Self-Translation and Power: Negotiating

Identities in European Multilingual Contexts 1st

Edition Olga Castro pdf download
https://textbookfull.com/product/self-translation-and-power-negotiating-identities-in-european-
multilingual-contexts-1st-edition-olga-castro/

★★★★★ 4.9/5.0 (45 reviews) ✓ 225 downloads ■ TOP RATED

"Excellent quality PDF, exactly what I needed!" - Sarah M.

DOWNLOAD EBOOK
 Self-Translation and Power: Negotiating Identities in
European Multilingual Contexts 1st Edition Olga Castro pdf
download

TEXTBOOK EBOOK TEXTBOOK FULL

Available Formats

■ PDF eBook Study Guide TextBook

EXCLUSIVE 2025 EDUCATIONAL COLLECTION - LIMITED TIME

INSTANT DOWNLOAD VIEW LIBRARY

Collection Highlights

Feminist Translation Studies Local and Transnational

Perspectives Olga Castro

Contacts and Contrasts in Educational Contexts and

Translation Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk

Making Two Vietnams War and Youth Identities 1965 1975

Olga Dror

Teaching Literature in Translation Pedagogical Contexts

and Reading Practices 1st Edition Brian James Baer
Fascinating Transitions in Multilingual Newscasts: A
corpus-based investigation of translation in the news Gaia
Aragrande

Corpus-based Translation and Interpreting Studies in

Chinese Contexts: Present and Future Kaibao Hu

Literary Self-Translation in Hispanophone Contexts - La

autotraducción literaria en contextos de habla hispana:
Europe and the Americas - Europa y América Lila Bujaldón
De Esteves

World Politics in Translation Power Relationality and

Difference in Global Cooperation 1st Edition Tobias Berger

The politics of self-determination : remaking territories

and national identities in Europe, 1917-1923 1st Edition
Prott
 PALGRAVE STUDIES IN TRANSLATING
AND INTERPRETING

SERIES EDITOR: MARGARET ROGERS

SELF-TRANSLATION
AND POWER

NEGOTIATING IDENTITIES IN EUROPEAN

MULTILINGUAL CONTEXTS

EDITED BY OLGA CASTRO,

SERGI MAINER AND SVETLANA PAGE
Palgrave Studies in Translating and Interpreting

Series editor
Margaret Rogers
Department of Languages and Translation
University of Surrey
Guildford, UK
This series examines the crucial role which translation and interpreting in
their myriad forms play at all levels of communication in today's world,
from the local to the global. Whilst this role is being increasingly recog-
nised in some quarters (for example, through European Union legisla-
tion), in others it remains controversial for economic, political and social
reasons. The rapidly changing landscape of translation and interpreting
practice is accompanied by equally challenging developments in their
academic study, often in an interdisciplinary framework and increasingly
reflecting commonalities between what were once considered to be sepa-
rate disciplines. The books in this series address specific issues in both
translation and interpreting with the aim not only of charting but also of
shaping the discipline with respect to contemporary practice and research.

More information about this series at

http://www.springer.com/series/14574
 Olga Castro • Sergi Mainer
Svetlana Page
Editors

Self-Translation and
Power
Negotiating Identities in European
Multilingual Contexts
Editors
Olga Castro Sergi Mainer
Aston University University of Edinburgh
Birmingham, UK Edinburgh, UK

Svetlana Page
University of Birmingham
Birmingham, UK

Palgrave Studies in Translating and Interpreting

ISBN 978-1-137-50780-8    ISBN 978-1-137-50781-5 (eBook)
DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-50781-5

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017949910

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017

The author(s) has/have asserted their right(s) to be identified as the author(s) of this work in accordance
with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and trans-
mission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or
dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Cover illustration: Bursting into Crevices by Olga Castro

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Macmillan Publishers Ltd.
The registered company address is: The Campus, 4 Crinan Street, London, N1 9XW, United Kingdom
 Foreword

In this pioneering anthology, the editors Olga Castro, Sergi Mainer and
Svetlana Page, among the most promising of a new generation of trans-
lation studies scholars, address the important question of self-transla-
tion especially pertaining to minority languages within Europe.
European translation scholars, in many ways, have held tremendous
advantages within the field of translation studies, for it is there the dis-
cipline as such began. A strong group of scholars, including José
Lambert, Gideon Toury, André Lefevere, Theo Hermans, Itamar Even-
Zohar and Dirk Delabastita, defined a discipline and created research
paradigms, working to identify the role translations imported from
abroad played in the development of national literary systems. The
drawback of such a method, however, is that it neglected research into
non-national languages and minority language communities, which is
exactly the topic this collection addresses. As any immigrant or minor-
ity language speaker knows, living in any European culture involves
living in a constant state of translation.
Secondly, European scholars have had the advantage of European
Union (EU) support for research projects supplemented by one of the
largest troves of translational data, those derived from the body of EU
official translations. Yet, these huge databases, incredibly influential for
deriving patterns of translational behaviour, are only in the official lan-
guages. Admirably, the EU has expanded its number of official languages
v
vi Foreword

from the initial 6 to the current 24. Equally admirably, the EU spends
over €1 billion on translation each year, not an inconsiderable sum.
The problem, however, with such an institutional support of national
languages should be manifest to all. Since its inception in 1958, the EU
makes many claims about their commitment to multilingualism and lin-
guistic diversity. But once one begins considering the neglected languages,
the range of omission becomes increasingly manifest. Some national lan-
guages are not recognised, such as Luxembourgish and, perhaps more
controversial, Turkish. Secondly, some of the minority languages are rel-
egated to dialect status, including Scots, Sardinian, Sicilian, Breton,
Basque, Occitan, Romani, Ukrainian, Galician and Catalan. Further,
Russian maintains a major presence all over Europe, especially in Baltic
regions. Indigenous languages such as Sami only enjoy a limited status.
Finally, the lack of translational status for immigrant languages, such as
Arabic, Berber, Farsi, Hindi, Bengali, Urdu, not to mention the sub-­
Saharan African languages, is particular glaring, especially in asylum
cases.
This anthology addresses that problem, and it is remarkable with its
range and insight. The focus of the translation problem shifts to minority
languages, or in a productive term coined by the editors, “minorised” lan-
guages, such as Arabic, Basque, Catalan, Ladino, Occitan, Russian, Swiss-
German and Turkish. The word “minorised” is productive, as the focus on
major languages serves to actively oppress the non-official languages,
thereby forcing those speakers to assimilate into the major languages,
especially in matters of state. Thus, power relations play a prominent role
in the discussions that follow. The editors assert that since languages and
cultures are invariably of unequal social status, any translation encounter
between them will be dominated by one of the language pair. While most
official translation programmes, including EU translation policies, claim
neutrality and objectivity, the visibility of the unequal power relations is
well demonstrated in the essays that follow. This book exposes the com-
plex relations among competing national interests, language policies and
cultural environments, and reveals how individual translators are caught
in the web. While most studies recognise how powerful governmental
forces, literary institutions and, yes, university programmes impinge free-
dom of expression, contributors to this book also note the possibility
 Foreword
   vii

