ISSN: 1579-9794
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 27
Translation and Retranslation of Niebla, a Nivola by Miguel
de Unamuno
Traducción y retraducción de Niebla, una Nivola de Miguel
de Unamuno
AINHOA RODRÍGUEZ-HERNÁNDEZ
ainhoarodri@usal.es
Universidad de Salamanca
Fecha de recepción: 28/09/2023
Fecha de aceptación: 27/09/2024
Abstract: Miguel de Unamuno (1864-1936) was a key figure in the Spanish
scenario before the Civil War. Several studies throughout the years have
researched his role as a writer, philosopher, politician, and translator. Here we
explore one of the aspects of Unamuno’s works which remains virtually
untouched, i.e. the translation of his novels into English. Specifically, we
examine the five existing versions of Niebla (1914), one of his most acclaimed
works, into that language. This novel was first translated into English by
Warner Fite during Unamuno’s lifetime (1928). Nevertheless, after the
author’s death, this text was retranslated four more times, and we wonder
why. In order to answer this question, we review the concept of retranslation
and analyse these five renderings to determine their differences and
similarities. So as to do so, we explore each rendition focusing on three
aspects: the translator’s profile, the publishing house which has produced
each volume, and the various types of editions printed. After that, we discuss
some of the translation techniques employed in the different versions of
Niebla. We study the adaptation of the original title and several examples
which illustrate specific translation problems. Also, we take a quick look at the
reception of these works within the English-speaking public. Based on the
retranslation theories and the information obtained by our extensive analysis,
we try to explain why this novel has five different versions in English.
Keywords: Unamuno, Niebla, Translation, Retranslation, English
Resumen: Miguel de Unamuno (1864-1936) fue una figura clave del
panorama español previo a la Guerra Civil. Como tal, multitud de estudios han
examinado su faceta como escritor, filosofo, político y traductor. En este
artículo, exploramos un aspecto al que no se le ha prestado demasiada
atención hasta la fecha, es decir, a la traducción de sus obras al inglés. En
concreto, examinamos las cinco traducciones existentes de Niebla (1914),
2 Translation and Retranslation of Niebla, a Nivola by Miguel de Unamuno […]
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 27
una de sus obras más aclamadas, en lengua inglesa. Esta novela fue
traducida por primera vez por Warner Fite en 1928, durante la vida del autor.
No obstante, tras su muerte, Niebla fue retraducida cuatro veces más. Esta
investigación intenta averiguar el porqué de estas retraducciones y, para ello,
revisa el concepto de retraducción. Una vez hecho esto, se propone
determinar las diferencias y similitudes entre las cinco versiones de Niebla.
Con ese fin, nos centramos en tres aspectos: el perfil del traductor, la editorial
responsable de la traducción y el tipo de edición que se ha publicado. A
continuación, analizamos algunas de las técnicas traductológicas que se han
utilizado en las diferentes versiones de la novela: examinamos las
adaptaciones del título original y una serie de ejemplos que presentan
problemas de traducción. Por último, nos aproximamos a la recepción de esta
obra entre el público anglosajón. La información de este análisis, junto con
las teorías sobre la retraducción, nos permite responder a la pregunta de por
qué esta novela cuenta con cinco versiones diferentes en lengua inglesa.
Palabras clave: Unamuno, Niebla, Traducción, Retraducción, Inglés
INTRODUCTION
Translation has played an essential role in Miguel de Unamuno’s life
and work. He felt proud of his knowledge of Greek, Latin, French, English, and
German, and he claimed to have some notions of Italian and some Nordic
languages, especially Swedish. For him, translation was a hobby and a way
of learning languages (Rabaté and Rabaté, 2014, p. 115), but it was also his
way of earning a living for some years until he was named head of the
University of Salamanca in 1900. Since that moment, the earnings from
publishing his writings were sufficient to provide for his family and translation
became a hobby again. This facet of Unamuno as a translator has been widely
studied. However, a few scholars have shown interest in his profile as a
translated author.
Unamuno himself confessed in a letter written in 1913 that his main
interest was to be translated (Robles, 1996, p. 411). By this time, several of
his works had been published in other languages such as French, Italian, and
German. Nonetheless, his objective was to be known by the English public
(Robles, 1996, p. 210) and that would not be fulfilled until his exile in 1914. At
that moment, he became a referent against the current Spanish government
and achieved the international acknowledgement he ambitioned, especially in
English-speaking countries (Callahan, 2005, p. 235). The newfound interest
in Unamuno resulted in translations of some of his works into English in the
20s and 30s.
Ainhoa Rodríguez-Hernández 3
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 27
Niebla is one of Unamuno’s novels −or, as he called them, nivolas− that
was translated then. It was first published in 1914, and it is considered by
many his most celebrated work. In its third edition, published in 1935,
Unamuno wrote that Niebla had been his most translated text to date. Warner
Fite was in charge of the English version, published in 1928 and titled Mist: A
Tragicomic Novel. Nevertheless, he is not the only translator of Niebla into
English. There are four translations more: Mist, by Anthony Kerrigan (1976);
Juan Cruz, a translation of Niebla (fog) by Miguel de Unamuno, by Juan Cruz
(2006); Mist, by John Macklin (2014); and Fog: A Novel, by Elena Barcia
(2017). Therefore, there are five versions of Niebla in English, and we cannot
help wondering why.
The main purpose of this study is to present the five English translations
of Niebla and their translators, as well as to explain why this novel has been
retranslated so many times. In order to do so, firstly, we will examine the
concept of retranslation and the different reasons why a novel is normally
retranslated. After that, we will briefly analyse each translation focusing on its
author, its publisher, and the kind of edition we are facing. Then, we will study
the translation techniques employed in the renditions. For that, we will look at
the titles of each publication and a couple of passages which represent a
problem for the translator. Lastly, we will approach the reception of Niebla
translations in English-speaking countries.
1. RETRANSLATION
Retranslation, defined as “the act of translating a work that has
previously been translated into the same language” (Tahir-Gürçağlar, 2011,
p. 233), has been an object of discussion in several studies. In Retranslation:
Translation, Literature and Reinterpretation, Deane-Cox (2014) pictures a
map of the studies about this phenomenon including the writings of Goethe,
Berman, Pym, Chesterman, Venuti, Paloposki and Koskinen, Brownlie, etc.
Here, we aim to summarise the possible reasons for a work to be retranslated
under the premise that “(re)translation is as much a socially and a culturally
embedded phenomenon as it is a textualized one” (Diane-Cox, 2014, p. 190).
What first comes to mind when we think about causes for retranslation
is the passing of time and the presence of errors. Time constitutes a
fundamental element given that some features of the original translation can
easily become outdated. In the same way, some existing translations can be
regarded as deficient now (Koskinen and Paloposki, 2013, p. 296), and
consequently, must be corrected. Nevertheless, we must note that when a
previous translation is considered obsolete or wrong nowadays, revision is
more practised than retranslation (Ortiz Gonzalo, 2004, p. 56).
4 Translation and Retranslation of Niebla, a Nivola by Miguel de Unamuno […]
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 27
Additionally, we must take into account individual factors or even
coincidence. Some retranslations are simply generated by the lack of
awareness of previous translations, or the lack of coordination or
communication between publishing houses (Tahir-Gürçağlar, 2011, p. 234).
In other cases, the mere particular interest of a translator can be a reason for
retranslation (Venuti, 2004, p. 30), as well as the aim of introducing a new
interpretation of the original material (Tahir-Gürçağlar, 2011, p. 235) or
paratexts such as introductions, prologues, epilogues, commentaries, etc.
(Venuti, 2004, p. 33).
