Skip to search.

Breaking News Visit Yahoo! News for the latest.

×Close this window

rouesolaire · rouesolaire@yahoo.fr | Group Member  - Edit Membership Start a Group | My Groups
evola_as_he_is · EVOLA AS HE IS

The Yahoo! Groups Product Blog

Check it out!

Group Information

  • Members: 121
  • Category: Spirituality
  • Founded: Nov 19, 2004
  • Language: English

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Real people. Real stories. See how Yahoo! Groups impacts members worldwide.

Messages

  Messages Help
Advanced
Metaphysics of Sex   Topic List   < Prev Topic  |  Next Topic >
Reply < Prev Message  | 
There have been two French translations of `Metafisica del sesso' as yet :
`Métaphysique du sexe', translated, most probably in a hurry, by Y.J. Tortat,
Payot, Paris, 1968 and `Métaphysique du sexe', translated by P. Baillet, L'Âge
d'Homme, Lausanne, 1989. A second translation was made necessary by the poor
quality of the first rendition. No matter how much improvement was made, there
is still room for betterment in all areas, both in terms of phrase structure and
of vocabulary, for the sake of fidelity and transparency. As a matter of fact,
the 1989 edition, rather than a `word-for-word' translation, is an actual loan
translation, almost a calque of `Metafisica del sesso' ; instead of conforming,
as it obviously should, to the French grammatical, syntactic and idiomatic
conventions, it sticks to the Italian grammar, syntax, and idioms, so that,
given the gap between the genius of the French language and that of the Italian
language, not to mention the uniqueness of J. Evola's language, this
metaphrastic translation ends up producing the opposite effect of that which is
intended, making unclear, ambiguous or unnecessarily complicated what is clear
and, as a result, making it more difficult for the reader to focus on the text
and to understand it. In addition to this, there are various misunderstandings
and a few mistranslations.
We have undertaken a new translation of `Metafisica del sesso' into French in
order to render its meaning as accurately and as faithfully as possible, making
sure, as we always do, that it conforms to the French language's conventions, so
as to appear to a French native speaker worthy of the name to have originally
been written in that language. This means, for example, that, lexically
speaking, `demonia' was rendered, according to the context, as `puissance
démonique' (`demonic power', as well seen by G. Stucco, but not by the
translator of `Eros and the Mysteries of Love : The Metaphysics of Sex') or
`démonopathie' (`demonopathy'), and certainly not, along Christian lines, as
`démonie' ('demonicism'), which means `belief in the existence and power of
demons' or `worship of demons'. To achieve this, especially lexically, the
online material which our predecessors did not have access to has been of a more
or less precious help, let alone the fact that we are not under any kind of
pressure : in particular, we have no deadline. `Metaphysik des Sexus'
(Frankfurt/M, Klett-Cotta im Ullstein-Taschenbuch, 1983) and `Metafisica del
sexo' (Jose J. de Olaneta, 2005) were screened and scrutinised in the process,
as well as `Eros and the Mysteries of Love : The Metaphysics of Sex' (Inner
Traditions International, 1991), whose detailed examination fully confirmed our
initial impressions, which we gave last December : too many liberties, in more
than one respect, were taken with the original text, so many liberties that it
sounds less like an actual translation than a paraphrase, and, in more than one
part, a faulty one at that, filled as it is with interpretations, approximations
and, at times, utter mistranslations ; besides, important sentences, important
parts of paragraphs were omitted.
Let us now go through the most problematic passages of the first paragraphs of
`Eros and Sexual Love', the first part of the book.
The fact that the first sentence of the second chapter is translated as "Various
forms of human love have been distinguished. Stendhal's famous distinction
between identifies passion-love, aesthetic love, physical love, and love based
on vanity. A distinction of this kind is not very useful, for it is based on
peripheral elements, which, if predominant, would eliminate the possibility of
deep experience", (p. 10) instead of as "Various forms of human love have been
distinguished. Stendhal's famous distinction between identifies passion-love,
aesthetic love, physical love, and love based on vanity. A distinction of this
kind is not very useful, for it is based on peripheral elements, WHICH SEEM TO
BE CUT OFF FROM ANY DEEP EXPERIENCE AS SOON AS ANY ONE OF THEM REALLY BECOMES
THE PREDOMINANT FACTOR" (p. 10), is not a big deal.
Nor is the fact that, two paragraphs below, `puro amore' is translated as
`Platonic love', and, still a few paragraphs below, a sentence which should be
translated as "In general, it is important here to establish this essential
point : the difference between our concept and that of the positivists lies in
the fact that our interpretation of sexual union is neither physical, nor
biological" is mistranslated as "In general, it is important here to establish
the fundamental difference between our concept and that of the positivists. The
difference lies not in the physical or biological interpretation, but in the
root meaning of sexual love". (p. 11)
While, reading the opening sentence of the next chapter : "The considerations
set forth in the preceding section are intended to show the intensive level of
the erotic experience WHICH IS OF GENUINE INTEREST FOR OUR STUDY, excluding
broken or incomplete forms of that experience", one might ask why the part that
is capitalised here was not translated, there still no reason to go crazy about
it. Nor is there any reason to do so because the ambiguity Huxley fell into when
he proclaimed a new naturalistic religion of sex and the flesh, and which is
qualified as "embarrassing" by the Italian author, becomes "avoidable" (p. 12)
in the eyes of the translator, whose views on E. Levi differ greatly from the
Italian author's : to the former, "Eliphas Lévi, [is] a writer who, unlike those
already mentioned, professes with some foundation to be a believer in magic
sciences and in the Kabbala (…)" (p. 26). To the latter, "Eliphas Lévi,[is] a
writer who, unlike those already mentioned, professes more or less rightly to be
an expert in magic sciences and in the Kabbala (…)".
The fact that, for some reason, "erotismo" keeps being translated as