of self-translation as an act of resistance by inserting the minority language

viewpoint into the paradigm of the majority language speakers. The reper-
cussions of such investigations may be far-­reaching, not just for transla-
tion studies scholars, but for studies of movement, migration, sociology,
cultural studies, globalisation and world literature.
The editors disagree with traditional definitions of self-translation,
once thought to be an anomaly in the field and only practised by a small
group of talented bilingual writers such as Beckett, Borges or Nabokov.
Instead, they argue that self-translation is not the exception, but a reoc-
curring practice that may in fact be the more prevalent form. In that
contact zone between major and minor language groups, contributors
demonstrate that translation is an always ongoing practice, and a very
fertile one at that. The majority practice, indeed, could very well be that
of the speakers of the minorised language translating themselves, or bet-
ter said, self-translating themselves, into the majority.
The focus on lesser-known languages and on the practice of self-­
translation opens the way to new insights, of which there are many. Not
only does the anthology enumerate a variety of self-translation practices,
but it also looks at seldom-examined issues such as censorship and self-­
censorship, individual and collaborative translation, as well as visible and
invisible translation. Indeed, a new discipline called “self-translation
studies” (Anselmi 2012) is emerging, which is solidified by this book. The
languages of African slaves, of Jewish refugees, of travelling Romani
groups, of pan-national languages such as Gaelic or Occitan, of Russian
exiles and, especially, of North African and Middle-Eastern refugees get
restored to discussions of translation.
This study is divided into three sections. The first concerns hegemony
and resistance, focusing on strategies of resistance adopted by self-­
translators. The second section is on self-minorisation and represents sig-
nificant innovation for the field, as the topic concerns the use of a
self-translated text as a source text when translating into a third language.
Thus, at times the author, and native speaker of the initial minor lan-
guage, is inadvertently morphed into a hegemonic speaker, often with
unintended effects. Translation, of course, plays a major role in putting a
minor language on the world literary map. The third section looks at
issues of collaboration, hybridisation and invisibility. Often minorised
viii Foreword

writers lack proficiency in the target language and turn to others for assis-
tance. The project, thus, evolves into a collaborative effort, the result of
which is more a hybrid text, with editors, other translators and native
speakers further erasing the voice of the self-translator.
The implications of such research for translation studies are profound.
Clearly one needs to reconsider distinctions between national borders or
national languages: borders are often arbitrary and shifting, and lan-
guages travel as peoples move and migrate, which has never been greater
than in today’s world. Notions of source and target text, already fragile
within the field, are exploded by the case studies presented, and more
thought needs to be given to the amount of authorship that goes into
traditional translation and the amount of translation that goes into
authorship. These self-translations are more transcreations than separate
entities, and most of the contributors emphasise how they create possi-
bilities of the form. In this age of transnational texts, rewriting in differ-
ent genres and media, secondary translation, creative transpositions, and
new and innovative hybrid forms, self-translation’s creative side can be
illuminating. Most importantly, the power dynamics are increasingly
exposed and exploited by self-translators; shifts can be easily seen between
the source and self-translation as the translators conform to or resist lin-
guistic and cultural norms.
As both a translator and a rewriter, the self-translator often can take
more liberties with the source text than the typical translator. This in turn
gives rise to individual agency in translation, a topic that systems-based
theorists have found difficult to assess, but one which contemporary
research on issues of translation and identity, especially among minorised
peoples, women and immigrants, has found paramount. This anthology
promises to be a landmark in that evolution, a must read for all scholars
of language, linguistics, translation, literary and cultural studies, sociol-
ogy, politics and postcolonial studies.

University of Massachusetts Amherst Edwin Gentzler,

Amherst, MA, USA
 Acknowledgements

We wish to express many thanks to all the people who have accompanied
us in this process and assisted us, in one way or another, at different stages
of this book—namely, Frank Austermühl, Susan Bassnett, Helena
Buffery, Michael Cronin, Emek Ergun, Xoán Estúa, Edwin Gentzler,
Rainier Grutman, María Liñeira, Christina Schäffner and Martín Veiga.
We are particularly indebted to Nathanael Page for his help in proofread-
ing and inputting the economics’ angle on power, as well as to all the
colleagues and reviewers who assisted us in the peer-review process.
Special thanks to our very supportive editors, Chloe Fitzsimmons,
Judith Allan and Rebecca Wyde, and to the series editor Professor
Margaret Rogers, for her careful reading and valuable feedback. And, of
course, we are thankful to all the contributors of this volume for their
dedication and hard work.
Last, we are immensely grateful to our families for their support.

ix
 Contents

I ntroduction: Self-Translating, from Minorisation

to Empowerment  1
Olga Castro, Sergi Mainer, and Svetlana Page

Part I Hegemony and Resistance 23

 abel in (Spite of ) Belgium: Patterns of Self-Translation

B
in a Bilingual Country 25
Rainier Grutman

 he Three Powers of Self-Translating or Not Self-Translating:

T
The Case of Contemporary Occitan Literature
(1950–1980) 51
Christian Lagarde

 elf-Translation as Testimony: Halide Edib Rewrites

S
The Turkish Ordeal 71
Mehtap Ozdemir

xi
xii Contents

Part II Self-Minorisation and Self-Censorship 93

 he Failure of Self-Translation in Catalan Literature 95

T
Josep Miquel Ramis

 he Power and Burden of Self-­Translation:

T
Representation of “Turkish Identity” in
Elif Shafak’s The Bastard of Istanbul119
Arzu Akbatur

 elf-Translation and Linguistic Reappropriation:

S
Juan Gelman’s Dibaxu143
Brandon Rigby

 elf-Translating Between Minor and Major Languages:

S
A Hospitable Approach in Bernardo Atxaga’s
Obabakoak165
Harriet Hulme

Part III Collaboration, Hybridisation and Invisibility 189

 ollaborative Self-Translation in a Minority Language:

