Nietzsche: translation as perspectivism
The goal of this paper is to unfold Nietzsche’s conception of Übersetzung within the larger context of his notion of truth. Статья рассматривает концепцию Ницше Übersetzung в большем контексте его представления об истине. Ницше основывает свою теорию на метафорическом языке, и эстетический элемент...
Збережено в:
| Опубліковано в: : | Культура народов Причерноморья |
|---|---|
| Дата: | 2012 |
| Автор: | |
| Формат: | Стаття |
| Мова: | Англійська |
| Опубліковано: |
Кримський науковий центр НАН України і МОН України
2012
|
| Теми: | |
| Онлайн доступ: | https://nasplib.isofts.kiev.ua/handle/123456789/56018 |
| Теги: |
Додати тег
Немає тегів, Будьте першим, хто поставить тег для цього запису!
|
| Назва журналу: | Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine |
| Цитувати: | Nietzsche: translation as perspectivism / I.N. Zhavoronkov // Культура народов Причерноморья. — 2012. — № 226. — С. 69-74. — Бібліогр.: 10 назв. — англ. |
Репозитарії
Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine| _version_ | 1859647564532416512 |
|---|---|
| author | Zhavoronkov, I.N. |
| author_facet | Zhavoronkov, I.N. |
| citation_txt | Nietzsche: translation as perspectivism / I.N. Zhavoronkov // Культура народов Причерноморья. — 2012. — № 226. — С. 69-74. — Бібліогр.: 10 назв. — англ. |
| collection | DSpace DC |
| container_title | Культура народов Причерноморья |
| description | The goal of this paper is to unfold Nietzsche’s conception of Übersetzung within the larger context of his notion of truth.
Статья рассматривает концепцию Ницше Übersetzung в большем контексте его представления об истине. Ницше
основывает свою теорию на метафорическом языке, и эстетический элемент перспективизма неотделим от его критики
перевода.
|
| first_indexed | 2025-12-07T13:29:01Z |
| format | Article |
| fulltext |
ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ МОЛОДЫХ УЧЕНЫХ
69
Две единицы являются полисемантическими (0,66%). В эту группу входят такие фирмонимы как
Macy’s и ‘Omni International’. Они имеют по два значения. Macy’s в первом значении – фирма, а во втором –
универсальный магазин. ‘Omni International’ в обоих значениях передает наименования отелей.
В ходе анализа были сделаны следующие выводы:
1. На основе анализа слова «фирма» термину «фирмоним» было дано следующее определение: разряд
онимов, собственное имя коммерческого предприятия, в том числе промышленного или торгового, которое
обладает правами юридического лица. Данный разряд онимов зачастую употребляется со словом-
гиперонимом.
2. Объем выборки составил 305 единиц, что составляет 3,05% от числа всех реалий, содержащихся в
словаре. 84 единицы от общего числа фирмонимов являются компаниями (27,72% от общего числа
фирмонимов), 68 единиц составляют наименования ресторанов (22,44%) и 67 единиц – это отели (22,11%).
Эти три вида фирмонимов по ТКП самые многочисленные. Они составляют 215 единиц, а в процентном
отношении их количество равняется 72,27%, то есть почти три четверти.
3. В ряде случаев ТКП передают похожие понятия. Также в ходе анализа было выявлено сочетание
двух ТКП в рамках одного названия (1 единица; 0,33%). Две единицы являются полисемантическими
(0,66%).
Источники и литература:
1. Белей О. О. Сучасна українська ергонiмiя (на матерiалi власних назв пiдприємств Закарпатської областi
України) : дис. ... канд.. філол. наук : 10.02.01 / О. О. Белей. – Ужгород, 2000. – 209 с.
2. Рум А. Р. У. Великобритания: Лингвострановедческий словарь / А. Р. У. Рум. – 2-е изд., стереотип. –
М. : Рус. яз., 2000. – 560 с.
3. Томахин Г. Д. США. Лингвострановедческий словарь / Г. Д. Томахин. – М. : Рус. яз., 1999. – 576 с.
Zhavoronkov I.N. УДК 81.255.4 + 821.111/112.2
NIETZSCHE: TRANSLATION AS PERSPECTIVISM
НИЦШЕ: ПЕРЕВОД КАК ПЕРСПЕКТИВИЗМ
Статья рассматривает концепцию Ницше Übersetzung в большем контексте его представления об истине. Ницше
основывает свою теорию на метафорическом языке, и эстетический элемент перспективизма неотделим от его критики
перевода.
Ключевые слова: Ницше, перевод, перспективизм.
In Western Translation Theory: From Herodotus to Nietzsche, Douglas Robinson writes: “Nietzsche’s passing
remarks on translation from The Gay Science and Beyond Good and Evil are not particularly original, but hold
interest as late-nineteenth-century examples of romanticism that point ahead to the hermeneutical translation-
theories of twentieth-century thinkers like Benjamin and Buber, Heidegger and Gadamer, Steiner and Derrida” [6,
262].
