). In this situation, the centrifugal is always the more powerful system that, easily or with difficulty, undoes the centripetal system. This explains the colonization of a language: as the colonizer needs to channel the resources of the colonized outward towards the colonizer, the colonized is centrifugally organized. To visualize this change, one has to image a stable language as circular, and focused with a center on which it is concentrated making it a convex self-centered language, substantially comfortable with itself. This focused and functional language becomes defensively concave if it opens up to unregulated importation, which means the language is ultimately inevitably split up: part of it, smaller and energetic, would face outwards and import materials constantly reshaping the language. While this more dynamic and modernizing section is shifting, centuries of training has fixedly directed other parts towards religious/traditional centers. The center and periphery, in the absence of communicating channels between them, would be located with their backs to each other, the two faces of Janus, the god of doors, doorways and gates,37 incapable of meaningful communication, each facing its own sun.38
One of the effects of translation as opening up to others is the duality of Iranian consciousness. There is, first, the classical Arabicized language which might have become less common from the turn of the twentieth century, but which is not necessarily completely banned from usage, particularly because of the existent virulent religious institutions, and remains latent, though not favored by the modernizing class. Then, there is also the language which is the product of the desire to be Europeanized (= modernized) and is produced through translation and filled with European concepts. Regarding the colonial implications of translation, the rules of the translational passage are partly determined by power, which haunts all human relations, whatever the context, involving agents who are both conditioned by these power structures, or at least, entangled in them (Hermans 1996: 27). The relations of power are enacted through the agents constant reiteration of the foreign norms that reproduce, strengthen, and establish them involving not just individuals, groups and communities but also the power relations within these communities, whether these relations are material (economic, legal, political) or symbolic (Hermans 1996: 36). The introduction of foreign norms, then, can, on the one hand, lead to (more) political conflicts, and, on the other hand, if the whole society and culture is not involved, partition the culture by creating cultural ghettos of different normative regulations. The values that (dis)connect the parties involved can finally determine whether or not the social functions of translation could be met for, as a communicative act, translation constitutes a more or less interactive form of social behavior, involving a degree of interpersonal coordination among those taking part (selecting and attuning an appropriate code, recognizing and interpreting the code, paying attention, eliminating noise, etc.) (Hermans 1996: 28). The non-communicative translational acts deny their interrelatedness and, hence, change the spheres of cultural meaning by slicing out the affected parts. Moreover, as Lambert (1995: 109110) points out
exporting (active) systems are in a power position from the point of view of the importing (passive) systems the more a society imports, the more it tends to be unstable the more a given society imports from one and the same neighbor, the more it is in a position of dependence the more static these partners are in terms of space and time, the more dependent they are on their big brothers as a kind of mobility by necessity rather than by option, migration does not favor stability but at least passivity or importation.
In the Iranian case, I would argue that translation has led to cultural instability and de-authentication of literary products. Without taking the colonial issues into consideration and without such a systemic concept, we cannot properly understand change (for better or worse), its
nature, and its origins (Even-Zohar 2004: 2). A systemic view will take into account diachronic change as well as potential synchronic elements that will sooner or later, provided the opportunity, actualize. The static closed-system model within the historical narrative of translation into Persian works by reducing the potential concurrent options to the installed one, regardless of its functionality. Cultural alternatives are absent and the model fails to explain (non-)change with regard to potential temporarily hibernating models which could (re-)surface at a later time. Analytic methodology has to shift by incorporating all the known factors for the polysystemic model is to give the ability to account for all the latent diachronic sets that are not immediately operating, but might come in action soon (EvenZohar 2004: 2). Soon, that is, in Irans case, in the 1970s. Potential alternatives, modern or otherwise, are filtered out in the positivist interpretation of the role of translation in Iran. By synchronically analyzing the field of early modern Iran we learn that institutional ignorance in the available historiographies has made religious institutions invisible and unintelligible and underestimated their significance, either as contributors to modernity or as agents of resistance. The