ABSTRACT

In a later chapter of Translation and Text Transfer (1992a: 152-3), Anthony Pym comments on the historical invisibility of translators as monolingual rulers’ servants – “controlled nobodies” – and raises the very political question of loyalty or fidelity, especially the knotty problem of proving one’s loyalty to a ruler who cannot do what the translator does:

It is not particularly scandalous that few translators have been kings, princes or priests. There is even a certain pride to be taken in the fact that political and moral authorities have had to trust the knowledge conveyed by their translating servants. But how might the prince know that a particular translator is worthy of trust? It would be foolish to suggest that all translators are equally competent, that their fidelity corresponds automatically to what they are paid, or that their loyalty is beyond doubt. Some kind of extra-textual support is ultimately necessary. Perhaps the prince’s confidence is based on a diploma from a specialised translation institute, references from previous employers, comparisons with other translators, or even on what the individual translator is able to say about the practice of translating, since theorisation is itself a mode of professional self-defence.