"sensualism" (for example, p. 14) should not keep anyone from sleeping at night.
Nor should the positivists of the nineteenth century, of the `ottocentesco',
roll in their grave, when they hear that "The prize for vulgarity" they were
awarded by J. Evola for having given "weight to the following theory : "The
genetic need can be considered as a need to evacuate ; the choice is governed by
stimuli which make the evacuation more pleasurable" was ultimately taken away
from them and given to the positivists of the eighteenth century, of the
`settecentesco' : "The prize for vulgarity was won by eighteenth century
positivism when it gave weight to the following theory : `The genetic need can
be considered as a need to evacuate ; the choice is governed by stimuli which
make the evacuation more pleasurable.'" (p. 19)
Various formulations are watered down : in the chapter called `Eros and the
Instinct for reproduction', a phrase which should be translated as "There would
be something ridiculous in associating the reproductive instinct with the most
exalted models of human love in history and art, such as Tristan and Isolde,
Romeo and Juliet, Paolo and Francesca, while picturing them with a happy ending
and a baby, or rather a whole brood as a crowning feature" is rendered as "It is
unthinkable to associate the most exalted models of human love in history and
art, such as Tristan and Isolde, Romeo and Juliet, Paolo and Francesca, with a
happy ending and a baby, or rather a whole brood as a crowing feature !" (p. 14)
; "When we consider the two extremes of animal life, if multiplication without
sexual love is at the lower end, then at the upper end, the summit, sexual love
can exist with a complete lack of reproduction in all exalted forms of passion",
as "When we consider the two extremes of animal life, if multiplication without
sexual love is at the lower end, then at the upper end, the summit, there will
be sexual love that can exist with an almost complete lack of reproduction, but
with the fullest expression of passion" (p. 15) : "a complete lack of
reproduction" is thus altered into "an almost complete lack of reproduction" ;
whatever "an almost complete lack of reproduction" may mean in actual fact, this
"almost" looks like a wart on Cleopatra's nose. In `The Myth of the Genius of
the Species', instead of "(…) we have to conclude that the "genius of the
species" is in need of an education since through its agency the world is mostly
populated with human dregs", what we read is this : "(…) we might say that the
"genius of the species" is in need of an education since through its agency the
average world population falls so far below man's potential or true norm".
Still in `Eros and the Instinct for reproduction', the second clause of the
following sentence does not make much sense : "(...) what is called natural for
man as man is not at all the same as what the term "natural" signifies in the
case of animals : instead, conformity is natural when it is conformity to one's
own type, to the place that belongs to man as such in the overall hierarchy of
beings"(pp. 12-13) It is hard to say why it was rendered in this way, since the
original is crystal-clear ; translated into English, it reads : "(…) what is
called natural for man as man is not at all the same as what the term "natural"
signifies in the case of animals : for man as such, to be `natural' means to be
in conformity with one's own type, to occupy the place that belongs to man as
such in the overall hierarchy of beings."
A certain tendency to trivialise the text can also be noted. For example, a
sentence which should be translated as "To shift our attention from the facts of
consciousness to the facts of experience, it is a commonplace to note that what
applies to sex is also true of food : no man but the most primitive will choose
or prefer only those foods best suited for the survival of his organism" is
frivolously rendered as "If we shift our attention to a mundane activity,
nourishment, and compare it to sexual choice, we find that no man but the most
primitive will choose or prefer only those foods best suited for the survival of
his organism." (p. 16)
"The elementary attraction of the sexes and the fluid-intoxication that arises
between them is innocent of such an instinct ["the genius of the species"] or
its hidden knowledge" (p. 16) is a mistranslation : "Il fatto elementare
costituito dall'attrazione dei sessi e dal fluido-ebrezza che si stabilisce
direttamente fra uomo e donna non conosce nulla di tale istinto et della sua
riposte sapienza" means : "The elementary fact of the attraction of the sexes
and of the fluid-intoxication that arises directly between them is completely
foreign to such an instinct ["the genius of the species"] and to its hidden
knowledge."
It is true that "(…) Havelock Ellis (…) concluded that the impulse which leads
to pleasure is, in a certain way, independent of the seminal glands and their
condition". Yet, he reached this conclusion, not "after various attempts to
explain sensual pleasure" (p.21), but "after a review of the various attempts to
explain sensual pleasure".
Obviously, so many infidelities - in only twelve pages of a 280-page or so book
– affect the coherence of the text.
Last but not least, J. Evola's style is unrecognisable : none of the grand
periods, none of the ample sentences with multiple subordinate clauses, which
characterise his prose, and were rendered successfully in most other English
translations of his work, have made their way into `Eros and the Mysteries of
Love : The Metaphysics of Sex' ; they were all broken down into smaller units,
and so was, as a result, the author's line of reasoning, whose prose and rhythm
only mirror the complexity and the richness of the teachings he presented and of
the theses he expounded.





Sat Jul 16, 2011 6:30 pm

evola_as_he_is
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
< Prev Message  | 
Expand Messages Author Sort by Date

There have been two French translations of `Metafisica del sesso' as yet : `Métaphysique du sexe', translated, most probably in a hurry, by Y.J. Tortat,...
Evola
evola_as_he_is Offline Send Email
Jul 16, 2011
6:33 pm

About the way of writing of Evola, we have to consider he writes in a way full of archaic words; therefore, for people not having a classical background and...
vandermok
charltonroad36 Offline Send Email
Jul 21, 2011
10:11 am

Copyright © 2012 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Copyright Policy - Guidelines NEW - Help