To appreciate Nietzsche’s remarks on translation in those two works of his, one has to really think through
Nietzsche’s conception of translation within the context of his philosophy. The goal of this paper is to unfold
Nietzsche’s conception of Übersetzung within the larger context of his notion of truth. It is argued that by
translating the human being back to his or her original nature, Germans are able to translate the life-invigorating
tempo of the style of the original text and thereby liberate themselves from Schopenhauerian pessimism, becoming
what they are, i.e., German, or good Europeans.
This research is based on the new conception that states the following. Nietzsche’s critique of philosophy or
knowledge in general on the basis of metaphorical language, bodily participation and truth as an aesthetic element
of perspectivism is inseparable from his critique of translation, because both philosophy and translation seek to
interpret reality. Moreover, the translation is a double form of interpretation, because it also interprets the original,
which is already an interpretation of reality.
Since Nietzsche scathingly critiques truth in philosophy and views it as a falsification of reality, translation
cannot bypass the same critique of his and must therefore be viewed as a falsification of the original text as well.
Yet Nietzsche, it will be shown, by introducing (in place of truth) art as the only truthful element of perspectival
interpretations of reality, thereby makes the unity of the German nation a possibility.
The consideration of this theme is significant as it allows to reveal Nietzsche”s conception of tradition.
A one-sided, divine, ‘truthful’ interpretation of existence is conducive to a falsification of human nature.
Truthful interpretation should be questioned. In the opening line of Jenseits von Gute und Böse [3] (1886),
Nietzsche compares truth with a woman: „Vorausgesetzt, daß die Wahrheit ein Weib ist –, wie?“ [3]. What he
means by his supposition is that truth is fickle and changeable, weak and seductive, just like a woman. It does not
let it itself be won by men. Dogmatic philosophers who have been chasing truth as men do women, have failed to
grasp it. By truth Nietzsche, of course, means, first and foremost, the Christian truth. Nietzsche posits truth as
woman between reality and philosopher-men who are trying to understand reality.
Nietzsche’s search for truth and his perspectivism and criticisms of the pursuit of truth as an ascetic ideal (in
Zur Genealogie der Moral (1887)) must depend on the possibility of the existence of some truth. He develops his
conception of will to power and eternal return in Also sprach Zarathustra (1883 – 1886) and Jenseits von Gute und
Böse which seem to reject metaphysics, because they lay the foundation for an alternative ideal to the ascetic ideal,
Zhavoronkov I.N.
NIETZSCHE: TRANSLATION AS PERSPECTIVISM
70
on which the whole of metaphysics has rested throughout the entire history of European philosophy. Now, to
contend that Nietzsche did deny the existence of truth (like Danto or Derrida) threatens the basis on which
Nietzsche critiqued Christian (ascetic) morality, for example. That is, the critique or denial of the existence of truth
takes place only on the basis of some truth, which for Nietzsche is the truth of perspectivism. It follows that if
human nature is viewed only as divine or ‘truthful’, i.e., as stable and fixed, as in the traditional Christian sense,
then the bodily, animal nature of the human being is not taken into consideration. The denial of bodily participation
as valuable for divine creativity results in a falsification of the original text of human nature as animal nature. The
healthy animal nature of the human being is the condition for healthy divine, creative life. The values of divine
existence should, therefore, not be at variance with the animal instincts and forces of the human being. Human
drives are the inexhaustible source of life energy unfolding in multiple individual, unique, perspectival, divine
interpretations of existence.
Since the original text is one kind of interpretation of existence, reality may suffer a falsification if the original
is not further interpreted by translation but remains forever ‘true’. The truth of translation should be questioned
paralleling the truth of existence as discussed above.
Inasmuch as philosophy or knowledge is a reflection of reality, translation is a reflection of the original. In
translation, truth as woman is first posited between reality and the original before it is posited between the original
and its translation. The connection or relation between them all is weak, respectively. There is so much
‘Christianity’ between the original and the reality it describes, and even more weakness between the original and its
translation that to claim the truth or correctness of the translation is an absurdity.