ontological immorality of such a misrepresentation arises not only because it formally ignores them on the pretext that they fall on the nonmodern side of essentialist, normative dichotomies of religious-hence-nonmodern vs. secular-hence-modern institutions; in addition, it constitutes a defective interpretation and sheer misunderstanding of the culture in question. In translation, even though one choice excludes other choices it does not annihilate them. By extension, socially, culturally, and even politically, being marginalized does not mean being totally destroyed, but being latent for future possibilities. Marginality is possibility: Picking one position means that the alternatives are excluded, although they remain latent as a store for future possibilities (Hermans 1999: 87). One elements dominance does not ontologically annihilate the rest, but reserves them on stand-by. Therefore, sporadically mentioning the role of religion in regulating how social interactions effectively change the course of events is not enough because
the presence of an intelligentsia was unique and unprecedented in traditional Iranian society. As a collectivity, this group, unlike any other, was alienated from a sense of solidarity with a particular class or status group. The attitude of the intelligentsia to religious and political authorities ranged from detached indifference to outright hostility; to propertied bourgeoisie, from benign neglect to moral indignation; and to the masses, from condescending sentimentality to selfsacrificing glorification (Dabashi 1985: 154).
The intelligentsia remains alienated from the established institutions in which the command-obedience mechanism is in function. While the uninstitutionalized
intelligentsias were rigorously simplifying written language and navely assumed they were getting their written message across to the illiterate people, the religious institutions maintained their firm grip. Therefore, in spite of Kamshads (1966: 57) claim that with reform in political structure came a weakening of the religious institution, Islamic institutions, even though contested in the political structure by the establishment of the nation-state formally marginalizing the clergies, were never pushed out of the socio-cultural life of Iranian society altogether, and naturally maintained their (political) influence among large parts of the population. This was mainly because of their more effective communicative measures, oral speeches, and secondly due to their historically long presence in the society: since the sixteenth century Shiism has been the dominant branch of Islam the Shiite clergy have in consequence enjoyed an independent following amongst the population (Yeganeh 1993: 4). An early instance of institutional religions social influence on translation is the fleeing of the translator of The Adventures of Hajji Baba of Isfahan, Mirza Habib Isfahani, to Turkey in 1860 (Kamshad 1966: 24) because he was accused of atheism. Another example is the controversy upon the publication of Once Upon a Time (1921) by Jamalzadeh after which some reactionary religious circles condemned it as a piece of blasphemy offensive to national pride and the publisher was denounced by mullahs and threatened with exile and prosecution (Kamshad 1966: 94). The book was banned and the bookstore burned down. These examples, together with the revolution of 1979 (not entirely religiously motivated, but definitely religiously led), indicate that, much like the formal importation of a discourse, formal deletion from the political structure might not mean as much as Kamshad assumes, and might not necessarily reduce its cultural acceptance and social purchase. Even though causal explanations also increase our understanding of why something happened (Chesterman 2007: 3), simplistic relations or unilateral readings that never come across a doubting moment wrongly interpret the situation. The homogenizing inclination of narratives about the influence of translation on Persian literature, ignoring the vast cultural heterogeneities, simplistically sets up a linear happy-go-merry narration of translational influence which signals the next highly significant point: none of these narratives mentions whether or not women actively participated in the translational revision of culture, nor do they protest womens absence, if they did not. At least, one intention of modernization was releasing women from bondage as an important element in the strategy to modernize Iran through social and political reform (Yeganeh 1993: 4). How did translatorial and translational norms account for women and what was their share, at least those of the royal families, as subjects in translational activity? If they were absent, what historical and social obstacles impeded their cultural and