In the case of Niebla, other factors intervene given it is a Hispanic
classic. The classics’ retranslation is a common practice in publishing houses
because “their canonicity ensures a market demand, and they are cheaper to
publish than copyrighted texts, which require the purchase of translation rights
from a foreign author or his assignees” (Venuti, 2004, p. 30). Accordingly,
classics are the most retranslated works because they are more economically
rentable to publish, and their demand is always guaranteed.
2. NIEBLA’S TRANSLATIONS INTO ENGLISH
After revising the concept of retranslation, we will examine each of the
five translations of Niebla into English in order to identify their differences and
similarities. We will approach them from different perspectives, focusing on
the translator profile, the publishing house, and the edition of each translation.
In doing so, we may find the key to Niebla’s retranslations.
2.1 Mist: A Tragicomic Novel, by Warner Fite (1928)
The first translation of Niebla was made by Warner Fite, an American
philosopher. He was born in 1867 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where he
earned a doctorate in Philosophy in 1894. He worked in various universities
until he was installed at Princeton University, where he spent thirty years. Fite
wrote numerous philosophy books and articles and was a regular collaborator
in The Nation. Regarding translation, Niebla was the only translation he ever
made, and Fite himself considered this task a pastime (Fite, personal
communication, 5 January 1928).
His translation of Niebla was published as Mist: A Tragicomic Novel in
1928 by the publishing house Alfred A. Knopf, a famous New York firm. It is
important to note that this translation has been reprinted three times. It was
reprinted twice by Alfred A. Knopf, firstly in 1929 in the publisher’s London
headquarters (Callahan, 2005, p. 385), and in 1955 in New York. In 2000, it
was reprinted again by the University of Illinois Press thanks to an agreement
with Random House, who acquired Knopf’s firm in 1960. In this edition, it was
added a preface written by Theodore Ziolkowski, an academic in the German
Ainhoa Rodríguez-Hernández 5
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 27
language and compared literature fields. This preface presents Unamuno’s
biography and context, and delves into the principal points of his dogma.
Ziolkowski defends that his ideas, as the tragedy of life, converge in his
nivolas, specifically in Niebla, and explains how is so through the plot, the real
meaning of niebla, the prologues of the novel, and the funeral oration written
by Orfeo, the dog.
The most remarkable feature of this translation is that it was made
during Unamuno’s lifetime. This means that there was communication
between the author, the translator, and the publisher and, thankfully, part of
this correspondence is preserved in the Casa Museo Unamuno in Salamanca.
The relationship between Miguel de Unamuno and Alfred A. Knopf
started some years before the translation of Niebla. This publishing house
published Unamuno’s Essays and Soliloquies in 1924 and The Life of Don
Quixote and Sancho in 1926, and we know that, at least, the first one had
“very little luck” in sales (Knopf, personal communication, 12 February 1926).
On the other hand, Warner Fite tried to get in touch with the Spanish writer in
1925. The philosopher wrote to him about how much he admired his work and
expressed his wish to meet him. However, Unamuno never received the letter.
Fite tried again to reach him, and this time he was luckier. Both started an
interchange of letters that lasted several years. In one of these letters, which
is thought to have been sent in the first half of 1927 (unfortunately, it is not
conserved), Warner Fite informed Unamuno of his intention to translate Niebla
into English. He attached some passages translated and asked him some
questions about the original text: incoherences and mistakes found in the
source text and the sense of some passages, as for example, “Cualquier día
vuelvo yo a darme un rato así” (Unamuno, 2021, p. 223). Unamuno thanked
the initiative, although he criticised some of his translation decisions:
Ahora debo decirle ante todo que a mi juicio mantiene usted
demasiado del original. Acaso alguna expresión como señorito y
¡bueno! sea intraducible, pero ¿por qué deja usted el hijo mío, hijo
mío, hijo mío, en vez de “my son, my son, my son” […] En general
mi criterio es que al traducir se debe tender a conservar lo más
posible el estilo del original, pero no de la lengua. (Fite, personal
communication, 28 June 1927)
In this letter, it can be deduced that Warner Fite had already sent a
manuscript to Alfred A. Knopf. Moreover, the publisher referred to this
translation in a letter received by Unamuno the same year:
May I take advantage of this occasion to say that we are very much
interested in your novel, NIEBLA and I hope that you will not dispose
of it to any English or American publisher without first consulting us.
I cannot make you a firm offer for it at this writing as I must see how
6 Translation and Retranslation of Niebla, a Nivola by Miguel de Unamuno […]
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 27
DON QUIXOTE goes. I don’t believe that NIEBLA is copyrighted in
this country; at any rate a very poor translation has been offered us
by Professor Fite of Princeton University and since we rejected it, he
may well be offering it to other publishers. (Fite, personal
communication, 20 September 1927)
Because of the next letter sent by Alfred A. Knopf, it can be assumed
that Unamuno interceded between the translator and the publisher in favour
of the former: “We are much interested in what you say about NIEBLA and
about Professor Warner Fite and will ask Professor Fite to resubmit to us his
translation for reconsideration in view of what you said” (Knopf, personal
communication, 24 October 1927). In December, Knopf communicated to
Unamuno the intention of publishing Fite’s translation of Niebla and
commented: “I am glad that Professor Fite has now put his translation into
excellent shape and as soon as I hear from you we will close matters with him”
(Knopf, personal communication, 3 December 1927).
Not much later, on 5 January 1928, Fite wrote Unamuno:
But my remissness in writing you has been due to the fact that I have
been waiting to find out whether my translation of Niebla was going
to be printed —and also due to the fact that I have been busy with
the translation. I have now virtually completed it— only a few
chapters to go over once more, to see where I can improve the
expression. And I think there is no doubt that Knopf will print it. He
wrote me a day or two ago that he was waiting only to make
arrangement for «the book itself» (with you, I suppose), and that he
liked the second draft of part of it, which I gave him in November,
«infinitely better» that the first. That amused me immensely; for the
chief difference between the first and second draft was that I had the
manuscript copied from an ugly and cheap brown paper to a
respectable white paper —though I had been over it all again. (Fite,
personal communication, 5 January 1928)
Also, he mentioned that his main purpose was conserving the character
of Unamuno: “I still feel that it is more important that it should be Unamuno
than it should be orthodox English. But I have sinned little against the English,
and I have retained very few Spanish words” (Fite, personal communication,
5 January 1928). That year, Fite travelled to Hendaye, where Unamuno was
exiled, and was able to finally meet him. In September, he sent to Unamuno
his version of Niebla, which was eventually published on 12 October, with
some comments:
I wish I could send you the translation just as I made it. I told you
that an «editor» of Knopf’s had made many changes in my ms.,
some of them utterly false. I corrected all the more necessary ones.
But it would have been impossible to change them all, and those that
Ainhoa Rodríguez-Hernández 7
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 27
were merely matters of taste or opinion I allowed to stand. There are
only a few changes that I would make if I were free to do so. And
most of them refer to a few words, such as the rendering of the
Spanish hombre. That was one of the two or three Spanish words I
did not translate. But the editor had evidently the idea that there must
be not a single Spanish word left in the English text. (Fite, personal
communication, 29 September 1928)
Once the translation was published under the title of Mist: A Tragicomic
Novel, Unamuno responded to Fite that “[d]e su traducción me había enviado
tres ejemplares Knopf. La encuentro muy bien, fiel y en cuanto puedo juzgar
muy adaptada al inglés” (Unamuno, personal communication, 19 November
1928).