Language may have been one of the misleading obstacles in chasing truth. According to Christian J. Emden’s
discussion of Nietzsche’s view of language as metaphor in his Nietzsche on Language, Consciousness, and the
Body [3], Maudemarie Clark’s claim [2] that the mature Nietzsche believed that knowledge of truth can be obtained
and that he accepted the correspondence theory of truth, may utterly fail if one takes into consideration Nietzsche’s
account of metaphor. For Nietzsche, metaphor is a rhetorical phenomenon intrinsic to all linguistic and, therefore,
scientific representations. If all language is metaphor, however, then the concept of metaphor itself collapses, as it
can no longer mark a distinction in linguistic categories. However, Nietzsche embraces both the philosophical
significance of a rhetorical problem and the rhetorical element as inherent in language (as opposed to Plato and
Locke, who consider eloquence as inappropriate to philosophy). But, since for Nietzsche rhetorical elements do not
bear a strict correspondence to reality – because language for him is as an organic process – there arises the
question of how communication (and, in our case, translation) is possible. Nietzsche’s response is that metaphor is a
means of transferring signs between humans. Signs, however, do not directly correspond to reality. Therefore,
communication is forever indeterminate. This indeterminacy is emphasised by physiological processes. Metaphor
and physiology meet in memory, the seat of human consciousness. It follows that the human mind is a product of
human physiology inseparable from the need for communication. Nietzsche’s metaphorical account of memory,
language, and consciousness, thanks to which knowledge, mind, and society are possible, should be understood as a
legitimate effort to synthesise the complex terms of the persistent mind-body problem. Since communication and
translation are necessarily connected, the indeterminacy of communication renders the translation of the original,
which is in itself already a kind of indeterminate communication, even more indeterminate than the original text.
Furthermore, the indeterminacy of translation denies the translation itself the possibility of being an effect of
the original. All relations are consequences of the essences of things, not their essences [10, 381]. A metaphor
comes into existence when cause and effect become identified. Analogically, if translation is a kind of metaphor of
the original, the translation is a consequence of the essence of the original, not the original itself. Since, also, the
original is the consequence of the essence of the reality which it seeks to describe, the translation is double the
consequence, i.e., it is also the consequence of the essence of the reality which the original describes. Effects are
not causes, as much as translations are not originals. Since both the translation of the original and the original itself
strive to describe one and the same reality, while the translation at the same time seeks to reinterpret the original –
and thus both are inexact (the translation is even more inexact) – the distinction made between the original and its
translation – that the original cannot be called the cause of the translation, nor can the translation be termed the
effect of the original – should remain conscious of the similarity between them in this, that they both falsify the
reality they describe. This needs to be pursued further.
In light of the above, I think that Nietzsche would go so far as to say that translation is not only an inexact
representation of the original but also a falsification thereof. “It is this falsified world of ‘conceptual mummies’ that
occupies the philosophers: ‘Philosophy, as I alone still admit, as the universal form of history, as the attempt to
somehow describe and abbreviate in signs Heraclitean becoming (as if translated and mummified in a type of
apparent Being [Sein])’ [10, 386]. Therefore, whenever a human being creates, he or she creates a falsified world. It
follows that the original is a falsification of reality and the translation of the original is a falsification of the
‘original’ falsification of reality, therefore (necessarily) of the original as well. Thus the translation is a double
falsification of reality.
Furthermore, Nietzsche writes: “ ‘Language, it seems, was invented only for what is average, medium,
communicable. With language, the speaker immediately vulgarizes himself’ [10, 389]. It follows that, since
translation is also one kind of interpretation of the original, thereby of existence, the original text suffers a
falsification if it is viewed as the ‘original’, ‘truthful’, divine text, i.e., as stable and fixed. In this regard the truth of
the ‘truth’ of translation should be questioned.
Any critique of truth is a perspective interpretation that already presupposes an established belief, which
largely depends on our affects or drives, according to Nietzsche [8, 12]. These affects or drives are embodied and
ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ МОЛОДЫХ УЧЕНЫХ
71
influence human understanding of reality. Bodily participation in representations of things extends to all activities
of the mind. Translation is one of them. In fact, representation of things involves translation of those things together
with human affects or drives into the realm of perspectivism. Translational perspectivism is in itself an
interpretation of things and cognitive activities. Analogically, human affects or drives are admixed to the translation
of the original text, which is already an affected representation of reality. From this it follows that translation of the
original text is subject to perspectivism. The beauty of it all is that perspectivism is inseparable from translation, for
there is an aesthetic element in the activity of translation which, I believe, is posited by Nietzsche as truth.
Nietzsche would agree that translation claims that it has access to truth in striving to communicate the original
to the foreign reader, for it strives to grasp the whole and fix it as truth. Truths are necessary to make life and
knowledge possible, but since they are uncertain or false, they should not be relied upon. The aesthetic criterion,
however, is more important than truth, for it is the creative drive. This choice of aesthetic criteria is, for Nietzsche,
one of necessity, for the criteria by which to judge correctness or certainty are not available to man: “ ‘the correct
perception – which would mean the adequate expression of the object in a subject – as a contradictory
impossibility: for between two absolutely different spheres, as between subject and object, there is no causality, no
correctness, no expression: there is, at most an aesthetic relation’ [10, 378]. In this context, the original text should
be regarded as an aesthetic relation between the subject (the writer) and the object (the reality that the writer
describes). The translation of such an original text is the aesthetic relation between the translator as agent or subject
and the original as object. The truth of translation as an aesthetic element can find itself at home in the very
multiplicity of translations of the original text, i.e., in their perspectivism. Moreover, the more perspectives we
have, the better we are as persons, as individuals. Likewise, Nietzsche would say that the more perspectival
translations or translational perspectives we have, the better we are as practical translators or translation theorists.