literary presence? In sum, and considering that nouns are not gendered in Persian, how would gender issues be connected to translation and its seminal role as the engine of modernization in Iran? 4. Conclusion To sum up all the problematics, the jump to the cultural level without having considered first the individual and then the institutional levels is a grave drawback: to what extent could written translation from a secular culture have been influential in a largely illiterate and religious society dependent on oral culture? The reason we need to reconsider current explanations of Persian translation historiography is that as an instrument of understanding, this narrative is not helpful. I propose a focal shift from the institutional to the cultural and individual levels of analysis by (re-)investigating the translational effects, the transference of ideas, and the simplification of Persian prose in the late 19th century for a more warranted study of translational cultural influences; this is because distance not infrequently gives a romantic aura to much that, looked at close range, is stale, unoriginal, monotonous, and perhaps quite disappointing (Jazayery 1970: 257). The narrative, also, gives us a false idea of the status of literary genres, like the novel, in Persian and postpones an adequate explanation of the link between literary genres and modernity, on the one hand, and the transformations of genres and ideas in their transference from the Western literary system to the Persian system, on the other. That is to say, what function does a genre or an idea perform in its original context and what does it signify there? And how does it change by transference to a different context, what distortions are involved and why do they happen, and what meanings are involved in them? For instance, does the novel mean the same thing and carry out identical functions in the, say, English and Persian literary systems? Or does it differ as its context changes? If yes, what do we learn from cultural differences by noticing the shifts of a genre? Furthermore, the narrative is utterly uninformed by gender and minority issues which mandate the rewriting of a different history of modern Persian prose, reexamining the role of translation and recasting its implications for Iranian socio-cultural and political life.
Acknowledgements
I sincerely thank the editor of Target and the anonymous reviewers for their comments. I would also like to thank Leuven Universitys Center for Translation Studies (CETRA), in particular Reine Meylaerts and Jos Lambert, for having generously provided me with a priceless platform
Translation historiography in the Modern World 321 where my intellectual life was enriched. I am profoundly indebted to Ortwin de Graef for his always enlightening points and patient intellectual sketches. I warmly thank Jos Lambert for his improving remarks and suggestions. I am grateful to Andrew Chesterman, too, for his encouraging comments on the first drafts of the paper. And I thank Elham Etemadi who contributed to the development of the argument from its early rugged rawness.
Notes
1. The phrase Middle East is an example of this (post-)colonial complexity. What do the people living in the region, commonly known as Middle East in cultural and socio-political literature, call themselves? Is there an alternative, less loaded, term? That scholars from this region have to refer to themselves from an external, institutionalized, and alienating point of view in their attempts to grasp contextual particularities, becoming their own (Middle) East, should indicate how issues get distorted/complicated from that perspective. 2. It must be noted that there is no precise data available on linguistic diversity and the number of speakers of each language (or bilinguals, for instance) in Iran. The speakers of other languages cannot use their native tongues for education, and publications in these languages, if they exist at all, are negligible. It seems that the monopolization of print by the Persian language, on the one hand, and a lack of substantial publication in and information about other languages, on the other, has made Persian the channel of cultural change, with the Iranian cultural scene (still) dependent on it. 3. Prior to 1935, Persia was the official name for the country known as Iran today, replaced by Reza Shahs decree in formal correspondence. In Dehkhoda Persian dictionary elucidations, Persia has a Latin origin, and was used as Persis in Greek. Today, it connotes a historical past of conquest and glory for those who resort to it. Iran literally means noble/chaste, and indicates the Land of the Aryans, as in its Avestan form, Airyanam, and its ancient Persian Ariynm. 4. Kamshads assessment of the historical development of Persian prose during the historical periods mentioned has it virtues and pitfalls. But, as my main focus in this paper is none of these periods I do not raise any issues with Kamshads narrative and evaluations. I have mentioned them here only to sketch a historical background to the period in question. 5. This is a significant issue for Translation Studies in Iran: does the importation of texts into the colonizing pre-Qajar Persia have the same effects as importation during the (semi-)colonized Persia? And how does the receiving culture respond to the imported material at each phase? To my knowledge, no substantial comparative research has been conducted on these two opposite poles of the history of translation into Persian. 6. Translation from European languages began earlier than 1851 but it was only then that translation was officially put to institutional use. The 1921 manifesto was the sum total of the translation movement which had concluded that simpler prose was more democratic and better suited to enlightenment purposes. However, other neighboring historical events and periods, like the two world wars, the first (19251941) and second Pahlavi (19411979) and the post-1979 period, with their ensuing cultural shifts and changes, have undoubtedly affected translation in various ways and deserve close investigation. But reexamining concepts and terms that have been