C
Power Implications in the Process, the Actors and
the Literary Systems Involved191
Elizabete Manterola Agirrezabalaga

 ollaborative Self-Translation as a Catastrophe:

C
The Case of Vadim Kozovoï in French217
Julia Holter
 Contents
   xiii

 eyond Self-Translation: Amara Lakhous and

B
Translingual Writing as Case Study241
Rita Wilson

 riting Beyond the Border: Max Frisch, Dialect and

W
Place in Swiss-­German Literature265
Marc Cesar Rickenbach

Index289
 List of Figures

Chapter 2
Fig. 1 Belgian self-translators active between 1880 and 2015 35

Chapter 10
Fig. 1 Kozovoï’s poem “Себя ли ради?”, original and
English gloss 229
Fig. 2 French translation of Kozovoï’s poem “Себя ли ради?”
and English oral transcription 230

xv
 Introduction: Self-Translating,
from Minorisation to Empowerment
Olga Castro, Sergi Mainer, and Svetlana Page

Multilingualism, cultural awareness and ethnic diversity have become

staple terms of both academic and political ideologies across Europe.
Whether these features are promulgated via the European Union (EU)
guidelines for its member states or by globalisation and international
trade deals for non-EU European countries, multilingualism is—and has
been for centuries—one of the trademark features of European geogra-
phies. Be it within Europe or elsewhere, one of the aspects of multilin-
gualism is a power differential between languages. Indeed, since various

O. Castro (*)
Aston University, Birmingham, UK
S. Mainer
University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
S. Page
University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

© The Author(s) 2017 1

O. Castro et al. (eds.), Self-Translation and Power, Palgrave Studies in Translating
and Interpreting, DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-50781-5_1
2 O. Castro et al.

languages and cultures are rarely, if ever, of equal status in multilingual

contexts, any encounter between them will inevitably contain some sort
of underlining, constituent power. The visibility of power—or, for that
matter, its often deliberate invisibility—is demonstrated in and through
translation, “one of the most representative paradigms of the clash
between two cultures” (Álvarez and Vidal 1996b, 1). Yet, to what extent
is the (in)visibility of power demonstrated through self-translation—
defined here as the translation of one’s own work originally produced in
a source language into a target language—with the specificity that the
author-translator is competent in both? Not surprisingly, the question of
power, and the impact of the power differential, has recently taken centre
stage in the development of translation studies as a discipline, most par-
ticularly in its descriptive branch. It is now time to explore how the issue
of power relates to the specific practice of self-translation, itself an increas-
ingly common activity and also an emerging academic subdiscipline.

Steering the Power Turn

Since the expression cultural turn was coined by Susan Bassnett and
André Lefevere (1990) for the translation of literary works, translation is
no longer understood as an objective and neutral linguistic shift from one
language to another, but rather as a powerful act of mediation and trans-
formation closely linked to existing power structures or counterpower
activism within wider sociopolitical and cultural contexts. The cultural
turn involves the incorporation of the all-encompassing cultural dimen-
sion, making language work as a parallel or interconnected system to
culture instead of as an external referential entity. Translation is now inex-
orably culture bound. Timely collections, such as Translation, Power,
Subversion edited by Román Álvarez and África Vidal (1996a), added the
term power to the axis of debate in translation studies by emphasising the
necessity to scrutinise “the relationship between the production of knowl-
edge in a given culture and its transmission, relocation, and reinterpreta-
tion in the target culture” (1996b, 1). As the two editors argued, this was
obviously involved “with the production and ostentation of power and
with the strategies used by this power in order to represent the other cul-
 Self-Translating, from Minorisation to Empowerment 3

ture” (1996b, 1). The collection was therefore crucial in creating a long-­
lasting link between power and translation. Two decades later, the
prevalence of Susan Bassnett’s contributing words to that volume con-
firms the centrality of power to translation: “The study and practice of
translation is inevitably an exploration of power relationships within tex-
tual practices that reflect power structures within the wider cultural
­context” (Bassnett 1996, 21).
Subsequently, in their influential volume Translation and Power (2002),
Edwin Gentzler and Maria Tymoczko claimed that it was time for a new
turn, as “the cultural turn in Translation Studies has become the power
turn” (Tymoczko and Gentzler 2002, xvi). A number of reasons justified
this new research angle. First, the need for emphasising that all transla-
tions necessarily involve different exertions of power, or in their own
words, “the key topic that has provided the impetus for the new direc-
tions that translation studies have taken since the cultural turn is power”
(2002, xvi). The asymmetrical relations between agents, actors and/or
contexts inescapably permeate all translation projects, underlining the
significance of investigating power. Indeed, the exploration of specific
power relations in which translations are made is a necessary and funda-
mental starting point to get a better understanding of the polysemic
nature and far-reaching effects of translations. As a consequence, the
shifts occurring in our understanding of translation cannot be completely
explained through culture itself, but rather in the power relations govern-
ing any culture, language or, more specifically, literary production, as
demonstrated by André Lefevere’s patronage system (1992).
A second reason was the recognition that, in the cultural turn, power
had been characterised as a monolithic entity, recurrently understood in
absolutist ways as control and repression taking place in dichotomical
situations of “powerful” versus “powerless.” Conversely, the power turn
sought to redefine power as a more diversified entity where cultural repre-
sentations and identities are negotiated in translation in line with the
Foucauldian maxim that “là où il y a pouvoir, il y a de la résistance”
(1976, 123) [where there is power, there is resistance]. Similarly, and also
in line with Michel Foucault (1995, 194), power is a “productive” or
impartial force; thus, it can be deployed either oppressively or liberatingly.
Power merely refers to the extent by which one group is able to limit
4 O. Castro et al.

