Content area
Full Text
(ProQuest: ... denotes "strike-through" in the original text omitted.)
I. Celan as a Translator in General
To my knowledge, hardly any of our fellow editors has so far considered editing the genesis of translations with a historically critical view unless the translator was an important writer at the same time. Even the private archives of renowned translators of world literature remain unconsidered and unaccessed by editors. In other words: the genesis of translations per se is not necessarily of interest to philologists. In case of doubt, one would rather be inclined to re-translate than take a thorough philological approach to the genesis of the errors or quirks of an older translator. If a translation is praised for its quality, it is printed and re-printed for a certain time until it is replaced with a translation that is closer to the linguistic usage of the time. This is understandable, and many theories have been developed regarding the shelf-life of translations. A different matter altogether is the translation work of canonised authors; Hölderlin 's unconventional or failing attempts to translate Pindar and Sophocles are something whose genesis we are keen to have documented - but why? There are several reasons, the most trivial being (1) the translations of an author are part of his complete works, and in the tradition of German philology, historically critical editing, by nature, is to include the complete works, i.e. also the translations and, if necessary - and in the case of Friedrich Schiller it was necessary - even the murderous prescriptions he gave as a regimental physician or army surgeon. Another reason is (2) the suspicion that the translations have something to do with the respective author's own work because he dedicates himself to a certain tradition, distances himself from another, discovers an author for his country because he feels related to him. And occasionally, the importance of such translations or attempts may almost compare to that of theoretical texts. I would like to reveal yet another reason. There may be (3) some philological curiosity to observe the important author as a philologist, as a colleague dealing with other authors' texts.
A problem - also in the context of editorial theory - is primarily the second point. If translations are part...