322 Omid Azadibougar taken for granted, like modernization, and placing translation into Persian in an international frame necessarily precede such investigations. Without a rigorous reexamination we are likely to reproduce the intellectual error of overestimating or wrongly analyzing translational effects by ignoring contextual particularities, and without proper internationalization we create a ghetto (or reinforce an already existing one) by which the relationality of cultures remain analytically unintelligible. A meaningful investigation needs to account for both cultural particularities and the international mobility of ideas. 7. Even despite the undeniable, significant role of translation (for good or bad) in the Persian literary system, there are only two journals published on the topic in Iran: Motarjem and Motaleat-e Tarjome quarterlies. According to the information available on the database of Iranian journals (www.magiran.com), the former was established in 1991 (i.e. 1370 in the Iranian calendar) and its last issue, 46th, was published in 2007 (1386). It focused more on practical translation than theoretical speculation, even though there are articles dealing with theoretical issues. The latter journal is based at the Iranian Center for Translation Studies at Allameh Tabatabai University, Tehran. Launched in 2003 the journal is a bilingual Persian-and-English publication, much more focused on issues in Translation Studies. However, what is problematic with both journals is the absence of a critical stance and a well-formulated theoretical position. The problem with an uncritical reception of foreign ideas is not specific to Translation Studies in Iran and requires further investigation. 8. In the above mentioned journals a few articles concern themselves with translation in a cultural context. See the following articles in Motarjem: Mokhtari Ardekani, Mohammad Ali. 2002 (1381). Estemar va Tarjome [Translation and Colonization], 36: 4552; Ghazanfari, Mohammad. 2004 (1383). Jelvehaee az Baztab-e Ideology dar Tarjome [The Reflection of Ideology in Translation], 38: 8193; Solhjou, Ali. 2005 (1384). Tarjome va Sharayet-e Farhangi [Translation and Cultural Conditions], 42: 514; Ashouri, Dariush. 2006 (1385). Baraye Dashtan-e Zaban-e Baz dar Tarjome Bayad Farhang-e Baz Dasht [An Open Culture Conditions an Open Language in Translation], 43: 7778; Solhjou, Ali. 2007 (1386). Tarjome Napaziri-e Farhangi [Cultural Untranslatability], 46: 3943; Fokouhi, Naser. 2007 (1386). Ensan Shenasi va Tarjome [Anthropology and Translation], 46: 95102; Bolouri, Mazdak (tr.) 2007 (1386). Even-Zohars The Position of Translated Literature in Literary Polysystem, 46: 132139. These papers briefly investigate various issues in relation to translation: ideology, colonization, cultural translatability, translation theories, and anthropology. However, the issue is the absence of dialogue between them, which would lead to a specific theoretical discourse: they remain intermittent pieces standing alone without having interested the community of scholars and simply fade away. Besides, the fact that Even-Zohars The Position of Translated Literature in Literary Polysystem was not translated into Persian until 2007 is reason enough to think that the study of translation and culture is still in a pre-systemic phase of the conception of literature and culture in Iran. The following papers in Motaleat-e Tarjome take up a similar position: Mollanazar, Hussain. 1382. Motaleat-e Tarjome: Farhang, Zaban, va Adab [Translation Studies: Culture, Language and Literature], 1(1): 730; Hashemi Minabad, Hassan. 1383. Farhang dar Tarjome va Tarjomey-e Anasor-e Farhangi [Culture in Translation and the Translation of Cultural Elements], 2(5): 31 50; Ghazanfari, Mohammad, Baztab-e Boomi Garaee dar Tarjome [Domestication in Translation], 3(11): 3952; Khatib, Mohammad and Khanjani-Khani, Marjan. Negahi be Tafavothaye Farhangi va Rahbordhaye Tarjome [An Overview of Cultural Differences and Translational Solutions], 3(11): 6465; Mirza, Zahra and Khanjan, Alireza, Baznemood-e Ideology va Qodrat
Translation historiography in the Modern World 323 dar Tarjome [The Representation of Ideology and Power in Translation], 3(12): 728; Siami, Tohid, and Kord, Alieh, and Zafaranloo, Kamboozia, Rooykardi Neshane Shenakhti-Ejtemaee be Bar-resi Masaleye Barabari dar Tarjome Mafahim-e Ideology [A Socio-Semiotic Approach to Equivalence in the Translation of Ideological Concepts], 6(21): 4964; Fazeli, Mohammad, Binesh-haye Nazari darbareye Jame Shenasi Tarjome [Theoretical Insights into the Sociology of Translation], 7(25): 2946; Farahzad, Farzad, and Madani-Givi, Farah, ideology va tarjome [Ideology and Translation], 7(26): 9394. 9. Even though my primary concern in this paper is not a comparative study of translation historiography, cultural relatedness, not only with neighboring countries and cultures but also with those located farther away, and the asymmetrical nature of such relations have been acknowledged as a fundamental and formative part of the argument. 10. The discourse on prose in Persian is pretty young: historians usually begin recounting the formation of modern prose through translation, then mention journalism as a contributing factor in its development, and finally list the literary works written in modern prose forming new genres. These proses are all cast as continuous and there is not much of a differentiation between the languages of journalism, translation, and native literary prose; considering such a generic indiscrimination, the discourse on prose and literary genres still has to develop. 