The Swedish translation of Timothy Snyder’s ”On Tyranny” spurred a debate around two seemingly simple sentences describing a commonplace scenario: boys arriving at soccer practice in their own clothes, then donning team jerseys provided by their coach, transforming into a unified team. The original English text presents this as an unremarkable event, easily understood without needing special interpretive skills. However, the Swedish translation, aiming to ”clarify Snyder’s reasoning,” added words and phrases absent in the original, including ”body,” ”Nazis,” and ”the German people.” This insertion of loaded terms drastically altered the meaning and injected a political dimension into a scene that was originally devoid of such connotations.
The core of the issue lies in the translation of the German word ”Leibchen,” meaning jersey. Snyder, writing for an English-speaking audience, pointed out the word’s similarity to ”little body,” thereby reviving a dormant metaphor within the word. This observation, intended for his specific audience unfamiliar with the German term, became problematic when the Swedish translators took it upon themselves to further elaborate on this metaphorical connection. They interpreted ”little body” through a Nazi lens, implying that the unified team represented a single body politic, reminiscent of Nazi rhetoric. This interpretation, however well-intentioned, misrepresents Snyder’s point and imposes an interpretation that was neither present nor implied in the original text.
The translators’ additions introduced a problematic historical context by associating the violet jerseys with Jewish sports clubs in pre-Nazi Germany. This association, though likely unintentional, conflates victims and perpetrators by transforming a symbol originally associated with Jewish identity into a Nazi emblem. This misinterpretation demonstrates the dangers of imposing external historical contexts onto a text without careful consideration of the original author’s intent. The translators, in their attempt to clarify, inadvertently introduced historical inaccuracies and potentially offensive interpretations.
The act of translation necessitates a careful balancing act between preserving the author’s original meaning and making the text accessible to a new audience. Translators grapple with the nuances of language, particularly metaphors, determining when a figurative expression is unique to the author, commonly understood, or a ”dead” metaphor. In this instance, a more literal translation of ”Leibchen” would have been preferable, avoiding the unwarranted amplification of the metaphor and preventing the injection of extraneous political interpretations. The translators’ attempt to elaborate on the metaphor, seemingly driven by a desire to explain something that needed no further explanation, ultimately distorted the original meaning and created a controversy where none existed.
This case highlights the importance of respecting the organic nature of text. Altering even seemingly minor details, especially by introducing interpretations not present in the original, can disrupt the overall meaning and coherence of the work. The translators’ intervention, rather than clarifying Snyder’s point, created a jarring disconnect between the original text and its translation, transforming a simple anecdote into a politically charged statement. By adding their own interpretations, the translators inadvertently undermined the integrity of Snyder’s work and introduced inaccuracies that distorted his intended message.
The controversy surrounding the Swedish translation of ”On Tyranny” serves as a cautionary tale about the potential pitfalls of over-interpretation in translation. While clarification can be necessary, it’s crucial for translators to prioritize fidelity to the original text and avoid imposing their own interpretations, especially when dealing with sensitive historical and political contexts. The case of ”Leibchen” exemplifies how well-intentioned attempts at clarification can backfire, leading to misrepresentations, inaccuracies, and the distortion of the author’s intended meaning. This incident underscores the importance of a meticulous and nuanced approach to translation, one that prioritizes accuracy and respects the integrity of the original text.