What follows from the above discussion is that the denial of the translator’s bodily participation, as valuable
for divine creativity, results in a falsification of both the original text and the original text of human existence as
divine, true, stable and fixed (whereas they both are, in fact, affected by the animal characteristics of the human
being). The healthy animal nature of the writer of the original text is the first condition for a healthy, divine
translation of the original. The second condition for a healthy, divine translation of the healthy original text is the
healthy animal nature of the translator. Therefore, the values of a divine translation of the original should not be in
contradiction with the animal instincts and forces of both the translator and the writer of the original text. Finally,
the human drives of the translator are an inexhaustible source of creative energy unfolding in multiple individual,
unique, perspectival, divine interpretations of the original text, which should be subject to the same healthy
qualities of the writer of the original.
From the above discussion of the nature of translation in the context of Nietzsche’s critique of truth it follows
that a healthy interpretation of existence is conducive to a healthy translation of the original. At the core of the
healthy interpretation of existence is a realisation of being as becoming, which leads to multiple perspectival
interpretations of existence, whereas at the core of a healthy translation lies the running, life-invigorating tempo of
the style of the original, according to Nietzsche. The larger notion of Nietzsche’s Übersetzung is the translation of
the human being from a one-sided ‘divine’, Christian interpretation of human nature back to its original text, its
animal nature and re-creation of all values on the basis of truth as affirmation of life through art, thereby
overcoming Schopenhauerian pessimism overwhelming the whole of Europe and emancipating the Germans
lacking Germanity from the Christian narrow-mindedness, thus helping them become a united German nation, i.e.,
good Europeans, within the unity of Europe. In this regard, a healthy translation following the dechristianisation of
the German race is a great tool in delivering the Germans from Schopehauerian pessimism by adopting the free-
spirited style of translating from the Romans. This will be discussed in more detail below.
Truth is an ideal constructed by philosopher-men. It cannot not be created. It has to be created in order to
somehow represent reality so that one can orient oneself in it. Human beings are ideal-makers, because they are
bodies and have differences. As bodies, they create images of themselves – i.e., they translate themselves into
images they thus become. Moreover, they act according to their ‘translations’. The truth of the images humans
translate themselves into must be re-evaluated within the context of body. Nietzsche’s going beyond Gute and Böse
in Jenseits von Gute und Böse, does not mean that those conceptions should be eliminated. On the contrary, they
should be re-evaluated on the basis of bodily participation in the creation of values and held accountable to the
bodies they are enabling humans to become. Thus, as Zarathustra says, human beings should “remain faithful to the
earth” (The Portable Nietzsche (PN) 188–189). The earth as a body will give birth to the Übermensch if
Zarathustra, who after descending the mountain in search of his children (PN 438), in Oppel’s interpretation, enters
into an interdependence with woman. From this it follows that since ideals live in bodies, humans are called upon to
cultivate a physiological perspective that would see values as expressions of health. Healthy ideals would refine
senses, strengthen human instincts and release creative energies [4]. Since ideals would involve all kinds of
translations as human valuations of the original text, translations, then, must agree with bodily health. What does a
healthy translation mean, after all? I think that for Nietzsche it would mean to be able to render the tempo of the
original.
In the following passage on translation from Jenseits von Gute und Böse, Nietzsche expressly says that what is
most difficult in translation to render is the tempo of the style of the original. Moreover, he believes that one fails to
preserve the original tempo when translating into German. The reason for it, I believe Nietzsche thinks, is the
serious, thoughtful mentality of the German race affected by Christian morality. With the loss of tempo, unique,
individual nuances of the original are unfortunately never conveyed and the translation thus becomes merely a
simplification, vulgarisation and falsification of the original text. He writes: Was sich am schlechtesten aus einer
Sprache in die andere übersetzen läßt, ist das tempo ihres Stils: als welcher im Charakter der Rasse seinen Grund
Zhavoronkov I.N.
NIETZSCHE: TRANSLATION AS PERSPECTIVISM
72
hat, physiologischer gesprochen, im Durchschnitts-tempo ihres „Stoffwechsels“. Es gibt ehrlich gemeinte
Übersetzungen, die beinahe Fälschungen sind, als unfreiwillige Vergemeinerungen des Originals, bloß weil sein
tapferes und lustiges tempo nicht mit übersetzt werden konnte, welches über alles Gefährliche in Dingen und
Worten wegspringt, weghilft. Der Deutsche ist beinahe des Presto in seiner Sprache unfähig: also, wie man billig
schließen darf, auch vieler der ergötzlichsten und verwegensten Nuances des freien, freigeisterischen Gedankens.
