Kommentar von Urška P. Černe
Kommentar von Urška P. Černe
"Europe should be placed under the protection of St. Jerome, the patron saint of translators and interpreters; in the area of languages which, literally, affects every country, Europe is faced with a communal challenge"
I don't wish to hide the fact that I still regard the notion of a common European identity with a certain degree of scepticism. All the same I remain calm, as in the cognitive sense language is itself not something collective – it remains inscrutable, which allows everybody access to it.
We, the people of Eastern, Western, Southern or Northern Europe, although we may be differently ideologically oriented, ultimately all conform to a recognised type, and all of us have experienced (in the final analysis with the help of translations) a socialisation of our world-view that, while it may not be identical, is certainly similar. I was 26 years old when I translated Hoffmansthal's Lord Chandos letter into Slovene. This literature shaped my emotional world and above all helped me arrive at an understanding that language is not necessarily a means of transporting the truth. In as far as the "truth" can be reasonably expected of our species in the first case.
But how inquisitive, obliging and open-minded we Europeans must ultimately be, as we repeatedly want to discover "truth" in language, and as, despite the inevitability of failure, we still continue to translate so much. We must indeed be driven by a belief that makes us forget the chaos of language and the non-existence of truth.
In fulfilling their laborious vocation translators have found a Christian patron saint in the form of Saint Jerome. But one could equally well cite other predecessors: Cicero, Luther or Schleiermacher. Each of them during his time fought for the freedom of the translation, i.e. for its honour. In roughly the same way as (literary) translators nowadays still have to battle to be even mentioned officially. Finland seems to be a praiseworthy exception in this area: the conditions of work are reasonable and reflect the prestige of literature translators there.
What do we mean precisely when we speak of Europe? Is this a collective term for many countries and states, regions and landscapes within a certain geographical area? Or do we mean the EU, that pragmatic, profit-oriented composite state about which we all know precious little? I have come to the opinion that a "European identity" is only slowly emerging – if we speak of a union citizenry. The EU still has enormous internal difficulties and problems with the development of its structures, institutions and programmes. So far, terms such as "sustainability" or "growing together" have remained catchwords that have not yet been concretely defined, let alone implemented. As part of its legal basis the European Community composed the following lines in the draft treaty for its constitution: article 151, paragraph 1 EGV:
“The community contributes to the development of the cultures of the member states while preserving their national and regional diversity and at the same time emphasizing the common cultural inheritance.”
On paper a great deal has been well regulated. But the unwieldy political and legal processes that shapes day-to-day EU life in the field of culture offers little cause for joy. Instead they offer reason to expect more of oneself and less of the EU. That is, more individual achievement, ideas and organisations that we create ourselves. Taking action without infusions from public funds.
And the EU language(s)? Ultimately, the question why all European languages are not recognized as “languages of the EU” has not yet been adequately answered. Why only the major languages? The reason seems clear: the language problem is closely linked to the financial possibilities of providing an answer to it.
Or is the alleged lack of money only an easy excuse? A month ago a debate broke out in Slovenia about the position of the Slovene language in the EU. The library in Tolmin had successfully applied for a grant under the EU Phare programme. The director, Viljem Leban, then had to write the application for the sum of 50.000 € in English and submit it to the Slovene institutions that functioned as intermediaries. He refused, as he was of the opinion that correspondence between two Slovene institutions should be conducted in Slovene. It was not a EU institution, which demanded that the letter be written in English, but a Slovene agency. With the support of the Slovene writers association Mr Leban finally won his battle.
And what can translators expect from the EU? Language and translation as a communal European objective are incorporated in the programme 2000 for the promotion of culture. But unfortunately this programme does not allow for continuous support. The attitude of Ms Karin Heinz, director of Europe's larges translation centre, the Europäisches Übersetzer-Kollegium in Straelen (North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany), is significant: She regards it as vital not to become dependant on EU money, as in the long-term this would endanger the existence of the EÜK!
To me the notion of a "Europe of the Regions" seems less abstract than the EU as a composite state. It is not necessary to translate the songs of Hubert von Goisern ("Trad") for Slovene-speaking listeners. His gentle melodies suggest to us an image of a herdswoman on an alpine meadow, and whether the Arcadia he describes is in Slovenia or a Salzburg is ultimately unimportant. Perhaps we should simply learn to listen more attentively to each other.
We translators will not give up but will continue to translate. I am at present sitting over the work of the Austrian poet, Margret Kreidl. I am delighted that people in Slovenia are interested in foreign poetry, that I can repeatedly stimulate my native language and, through my work, make a contribution to cultural transfer. The most important thing is, however, that the Slovenes should not have to read Austrian poetry in English.