'Colonizing' the past? Antiquarian translation revisited

Resumo

This study seeks a comprehensive dialogue between the adherents of archaizing translation, its opponents, and those in the middle. It revisits archaism as a literary strategy, comparing the practice with archaizing translation as a translation strategy, and surveying its grammatical and syntactic features. Why have contemporary archaizing translations been held to be failed, and why—less often—have they been championed? Three main positions—the theoretical defenses, compromises such as Robinson's 'strange loop', and excoriations of the practice—are chronicled. I attend to each side’s (sometimes faulty) assumptions. Is translational pastness but patina, pastiche, and appropriation, or a revitalization?

KEYWORDS: Antiquarian Translation; Archaism; Archaic Style; Archaizing Translation; Diachronic Translation; Pastiche; Patina/Patinization