So gut ihm der Buffo und der Satyr fremd ist, in Leib und Gewissen, so gut ist ihm Aristophanes und Petronius
unübersetzbar. Alles Gravitätische, Schwerflüssige, Feierlich-Plumpe, alle langwierigen und langweiligen
Gattungen des Stils sind bei den Deutschen in überreicher Mannichfaltigkeit entwickelt... [6].
The term Durchschnitts Nietzsche uses for ‘average’ literally means ‘cut through’ and it directly refers to
“Stoffwechsels” (‘exchange of substance resulting in release of energy’), which suggests that the tempo of the style
of the original is essentially inherent in the bodily constitution of the race. As is evident, the original, according to
Nietzsche, cannot be thought of merely in intellectual, metaphysical concepts, but it finds its grounds in the very
physiology of the writer (and the translator). Further, in order for a German to translate (to Nietzsche’s standards) a
text that would have the tempo of Aristophanes’ or Petronius’ works, he or she must have the same physiological
constitution. Therefore, it is evident that Nietzsche grounds translation in physiology, that is, in body.
Further, Nietzsche makes an exception for Lessing, whom he considers a free spirit, yet he immediately denies
the German language and Lessing’s prose the possibility of imitating the galloping tempo of Machiavelli’s
“Principe”: Lessing macht eine Ausnahme ... ... Lessing liebte auch im tempo die Freigeisterei, die Flucht aus
Deutschland. Aber wie vermöchte die deutsche Sprache, und sei es selbst in der Prosa eines Lessing, das tempo
Macchiavell's nachzuahmen, der, in seinem principe, die trockne feine Luft von Florenz athmen lässt und nicht
umhin kann, die ernsteste Angelegenheit in einem unbändigen Allegrissimo vorzutragen: vielleicht nicht ohne ein
boshaftes Artisten-Gefühl davon, welchen Gegensatz er wagt, – Gedanken, lang, schwer, hart, gefährlich, und ein
tempo des Galopps und der allerbesten muthwilligsten Laune [6].
Nietzsche likewise denies the German language the capacity to translate the works of Petronius: “Wer endlich
dürfte gar eine deutsche Übersetzung des Petronius wagen, der ... ... die Füsse eines Windes hat, den Zug und
Athem, den befreienden Hohn eines Windes, der Alles gesund macht, indem er Alles laufen macht!“ [6]. The
remedy for the sickness of the German language will be found further on. For now, as is evident, the significance of
health in any text is crucial to Nietzsche’s understanding of translation in general.
As has been shown, Nietzsche makes the point that the German language, as well as the German-speaking
people, because they are ones who speak it, lacks a joyful, ironic tempo in translation. Such a tempo, Nietzsche
would say, is necessary for a light-spirited translation that would enhance human life and exalt the spirit of the
individual. Even Plato, whom Nietzsche critiques among other wise philosophers, and who repudiated Greek life,
could not do without a book of Aristophanes (JGB §28), for he desired to engage in lively irony, apart from his
moral discussions of truth, good, beauty, virtue and justice. In order to harness the tempo, Nietzsche would propose
Selbstüberwindung. This has to be looked at more closely.
As fully unchristian beings, the Romans viewed translation as (self-) conquest, according to Nietzsche. This is
what he sees to be lacking in the Germans, as prone to Schopenauerian pessimism, as will be demonstrated below.
Nietzsche provides another short passage on translation in Die Fröhliche Wissenschaft (1882). To cite the
larger part of the passage would help the reader to contrast the free-spiritedness of the Romans against the
sluggishness of the Germans. “Übersetzungen. – Man kann den Grad des historischen Sinnes, welchen eine Zeit
besitzt, daran abschätzen, wie diese Zeit Übersetzungen macht und vergangene Zeiten und Bücher sich
einzuverleiben sucht.... Und das römische Alterthum selbst: wie gewaltsam und naiv zugleich legte es seine Hand
auf alles Gute und Hohe des griechischen älteren Alterthums! Wie übersetzten sie in die römische Gegenwart
hinein! Wie verwischten sie absichtlich und unbekümmert den Flügelstaub des Schmetterlings Augenblick! So
übersetzte Horaz hier und da den Alcäus oder den Archilochus, so Properz den Callimachus und Philetas (Dichter
gleichen Ranges mit Theokrit, wenn wir urtheilen dürfen): was lag ihnen daran, dass der eigentliche Schöpfer Diess
und Jenes erlebt und die Zeichen davon in sein Gedicht hineingeschrieben hatte! – als Dichter waren sie dem
antiquarischen Spürgeiste, der dem historischen Sinne voranläuft, abhold, als Dichter liessen sie diese ganz
persönlichen Dinge und Namen und Alles, was einer Stadt, einer Küste, einem Jahrhundert als seine Tracht und
Maske zu eigen war, nicht gelten, sondern stellten flugs das Gegenwärtige und das Römische an seine Stelle. Sie
scheinen uns zu fragen: „Sollen wir das Alte nicht für uns neu machen und uns in ihm zurechtlegen? Sollen wir
nicht unsere Seele diesem todten Leibe einblasen dürfen? denn todt ist er nun einmal: wie hässlich ist alles Todte!“
– Sie kannten den Genuss des historischen Sinnes nicht; das Vergangene und Fremde war ihnen peinlich, und als
Römern ein Anreiz zu einer römischen Eroberung. In der That, man eroberte damals, wenn man übersetzte, – nicht
nur so, dass man das Historische wegliess: nein, man fügte die Anspielung auf das Gegenwärtige hinzu, man strich
vor Allem den Namen des Dichters hinweg und setzte den eigenen an seine Stelle – nicht im Gefühl des Diebstahls,
sondern mit dem allerbesten Gewissen des Imperium Romanum“ [5].
