----- Original Message -----From: EvolaSent: Saturday, July 16, 2011 6:30 PMSubject: [evola_as_he_is] Metaphysics of SexThere 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.