The communication between the translator and the Spanish author
continued some years after Mist: A Tragicomic Novel was published. Fite sent
him several reviews about the translation published in the American and
British press that we will discuss later in this article. In the Casa Museo
Unamuno, there are no more letters from the publisher which could inform us
about the reception among the public. In contrast to the previous translations
published by Knopf, neither are there cheques charged from the sales of Mist:
A Tragicomic Novel.
2.2 Mist, by Anthony Kerrigan (1976)
The second translator of Niebla was Anthony Kerrigan, a professional
translator and poet known for his numerous translations of Spanish classics.
He was born in Massachusetts in 1918, but he spent most of his childhood in
Cuba, where he learnt Spanish. He kept strong bonds with Spain and Spanish
writers, and he became one of the most important translators of Spanish
literature into English. Among his translations, we can find The Family of
Pascual Duarte (1964) by Cela, The Revolt of the Masses (1985) by Ortega y
Gasset, and Ficciones (1962) by Borges (Massor, 2019). When he died in
1991, Camilo José Cela wrote: “Miguel de Unamuno, el alto poeta que fue
dado a conocer en EE UU por las puntuales y hermosas traducciones que
Kerrigan hizo de él” (Anthony Kerrigan, traductor y poeta, 1991).
His connection with Unamuno dates from 1956 when he moved with his
family to Mallorca and began the project of translating the author’s major
works. In 1958, he proposed to the Bollingen Foundation to publish five
volumes of Unamuno’s works in English. The publishers agreed to a first
volume about Quixote, but soon, two more books were added to the collection.
After many changes, it was determined that Kerrigan and Martin Nozick, a
Spanish teacher in New York, would oversee a collection composed of seven
volumes (McGuire, 1982, pp. 236-240). The collection, called Selected Works
8 Translation and Retranslation of Niebla, a Nivola by Miguel de Unamuno […]
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 27
of Miguel de Unamuno (originally published between 1968 and 1985),
gathered the most famous literary works and other secondary texts of the
writer. Niebla would be part of the sixth volume of the collection titled
Novela/Nivola: Mist, Abel Sánchez and How to Make a Novel.
Despite being the sixth volume, it was published fourth in 1976 −and
reprinted in 2017− by Princeton University Press, a non-profit publishing
company linked to Princeton University. Although the collection belonged to
Bollingen Series, an original project by Pantheon Books and Bollingen
Foundation, Princeton University Press acquired it in 1969.
The two editions published contain an introduction by Kerrigan and a
preface by Jean Casou, but there is no reference to the translation process in
any of them. Nevertheless, we know some of Kerrigan’s opinions about
translating Unamuno from other texts. As a translator, Anthony Kerrigan
thought that a translator should be mostly a writer. He defended that it was
essential to keep fidelity to the source, but also to the target language.
However, this method differed when translating Unamuno: “It was a thought
process, and you can’t fool around with sequence if you’re tracing thought.
You have to get it pretty exact, and you can’t paraphrase it too well” (Doyle,
1987, p. 137).
2.3 Juan Cruz, a translation of Niebla (fog) by Miguel de Unamuno (2006)
The third translation of Niebla was the work of Juan Cruz, who kindly
agreed to be interviewed by us about his career and his rendering of
Unamuno’s text. He was born in Palencia, Spain, but grew up in England,
where he developed a career in arts. Nowadays, Cruz is the director of the
Edinburgh College of Art of Edinburgh University, as well as a renowned
scholar and artist. He is the author of numerous individual and collective
expositions, papers, reviews, books, and catalogues. Although translation has
always played an important role in Cruz’s works, he only has translated two
works in a “traditional way”: Niebla, and a book written by his grandfather,
SEDA, an Interesting Story included in the volume The Alpine Fantasy of
Victor B. and Other Stories (2006).
Forma Arts and Media Ltd. published Cruz’s translation of Niebla in
2006. This publishing house is a public organisation whose purpose is to
support artists’ careers. The project was first conceived as a piece of art that
would be exposed orally to the public, but finally, it was decided to publish the
translation in a book format. Apart from Juan Cruz’s ideas about art and
translation, he chose to work with this book due to different reasons. Firstly,
because of the link between Niebla and Don Quixote, a work which he had
already worked with. Also, Cruz considered that Unamuno was not very
acknowledged in the United Kingdom, and he represented something special
Ainhoa Rodríguez-Hernández 9
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 27
to Cruz, given that his grandfather had met the author. The purpose of Cruz’s
work was to be a piece of art itself, not only a translation such as the ones that
can be found in a bookshop. Juan Cruz has admitted that despite working with
more people on this project, principally with Ian Hunt, an Art Critic and Editor,
he was able to make his own decisions and the only modifications made by
others had a grammatical character.
2.4 Mist, by John Macklin (2014)
John Macklin published his translation of Niebla a few years later after
Cruz’s. Macklin was born in 1947 in Northern Ireland, where he started an
outstanding academic career. He worked in numerous British universities until
his death in 2014. He specialised in Spanish literature and studied many
authors from the XIX and XX centuries, Unamuno included. Also, Macklin was
responsible for the first Cervantes Institute in the United Kingdom in 1992, and
he received the Order of Isabella the Catholic, a Spanish honour, because of
his contributions to Hispanic Studies.
Macklin was co-author of a bilingual edition titled ¡Qué bien! (1987)
which collects three of the Miguel de Cervantes’s Novelas Ejemplares. In
addition, he is the author of two bilingual editions of Unamuno’s works: Abel
Sánchez (2009) and Mist (2014), both published by Liverpool University
Press. Originally, these two books belonged to Aris & Philips Hispanic
Classics, a collection within Oxbow Books, until Liverpool University Press
acquired the firm in 2018.
Mist is a bilingual edition which includes the original novel in Spanish
and its translation into English in a facing-page format. Moreover, it offers a
thorough study of Miguel de Unamuno, his works, and his literary context,
together with an analysis of the novel’s plot, topics, and structure. In addition,
Macklin included a bibliography and a list of all the translations of Niebla
published to date, that is Fite’s, Kerrigan’s, and Cruz’s.
John Macklin also added a translation note in which he commented on
some of the translation problems that he found while translating. Macklin set
the purpose of his version, which is “to retain that tone [Unamuno’s] whilst
adhering to the layers of meaning in the source text.” He also commented on
the edition and the target public:
The edition of Mist presented here is a bilingual one. It is likely that
it will be used by readers with at least some knowledge of Spanish
and will be used as a learning tool in colleges and universities. Well
over half the text is dialogue, and for the most part translates easily,
given the vocabulary, short sentences, and brief exchanges. It has
been decided therefore to offer a translation as close as possible to
the source text, whilst using normal and natural English. Names
10 Translation and Retranslation of Niebla, a Nivola by Miguel de Unamuno […]
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 27
have been retained in the original Spanish, as have the few
references to places, in order to retain something of the Spanish
context. This has meant in some cases translating the Spanish
wording literally rather than choosing an obvious English idiom.
(Macklin, 2014, p. 31)
In other words, Macklin’s edition is oriented toward non-native Spanish
literature students with a certain knowledge of Spanish. His translation tries to
be as loyal to the original as possible, which means that sometimes it will
favour Unamuno’s tone and connotations over an English equivalent.
2.5 Fog: A Novel, by Elena Barcia (2017)
The last translator of Niebla into English to date has been Elena Barcia.
We also had the opportunity to talk to her and ask her some questions about
her career and her translation, published as Fog: A Novel in 2017. Barcia is
an active translator who has worked in film translation for thirty years. She has
worked for many Hollywood Studios such as Disney Studios, Warner Bros.
Studios, and Sony Pictures; and as a consultant for film directors such as
Woody Allen, Stanly Kubrick, or Guillermo del Toro. This translation has been
her only literary translation published, although she has other upcoming
projects.