11. Even though the main channel of translation into Persian was the French language (definitely so between 1851 and 1921), the first substantial work on modern prose was written in English by Hassan Kamshad (1966). Christophe Balays work (1998, but published in Persian in 2006) was the first attempt in French to deal with the early translations into Persian from French. In other words, there is a linguistic rupture between the actual influences and the major sources that constructed the historiographical discourse. There are also books written in Persian, like Hassan Mirabedinis four volume (2007, first published in 1999) and Yahya Aryanpours three volume (reprint in 2002) histories of modern Persian literature, that deal with translation and the formation of prose, but they never seem to have any quarrels with the discourse constructed in other languages about modern Persian prose. This might indicate that Iran is still part of a colonial internationalization whose history is mainly written abroad. 12. All translations from Persian sources are mine unless otherwise stated. I have chosen Rahimians book for a particular purpose. It is published by SAMT (The Organization for Researching and Composing University Textbooks in the Humanities) and it can give us a view of the institutional approach to translation historiography in the current education system. Even this post-1979 book does not seem to have any reservations about the historiographical discourse of translation into Persian. 13. During the Qajar era, Russia gained territorial rights over large parts of the Persian Empire that the Qajars had inherited. The first war with Imperial Russia was in 1803 which ended in the Golestan Treaty (1813) and Russias occupation of Georgia and most of the Caucasus region. The second war (1820s) ended with the Torkamanchay Treaty (1828) by which Russia gained control of the entire South Caucasus. The Russian influence in the north of Iran was contested by the British presence in southern regions. 14. This search for a model in Iran continues into the Pahlavi period as well; Reza Shah was trying to do in Iran what Ataturk was doing in Turkey. It seems improbable that countries which were struggling against colonial expansion of some European countries should not have much
324 Omid Azadibougar in common in their relationship with colonization; however, the extent of the effectivity of the modernizing measures taken by leaders in their respective countries definitely depended on contextual specificities, as discussed later on. Therefore, modernization might have taken different turns and had different meanings in different contexts, especially as filtered through translation. For more on this topic see Hyun and Lambert (1995). 15. Specifically those of Alexander Dumas, as the most popular and widely read novelist in translation in early 20th-century Iran. French literature, as mentioned above, was the main translational source of and influence on Persian literature between 1851 and 1921. The AngloAmerican influence becomes explicit during the second Pahlavi period (19411979) and after the joint UK-US coup detat toppled the Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, in 1953. Even though things changed to the disadvantage of French, it did not lose much of its influence with high culture, probably because of the leftist and anti-American sentiments in Iran. However, this does not necessarily apply to the post-1979 period when the dynamics of culture and politics had become much more complicated prioritizing, ironically, English over French. 16. According to the Dehkhoda Persian dictionary, Farang is the Persianized form of France, and its derivative, Farangi, literally means of or related to France, European, or Christian. Originally, Farangi was used to refer to people who had travelled to and experienced Farang, that is France, but a lack of familiarity with Europe gradually changed its meaning to connote Europe. Another derivative of Farang, Farangi-Maab, means someone who acts or behaves like the Farangis: the Europeans. These terms are not common in current linguistic use. 17. The classics of Persian literature are numerous but some of most canonized are: Ferdowsis (9401020) Shahnameh, Omar Khayyams (10481131) Rubaiyyat, Attar Neishabouris (11301220) Mantegho-Tair, Nezamis (11411209) Panj-Ganj, Saadis (12091291) Bustan and Golestan, Rumis (12071273) Masnavi and Divan-e Shams, and Hafezs (13151390) Divan. Modern poetry was made in complete rupture from classical poetic rules, and was much resisted; however, some canonized poets of the modern period (since 1900) are: Nima Yooshij (18961960), Mehdi Akhavan-Sales (19281990), Simin Behbahani (1927), Forugh Farrokhzad (19351967), Ahmad Shamlou (19252000), Sohrab Sepehri (19281980). 18. Vahdats list of the Darolfonun curriculum, as local education, shows similarities with what students headed for abroad: engineering, infantry, cavalry, artillery, medicine and surgery, mineralogy, and natural sciences including physics, chemistry and pharmacology history, geography, cartography (2002: 28). From these fields, Vahdat rightly concludes that technical advancement was the main focus. 19. Social and political unrest, and consequent revolutions, as a result of the importation of ideas is not specific to Iran; in South-East Asia, as well as in Turkey, similar patterns are witnessed. What has to be investigated comparatively is how similar they are and what differentiates, under what contextual conditions, their responses. For Translation Studies in Iran, this seems almost inevitable and demands serious attention. 20. This move, however, was by no means unprecedented in world literary history. For an investigation of the link between modernity and language and the possibility of using ordinary language for poetic purposes in British Romanticism, mainly Wordsworth, see De Graef (2007).