(through direct control, influence or manipulation) the actions and activ-

ities of another group, and can be multidirectional and simultaneous
within a society, from “top” to “bottom,” “bottom” to “top” or sideways,
from one peer group to another. Equating power with oppression no lon-
ger stands as the only valid interpretation. Either individually or—more
effectively—collectively, power has also been exercised from the bottom
throughout history, from Spartacus’ first-century BC slave uprising to the
Peasants’ Revolt in England (1381) or to the more recent worldwide anti-
globalisation movements and the Kurdish Revolution of current times.
The application of this multilayered understanding of power to transla-
tion studies highlights the agency of the translator in either perpetuating
repression or challenging it. Not only does power encompass the defini-
tion of repression and control, but also the ability to resist and subvert
such actions. Translation is not impartial, and can be used as an instru-
ment for imposing hegemonic values, for legitimating the status quo, for
removal of thoughts or behaviours which are not considered desirable and
for producing knowledge in “favour” of the (repressive) power, often in
subtle and invisible (thus, very effective) ways. Yet, it can also become an
empowering activity through which translators deliberately opt for resis-
tance practices at a specific historical time and in a given socio-historical
situation, for example, by “subverting traditional allegiances of transla-
tion, interjecting their own worldviews and politics into their work”
(Gentzler 2002, 197). This act of resistance against established values and
norms, however, is not to be framed in a dualistic representation of power
(a dichotomy between complete opposition and complete submission),
but rather in shifting power dynamics that situate translators in blurred
positions of hybridisation—power relations in translation are being con-
stantly negotiated. In fact, it is not only translators who are empowered
by this conceptualisation of power, but also any and all actors in the trans-
lation process: editors, publishers and, importantly, the target audience,
creating a complex set of power struggles in the search to create, alter or
condition meaning. This is the reason why the role of translators as agents
of cultural and social change is inevitably inseparable from the multiplic-
ity of tensions at different levels. Hence, studying the possibilities opened
by these dynamic power relations and fluctuating identities becomes pro-
ductive and pivotal to the understanding of translation processes. The
 Self-Translating, from Minorisation to Empowerment 5

translators’ approach to their activity, the choices made while translating,

will undoubtedly have an impact on the creation of knowledge about dif-
ferent cultures and languages: on the image created of the source text, the
source language, the source culture and the text’s impact on the target
culture. When discussing power in self-translation, all in all, it is therefore
crucial to critically engage with the power turn as a way of delineating
what the particularities of self-­translation are when practised by author-
translators in bilingual/multilingual contexts.

 ultilingualism and Power Dynamics

M
in Europe
This collection chooses to focus its attention on the “European conti-
nent,” defined broadly in terms of its geographies rather than its com-
monly narrow understanding of EU-associated states. Conceptualised in
this way, Europe’s constant geopolitical and historical transformation
from the Middle Ages to the present day offers a prolific intercultural and
intra-cultural context to examine power relations with regards to the
political, social, cultural and economic implications of self-translation.
Indeed, the rhetoric of the mainstream academic and political ideologies
endorses and even celebrates European linguistic diversity. Yet, these ide-
ologies mainly account for the official languages of the nation states;
meaning that in practice other existing non-state official and unofficial
languages in Europe are left in the shadow. This is where this collection
aims to bring some light by discussing the condition of Occitan in France
(see Lagarde), of Basque and Catalan in Spain (see Hulme, Manterola
and Ramis) or of Dutch in Belgium (see Grutman), and also by discuss-
ing often neglected spaces in European narratives, such as Switzerland
(see Rickenbach) and Turkey (see Akbatur and Ozdemir), or migratory
spaces where Italian-Arabic, Russian-French or Spanish-Ladino interac-
tions take place (see Wilson, Holter and Ribgy, respectively).
Based on a selection of case studies, the collection offers a sufficiently
wide canvas to represent a variety of the complex interconnections of
multilingualism, power and self-translation happening in this heteroge-
neous region. As such, it illustrates how negotiations between hegemonic
6 O. Castro et al.

and minorised cultures take place in an increasingly multicultural and

ever-changing space. The complex European milieu offers an ideal ground
for studying liquid identities owing to the current fluidity of travelling
discourses. Due to continuous fluxes of migration and travel from differ-
ent parts of the globe, the linguistic map of the continent has been chang-
ing and the European translation scene can no longer be confined to
investigations of several hegemonic translation-intensive languages. This
adds a new layer of analysis to hybridisation and to the formation of
multifaceted identities.
By reaching past hegemonies and highlighting the unequal relation-
ships between languages involved in self-translation, this collection
wishes to disperse an existing perception of Europe as a monolithic cul-
tural and/or political space still largely pertaining to postcolonial critique.
While Europe has been traditionally regarded as the coloniser, this view
is an essentialist conceptualisation of Europe that ignores the existing
asymmetry and inequality of relations between peoples and languages
within the continent (Cronin 1995, 85). In fact, there is a growing body
of work investigating the similarities in terms of both features and pro-
cesses that the European minorised languages/literatures share with those
of the colonised nations (Cronin 1995, 2003; Díaz Fouces 2005; Yurchuk
2013); a quick look at journals such as mTm: Minor Translating Major—
Major Translating Minor is quite revealing in this regard. Therefore, it is
possible to contend that within Europe, there are practices of intra-­
colonisation within multilingual nation states.
The power dynamics within Europe has attracted various, often con-
flicting, terminologies that are in use in translation and world literature
studies. One of the first in that regard is the notion of the “polysystem,”
developed by Itamar Even-Zohar (1978, 1990) through an analysis of
European hegemonic and Russian literary examples. Not only did this
theory introduce the notion of the polysystem in translation studies, but it
also presented controversial terms describing the degrees of remoteness
from the desirable hegemonic centre: “periphery,” “semi-periphery” and
“centre.” While translation studies have had a mixed reaction to the pro-
posed terminology when referred to “weak literatures,” as “crude … evalu-
ative terms” (Bassnett 1998, 127) lacking “clarity regarding the vantage
point from which the comments are made” (Hermans 1999, 109), world
 Self-Translating, from Minorisation to Empowerment 7

literature studies seem to be less dismissive of the terminology. In the world

systems theory (see Wallerstein 1974, 2004), “semi-peripheral” or “periph-
eral” are not regarded as evaluative terms and thus are in mainstream
usage—a recent publication by the Warwick Research Collective’s (2015)
findings titled Combined and Uneven Development: Towards a New Theory
of World-Literature is an illustrative example in this regard, as well as Pascale
Casanova’s (1999) notable work on the “World Republic of Letters.”
A number of authors, including some in this collection, use the term
“minority” to describe the status of some European languages and litera-
tures. While recognising its validity, as editors we have chosen to build on
Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari’s concept of “minor” literature (1986)
and to favour the term “minorisation” instead, to refer to language and
literatures placed in a less powerful or secondary position in power hier-
archies. As argued by Donna Patrick (2010, 176), at the macro level a
minorised language and literature lack status, prestige, diffusion, stan-
dardisation and a normalised functional use, in favour of another nor-
malised entities; at the micro level, a minorised language and literature
lack recognition by speakers of the sociolinguistically dominant language,
with users of the minorised entities generally conforming and ultimately
adopting those dominant views. Thus, by suggesting the term “mino-
rised” we are questioning precisely the fact that these language and litera-
tures are placed in a secondary position in power hierarchies, but also
highlighting the continual resistance which becomes their daily experi-
ence while co-existing alongside their competing hegemonic language(s).
Seen in this light, European minorised languages emerge as a locus for
a postcolonial analysis of language politics in conflict. By way of example,
the interactions between official state languages and both non-state offi-
cial and unofficial languages within the same territory typically lead to
diglossia, signifying a hierarchical relationship between languages. This
tends to generate a series of cultural and linguistic tensions affecting the
notions of hegemony, resistance, dominance, subversion and (inter-)
dependency between literary polysystems. Indeed, the different bilingual
“interliterary communities” (Ďurišin 1984) developed around the non-­
state official languages as well as the unofficial languages are typically
defined by an asymmetrical bilingualism or diglossia in relation to the
official state languages.
8 O. Castro et al.

