Capital - a correspondence over Everyman translation
DEAR COMRADE,
In your last letter you mentioned the new
translation of Capital by E. and C. Paul. The book, peculiar as it may
seem, has not been a pleasure to me. Of course, it is agreeable to find the
demand for the works of Marx, having become so great as to require a new
edition of the Capital, and as a sign
of this increased interest in Marx and his works I certainly welcome this
edition. Only my pleasure has been marred by the circumstance that one has
found it necessary to make an entirely new translation instead of revising the
edition of Moore and Aveling, which had been thoroughly revised and completed
by Engels.
Both
translators of the first English edition were born Englishmen, both were quite
conversant with economical matters and even if to them has to be denied an
all-round competence in questions of economy, nothing of the kind can be said
against Engels, who, as is to be seen from letters of that period, also from
his Introduction to the English edition, has spent an enormous deal of time and
labour on this edition. This old edition contains a tremendous deal of Engels’s
own work, and I do not consider it right to neglect this work; and what is
more, to me it is not a neglect only but equals almost to a contempt, to an
abjudication of Engels, and with such a tendency I, of course, cannot at all
sympathise.
I do not consider myself so competent as to
declare decisively that the edition revised by Engels complies to all stylistic
requirements, or that it contains no mistakes, no errors. Its containing
mistakes is quite possible. But to justify the discarding of the text authorise
by Engels, the least one ought to have done would have been to prove on hand of
numerous instances the absolute uselessness of the old Engels edition, the
impossibility of adapting it to the requirement of to-day and hence its
inevitable fate of being thrown away in order to make room to a completely new
translation. To such an authority as Engels this justification, to my idea,
ought to have been made!
I
have not gone through the Pauls’ translation very thoroughly, but the fact of
this translation suffering from serious errors was brought home to me by the
introduction of the Pauls, from which I learned that they have not used for
their text the Volksausgabe,
published by Kautsky (and to which I also contributed by adding a very complete
register).
The
Kautsky edition, though not a critical definitive one, possesses great
advantages over all other editions as far as the text is concerned, as Kautsky
has used for this edition all the variations of the four different versions by
Marx, resp, Engels, further numerous corrections of Marx and Engels found in
their own copies, and also the French edition, which to a great extent has been
revised by Marx. From all this is to be seen that the Pauls have not made use
of the best text hitherto known, therefore their translation is a step
backwards.
A hasty perusal of their book resulted in my
discovering the following errors:-
On page 866 instead of ‘hoffnunsvoll’
(hopeful) they translated unhappy.
“ 282
instead of ‘Arbeitsvolk’ (working people) they translated the French people.
“ 318 instead of ‘Arbeitzeit’
(labour time) they translated tannery.
“ 593 instead of ‘politische Oekonomie’
(political economy) they translated English economics
In
conclusion, let me say that as long as E. and C. Paul do not convince me by a
thorough criticism of the old translation that a revision (the necessity of
which I do not deny) has been absolutely impossible, I maintain and shall
continue to maintain the standpoint of considering their new translation from a
scientific point of view superfluous. The interest of the English-speaking
world in Marx’s Capital will grow to
such an extent that I hope the day will not be far off when the opportunity
arises of re-editing the old translation.
Fraternally yours,
D. Riazonov, Moscow, April 18, 1929.
Labour Monthly, May 1929, pp. 312-3.
................................................................................................
To the Editor of the LABOUR MONTHLY.
DEAR COMRADE, – In his letter in your issue
of May, 1929, dated Moscow, April 18, 1929, Comrade Riazanov writes:- A hasty
perusal of their (E. and C. Paul’s) book resulted in my discovering the
following errors: (list follows).
We are sure that our Comrade does not intend
any suggestio falsi, but most of
those who read his letter will believe him to be charging us with certain
mistranslations from the text we used, that of the fourth German edition.
Actually Comrade Riazanov has scanned the list of alleged misprints or
conjectural emendations in the German text given by Karl Kautsky on pp. xiii
and xiv of his editorial preface to the Volksausgabe
of Das Kapital (Vol. I, 1914).