Translation historiography in the Modern World 325 21. For an investigation of the interaction between poetry and prose, and the shift from the orality of poetry to literacy and written prose see Ong (1982). 22. Notice that the cultural dynamics are much more complicated than mere translation and translational effects, particularly when a very well established literary tradition precedes translation. For an investigation of these dynamics and the effects of tradition and production, besides translation, in the formation of a literary system see Lambert (1980). 23. Kamshad does mention the existence of a dynamic oral language side by side with an educated, Arabicized and educated written culture. To him, translation was not an invention of the language, but a space for new mixtures. 24. Whatever the actual consequences of this, we must bear in mind that the language of translation and that of literature are different from each other. In the case of the Persian literary system, it seems that the language of translation was taken as literature and set as a model for literary productions in the forms that were imported through translation. This must also indicate how the imported literary discourse was appropriated. For the difference between the language of translation and that of literature see Boyden et al. (2007). 25. As mentioned above, the cultural dynamics cannot ignore the preceding traditions. See Lambert (1980). 26. The novel as well as the short story, both in prose and with their own specificities, were for the first time imported through translation into the Persian literary system. We need to be reminded that the novel in the Persian language preceded the Persian novel. 27. One of the most significant issues for Translation Studies in Iran is to see the main sources (what languages, which authors, and through whom) of change and revolution prior to the Revolutions of 1905 and 1979. For instance, in the latter case, in addition to variant forms of Islamic ideology, the Marxist influence was remarkable; however, what is significant for Translation Studies is to see how the influence of Marxist ideology was filtered and appropriated in Persian, and how meaningful the shifts were/are. It must already be common knowledge that transcultural movement of ideas distorts them. But how they occur, and what they mean in the new context tell us a great deal about the cultures under investigation. 28. Persian as the dominant language of the Iranian sphere has been significantly influenced by translation, and because Persian has been the institutional language of education and culture, it might have transferred its effect to the people who use the language culturally or educationally. However, whether or not the same effect is visible in their mother-tongues has to be established by further research. This will be much more interesting considering the fact that no substantial translation channels exist between Iranian languages to make the translational effects of the new Persian on other languages traceable, despite the fact that the building of a multilanguage nation depends on the facilitation of interaction between the languages inside. In my study, I have taken the influences of the Persian language as being reflected in Iranian culture, even though Persian is not an adequate representative of Iranian. 29. What makes one uncomfortable with a term like modernization is that the intention of the so called modernization movement was to become totally European, in appearance and manners, as well as in thought and speech. This process would be better labeled Europeanization, as modernization seems not to have ever been a serious theoretically framed and defined
326 Omid Azadibougar movement in Iran. It seems to me that the desire for change and progress is so huge that any change, regardless of its meaning, is hailed as modernization and as constructive to the cultural life. What is more, it is based on such a definition of modernization that the 1979 revolution is interpreted as anti-modern, approving post-revolutionary reactionary policies. The first step is to challenge these terms and concepts, and as translation was the basis of change, Translation Studies has a graver task in cultural analysis in Iran. 30. Institutionalization does not also imply homogenization of culture because other latent institutions might reject the dominant discourse contesting it and its rise to political significance: when a certain repertoire may already have succeeded in occupying the center, schools, churches, and other organized activities and bodies may still obey certain norms no longer acceptable to the group who support that repertoire (Even-Zohar 1997: 32). Nevertheless, while all institutions are heterogeneous, the absence of institutionalization proper can definitely move from heterogeneity to the chaotic deregulation by lack of control. 