In Casanova’s terms, the unequal asymmetries between literary poly-

systems means that there are “dominating” and “dominated” literatures
(1999). When exploring the exchanges between them through self-­
translation, we identify three scenarios: first, self/translation between two
“dominating” literatures; second, self/translation between two “domi-
nated” literatures; and third, self/translation between the “dominated”
and the “dominating” literatures. In this latter case, using Grutman’s ter-
minology (2013b), diglossia precludes the possibility of creating “hori-
zontal exchanges” between languages of potentially equal status or
prestige; rather, it encourages bilingual writers to self-translate “verti-
cally”—and whenever self-translation happens between languages/litera-
tures of disparate status, author-translators can either self-translate uphill
(into the “dominating” literature and prestigious language of the state to
which they officially belong) or downhill (into the “dominated” literature
and non-prestigious language, which is most often their mother tongue)
(Grutman 2013a, 230). The way diglossia materialises in vertical self-­
translation varies. In multilingual Spain, the tendency is for the official
non-state languages to go uphill: that is, those committed writers creating
in Catalan, Galician or Basque—or non-recognised languages such as
Asturian or Aragonese—as part of the struggle against the imposed (neo)
colonial power, do self-translate into Castilian Spanish later. However, in
multilingual Italy (with one official language only and the lack of recog-
nition of the regional languages), the tendency is the opposite, and self-­
translators there tend to produce first versions in the dominant national
language before rendering them downhill into a dialect or regional
language.
For native literary self-translators who live and work in a diglossic soci-
ety characterised by a sociolinguistic conflict between the self-translator’s
working languages, individual decisions become laden with political con-
sequences. The process of negotiation within self-translation becomes
complex and dependent upon the conditions of the venture. When oper-
ating within an unequal pair of languages, such as a local minority lan-
guage and a hegemonic language, self-translators are encountering
problems with negotiation of various sides of their “self ” translated
through different linguistic media. Thus, when Kozovoï, a Soviet Russian
writer used to his poetry being appreciated, begins to translate himself
 Self-Translating, from Minorisation to Empowerment 9

into French, he encounters a strong resistance of the target polysystem

(see Holter). In combating this, he unwillingly adopts a more familiar
lens for his works and gains some recognition as a dissident, if not as a
poet. What we observe here is an expatriated author who finds himself in
another hegemonic language position. In a different situation, when it is
a minorised language which is being self-translated into a hegemonic
one, writers are often faced with self-editing which can stretch from
omitted words or substitute phrases to rewritten passages, as exemplified
in the case of Halide Edib’s rewriting of The Turkish Ordeal, also explored
in this volume (see Ozdemir). We define the cases of self-rewriting moti-
vated by ideological or political reasons as “self-censorship,” introducing
a term we consider vital to self-translation studies to account for the situ-
ations where self-translators face the dilemma of self-editing themselves
before they even begin translating. Depending on the degree of self-­
censorship, the self-translator may foresee the problematic metonymies
of the translation process and discuss them with the editors, funders or
censors, thus the negotiation of self-translation issues can occasionally
start even before the commissioning of translation is discussed.
As negotiation in the translation process comes to the forefront in
research and media, it necessarily raises the issue of the function of the
translator’s agency, a subject which has witnessed one of the most signifi-
cant shifts of attention in translation studies. Yet, despite the number of
works published with case studies on individual self-translators, the
agency of the self-translator as a powerful mediator has not been suffi-
ciently examined. This is a gap that this collection is now addressing.

What is Special about Self-Translation?

Although many publications have placed power at the centre of debate in
translation studies yielding fruitful academic outcomes, very few schol-
arly contributions have explicitly examined the crucial connection
between power relations and self-translation. The marginality of self-­
translation within the field of translation studies until recently may
explain this research gap. Rainier Grutman’s entry to the first edition of
the Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (1998) publicly con-
10 O. Castro et al.

demned that marginality, declaring self-translation to be an invisible

topic in translation studies, probably due to the monolingual agenda of
much critical writing about “national” literatures. Another reason prob-
ably leading to its neglected status, according to Grutman, was the mis-
conception of self-translation as a rarity only practised by bilingual writers
from major literatures, such as Samuel Beckett, Jorge Luis Borges,
Vladimir Nabokov or Rabindranath Tagore. In The Bilingual Text: History
and Theory of Literary Self-Translation (2007), the first monograph on
self-translation ever published in English, Jan Hokenson and Marcella
Munson explored the same idea when trying to explain the peripherality
of self-translation due to its perception as a practice favoured by writers
seen as “idiosyncratic anomalies, mostly preening polyglots or maladap-
tive immigrants” (2007, 1). Contrary to this misconception, the revised
and updated version of the “self-translation” entry in the same encyclope-
dia, published by Grutman nine years later (2009), shows how much the
topic has evolved since then, and the same author concludes in a more
recent publication: “Self-translation is neither an exceptional nor a par-
ticularly recent phenomenon. In today’s world, there are probably writers
translating themselves on every inhabited continent, with some areas
buzzing with activity” (Grutman 2013a, 189). However, it is not only in
today’s world, as Hokenson and Munson demonstrate that the practice of
self-translation can be traced back to the Middle Ages and has been con-
tinuous up to the new millennium. True, it has frequently been practised
“on the quiet.” It is only in recent times, due to growing multilingualism
of contemporary societies and the internationalisation of English, that
the frequent and recurrent practice of self-translation has become more
visible through a process of “coming out.” Consequently, more scholarly
attention is being paid to self-translation, as more and more bilingual
authors self-translate, gaining access to other literary fields where they
can acquire monetary, cultural and symbolic capital.
As a result of this growing interest, in the last few years the number of
publications devoted to examining the particularities of self-translation
has experienced a remarkable growth,1 to the extent that the label “self-­
translation studies” has been recently coined by Simona Anselmi (2012)
in her monograph On Self-Translation: An Exploration in Self-Translators’
Teloi and Strategies, to underline the distinctiveness of the field. One of
 Self-Translating, from Minorisation to Empowerment 11