According to the text, although the Romans lacked the historical sense that Nietzsche possessed (he considers
himself the first philosopher with a historical sense), they were free-spirited as a nation and they made free-spirited
translations of Greek literature. They made the old new, adjusting Greek texts to their time and had no particular
interest in keeping Greek ideas fixed and stable. Thus they conquered as they translated, and they did so with a
good conscience, without feeling guilty for what they did. Nietzsche praises them for the bravery with which they
acted in creating new ideas, which is fundamental to Nietzsche’s understanding of Being as (an ever-changing)
becoming. For him, being is becoming, i.e., reality is in flux and changing, it is unique. To classify reality is to
falsify and simplify it.
ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ МОЛОДЫХ УЧЕНЫХ
73
Becoming for Nietzsche presupposes law-breaking taking place before law-making. He would associate law-
breaking with Romans ignoring the individual traits of Greek authors (and replacing their Greek names with Roman
names) and the particular characters of the societies they lived in, and law-making with adjustment of Greek
originals to Roman standards.
The Romans engaged in free translation because they were not concerned with concepts of truth. Max Stirner
was the first to raise the question of the value of truth. “[His] critique of truth as a fixed idea embodied much of
what was central to Nietzsche’s – the pervasiveness of the will to truth, truth’s relationship to divinity, its present
existence as an unexamined ideal, and above all its existence as both a symbol and a cause of the inability to
enquire and to act freely in all directions” [1, 13]. In the above-quoted passage on translation, Nietzsche suggests
that once Being is viewed as fixed and stable, i.e., as truthful, it begins to suffer the burden of limitations placed
upon it. Truth impedes the development of Being, therefore it must necessarily impede the beings of Being, in
particular the freedom of translation. Romans were not possessed by concepts of truth as a fixed idea; therefore they
acted freely, translating Greek texts as they did.
This is precisely what is lacking in – and what Nietzsche critiques about – Europe, especially the German-
speaking people: the sluggishness and pessimism of the Christian Spannung des Geistes [6] spread across Europe.
He is raging about the spectre of Schopenhauerian pessimism haunting nineteenth-century Europe. Schopenhauer
clearly realised the non-divinity of existence. Yet, according to Nietzsche, he could not answer his own question as
to whether existence has any meaning at all. “... Die Ungöttlichkeit des Daseins galt ihm (Schopenhauer) als etwas
Gegebenes, Greifliches, Undiskutirbares...
... [D]as ist nunmehr vorbei, das hat das Gewissen gegen sich, das gilt allen feineren Gewissen als unanständig,
unehrlich, als Lügnerei, Femininismus, Schwachheit, Feigheit, – mit dieser Strenge, wenn irgend womit, sind wir
eben gute Europäer und Erben von Europas längster und tapferster Selbstüberwindung. Indem wir die christliche
Interpretation dergestalt von uns stossen und ihren „Sinn“ wie eine Falschmünzerei verurtheilen, kommt nun sofort
auf eine furchtbare Weise die Schopenhauerische Frage zu uns: hat denn das Dasein überhaupt einen Sinn?“ [5].
Nietzsche explained the event of German (and European) pessimism or nihilism (rejection of everything that is
true) as historically positive on the basis of the unconditional honest atheism that had sprung from Christ ian
morality itself after two thousand years’ training in truthfulness. He writes: „... der unbedingte redliche Atheismus
ist... ein endlich und schwer errungener Sieg des europäischen Gewissens, als der folgenreichste Akt einer
zweitausendjährigen Zucht zur Wahrheit, welche am Schlusse sich die Lüge im Glauben an Gott verbietet… Man
sieht, was eigentlich über den christlichen Gott gesiegt hat: die christliche Moralität selbst, der immer strenger
genommene Begriff der Wahrhaftigkeit, die Beichtväter-Feinheit des christlichen Gewissens, übersetzt und
sublimiert zum wissenschaftlichen Gewissen, zur intellektuellen Sauberkeit um jeden Preis. Die Natur ansehn, als
ob sie ein Beweis für die Güte und Obhut eines Gottes sei; die Geschichte interpretieren zu Ehren einer göttlichen
Vernunft... „ [5].