31. Intended purposes or readers might arouse suspicions; however, in the case of translation into Persian, the intentions of translators were quite explicitly emphasized: progress based on the Farangi model. To them, the translation of the selected books into Persian could change people and culture and lead to progress. 32. The error is further intensified by the fact that not all Iranians mother-tongue is Persian. 33. Even in todays literary system, prose is highly contested by poetry. Any empirical data attempting to clarify the position of prose and poetry in the literary system must adopt a sound and clear measuring methodology; in addition, one also has to think of the literary system as a part of the whole linguistic system in which language might be put to several uses, like translation, journalism, daily communication etc. 34. http://www.un.org/Depts/escap/pop/journal/v10n1a1.htm 35. Even if the translated works could communicate this true idea of Farangi modernity, the fact that these translations enjoyed no critical reception remains problematic. In this case, translation as a colonial apparatus performs the expropriation of the infected population. This, however, does not mean that the population was totally passive, because consciously or not, they were already patterned by their literary and cultural tradition which would have resisted a sudden and total expropriation. 36. For a brilliant investigation of the relationship between incompatibilities of the imported universal ideas and local realities, the possibility of modernization through importation of ideas, and literary-critical adequacy in a peripheral literature depending on centers see Schwarz (1992; 2001). 37. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus 38. Bakhtin uses the image of Janus to stress the double-voicedness of language: In actual fact, each living ideological sign has two faces, like Janus. Any current curse word can become a word of praise, any current truth must inevitably sound to many other people as the greatest lie. The inner dialectic quality of the sign comes out fully in the open only in times of social crises or revolutionary changes (Bakhtin 1929; Quoted in Morris 1997: 55).
Translation historiography in the Modern World 327 He develops this image (1996) in relation to the concepts of a unitary vs. double-voiced language, heteroglossia, and the centripetal vs. centrifugal forces that constantly influence a language. In my use, the heteroglot is unconscious of its doubleness and assumes the role of the whole without qualifying for it. This pertains to deeper problems with modern literary forms in Persian, particularly the novel, and cultural communication methods and requires a separate space for investigation.
References
Ahmadzadeh, Hashem. 2003. Nation and Novel: A Study of Persian and Kurdish Narrative Discourse. Uppsala: Uppsala University Press. Aryanpour, Yahya. 2002a. Az Saba ta Nima [From Saba to Nima]. First volume. Tehran: Zavvar Press. Aryanpour, Yahya. 2002b. Az Nima ta Roozegar-e Ma [From Nima to Our Time]. Third volume of Az Saba ta Nima [From Saba to Nima] series. Tehran: Zavvar Press. Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1973 [1929]. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language [with Valentin N. Voloshinov: Marksizm i filosofija jazyca, Leningrad 1929]. Translated by Ladislav Matejka and I. R. Titunik. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1996 [1930s]. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays [essays originally published in Voprosy literatury i estetiki, Moscow 1975]. Holquist, Michael, ed. Translated by Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press. Balay, Christophe. 2006. Peidayesh-e Roman-e Farsi [La genese du roman persan modern, 1998]. Translated by Mahvash Ghavimi and Nasrin Khattat. Tehran: Institut Francais de Recherche en Iran and Editions Moin. Balay, Christophe. 2008. Sarchashme-haye Dastan Koutah-e Farsi [Aux sources de la nouvelle persane, 1983]. Translated by Ahmad Karimi-Hakkak. Tehran: Institut Francais de Recherche en Iran and Editions Moin. Blasi, Anthony J. and Weigert, Andrew J. 1976. Towards a Sociology of Religion: An Interpretive Sociology Approach. Sociological Analysis 37:3. 189204. Michael Boyden, Jos Lambert and Reine Meylaerts, 2007. La langue de la litterature: institutionnalisation des lettres par le biais du discours. Plus Oultre. Mlanges offerts DanielHenri Pageaux. Etudes coordines par Sobhi Habchi. Prface de Pierre Brunel. Introduction de Jean Bessire et Jean-Marc Moura. Postface de Sobhi Habchi. Paris: LHarmattan, 17. 455470. Chesterman, Andrew. 2008. The Status of Interpretive Hypotheses. Gyde Hansen et al. eds. Efforts and Models in Interpreting and Translation Research. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 4961. Chesterman, Andrew. 1998. Causes, Translations, Effects. Target 10:2. 201230. Chesterman, Andrew. 2007. On the Idea of a Theory. Across 8:1. 116. Dabashi, Hamid. 1985. The Poetics of Politics: Commitment in Modern Persian Literature. Iranian Studies 18:2/4. 147188. De Graef, Ortwin. 2007. Grave Livers: On the Modern Element in, Wordsworth, Arnold, and Warner. ELH 74. 145169. Even-Zohar, Itamar. 1990. The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem. Poetics Today 11:1. 4551.