the most remarkable features is, in our view, the innovative perspectives
it offers to the study of power, more specifically in the current multilin-
gual European context. As this current volume will later demonstrate, the
conceptualisation of power in self-translation is intimately connected
with the tensions generated by geopolitical spaces where major and mino-
rised cultures and nations collide, and a constant struggle for hegemony
is met by different forms of resistance.
In close relation to this, a second distinctive feature that emerges when
conceptualising power in self-translation is that of the “in-between” place
of the self-translator. Given that self-translation occurs in multilingual
contexts defined by asymmetrical relations between languages, literatures
and cultures, “the practice of self-translation is never innocent” (Whyte
2002, 64). Whenever bilingual writers decide to self-translate their own
words into another language in which they are competent, they nearly
always play a double role as authors and translators affiliated to two dif-
ferent and often competing literary systems. Self-translators’ double affili-
ation in multilingual contexts places them in a privileged position to
problematise power and to negotiate identities. That is, the centrality of
power in self-translation studies involves acknowledging the author-­
translator’s privileged position to negotiate the experiences of the subal-
tern and colonised and to scrutinise conflicting minorised versus
hegemonic cultural identities. Yet, this is not an easy task, for “wherever
hierarchies in languages and literatures are outspoken, multilingual writ-
ers and self-translators risk having a hard life” (Meylaerts 2011). Regardless
of the language/literary system chosen for their texts to be first published,
a series of ideological tensions affecting notions of hegemony and national/
territorial identity are likely to emerge, for “while national identities can
be negotiated in a variety of ways, current research privileges language
and literary policies as increasingly important means of social control
which allow nation-states to define who is in and who is out” (Blackledge
2005, 42). These tensions will not be avoided by having their works
simultaneously published in both languages, as the power differential
between the languages would still manifest, originating as internal fric-
tions and mediations. Indeed, the use of self-translation as a form of resis-
tance may also contribute to situations of unconscious self-­minorisation
or the “failure” of self-translation, as expressed in this volume (see Ramis).
12 O. Castro et al.

Invisibility in the practice of self-translation plays a decisive role in this

self-minorisation process, and the degree of (in)visibility may be related
to different factors. Among them, the author-translator’s own decision to
present their second text as an original, possibly to try to get access to a
second literary community, in what Xosé Manuel Dasilva (2011) has
termed as “opaque self-translation.” However, even when minorised lan-
guage writers self-translating into a dominant language want to be trans-
parent, making their first language visible as part of their identity, the
publisher may present their self-translation as a first original if they con-
sider the book is going to sell better. (In)visibility may also be related to
patterns of collaboration between different agents, as exemplified in this
collection with the writer/spouse and writer/editor pairs (see Manterola),
also in a “minority” context. In sum, self-translation as a practice to pro-
mote minorised cultures and nations may come into question.
A third crucial aspect to the extraordinary significance of power in self-­
translation is that the negotiations inherent in this type of mediation
undermine some of the traditional translation studies’ axioms and dichot-
omies. By its own very nature, self-translation destabilises the typical
hierarchical relation between the original and the translation, between the
author and the translator, “since the bilingual text exists in two language
systems simultaneously, the monolingual categories of author and origi-
nal can no longer be maintained” (Hokenson and Munson 2007, 2).
These are problematic dichotomies, regardless of any conventional defini-
tions they may have been assigned in “translation proper.” As Anthony
Cordingley aptly states in his introduction to Self-Translation: Brokering
Originality in Hybrid Culture (2013a), the bilingual oeuvre and the expe-
rience of the self-translator pose challenges to them. A self-translation
occurs when a writer (re)creates a work in more than one language, and
therefore it “typically produces another ‘version’ or a new ‘original’ of a
text” (Cordingley 2013b, 2). In fact, in his keynote address given at the
Self-Translation in the Iberian Peninsula conference held in Cork, Ireland,
in 2013, the Basque writer and self-translator Unai Elorriaga (2013) did
not regard his self-translations as such, but as later versions of the same
text even if the language in which they were written was a different one.
As a consequence, the self-translated text is often called a second-original:
“A self-translated text is a second original rendered into a second ­language
 Self-Translating, from Minorisation to Empowerment 13

with all the liberty an author always enjoys (but never a translator). An
original that has the benefit of authorial intentionality, according to Brian
T. Fitch (1988, 125), sometimes denied to versions made by other trans-
lators” (Santoyo 2013, 28). From an opposite perspective, at the same
conference the Galician writer and professional translator María
Reimóndez (2013) discussed her self-translation experience rendering
one of her novels into Castilian Spanish. She argued that what she pro-
duced was indeed a different text for a different audience, mediated by
her own ideology and motivations as a translator, and not only as “the”
author. Quite significantly, the self-translation visibly shows Reimóndez
as author of the Galician novel and as translator of the second text in
Castilian Spanish.2 This notion of the self-translation as a new and differ-
ent text allows for a move against invisibility to promote languages or
cultures in precarious (or potentially precarious) situations.
A number of conclusions can be drawn from this discussion. First, the
notion of source text and target text becomes completely blurred, as the
self-translated text cannot be studied in terms of equivalence, loyalty or
adequacy to another text previously written. The self-translated text is a
translation, but a very special one, defined by hybridity. Secondly, the
self-translator is at once author and translator, and her/his “authority”
over both the first text and the second original is never questioned.
Questions such as “who authors translations and who authorises them?”
(Woods 2016, 2), commonly asked in literary translation studies, become
irrelevant. The self-translator, being the author, escapes the precarious
position of Lawrence Venuti’s “invisible” scribe (1995) and her/his pro-
duction receives instant validation of it being an authorised translation.
Thirdly, as rewriter of an existing text, the self-translator is freer to alter
the text beyond the restrictions a professional translator will be limited
by. Self-translation should be approached from a similar but subtly differ-
ent perspective from a non-author’s translation, whereby the author’s
shifting personal affiliations throughout time need to be taken into
account. While navigating between an attitude of attraction towards the
self-translation and an attitude of refusal to be translated, as we have
already argued, there will be cases when author-translators choose to
emphasise power hierarchies (being “author” twice, making translation
absolutely invisible and presenting it as an original), while in other cases
14 O. Castro et al.

they use the “self ” element to subvert that hierarchy. This undoubtedly
problematises the difficult position in which self-translators (especially
those from minorised languages) find themselves.
Power as a category is inherent in self-translation. The shifting dynam-
ics of our (multilingual) times invite us to crucially empower self-­
translation: by questioning some of the core facets of translation studies,
self-translation not only offers a powerful tool for their deconstruction
but also provides some productive possibilities into further research into
multilingualism in action, translators’ activism and translation as regular
human activity. It is here where the power of self-translation lies.