Thus now that truth-seeking Christianity has finally found it, it forbids itself the lie involved in the belief of
God; Christian morality is overcome, and das Dasein has no meaning. Yet, the fact that Nietzsche says that the
Germans are not pessimists leaves hope for the opposite idea that they are optimists, and the fact that he also refers
to himself as a good European (not a German) calls for a unity not only of das Volk but also of das ganze Europa.
As a good European, Nietzsche writes that „... der Pessimismus Schopenhauers nicht nur ein Ausnahme-Fall unter
Deutschen, sondern ein deutsches Ereigniss gewesen ist: während Alles, was sonst im Vordergrunde steht, unsre
tapfre Politik, unsre fröhliche Vaterländerei, welche entschlossen genug alle Dinge auf ein wenig philosophisches
Princip hin („Deutschland, Deutschland über Alles“) betrachtet, also sub specie speciei, nämlich der deutschen
species, mit grosser Deutlichkeit das Gegentheil bezeugt. Nein! die Deutschen von heute sind keine Pessimisten!
Und Schopenhauer war Pessimist, nochmals gesagt, als guter Europäer und nicht als Deutscher“ [5].
The Christian conscience translated – and thereby sublimated to the purely intellectual, scientific conscience –
experiences a downfall and self-rejection. Only the good Europeans as a whole, who are heirs of Europe’s self-
overcoming, can realise the non-divine nature of existence and give meaning to their life by creating and living up
to their values. The task of Europeans now, as Nietzsche sees it, is to translate the meaningless existence into a fully
meaningful Dasein that does not mean being-there understood as ‘being in the world beyond’ but being-here, i.e.,
being or living in the present moment of existence as creative individuals on earth. In this context such a translation
is synonymous with creation. Dasein is translated into Da-sein, Being into Be-ing, i.e. becoming, with multiple
perspectival interpretations thereof, as existing phenomenally, uniquely: Be-ing is a creative extension of the origin,
a creative translation of the original to be into the language of humankind. With such a translation, the human
becomes the Overhuman (Übermensch). Thus the human being is the self-translator, the translator of his or her own
nature originally written in the language of divinity into the mother-tongue of his or her animal nature – and back
into divinity – on the basis of bodily participation.
It follows from the above discussion that Nietzsche would want human beings, in particular the Germans, to
overcome Christian morality. But what does it mean to be German for Nietzsche, after all? This question can be
raised only within the larger context of Nietzsche’s conception of translation, which is for him translation of human
nature back into its original. Nietzsche recognises that „...der schreckliche Grundtext homo natura wieder heraus
erkannt werden muss. Den Menschen nämlich zurückübersetzen in die Natur; über die vielen eitlen und
schwärmerischen Deutungen und Nebensinne Herr werden, welche bisher über jenen ewigen Grundtext homo
natura gekritzelt und gemalt wurden...“ (JGB §230) For Nietzsche, the translation of humankind back into its
Zhavoronkov I.N.
NIETZSCHE: TRANSLATION AS PERSPECTIVISM
74
nature signifies that human nature is essentially animal nature. It is not merely divine as Christianity has proclaimed
it to be. The animal nature of the human being is the original text that has been misinterpreted by Christianity. As a
result, a Christian mistranslation of human nature as divine has occurred in the history of Europe, particularly in the
history of German-speaking people. It follows that to be human one must become unchristian. If the Germans
become unchristian, they become human; if they become human, then they finally become what they are, i.e.
German, or good Europeans. It follows that they must become unchristian to be German – this is what is stressed in
the concluding quote: “Vergessen wir doch nicht, dass die Völkernamen gewöhnlich Schimpfnamen sind... Die
„Deutschen“: das bedeutet urspünglich „die Heiden“: so nannten die Gothen nach ihrer Bekehrung die grosse
Masse ihrer ungetauften Stammverwandten... Es wäre immer noch möglich, dass die Deutschen aus ihrem alten
Schimpfnamen sich nachträglich einen Ehrennamen machten, indem sie das erste unchristliche Volk Europa’s
würden...“ [5].
As is clear, Nietzsche does not lose hope that the German-speaking people, although they bear an originally
disparaging name Deutsch, will unite one day (and they are united now: they even constitute the backbone of the
European Union – so Nietzsche may be called a prophet) when they shake off one-sided Christian interpretation
and engage in perspectivism and phenomenology, in the context of which translation is at the same time necessarily
rethought as an aesthetic perspectival interpretation of the original text and reality on the basis of bodily
participation.
In conclusion, the above discussion of Nietzsche’s conception of translation has found translation to be a
necessary, life-affirming interpretation of both the original text and the reality which both the original and its
translation strive to interpret. Furthermore, translation is only an interpretation, to which there can be no alternative.