328 Omid Azadibougar Even-Zohar, Itamar. 1997. Factors and Dependencies in Culture: A Revised Outline for Polysystem Culture Research. Canadian Review of Comparative Literature. XXIV:1. 1534. Even-Zohar, Itamar. 2004. Polysystem Theory (Revised). Even-Zohar, Itamar, Papers in Culture Research, electronic book available at: http://www.tau.ac.il/~itamarez/works/papers/ papers/ps-revised.pdf Hermans, Theo. 1996. Norms and the Determination of Translation: A Theoretical Framework. Romn lvarez and M. Carmen-frica Vidal, eds. Translation, Power, Subversion. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 2551. Hermans, Theo. 1999. Translation in Systems: Descriptive and System-oriented Approaches Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome. Hyun, Theresa M. and Lambert, Jos, eds. 1995. Translation and Modernization. Volume IV of Earl Miner and Haga Toru, general editors, ICLA 1991 Tokyo: The Force of Vision: Proceedings of the XIIIth Congress of International Comparative Literature Association. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. Jazayery, Mohammad Ali. 1970. Modern Persian Prose Literature. Journal of the American Oriental Society 90:2. 257265. Kamshad, Hassan. 1966. Modern Persian Prose Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Katouzian, Homa. 1991. Iran. Robin Ostle, ed. Modern Literature in Near and Middle East 18501970. London: Routledge. 130157. Lambert, Jos. 1980. Production, Tradition et Importation: une clef pour ltude de la litrrature en traduction. Canadian Review of Comparative Literature. VII.2. 246252. Lambert, Jos. 1995. Literature, Translation and (De)colonization. Theresa M. Hyun and Jos Lambert, eds. Translation and Modernization. Tokyo: ICLA 1991 Tokyo Congress Headquarters. 98117. Mirabedini, Hassan. 2007. Sad Sal Dastan-Nevisi dar Iran [A hundred years of story-writing in Iran]. First volume. Tehran: Cheshmeh Press. Morris, Pam, ed. 1997. The Bakhtin Reader: Selected Writings of Bakhtin, Medvedev and Voloshinov. London and New York: Arnold. Ong, Walter J. 1982. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. London: Methuen. Rahimian, Hormoz. 2006. Adabiat-e Moaser-e Nasr: Advar-e Nasr-e Farsi: az Mashrooteh ta Enghelab-e Eslami [Contemporary prose literature: the phases of Persian prose: from the Constitutional to the Islamic revolution]. Tehran: SAMT. Schwarz, Roberto. 1992. Misplaced Ideas: Essays on Brazilian Culture. John Gledson, ed. London and New York: Verso. Schwarz, Roberto. 2001. National Adequation and Critical Originality. Translated by R. Kelly Washbourne and Neil Larsen. Cultural Critique 49. 1842. Vahdat, Farzin. 2002. God and Juggernaut: Irans Intellectual Encounter with Modernity. New York: Syracuse University Press. Yeganeh, Nahid. 1993. Women, Nationalism and Islam in Contemporary Political Discourse in Iran. Feminist Review 44. 318.
Rsum
Presque toutes les tudes consacres la rencontre entre lIran et lamodernit europenne mettent en relief le rle de la traduction en tant quevecteur des formes littraires nouvelles au sein du systme littrairepersan mais aussi en tant que moteur principal du changement et plusprcisment de la modernisation de la culture. Cet article sattachesuccessivement au rcit constructiviste du discours historiographique encours et lenvironnement traductif entre 1851 et 1921 en Iran. Aprs avoirdcrit lunivers de la traduction pendant la priode cite, jinterroge laconception peu critique de la traduction comme une force positive: dunepart, il sagit dexaminer de prs les hypothtiques implicationsculturelles et linguistiques de la traduction ; dautre part, il sagit demettre en question limpact de la traduction en soi sur la modernisationsocio-culturelle, un pouvoir qui lui est attribu dans le discourshistoriographique ambiant. Cette mise en question privilgiera les effetstraductifs individuels et culturels par rapport aux effets institutionnelssupposs.
Mots-clefs : prose persane moderne, mouvements de traduction, le Darolfonun, la rvolution constitutionnelle, lhistoriographie de la traduction, la modernit iranienne
Authors address
Omid Azadibougar Department of Literary Studies Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Blijde Inkomststraat 21 PO Box 3311 3000 LEUVEN, Belgium Omid.Azadi@arts.kuleuven.be

Translation Historiography in The Modern World: Modernization and Translation Into Persian

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Translation Historiography in The Modern World: Modernization and Translation Into Persian

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Translation historiography in the Modern World

Modernization and translation into Persian

Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

Translation studies in Iran and the Persian language

Translation historiography in the Modern World 299

300 Omid Azadibougar

Translation historiography in the Modern World 301

302 Omid Azadibougar

Translation historiography in the Modern World 303

304 Omid Azadibougar

Translation historiography in the Modern World 305

306 Omid Azadibougar

Translation historiography in the Modern World 307

308 Omid Azadibougar

Translation historiography in the Modern World 309

310 Omid Azadibougar

Translation historiography in the Modern World

312 Omid Azadibougar

Translation historiography in the Modern World 313

314 Omid Azadibougar

Translation historiography in the Modern World

316 Omid Azadibougar

Translation historiography in the Modern World 317

318 Omid Azadibougar

Translation historiography in the Modern World 319

320 Omid Azadibougar

Translation historiography in the Modern World 329

Anda mungkin juga menyukai