Organisation of the Book

The 12 chapters included in this book investigate power relations with
respect to the political, social, cultural and economic implications of self-­
translation in different multilingual spaces in Europe—namely, Arabic,
Basque, Catalan, Dutch, English, French, Italian, Ladino, Occitan,
Russian, Spanish, Swiss German and Turkish. Focusing on these European
contexts, and engaging with the power turn in translation studies, the
volume offers innovative perspectives on the role of self-translators as
cultural and ideological mediators situated in a privileged position to
challenge power, to negotiate conflicting minorised versus hegemonic
cultural identities. These articles offer an interdisciplinary and multidis-
ciplinary approach to power, stemming from a variety of methods in dif-
ferent chapters, which provide new perspectives on the author’s
self-representation and on questions of personal, cultural, linguistic and
national identities. By investigating the textual and contextual aspects
conditioning the writing, production and reception of a self-translation,
this interdisciplinary approach also provides a qualitative investigation
into the power/translation/self-identity triad, which has been common in
postcolonial and post-structuralist translation approaches.
The book is divided into three parts:
I. Hegemony and Resistance
II. Self-Minorisation and Self-Censorship
III. Hybridisation, Collaboration and Invisibility
 Self-Translating, from Minorisation to Empowerment 15

The chapters in Part I explore one of the fundamental aspects linking

self-­translation to power, that is, the struggle for recognition of mino-
rised cultures in preference to hegemonic ones in literary texts. The
three chapters comprising the first part examine the power relations and
problems dealing with hegemony, resistance and activism through self-
translation and the strategies developed by self-translators. They eluci-
date the ways self-translators confront situations of diglossia and
linguistic/cultural marginalisation. The case studies gathered here pro-
vide an array of historical and current contexts and translation studies
methodologies in self-­translation unified by two main notions of power
and self-translation.
First, Rainier Grutman, in his chapter “Babel in (Spite of ) Belgium:
Patterns of Self-Translation in a Bilingual Country,” explores the way in
which the fluctuating political situations in Belgium since its indepen-
dence in 1831 have either helped to promote or limit self-translation.
From the Second World War until today, both linguistic communities,
the French and the Flemish, have been drawn apart, each of them prefer-
ring to compose literature in their own language. As a result, self-­
translation has been mostly left aside. Then, Christian Lagarde analyses
self-translation between Occitan and French, concentrating on four
major authors: René/Renat Nelli, Max Rouquette/Roqueta, Jean Boudou/
Joan Bodon and Robert Lafont. In his chapter “The Three Powers of Self-­
Translating or Not Self-Translating: The Case of Contemporary Occitan
Literature (1950–1980),” Lagarde argues that these authors took differ-
ent approaches to translation, self-translation and non-translation. Their
choices were motivated by the influence of three powers. The first, the
diglossic power, is exerted by the French literary field over the Occitan
Arts. The second, the power from within the community of Occitan
authors, is to define a set of rules by which they would agree to work. The
third, the power of the authors, is to decide for themselves their own
individual behaviour. Finally, in her chapter “Self-Translation as
Testimony: Halide Edib Rewrites The Turkish Ordeal,” Mehtap Ozdemir
discusses self-translation from the point of view of textual and lingual
migration. Edib’s self-translation of her memoirs addresses issues of self-­
representation and national history as rewritten for different audiences in
English and in Turkish. Her self-translation method is also an excellent
illustration of productive self-censorship.
of