The more translations we make of the same original, the better we are as translators. Perspectival interpretation is
the only alternative to methods for accessing truth. Likewise, multiple translations of the original are a wonderful
alternative to dogmatically imposing certain rules on translation, thus making only one or few translations of the
original possible. It has been shown that the life-invigorating allegro element is central to Nietzsche’s concept of
translation as affirmation and enhancement of existence crucial to the Germans becoming good Europeans within a
united Europe.
Works Cited:
1. Bergner Jeffrey T. Stirner, Nietzsche, and the Critique of Truth / Jeffrey T. Bergner // Journal of the History of
Philosophy. – 1973. – N 11.4. – P. 523-534.
2. Clark Maudemarie. Nietzsche on Truth and Philosophy. Modern European Philosophy / Maudemarie Clark. –
N. Y. : Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990.
3. Emden J. Christian. Nietzsche on Language, Consciousness, and the Body / J. Christian Emden. – Urbana :
Univ. of Illinois Press, 2005.
4. La Mothe Kimer L. Nietzsche on Gender: Beyond man and Woman / Kimer L. La Mother // Hypatia. – 2007. –
P. 194-197.
5. Nietzsche Friedrich Wilhelm. Die fröhliche Wissenschaft : [Электронный ресурс] / Friedrich Wilhelm
Nietzsche. – Leipzig, 188. – Режим доступа : http://www.archive.org/stream/completenietasch10nietuoft/
completenietasch10nietuoft_djvu.txt.
6. Nietzsche Friedrich Wilhelm. Jenseits von Gut und Böse : [Электронный ресурс] / Friedrich Wilhelm
Nietzsche. – 2005. – Режим доступа : http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/7204/pg7204.txt
7. Nietzsche Friedrich Wilhelm. Thus Spoke Zarathustra. The Portable Nietzsche / Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche;
Trans. and ed. Walter Kaufmann. – N. Y. : Viking Press, 1968.
8. Nietzsche Friedrich Wilhelm. On the Genealogy of Morals / Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche // On the Genealogy
of Morals and Ecce Homo / Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche; Trans.: Walter Kaufmann, R. J. Hollingdale. –
N. Y. : Vintage Books, 1989.
9. Robinson Douglas. Western Translation Theory: From Herodotus to Nietzsche / Douglas Robinson. –
Manchester : St. Jerome Publishing, 1997.
10. Schrift Alan D. Language, Metaphor, Rhetoric: Nietzsche’s Deconstruction of Epistemology / Alan D. Schrift
// Journal of the History of Philosophy. – 1985. – N 3. – P. 371-395.
http://www.archive.org/stream/completenietasch10nietuoft/%20completenietasch10nietuoft_djvu.txt
http://www.archive.org/stream/completenietasch10nietuoft/%20completenietasch10nietuoft_djvu.txt
http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/7204/pg7204.txt.%20Web.%2019%20Nov.%202010
|
| id | nasplib_isofts_kiev_ua-123456789-56018 |
| institution | Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine |
| issn | 1562-0808 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2025-12-07T13:29:01Z |
| publishDate | 2012 |
| publisher | Кримський науковий центр НАН України і МОН України |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | Zhavoronkov, I.N. 2014-02-10T00:13:58Z 2014-02-10T00:13:58Z 2012 Nietzsche: translation as perspectivism / I.N. Zhavoronkov // Культура народов Причерноморья. — 2012. — № 226. — С. 69-74. — Бібліогр.: 10 назв. — англ. 1562-0808 https://nasplib.isofts.kiev.ua/handle/123456789/56018 81.255.4 + 821.111/112.2 The goal of this paper is to unfold Nietzsche’s conception of Übersetzung within the larger context of his notion of truth. Статья рассматривает концепцию Ницше Übersetzung в большем контексте его представления об истине. Ницше основывает свою теорию на метафорическом языке, и эстетический элемент перспективизма неотделим от его критики перевода. en Кримський науковий центр НАН України і МОН України Культура народов Причерноморья Исследования молодых ученых Nietzsche: translation as perspectivism Ницше: перевод как перспективизм Ницше: переклад як перспективизм Article published earlier |
| spellingShingle | Nietzsche: translation as perspectivism Zhavoronkov, I.N. Исследования молодых ученых |
| title | Nietzsche: translation as perspectivism |
| title_alt | Ницше: перевод как перспективизм Ницше: переклад як перспективизм |
| title_full | Nietzsche: translation as perspectivism |
| title_fullStr | Nietzsche: translation as perspectivism |
| title_full_unstemmed | Nietzsche: translation as perspectivism |
| title_short | Nietzsche: translation as perspectivism |
| title_sort | nietzsche: translation as perspectivism |
| topic | Исследования молодых ученых |
| topic_facet | Исследования молодых ученых |
| url | https://nasplib.isofts.kiev.ua/handle/123456789/56018 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT zhavoronkovin nietzschetranslationasperspectivism AT zhavoronkovin nicšeperevodkakperspektivizm AT zhavoronkovin nicšeperekladâkperspektivizm |