In the interview, Barcia told us that Spanish was her mother tongue
despite being born in Los Angeles. That is because his father, José Rubia
Barcia, was a Spaniard exiled after the Spanish Civil War. He was a well-
known translator who received the National Book Award in 1979 for his
translation of César Vallejo's posthumous poetry. Also, he worked teaching
Spanish Literature at UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles), and it was
in one of his lectures that Elena Barcia discovered Niebla and was fascinated
by it.
Barcia considers Unamuno’s novel a fundamental work in worldwide
literature, therefore she decided to make a new translation into contemporary
American English. She proposed it to Northwestern University Press, a
publishing house founded in 1893 which aims to diffuse relevant literary and
academic works. Fog: A Novel was included in the Northwestern World
Classics collection, whose purpose is to gather worldwide literary
masterpieces. The translation was preceded by an introduction written by
Alberto Manguel, an internationally renowned writer, translator, and editor. In
it, Manguel contextualises the publishing of Niebla in 1914. He describes this
novel as an example of how Unamuno’s texts differ from nineteenth-century
literature given that, unlike it, they do not try to reproduce the external world
but offer an introspective view.
Ainhoa Rodríguez-Hernández 11
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 27
3. TRANSLATION TECHNIQUES
Now that we have presented the five translations of Niebla, we will
continue with a comparative analysis between the original text and its English
versions. We will focus on the title translation and a selection of passages
which represent a translation problem. In doing so, we aim to identify the
translation techniques employed in each case together with the translation
method. Although both concepts are key to comprehend the translator’s
intention, it is essential to differentiate them:
Each solution the translator chooses when translating a text
responds to the global option that affects the whole text (the
translation method) and depends on the aim of the translation. The
translation method affects the way micro-units of the text are
translated: the translation techniques. Thus, we should distinguish
between the method chosen by the translator, e.g., literal or
adaptation, that affects the whole text, and the translation
techniques, e.g., literal translation or adaptation, that affect micro-
units of the text. (Molina and Hurtado Albir, 2002, p. 508)
Therefore, determining the translation techniques, defined as “the
procedures to analyse and classify how translation equivalence works”
(Molina and Hurtado Albir, 2002, p. 509), will help us to know the translation
method, that is, the rendition purpose.
In this analysis, we will use Molina’s techniques classification (2006),
as we consider that it reflects the difference between translation technique
and method. Moreover, we will employ the online version of Diccionario de la
Lengua Española (DLE) and Oxford English Dictionary (OED) to look for the
meanings of the terms and expressions studied.
The results obtained will lead us to identify which of the translation
methods defined by Hurtado Albir (1996, p. 48) has guided each edition:
interpretative-communicative (translation of the sense), literal (linguistic
transcodification), free (modification of semiotic and communicative
categories) and philological (academic or critical translation).
3.1 Translation of Niebla’s title
When we gathered all Niebla’s translations, what first caught our
attention was the inconsistency among their titles: Mist: A Tragicomic Novel;
Mist; Juan Cruz, a translation of Niebla (fog) by Miguel de Unamuno; and Fog:
A Novel. In this section, we aim to study the implications of the title chosen in
each case, and to do so, first, we will examine the connotations behind the
two translations offered of the term niebla: “mist” and “fog”. Next, we will
analyse the subtitles added in some of the renderings of Unamuno’s text.
12 Translation and Retranslation of Niebla, a Nivola by Miguel de Unamuno […]
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 27
We have decided to pay attention to the title because it constitutes a
relevant element, “not only on a book cover or a title page, but also in the
intentions and strategies of various parties” (Schaper, 2013, p. 103).
Remarkably, the translators of Niebla do not agree on how this term should
be translated. Whereas Fite, Kerrigan, and Macklin translated it as “mist”, Cruz
and Barcia selected “fog”.
In the DLE, niebla is defined as “nube muy baja, que dificulta la visión
según la concentración de las gotas que la forman” (Real Academia Española
[RAE], n.d.-a). Fernández Turienzo (1998) states that, in Niebla, this word
acquires a metaphoric nuance, and it is referred, on the one hand, “al discurso
que no es discurso claro, ni latino, sino más bien ‘nebuloso’ y protestante” (p.
860), while on the other:
La niebla, fenómeno meteorológico, en primer lugar, se emplea
también para decir que algo nos impide ver con «claridad», que nos
fuerza a ver como en tiniebla, de una manera como «tenebrosa» y
a ver «el mundo», las cosas, es decir, entender o comprender algo
de manera confusa. Y finalmente, también se aplica al estado
anímico de confusión y desorientación, en el que se encuentra quien
no logra ver claro. (p. 862)
Regarding the translations of niebla into English, “mist”, and “fog”, we
have examined the entries of both terms in the Oxford English Dictionary. As
to mist, some entries interest us. This term is defined as:
A natural phenomenon consisting of a diffuse cloud of fine water
droplets suspended in the atmosphere on or near the ground so as
to limit visibility (but to a lesser extent than fog); such droplets
viewed collectively as a substance or medium. (Oxford University
Press [OUP], n.d.-e)
This definition refers to a meteorological phenomenon, although it is
specified that this term can be used metaphorically. Another entry which
connects with Fernández Turienzo’s definition is the following one: “Any of
various immaterial things conceived as obscuring a person’s mental vision or
outlook, or as veiling the real character or blurring the outlines of a thing”
(OUP, n.d.-e). Lastly, the expression in mist is also included in the dictionary.
It means ‘mistically’ (OUP, n.d.-e) and can be related to the novel’s main topic:
“La niebla espiritual era demasiado densa” (Unamuno, 2021, p. 93).
In regard to “fog”, this is its definition:
A state of the weather in which thick clouds of water vapour or ice
crystals suspended in the atmosphere form at or near the earth’s
surface, obscuring or restricting visibility to a greater extent than
Ainhoa Rodríguez-Hernández 13
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 27
mist; this phenomenon viewed as a substance or medium. Also: an
episode or occurrence of such weather. (OUP, n.d.-c)
It is quite similar to the first definition of “mist “we have commented on
previously, even if there is a difference in the intensity of the phenomenon.
Whereas mist is subtler, fog is more intense. Although this entry does not
indicate a metaphoric use, there is an expression with “fog” which connects
directly with one of the interpretations of niebla in the novel: “to be in a fog”,
which means to be ‘in a state of confusion; confused, bewildered’ (OUP,
n.d.-c). For example, in chapter XIII, the protagonist “sacudió la niebla de
confusión que le envolviera” (Unamuno, 2021, p. 148).
Both Juan Cruz and Elena Barcia agree that the difference in intensity
between mist and fog is crucial. In the interview with Elena Barcia, she
assured us that the expression “to be in a fog” perfectly describes the
emotional, mental and intellectual state of Augusto Pérez, the novel’s main
character.
About the dictionary entries, we consider that both terms are
established equivalences. This translation technique consists of using “a term
or expression recognised (by dictionaries or language in use) as an equivalent
in the TL” (Molina and Hurtado Albir, 2002, p. 510). Although there is a clear
difference in the intensity, both refer to a climate phenomenon and also to the
metaphorical references that niebla acquires in the novel. Nevertheless, a
question comes up: is Unamuno’s niebla a thick and opaque fog, or is it a
subtle mist?
Apart from the translation of the term niebla, there is another element
in these titles that is worth studying. This is the presence of subtitles or genre
indication, as it happens in Mist: A Tragicomic Novel and Fog: A Novel. The
genre indication is defined as:
An appendage of the title, more or less optional and more or less
autonomous, depending on the period or the genre; and it is
rhematic by definition because its purpose is to announce the genre
status decided on for the work that follows the title. (Genette, 1997,
p. 94).