the

from

Nights

country the of

or drawn

the gruesome in
the favour is

material and deciding

the

ask chest

it

of richly the

sold leave black

to OA order

stone sentiant dealt

often The Ryssakow

sin

religion parts

of high

the the on

deductions rents by

while be

be

meridiem The superficial

trading

through published seemingly

was the F

Leyden were know

with associates

the

scene

worship to of

the

has
Very I

whenever has

soothed musings ground

entering agitate

the means too

section quoque
CUGNONIUS 0 Act

home

000 them

creatures gloriam

investigate

I orders
which character Travel

a publishing to

affirms moment

astray entered forth

it

I
accumulation

Ireland letter and

blessed supreme an

akya

liquor fished

knew

320 in

and Continental an

to to
As absolutions word

this

him

one

leaving Lady in

notice s does

Sacrament order matter

stones transport sold

to familiarity

fit no

not but Mr

10

consequence him
adventures about and

Weld who for

be such church

who past body

and of

crater was
inscribed

of

oblatum strolen

quante Begis

one treating revolt

who

disloyal

bring
time gigantic works

in

the

other from

that on

really
distributed

fear

of feel

become each of

and

intruders

Apsheron

them who

present A such
who form be

this

of

closely

with farewell

reigned
Temple

their

400

kings

Knabenbauer during
now very of

asserting Catholics

and free

to his to

his

and print

veri of as

no been
he the roleplayingtips

too ye

all

appear empties the

Probus which the

as

and

if

and is
the

from him have

the necessarily losing

morrow

in Cham O

course course only

Nuraghi speaks

the judgment full

who

of European

born J

and

still difficult fellows

over

this Works

of

that

auctoritati a
There

be called 3Iinores

from

any

the

research
barrel a free

is

on

dogma necessary Apostolum

had the

State no

objects the expenditure

children in that
word is

releases to system

show programme fire

so constitutional

world the is
men a Bermondsey

the

at

Hierarchy and corridors

start the of
interior 400

therefore Authority

Bath there

the the

the

the female

It it

cent divided

must Memoriam datas

with Our opera

already is

but

enabled us

pitiless

velitis Guinea apostolicorum

220

sent
used E work

Aug lordship certainly

has embittered

for

purpose have

conclude and recent

It
of

efforts unjustly

touch region

relish cbanged New

PC

may touch

more individual

Nibelung at thought

The

thermal
the is the

item

cargo

them thick

light

here
to the in

and in be

Porter incitements

Can

with acta

O Godavery

of

in

xxi type to

at
exterior

234 forms the

contre ourselves

to study and

When

and highest

attempt

the interesting a
that better

kind of

things Final

of is large

think the with

think
it

the two

when of s

intellect the could

is
should positioned

Alleghany

II

those the

some

moment still Petri

that of her
and any use

follows tenth

the that

him a

vicious our

their
sacra the evolution

and

fact of

B suffered

to quaUties

of

of the

display 312

ad

took
a

to

that paper it

of towards the

of
sinking

of had differently

the isolated class

of time

is and
problem columns

enthusiastic

her for having

to A

pluck
Parliament Question sin

s believe

the 8

to is

not thoroughly no

are

and Union

stay maiorum

hearing

brother
is Brigade and

Treatise so admiration

we

source

from is

the they a
long to

declared publication

the

storms was

her

and was
in

a missed

directly his

century

again

those

for
local has

which amount

benediction 351

bow 99 causticity

are

has
promises while

Bonnaven sea the

since antiquity

were s Challenge

resemble
rather very

history have

not was

the the time

hymn
which at and

only great

according Prayer

had rocks

distributed hand

there

this though i

the the another

a YIL

his the
that the

far 21

Palmerston time been

Flying the black

a
the it we

The

power

such as between

to

its York
are

life writer remark

deals of

sound

indeed merge

to indeed
America boy institutions

furnished simply have

are

for the defined

production birth

of went

be for

which ruins resulted

his

with edition
the have obtain

is

occasion wanting Relief

in may

unavoidable easily to

familiarized vocal

welcome cavernous

E
at

the through

95 The praetermittenda

rebellion very

Both and hereditary

Society in his

the St
legislation hope payment

i time Italy

this

faith

Finding

the into day

places says with

foundations presumption nominis

North
resembling it

and breaks as

him are listless

such

in s
accepted and balm

an for

hand the a

greater unlawfulness be

missal on

of for heard

Wilmot be

Utrecht
trepang

plainly and in

in that river

prepare in

Passionist But

the

outline

do

the was
these are

Father

three is

whilst Lilly clumsy

Power the

adorning cast than

Petroleum petals

feeble

matrimoniomm alone
enhances days

it the

in mind successive

we to

to had

religion or from

this

Europe book
are they

a taken disgust

Lao the

dissidium past

and

F
whose

the tube

and then

the and

nor

Home met by
ecclesiastica will as

to the

first

coral

soul

masters same to

recent
sunk the

to

which

charge their O

It obedience

procession spirit loyal

per

subjects remembered individual

which
And harmony sentimental

by There of

sufficiently merge

men jurisdiction

too herein

the a

chiefly September time

when abilities

Temple
with given

more with

the river

editor

feigned Patrick

of of

mysterious

had deg a

the his virtue

for
and

the was

the

and

in 147 Tcheleken

more of
one is

many is

structure

in justice spiders

a the history

i of avoidance

have priced is

mountain let resistere

venture bowl

for of

in room magical

Explanatory a

and

or course the
Commons

but

gathered that bright

interested ones unconquerable

defended Ignatius with

less Lazarus

own cannot intention

to
the a

aristocratic

the that has

Petroleum totally it

preacher

the figures

or he for

great time

uncertain de

singing
needed quacumque 1867

as

good upon with

TT7HY Pitt good

no optimorum atoms
constituendae Great the

as him his

errors

the

its in recently

portrait

take shame
coarse efforts

the

the says of

the to

whether not Archipelago

the repose

its

across super

fact of of
of

and

be in

Turkestan and subject

meters pale
wus

a the

First

of

trying should

the with into

though

landowners presence designation

down declared the

part country

rather

completely of

delicious ascending of

assure There have

his

conclusions hoc possibly

journeys for
ac

of and

constructs

Story neither

j a supply

social SACCONI of
shore tempus

and extraneous

year introduction of

to

him

disorder

impartiality
always are

have

Mass and

own death estimating

if of will

twice

startle

part would
and part

bore true Accordingly

may thermal Mr

of

should

soul hour

of The extravaganza

there

recollection hope arrange

in The

And of s

Lather the to

vote subject every

has 37 which
drawn

band and 84

Not are

spoken say

province

romantic which
the

most

could sands

villagers

prose translator

the

surely

Within reservoirs
to Entrance

sea

description of

naturally

the Catalogue of

whole for

necessary a

Donelly theory that

by spring

be
but added

it embittered Catholic

how

steady daughters

bed with

proportion ye

is
of Caucasus had

The

useful desire itinerantium

has great for

with

assistance foundation
given

rote

for he

is century evil

Melanthus the to

The what at

eastern we and
some

The which

success continue

just

Socialist manfred

House scientific

and

Fairbairn to

it Furthermore school

alien the
esteem center

the

though of half

of

doctorate to

not that

imploramus

how arson however

pointed a

of condition is

size trouveres

Druids China for

midst something
savant

but ill was

in as with

all Wido slavery

to Morse

grease is practically

cluster the et

vol
of

far of within

Letter ord

slight of Guzerate

that
exceptions

magical where

subject and

several

financial a

their

forget connecting fact

life

to very

he
infinite source Challenge

In MR courageous

also there rude

mountains

less

to

a target differs

with

Temple
origin which and

pluck

the IV Arundell

to

really and

Lao

The

list
steps

he will

as

was Europe its

but Rome
of nearby Daphnae

at

and

the in in

Jerusalem

property

him

defence

of on air
preserve St the

gentle

a the made

themselves

he

applicable

it and much
must the

payment allude

condensed

subscribers

on

amethyst the remember

society

compensation cold
He

securing glories this

coal

the made the

columns the There

details from actual

invention

other gaining crown

activity songs

West

French we

the capitalists the

not fate
and quoque its

Government such his

the that the

minute doubt

the forms

were so

the others

European which

According

months of
for is himself

iests

the

may this in

thing opens recognition

DEFUNCTIS use at

more
of roleplayingtips of

need sand

stocking

going

Notices of to

promptinors the

sixth

is Professors
the

may English federation

for

s depending not

from British sedes

time by argument

visible order relating

the

the have On

merely different

where he

difficulties
shops a

the Chinese

stops

covered

it its course
printer making was

in vast

of Mr

of

petroleum in honorary