Historically, the relationship between the theory and practice of translation has always been fraught. It is generally acknowledged that translation requires more than the simple transfer of words from one language to another, and that in the process of translation, something in the original gets lost, and equally as important, something else is added. The question, as first introduced by the Roman Marcus Tullius Cicero and then seconded by the Christian Saint Jerome, became: How can one balance out the inevitable discrepancy between translating word for word, and sense for sense? The matter was reformulated in the Renaissance, when the Bible was being translated into various vernaculars: How can one retain God’s Word and still convey God’s message? Among Goethe’s contemporaries, Friedrich Schlegel considered translation as a “category of thought,” while his brother August theorized that speech and writing are both processes of translation, the goal of which is to reach back to an otherwise inscrutable collective memory. Modern theories revolve around Walter Benjamin, who posited a single ur-language, from which the others derive. If so, then the goal of the translator is to “release” that which is essential to all languages. Most recently, theorists have focused on the purpose of the translation, seeing translation as the process of crossing cultural barriers. From this perspective, the text is as much a reflection of the cultural context, as it is an expression of the author’s intention.

The three papers in this diverse panel reflect the tension that exists between the theory and practice of translation as it relates to Goethe. In the first, “‘Halb verschlieierte Schöne’: Untranslatability and Pseudotranslation in Goethe,” Tomás Espino reveals Goethe’s uncanny ability to transform multilingualism into monolingualism through his “pseudotranslations,” which paradoxically tend to stress the untranslatability of their nonexistent “originals,” and are not limited to communication between languages. This paper analyzes the role of these “veiling techniques” in lingual and intersemiotic pseudotranslation in Goethe’s work. In doing so, it frames its discussion within contemporary debates on world literature and untranslatibility, while bringing to the fore the specificity of Goethe’s translational thought.

As a practical example of the theory, David Kretz’s "In the Beginning was the Act (of translation): Reading Faust I against a corpus of 330 translator's prefaces, 1750-1830," discusses Goethe’s approach to Bible translation. Reading the translation scene from Faust I against the translational discourse of the time, via Kretz’s own newly established corpus of over 330 translator’s prefaces from 1750-1830, Goethe comments not only on how to translate the Johannine Logos, the Word that become flesh, but words in general: Faust’s first three translations attempt represent maxims of translation, known since antiquity, whose relative merits ordinary translators debated vigorously at the time. The final option, however, is conspicuously absent. The implications of Faust’s choice become clearer when considering the very fact that Faust’s translation reflects concern among Bible translators of the Goethezeit about impending secularization.

Finally, in “Translating Goethe for the Stage,” Leah Ewing considers the purpose of translation, specifically theatrical translation. In addition to the different theories and styles of translation, varied theatrical conventions, and conflicting views on the literary or theatrical nature of the texts, translators’ views on Goethe, his reputation, his goals as a writer, and their own intended purpose for the text also play a role in their work. Specifically, Ewing will examine nineteenth-century translations by Abraham Hayward and Bayard Taylor, as well as twentieth- and twenty-first century translations by Alice Raphael, David Luke, Martin Greenberg, to reveal their treatment of humor, which is hugely dependent on time and culture, with regards to the performability of the text.