Both translations are classified as “novels”, although Fite specifies that
it is “a tragicomic work”, a term that Unamuno (2021, p. 299) also used to
describe his text. Now, why is this information added to the title? According to
Genette (1997), titles can have four functions: design and identify, connote,
describe, and tempt, though only the first one is obligatorily fulfilled. One of
the reasons for modifying a title when translating it is due to “decisiones
editoriales para garantizar el atractivo de la obra en la cultura receptora [y]
acuerdos entre el autor y el editor para favorecer su posible traducción en
14 Translation and Retranslation of Niebla, a Nivola by Miguel de Unamuno […]
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 27
otras lenguas” (Jarilla Bravo, 2022, p. 134). Concerning this statement,
Genette (1997) comments that, nowadays:
The triumph, as we know, of the autonomous indication of genre,
especially for the genre ‘novel’, which today is rid of all its complexes
and is universally said to be more of a ‘seller’ than any other genre.
(p. 97)
Since the novel is the most successful genre in our times, one of the
main reasons for adding this term to the title is to fulfil the function of tempting
consumers and, consequently, increasing sales. In the case of Unamuno,
another cause could be to clarify that it is a novel and not a philosophical
treaty, a genre that Unamuno is well known for.
The case of Juan Cruz, a translation of Niebla (fog) by Miguel de
Unamuno is more complicated because it was the translator himself who
chose this title as he considered his work an artistic creation, besides a
translation. In this title, the artist and translator play a central role and, because
of that, neither the title nor the book’s cover corresponds with common
publishing practices. As we mentioned before, Cruz declared that all the
decisions made in this edition were his.
3.2 Translation problems
Now we have explored the title, it is time to investigate the body text.
We have chosen a set of passages from the original Spanish text which
contain a cultural element or culturema. Culturemas are defined as:
Those textually actualized items whose function and connotations in
a source text involve a translation problem in their transference to a
target text, whenever this problem is a product of the nonexistence
of the referred item or of its different intertextual status in the cultural
system of the readers of the target text. (Franco Aixelá, 1996, p. 58).
Molina (2006) classifies them into four cultural categories: natural
environment, cultural heritage, social culture, and linguistic culture. The latter
includes:
Los problemas de traducción derivados de transliteraciones […], los
escollos culturales provocados por refranes, frases hechas y
nombres propios con significado adicional […] y los desencuentros
generados por metáforas generalizadas y por las asociaciones
simbólicas (la simbología de colores, flores, plantas, animales...)
(p.82).
Moreover, the linguistic culture category deals with the problems linked
to interjections, insults and blasphemies, “cuyo grado de aceptación puede
provocar una disfunción entre un texto y su traducción” (Molina, 2006, p. 82).
Ainhoa Rodríguez-Hernández 15
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 27
After an in-depth reading of Niebla and a previous selection of
fragments that may pose major problems for the translator, we determined
that the cultural elements belonging to the field of linguistic culture were the
most abundant in Unamuno's text. In fact, “Unamuno se instala en la línea de
la sabiduría tradicional, selecta y rica, plagada de expresiones parémicas”
(Ríos Ruiz-Esquide, 2008, p. 181), hence his writings are characterised by the
presence of proverbs, sayings, apophthegms, maxims, aphorisms, and other
cultural elements typical of the Castilian language, which represent a
challenge for his translators.
In the following, we will present a series of passages of the original
novel that include a cultural element, which, as we have seen, always
represents a translation problem. We will also compare the different
translations and analyse the translation techniques employed in each case.
3.2.1 A recurrent image: rana
Firstly, we will explore the translation of the term rana. Moore (1977) is
the author of the only article which explores an English translation of Niebla.
He aims to determine if Anthony Kerrigan’s translation is “an accurate
rendering of the original Spanish text” (Moore, 1977, p. 159) and for that, he
studies a selection of textual elements. Among them, he focuses on the term
rana, which appears twelve times in the original text. In the novel, rana means
principally a laboratory animal, a living being used for experimentation or other
scientific purposes. Augusto, the protagonist, wants to conduct an
experimental study about women and for that, takes Eugenia as a frog.
However, all his plans fail, and he ends up being the rana.
Kerrigan translated rana as “guinea pig”, an established equivalent
(defined before), which means ‘a person or thing used as the subject of an
experiment’ (OUP, n.d.-d). However, Moore (1977, p. 160) notes that this term
lacks the meaning of “fool or idiot” present in the original term. This statement
could be based on the expression salir rana, which means ‘to disappoint’ and
can be used when something goes wrong, or a person has turned out to be
bad or a traitor (Iribarren, 1996, p. 143). In the novel, Augusto becomes a rana
when his plans fail, therefore Moore’s interpretation is justified.
Given that there was existing research which delves into this matter, we
decided it was worth it to revise how rana has been translated along the five
translations. We found that there is no consistency between the renditions
and, most surprisingly, in some cases neither is there throughout the text. In
the following example, we can see how, mostly, the term rana is translated as
“frog” or “guinea pig”:
16 Translation and Retranslation of Niebla, a Nivola by Miguel de Unamuno […]
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 27
Augusto pensaba:
“
¡Rana, rana
completa! Y me han
pescado entre
todos”. (Unamuno,
2021, p. 232)
Augusto kept thinking: “Frog! Frog! Absolutely the frog!
Among them all, they have hooked me nicely.” (Fite, 2000,
p. 257)
Augusto thought to himself: Why, if I’m not the perfect guinea
pig! They’ve landed me all right! (Kerrigan, 1976, p. 193)
Augusto thought: “Frog, complete frog! And between the lot
they’ve caught me.” (Cruz, 2006, p. 160)
Augusto thought: “Guinea pig! A total guinea pig! Between
them all, they have caught me.” (Macklin, 2014, p. 317)
Augusto thought: “A frog, a complete and utter frog! Together
they’ve all fished me out of the water.” (Barcia, 2017, p. 139)
Table 1. Translations of rana
Source. Elaborated by the author
Whereas Fite, Cruz and Barcia translate rana as “frog”; Kerrigan and
Macklin do it as “guinea pig”. Nevertheless, in other passages of the text, both
Kerrigan and Macklin translate rana as “frog”, for example: “You, the
investigator who has become the investigated, you wished to use her like a
frog in a laboratory, and she’s the one who took you for a frog. So dive into
your pool, and croak and live!” (Kerrigan, 1976, pp. 209 and 210).
After examining all the translations of the phrase, only Juan Cruz and
Elena Barcia are consistent with their translation (rana as “frog”). Warner Fite
does it also, except for one case: pincha-ranas (Unamunian neologism to
designate biologists) (García Gallarín, 1998, p. 57), which is translated as
“bug-stickers”. As for Kerrigan and Macklin, the first one translated rana as
“guinea pig” on most occasions, but also as “object of experimentation” and
“frog”. On the other hand, Macklin translated it as “laboratory rat” once,
“guinea pig” four times, and “frog” six times.
We conclude that the repetition of rana throughout the text builds a
recurrent image: Augusto as a frog, that is, as an idiot and an object of
experimentation at the same time. This representation makes sense at the
end of the novel when Unamuno reveals to the main character that he does
not exist, he is a figment of the author’s imagination. Therefore, although both
“frog” and “guinea pig” are established equivalents, we think that the former
option is preferable and, overall, that the term rana should be translated the
same way along the text in order to conserve this recurrent image.
Ainhoa Rodríguez-Hernández 17
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 27
3.2.2 Insults: panoli
In Niebla, we found a great number of insults (bruto, bestia, marica,
bárbaro, tonto…) overall aimed at characters that are not present in the scene.
