The Metaphorical Act of Translation in Austen's Work

In consulting various texts regarding the history of English translation, I have been able to understand the progress of what was considered the “proper” form of translating foreign texts. Throughout much of the 18th century, general critical and popular consensus held that the most important thing for a translator to do was catch the “spirit” of a given piece rather than to focus on literal translation. This feeling can be understood quite easily through Alexander Tytler’s seminal work on translation Essay on the Principles of Translation (1791) in which he states of many works that only deal with “literal and servile transcript”. This feeling gradually began to give way with the turn of the century and up until the end of the 19th century there was a general trend towards more literal translations. The era that Austen lived and wrote in, then, was only at the beginning of this transformation of the translational process, but as the topic was widely debated, it would be safe to assume that she had at least minimal exposure to it.

The importance that this debate has to Austen’s text is then to be understood via Inchbald’s own self-proclaimed concern with the style of Kotzebue’s work rather than any form of literal translation. She explicitly states in her preface to Lovers’ Vows that she is primarily concerned with representing his work in a proper fashion to a British audience. This act of catering a translation to an audience becomes very important for Austen in her use of the play and as it reflects the characters throughout her work.

Austen quite clearly considers the play itself as quite improper, a fact which highlights the inefficacy of Inchbald’s supposed concern over British propriety. Fundamentally, then, this may be read as Austen’s belief that no matter the type of translation proffered, the underlying “spirit” is not to be eradicated. This concern gives way to the metaphorical act of translating that each of Austen’s characters undergoes in various forms. Every character deals differently with the act of relaying unknown information to an audience. What is most noteworthy in this is Fanny’s exceptional ability (or inability) to consider only literal speech and behavior. From her very first appearance she is taken in more by Lady Bertram’s smile than by the implicitly intended graciousness of Sir Thomas (43). This behavior is manifest throughout the novel, as seen in Fanny’s objection to the play based on its actual contents rather than what her compatriots tell her is the “spirit” of the play. Equally, Fanny’s literal interpretation of impropriety of the act of Maria’s giving away her brother’s present, Fanny’s unwillingness to adhere to Edmund’s interpretation and justification of Mary’s behavior (90), Fanny’s immediate disavowal of Mary’s plea to overlook the literal aspects of Henry’s behavior (436), and many more instances all reveal Fanny’s adherence to the literal aspects of reality rather than subjective speculation and “translation”.

This analysis becomes even more intriguing when considering Mrs. Norris’s primary joy in life: relaying information of shocking events. This metaphorical “translation” to her intended audiences is the exact opposite of Fanny’s tendencies, and deepens the judgment that Austen’s narrator implicitly gives this most loathed aunt. Ultimately, it may be understood that the debate of Austen’s time regarding the nature of the act of translation has a direct effect on the behavior of the character’s that live in such a time.