Naturally our translation from the fourth edition (1890), containing the last
text revised by Engels, does not tally with Kautsky’s revised text of 1914.
Apart from this, technical point, are all the
five instances mentioned by Riazanov errors?
(1) He says that on p. 282, instead of
“Arbeitervolk” (working people) we have “French people.”
Now the word “French” is in the text anyhow.
What Kautsky shows is that the word “Arbeiter” has been dropped from the
compound word “Arbeitervolk” by the printer. The English text ought to read
“the French workers” instead of “the French people,” and shall be corrected
accordingly.
(2) He says that on p. 318, instead of
“Arbeitszeit” (labour time), we have “labour power.” The German fourth edition
has Arbeitskraft, Kautsky says that
this is a misprint for Arbeitszeit,
as used in the second edition. We agree, and admit that we had not become fully
conscious that there was a misprint. But in our translation, “the expenditure
of the necessary labour power for eight hours daily,” the use of the word
“labour power” is correct; and the translation conveys the meaning of Marx’s
German quite as efficiently as would have a literal translation of Kautsky’s
revised text.
(3) He says that on p. 552, instead of Lehrfabrik (factory for
learning), we have “tannery.” Here, once more, we agree with Kautsky that Lederfabrik, in the fourth
edition, should have been Lehrfabrik,
as in the second. We had not detected the actual misprint, but had marked our
German text in the margin, indicating our awareness of something wrong, It was,
for translators from the fourth edition, a case for a conjectural emendation (a
“wangle,” if you like), and ours was good enough to satisfy any one but a
pedant. We did not translate so as to suggest that a school of that date was a
tannery – though Marx was not incapable of the grim jest! (Compare the famous
passage at the close of Part II.) But we are glad to have had the error pointed
out, and are correcting it in the reprint now being made.
(4) He says that on p. 593, instead of
“politische Oekonomie” (political economy), we have “English economics.” The
German fourth edition has “Englische Oekonomie,” but Moore and Aveling,
translating from the third edition, have “political economy.” Here we differ
from Kautsky, who regards “English” as a misprint, and wants to go back to the
earlier text. We think that any well-informed English reader of the footnote in
which the passage occurs will agree that the substitution of the less general
term for the more general one in the fourth edition was probably a deliberate
emendation made by Engels.
(5) He says that on p. 866, instead of
“hoffnungsvoll,” we have “unhappy.” The fourth German edition has
“hoffnungslos”; Moore and Aveling, translating from the third, have “unhappy.”
Kautsky says it is a misprint. We will spin a coin with him as to who is right,
but we think “hoffnungsvoll” more likely to be a misprint than “hoffnungslos.”
It seems more in keeping with Marx’s sardonic humour to write “a mishmash of
knowledge through whose purgatorial fires the unhappy candidate for a post in
the German bureaucracy has to pass,” than to write “the sanguine candidate.”
Having dealt with the specific charges of
mistranslation, let us turn to generalities. Riazanov says that until we
convince him by a thorough criticism of the old translation that a revision was
absolutely impossible, he will continue to think our new translation
superfluous. (He reminds us little of an old Scottish lady of our acquaintance,
who, when in the mood for a battle royal, would say defiantly: “Conveence me,
Ah’m only waiting to be conveenced!”). How can we convince him? Not, we fear,
by splitting hairs as to what is a “literary” translation, and what a
“scientific.” We must counter by a general statement. He admits that a revision
of the old translation is necessary. Well, a revision would have been a
devitalised botch. If the old translation was difficult to read (of that anon),
a pedantically “accurate” revision would have been – will be, if ever made –
hopelessly unreadable.
What is a good translation? The requisites of
good medicine are said to be that it shall “cure quickly, safely, and
pleasantly.” In like manner, the requisites of a good translation are that it
shall convey the author’s meaning in a foreign tongue, and shall do so quickly,
safely, and pleasantly. A publisher who considered that the Moore and Aveling
translation did not fulfil these demands commissioned us to make a new one, and
to use the fourth German edition, finally revised by Engels, as our text.