These textual elements are expressions that have evolved linguistically “from
terms or expressions without an original insulting meaning through a
connotative layer which added both insulting and non-insulting overtones to
become fully insulting metaphors” (Mateo Martínez and Yus Ramos, 2000, p.
3). The translation of an insult should carry the original term's explicit and
implicit content together with all the connotations and emotional aspects of its
meaning. Consequently, a literal translation often does not achieve the same
effect in the target culture as in the source one (Mateo Martínez and Yus
Ramos, 2000, p. 14).
Among all the insults of the novel, we have decided to analyse panoli
given that it appears four times in the text. It means ‘dicho de una persona:
Simple y fácil de engañar’ (RAE, n.d.-b) and comes from the Valencian
expression pa en oli, bread with oil, a dish characterised by its simplicity (Jodar
Sánchez, 2015, pp. 234 and 235). In the following example, we can see how
this term is often with an adjective which emphasises it. In this case, it is pobre
(“infeliz, desdichado y triste”) (RAE, n.d.-c):
—Pero ¿no dices —
dijo el llamado
Mauricio—
que ese
pretendiente es un
pobre panoli que
vive en Babia?
(Unamuno, 2021,
p. 126)
“But didn’t you say,” said the person addressed as Mauricio,
“that this admirer of yours is a poor noodle who goes with his
head in the clouds?” (Fite, 2000, p. 86)
“But didn’t you tell me,” said the man addressed as Mauricio,
“that the silly fellow is a dreamer, with his head in the
clouds…?” (Kerrigan, 1976, p. 73)
"But, didn’t you say” —said the one she had called
Mauricio— that that pretender is a poor chump who lives in
dreams? (Cruz, 2006, p. 53)
“But didn’t you say,” said the aforementioned Mauricio, “that
this suitor is a poor dimwit with his head in the clouds?”
(Macklin, 2014, p. 136)
“Didn’t you say this suitor is a poor sap with his head in the
clouds?” Mauricio said. (Barcia, 2017, p. 48)
Table 2. Translations of pobre panoli
Source. Elaborated by the author
18 Translation and Retranslation of Niebla, a Nivola by Miguel de Unamuno […]
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 27
In Fite’s, Cruz’s, Macklin’s and Barcia’s translations, we can see
expressions that gather similar connotations to the original text: noodle,
“stupid or silly person” (OUP, n.d.-f); chump, “a man as unintelligent as a
chump of wood; a block, blockhead” (OUP, n.d.-a); dimwit, “a stupid or slow-
witted person” (OUP, n.d.-b); and sap, “a simpleton, a fool” (OUP, n.d.-h).
Regarding pobre, all of them have used poor “that provokes sympathy, or
compassion; unfortunate, wretched” (OUP, n.d.-g). We think that these
expressions convey the same meaning as the original, so we consider all of
them established equivalents. On the other hand, Kerrigan uses “silly fellow”,
another established equivalent since “silly” gathers the meaning of poor and
adds “lacking in judgement or common sense; foolish, empty-headed” (OUP,
n.d.-i), which corresponds with panoli.
Consequently, we determine that despite the complexity of insults
translation, and linguistic elements that are rooted in the source culture, the
translators have achieved to solve this problem through different established
equivalents.
3.2.3 Sayings: como ir con un bacalao a Escocia
Other cultural elements that represent a problem for translators are
idioms and fixed expressions. In the next example, we will examine a fixed
expression which is not very common in Spanish, namely, como ir con un
bacalao a Escocia. In the text, it is used to describe a situation which is
considered senseless.
¿A París y con
mujer? ¡Eso es
como ir con un
bacalao a Escocia!
(Unamuno, 2021,
p. 187)
To Paris and with a woman? That is like taking along codfish
to Scotland! (Fite, 2000, p. 183)
You’re taking a woman to Paris? That’s like carrying codfish
to Scotland or coals to Newcastle! (Kerrigan, 1976, p. 142)
To Paris and with his wife? That’s like going with a cod to
Scotland! (Cruz, 2006, p. 114)
Go to Paris with a woman? That is like going with cod to
Scotland! (Macklin, 2014, p. 239)
He’s taking his wife to Paris? That’s like taking beer to
Germany! (Barcia, 2017, p. 100)
Table 3. Translations of como ir con un bacalao a Escocia
Source. Elaborated by the author
Ainhoa Rodríguez-Hernández 19
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 27
We observe that Fite, Cruz, and Macklin have translated this expression
as “like taking codfish to Scotland”, a literal translation, that is, a translation
word for word (Molina and Hurtado Albir, 2002, p. 510). Macklin (2014)
explained in his edition why he opted for this technique:
An example might be the use of “taking cod to Scotland”, a literal
translation of which might easily have been replaced by “taking coals
to Newcastle”. Whilst the English readership would have
understood, this idiom is too highly embedded in the target text
culture, and would have lost some of the freshness and wit
contained in the Spanish phrase. (pp. 31 and 32)
In Kerrigan’s translation, we find several techniques. He translates it
literally, as shown in the examples above, but he also employs an
amplification. This technique consists of introducing details that are not
formulated in the source text (Molina and Hurtado Albir, 2002, p. 510). In this
case, he added the same established equivalent (defined previously) that
Macklin dismissed: “like carrying coals to Newcastle” which means ‘to supply
something to a place where it is already plentiful; to do something wholly
superfluous or unnecessary’ (OUP, n.d.-j). Lastly, Elena Barcia’s translation
consists of an established equivalent of her creation, “like taking beer to
Germany”, which maintains the meaning of the source text.
Contrary to the example previously studied (panoli), this saying shows
us how different techniques can be employed to successfully translate the
original meaning to the target language. However, these choices are guided
by the translation purpose, that is, the translation method.
3.2.4 Translation method
After this brief analysis, we can conclude that the translation techniques
used to resolve the translation problems of Niebla differ and coincide
depending on the case. The established equivalent technique is prevalent
and, at least in the examples studied, we have not found translating errors
even if −as in rana− we prefer a translation over another. We can say that all
of them achieved their purpose: to convey the original text to the English-
speaking public. According to Hurtado Albir (1996), this corresponds with the
interpretative-communicative method, which implies “procesos de
comprensión y reexpresión del sentido del texto original manteniendo la
misma función del original y produciendo el mismo efecto en el destinatario”
(p. 48).
Nevertheless, to better understand the translators' strategy while
carrying Unamuno into English, we must remember what some of them
expressed about this task. Fite (personal communication, 5 June 1928)
defended that “it is more important that it should be Unamuno than it should
20 Translation and Retranslation of Niebla, a Nivola by Miguel de Unamuno […]
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 27
be orthodox English.” In the same way, Kerrigan confessed that, when
translating Unamuno, “you have to get it pretty exact, and you can’t
paraphrase it too well” (Doyle, 1987, p. 138). In the introduction of Mist,
Macklin (2014) noted that “it has been decided therefore to offer a translation
as close as possible to the source text, whilst using normal and natural
English” (p. 31). For that reason, despite the fact these versions correspond
with the interpretative-communicative method, we can find that some
translation problems have been solved through literal translation, although this
may not agree with Unamuno: “En general mi criterio es que al traducir se
debe tender a conservar lo más posible al estilo del original, pero no de la
lengua” (Unamuno, personal communication, 28 June 1927).
Besides, we need to point out that John Macklin’s Mist differs from the
other renderings since it is a bilingual edition with an in-depth preliminary
study and an academic purpose. Thus, we can say that it employs the
philologic method:
Proceso a veces literal, otras interpretativo-comunicativo (o incluso
libre), pero que se caracteriza porque se introducen en la traducción
comentarios filológicos, históricos, etc. El original se convierte en
objeto de estudio, dirigiéndose a un público erudito; suelen ser
ediciones bilingües”. (Hurtado Albir, 1996, p. 48)
4. RECEPTION
A fundamental aspect of this research is the reception of these
translations among their target public. However, the study of reception is not
easy. Here, we only try to approach it through some testimonies.
Firstly, we will look into the reviews sent by Warner Fite to Miguel de
Unamuno after the publication of Mist: A Tragicomic Novel. The
communication between Fite and Unamuno continued some years after the
translation of Niebla. In these letters, Fite sent Unamuno all the reviews
published in the United States and the United Kingdom about the novel.
Thanks to these reviews, we know that the reception of Warner Fite’s
translation among the critics was heterogeneous. In England, Unamuno’s
novel was not much acclaimed (Callahan, 2005, pp. 285 and 286), whereas,
in the United States, the critics valued it more. After consulting all the letters
sent by Fite to Unamuno in the Casa Museo Unamuno, we can confirm that
most reviews were positive. An example of that is a review published in The
New York Times on 2 December 1929 titled “A Playful Commentary”:
This is executed with the tenderest satire and the most consummate
grace. It provides an appropriate ending for the whole brilliant
commentary on humanity, which could only have been written by a
philosopher who was also an artist and by a direct spiritual
Ainhoa Rodríguez-Hernández 21
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 27
descendant of the author of Don Quixote. (A Playful Commentary,
1929)
On the contrary, The Argonaut published on 1 December 1928 a review
titled “Metaphysics in Fiction” which harshly criticised the novel:
This self-designated tragi-comic novel is translated from the Spanish
by Warner Fite, who, one thinks, might better have employed his
time. The only real points in the book occur in certain suggestively
physical passages and in the “funeral oration by way of an epilogue,”
supposedly spoken by Orfeo, a little dog. The name is a perfect one
for a book, wherein the hero, if any, spends three hundred pages
wondering if he is real, or only a character of fiction. As though
anybody cared! (Metaphysics in Fiction, 1928)
As we can see, there was not a common opinion among the critics.
While some of them were cruel to Unamuno’s novel, others praised the
author’s intelligence and poetry. Respecting the translation itself, there were
no comments made.
Regarding the following translations, we do not have many clues about
his reception among the public and critics. The only study focused on any of
these translations is the one mentioned by Moore (1977), which examines
Kerrigan’s rendering. When we interviewed Juan Cruz and Elena Barcia, we
asked them about the reception of their translations. Cruz told us that his work
“disappeared”. He mentioned to us that he did not receive any comment from
the publisher or the public, except for one email from a reader who harshly
criticised his translation. Barcia also commented on the lack of repercussion
of her work:
Lamentablemente, en EE. UU. no se le da mucha importancia a la
traducción. Solo el 3% de los libros publicados son traducciones. No
he recibido ningún comentario ni promoción por parte de la editorial
ni se han publicado reseñas que yo sepa más que unas pocas en
Amazon.com. (Barcia, personal communication, 7 July 2022)
CONCLUSIONS
At this point, we have examined all five translations of Niebla into
English, and we should be able to identify certain similarities and differences
between them. About the translators, we have found that there are three
Americans (Fite, Kerrigan, and Barcia) and two British (Macklin, and Cruz).
This allows us to know in which variety of English the translations have been
written. Moreover, it is remarkable that there are only two professional
translators, Kerrigan and Barcia, whereas the other three stand out for their
academic careers in different areas. In conclusion, we can say that although
22 Translation and Retranslation of Niebla, a Nivola by Miguel de Unamuno […]
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 27
the translators of Niebla come from different professional backgrounds, they
all are great specialists in their respective fields.
About publishing houses, we must note that most of them are linked to
a university. The first translation of Niebla published by Alfred A. Knopf was
reprinted by the University of Illinois Press. Kerrigan’s edition was published
by Princeton University Press, Macklin’s by Liverpool University Press, and
Barcia’s by Northwestern University Press. In addition, some of them are part
of a collection. Kerrigan’s is part of Collected Works of Miguel de Unamuno;
Macklin’s of Aris and Philips Hispanic Classics and Barcia’s of Northwestern
World Classics. This is something to consider given that belonging to a series
or collection “amplifies the publisher’s emblem, immediately indicating to the
potential reader the type of work, if not the genre, he is dealing with” (Genette,
1997, p. 22). In consequence, Niebla is presented to the public as a classic
due to being part of these collections. In the case of Fite and Cruz’s
translations, they do not belong to a collection, nevertheless, both publishers
have described them as classics on their back covers.
Attending to these facts, we could say that there are more similarities
than differences between these five works. Hence, we ask ourselves again
why Niebla has been translated five times. We have seen the different causes
for retranslation, for example, the lack of awareness of previous translations.
In the retranslation of Niebla, this has not been the case, given that both Cruz
and Barcia have affirmed to us that they know about some of them, if not all;
and Macklin included in his edition a list of all the previous translations of
Niebla.
In the analysis of the translation techniques employed in the
translations of Niebla, we have shown that the presence of errors or the need
for adapting the previous translations does not seem a cause for retranslation
either. We have shown that despite using different techniques, all
interpretations achieve the same purpose: communicate the original sense.
This is supported by the fact that the two first translations, Fite’s and
Kerrigan’s, were republished in 2000 and 2017 respectively, a practice that,
according to Pym (2014, p. 83), tends to reinforce the validity of those
particular versions.
Another reason for retranslation is the wish to include new paratexts
and interpretations. We have seen how, except for Cruz’s version, all of them
add a preface that presents the author and the novel, although we do not
consider this a reason enough to retranslate a work. Nevertheless, we believe
that in all retranslations there is a will to provide a new interpretation of
Unamuno’s text. Chronologically, Kerrigan aimed to present to the English-
speaking public a collection of Unamuno’s works, where Niebla could not be
Ainhoa Rodríguez-Hernández 23
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 27
missed. Regarding the translation made by Cruz, he told us that his purpose
was to present the translation as a piece of art itself. The case of Macklin is
the clearest. We remember that this is a bilingual edition with an extensive
previous study, which is explicitly oriented to non-native Spanish students.
Lastly, Elena Barcia told us that she wanted to translate Niebla into
contemporary North American English.
In addition, we cannot forget there are always personal motivations that
intervene in the proliferation of new versions of a text. Both Juan Cruz and
Elena Barcia have confessed that they were the ones who proposed the
translation to the publishing house, and they did it because of personal taste.
That said, there is a fundamental fact that cannot be missed: Niebla is
a classic. Accordingly, some publishing houses will be interested in printing it
only to save the acquisition of royalties. This hypothesis makes sense when
we look at the dates of publication: 1928, 1976, 2006, 2014, and 2017.
Whereas there are almost 50 years between the first and the second and thirty
years between the second and the third, the three last ones are quite near
each other. Moreover, since 2006 not only have new translations appeared,
but also Kerrigan’s translation was reprinted again in 2017 by Princeton
University Press. This can be explained because the Spanish Copyright Law
(BOE, 1996) stipulates that 70 years after the author’s death his works pass
into the public domain. Miguel de Unamuno died in 1936, hence in 2006, when
Juan Cruz published his translation, the right of exploitation was extinguished,
and publishing houses could print his works free of charge.