Agreed that it might have been preferable to use Kautsky’s Volksausgabe, but that is still
copyright, and the English publisher, wishing to produce the translation at as
low a price as possible, did not want to burden his undertaking with royalty or
outright payments to the Germans. Besides, many, perhaps most, of Kautsky’s modifications
concern German readers, and have little bearing on the possibilities of an
English translation. But some of the remarks he makes in his preface have so
close a bearing on the canons that have guided us in our translation, that we
venture to reproduce them here: –
He has incorporated certain passages from the
French translation, “for my business was to make the German text more readily
comprehensible, in so far as this could be done without impairing the
profundity and character, of the work.”
“In the choice of these passages, I did not
feel bound to be guided by the English translation revised by Engels, since my
main concern was to produce a German text easy to understand.”
As regard the question whether there are any
important differences between his text and earlier ones, he writes: “Of my own
‘editing’ of the text I need only say what Engels said of his in his preface to
the fourth German edition, ‘that the laborious process of rectification has not
modified any of the essential contents of the work.’ “
In questioning the expediency of a new
translation, and in his doubts as to whether ours is a good one, Comrade
Riazanov has two notable supporters, the Socialist
Standard and The Times.
The former says: “We are quite certain that the majority of readers will hold
that the present translation ... is no way superior to, if as good as, the
Sonnenschein edition.” The reviewer in the Thunderer
writes more guardedly. He finds it “surprising” that there should be a new
translation. There are only “small verbal alterations, sometimes to the
advantage of the new, sometimes to that of the old.” Certainly the new volume
is “easier to read than the other; but since there are no great differences, we
wonder at the venture.”
Just as we have no intention of complying
with Comrade Riazanov’s demand for detailed (and “convincing”) demonstration of
the faults of the old translation, so we feel no call to sing the praises of
our own. “We have done our level best,” and there it is. But, at the cost of
undermining the Socialist Standard’s
certainty as to the opinion of the majority of readers, we should like to wind
up by quoting a few voices from what, with the exceptions named, has been a
universal chorus of approval. Reviewers are “readers,” sometimes; and there is
internal evidence to show that many of the reviewers of the new translation of Capital have undertaken a less
“hasty perusal” than that on which Riazanov bases his criticism.
The Socialist and Labour Press has so far
been chary of notice: but the Daily Herald
says, “At last a great book has been worthily translated”; and from the Socialist Review we learn that
“the translation which has hitherto passed current has been a rather bad one,”
but “this new translation will go far to instruct the uninitiated in what Marx
really thought and wrote.”[1]
Yours
fraternally,
EDEN and CEDAR PAUL.
LONDON, June 2, 1929.
..................................................................................................................
Riazanov
returned to the fray in his review of the Pauls’ translation of Georg Plekhanov’s
Fundamental Problems of Marxism, Labour Monthly, 12 (1), January 1930, p.
64.
In the quotation, instead of saying as
Marx said, according to the original translation as edited by Engels (New
Edition, 1912): ‘In its mystified form, dialectic became the fashion in Germany
because it seemed to transfigure and glorify the existing state of affairs,’
Comrades E. and C. Paul quote from their own translation as follows – ‘because
it seemed to ‘elucidate’ the existing state of affairs.’ Elucidate, to
throw light upon, has obviously an entirely different meaning from ‘transfigure
and glorify’ and makes nonsense of the sentence.
Let us hope that Comrades E. and C.
Paul will, in the next edition at least, pay more attention to what they might
call niceties. In a book such as this, not to mention Capital, the exact
language is of the most supreme importance.
H.P.R.
............................................................................................................................
In
a review of Plekhanov’s Fundamental
Problems of Marxism, ‘H.P.R.’ declares that we have ‘made nonsense’ by a
false translation of a passage in the preface to the second edition of the
first volume of Capital – with the implication that there are like
errors in our handling of Plekhanov’s own text.
We cannot deal with the latter charge,
which is vague and unspecified. As regards the former, Comrade ‘H.P.R.’ would
have done well to consult the German original before making it. The passage as
written by Marx, in the preface dated 1873, to the second edition of Capital,
and reproduced unchanged in the fourth edition as finally revised by Engels
shortly before his death, runs as follows: -
In ihrer
Mystifirten Form ward die Dialektik deutsche Mode, weil sie das Bestehende zu
verklaren schien.
In … Germany, because it seemed to
transfigure and to glorify the existing state of things.
But to
found a charge of mistranslation upon a difference of opinion as to the best
rendering of such a term as verklaren, and to make it the text for an
admonition to ‘pay more attention to niceties,’ is to overlook the extreme
difficulties of the translator’s art – and is, to say the least of it,
uncomradely!
Yours
fraternally,
Eden and
Cedar Paul
........................................................................................................................................
Let us
deal with these justifications seriatim.
(a) They suggest that ‘the sense of terms is always shady
at the edges’. Even admitting the shadiness of the edges, the centre of each
term has always a precise meaning; otherwise there could be philology. Erklaren
and verklaren, as the following shows, have entirely separate meaning contents.
According
to Dr. F. Flugel’s Universal Dictionary, in three volumes, edition of
1894:- ‘Erklaren’ means (1) to explain, expound, interpret, elucidate, illustrate;
to define, to account for; (2) to declare (Kreig, war). To announce, state,
express, set forth, to profess. ‘Verklaren’, on the other hand, means – (1) to
make clear or bright, to brighten, figuratively, to ennoble; (2) theologically,
to glorify, transfigure, to elevate to heavenly glory.
It is
clear that the meanings of these two terms have very precise difference.
(b) Engels in his preface to the first English edition,
after detailing the several sections translated by Moore and Aveling
respectively says: ‘While thus each of the translators is responsible for his
share of the work only, I bear a joint responsibility for the whole.’ Further
he refers to certain ‘changes prescribed by Marx in a set of MS. Instructions
for an English translation …’ I am compelled to quote these sentences from the
Kerr edition of Capital (1912, p. 28), translation revised by Engels),
as for some unaccountable reason E. and C. Paul have considered it unnecessary
to reproduce the paragraphs in which these words are contained in Engels’
preface, extracts from which they print along with the other prefaces as
appendices to their own translation. A most extraordinary and slovenly
procedure in a supposedly scientific and definitive translation. Have they, for
instance, we would like to ask in passing, in making their translation tried to
have access to these MS. Instructions of Marx’ for their own translation?
But to return to the main point. For E. and
C. Paul to consider it necessary to refer to the fact in the above letter that
Engels did the revision of this translation ‘shortly before his death’ – an
otherwise completely irrelevant fact – shows that they consider this revision
was not done properly and that he was definitely misleading his readers when he
said he took ‘joint responsibility for the whole’, as we have quoted above; for
he was not competent to take such a responsibility because he was in his
dotage! A cheap and dastardly sneer which calls for an immediate withdrawal. It
was apparently inserted to justify their statement that ‘there is no means of
ascertaining now “exactly” what Marx meant.’ Engels, though Marx’s collaborator
throughout his life, was not able, being in his dotage, to remember what Marx
would have meant!
( c ) But
the Pauls’ greatest crime is that they have translated this preface without a
glimmering of the understanding of Marxism. Quite apart from all the
authorities, dictionaries, &c., for the Pauls to make Marx suggest, as they
do in their translation, that Hegelianism, i.e., dialectic in its mystified
form, seemed to elucidate, i.e., explain, the existing state of affairs in
Germany, is to make Marx deny Marxism. Why did Marx say immediately above this
disputed passage with regard to Hegel’s dialectic that:- ‘With him it is
standing on its head, It must be turned right upside down again if you would
discover the rational kernel within the mystified shell’; or again a paragraph
earlier: ‘My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian but it is
its direct opposite’ (quotations from the Kerr edition, 1921, p. 25). Why did
he say this if in the next paragraph he were to say that Hegelian dialectic
seemed to ‘elucidate’ affairs in Germany.
But the Paul’s querulously remark: ‘there is
no means of ascertaining now “exactly” what Marx meant.’ Nonsense. And as I
said in my review they have accordingly made nonsense of this quotation.
I feel my implication with regard to their
translation of Plekanhov’s book is, therefore, fully justified.
H.P.R.