Therefore, we conclude that the factors which more influenced the
publication of five translations of Niebla into English are the ones linked to
personal motivations as well as editorial-economic ones. Also, Miguel de
Unamuno (2021) himself already predicted in 1935, when this novel had been
already translated into ten languages, that it will be his most popular work
abroad:
¿Por qué esta predilección? ¿Por qué han prendido en pueblos de
otras lenguas antes que otras obras mías esta que el traductor Otto
Buek llamó «novela fantástica» y el norteamericano Warner Fite
«novela tragicómica»? Precisamente por la fantasía y la
tragicomedia. Yo no me equivoqué, pues desde un principio supuse
—y lo dije— que esta que bauticé de nivola habría de ser mi obra
más universalizada. (p. 299)
We agree with the fact that, in the end, “it is the permanence of the
original […] which gives impulse to the reiterative act of retranslation” (Diane-
Cox, 2014, pp. 191 and 192) and we perfectly understand how this text and
Unamuno continue to fascinate translators and readers.
24 Translation and Retranslation of Niebla, a Nivola by Miguel de Unamuno […]
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 27
As a final thought, we believe that the retranslations of Niebla must be
considered as something positive since, as we have experienced, it can be
difficult to have them and, hence, for the anglophone public to enter the
Unamunian literature.
REFERENCES
El País. (1991, 14 March). Anthony Kerrigan, traductor y poeta.
https://elpais.com/diario/1991/03/14/agenda/668905201_850215.html
Callahan, D. (2005). The Early Reception of Miguel de Unamuno in England,
1907-1939. The Modern Language Review, 100, 235-245.
https://doi.org/10.1353/mlr.2005.0008
Deane-Cox, S. (2014). Retranslation: Translation, Literature and
Reinterpretation. Bloomsbury Academic.
Doyle, M. S. (1987). Anthony Kerrigan: The Attainment of Excellence in
Translation. In M. Gaddis Rose (Ed.), Translation Excellence:
Assessment, Achievement, Maintenance (pp. 135-141). John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
Fernández Turienzo, F. (1998). La “niebla” de Niebla de Unamuno. In J. C.
Torres Martínez, & C. García Antón (Coords.), Estudios de Literatura
Española de los Siglos XIX y XX: Homenaje a Juan María Díez Taboada
(pp. 860-868). Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, CSIC.
Franco Aixelà, J. (1996). Culture-Specific Items in Translation. In R. Álvarez
& C. A. Vidal (Eds.), Translation, Power, Subversion (pp. 52-78).
Multilingual Matters.
García Gallarín, C. (1998). Léxico del 98. Editorial Complutense.
Genette, G. (1997). Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation. Cambridge
University Press.
Hurtado Albir, A. (1996) La Cuestión del Método Traductor. Método,
Estrategia y Técnica de Traducción. Sendebar, 7, 39-57.
Iribarren, J. M. (1996). El Porqué de los Dichos: Sentido, Origen y Anécdota
de los Dichos, Modismos y Frases Proverbiales de España con otras
Muchas Curiosidades. Gobierno de Navarra.
Jarilla Bravo, S. M. (2022). La Variación Traductológica en el Título de una
Novela Literaria. Revista Nebrija de Lingüística Aplicada a la
Enseñanza de Lenguas, 16(32), 133-146.
https://doi.org/10.26378/rnlael1632485
Ainhoa Rodríguez-Hernández 25
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 27
Jodar Sánchez, J. A. (2015). Adjetival Cuco/Cuqui as "Cute" and "Astute".
Borealis: An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics, 4(2), 234-
235.https://doi.org/10.7557/1.4.2.3459
Koskinen, K., & Paloposki, O. (2013). Retranslation. In Y. Gambier, & L. van
Doorslaer (Eds.), Handbook of Translation Studies (Vol.1, pp. 294-
298). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Massor, J. (2019, 3 March). El Amigo Americano de las Letras Españolas. El
País.
https://elpais.com/cultura/2019/03/02/actualidad/1551553205_810708
.html
Mateo Martínez, J., & Yus Ramos, F. (2000). Insults: A Relevance Theoretic
Taxonomical Approach to their Translation. International Journal of
Translation, 12(1), 97-130.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258697847_Insults_a_Relev
ance-Theoretic_Taxonomical_Approach_to_Their_Translation#full-
text
McGuire, W. (1982). Bollingen: An Adventure in Collecting the Past. Princeton
University Press.
Molina, L., & Hurtado Albir, A. (2002). Translation Techniques Revisited: A
Dynamic and Functionalist Approach. Meta. Journal des Traducteurs =
Translators’ Journal, 47(4), 498-512. https://doi.org/10.7202/008033ar
Molina, L. (2006). El Otoño del Pingüino: Análisis Descriptivo de la Traducción
de los Culturemas. Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I.
Moore, R. (1977). Translation and Re-Creation: Kerrigan’s Version of
Unamuno’s Niebla. International Fiction Review, 4(2), 158-161.
https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/IFR/article/view/13252/14335
Ortiz Gonzalo, M. (2004). La Retraducción de Literatura Contemporánea.
Vasos Comunicantes: Revista de ACE Traductores, 29, 51-58.
https://vasoscomunicantes.ace-traductores.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/09/vasos-29.pdf
Oxford University Press. (n.d.-a). Chump. In Oxford English Dictionary.
https://www.oed.com/dictionary/chump_n?tab=meaning_and_use#93
95381
Oxford University Press. (n.d.-b). Dimwit. In Oxford English Dictionary.
https://www.oed.com/dictionary/dimwit_n?tab=meaning_and_use#682
2007
26 Translation and Retranslation of Niebla, a Nivola by Miguel de Unamuno […]
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 27
Oxford University Press. (n.d.-c). Fog. In Oxford English Dictionary.
https://www.oed.com/dictionary/fog_n2?tab=meaning_and_use#3918
569
Oxford University Press. (n.d.-d). Guinea Pig. In Oxford English Dictionary.
https://www.oed.com/dictionary/guinea-
pig_n?tab=meaning_and_use#2321485
Oxford University Press. (n.d.-e). Mist. In Oxford English Dictionary.
https://www.oed.com/dictionary/mist_n1?tab=meaning_and_use#3638
4320
Oxford University Press. (n.d.-f). Noodle. In Oxford English Dictionary.
https://www.oed.com/dictionary/noodle_n1?tab=meaning_and_use#3
4153250
Oxford University Press. (n.d.-g). Poor. In Oxford English Dictionary.
https://www.oed.com/dictionary/poor_adj?tab=meaning_and_use#292
09673
Oxford University Press. (n.d.-h). Sap. In Oxford English Dictionary.
https://www.oed.com/dictionary/sap_n5?tab=meaning_and_use#2423
4825
Oxford University Press. (n.d.-i). Silly. In Oxford English Dictionary.
https://www.oed.com/dictionary/silly_adj?tab=meaning_and_use#228
58496
Oxford University Press. (n.d.-j). To Carry Coals to Newcastle. In Oxford
English Dictionary.
https://www.oed.com/dictionary/coal_n?tab=meaning_and_use#92236
64
Pym, A. (2014). Method in Translation History. Routledge.
Rabaté, J., & Rabaté C. (2014). Miguel de Unamuno: Biografía. Taurus.
Real Academia Española. (n.d.-a). Niebla. In Diccionario de la lengua
española. https://dle.rae.es/niebla?m=form
Real Academia Española. (n.d.-b). Panoli. In Diccionario de la lengua
española. https://dle.rae.es/panoli?m=form
Real Academia Española. (n.d.-c). Pobre. In Diccionario de la lengua
española. https://dle.rae.es/pobre?m=form
Real Decreto Legislativo 1/1996, de 12 de abril, por el que se aprueba el texto
refundido de la ley de propiedad intelectual, regularizando, aclarando y
Ainhoa Rodríguez-Hernández 27
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 27
armonizando las disposiciones legales vigentes sobre la materia.
Boletín Oficial del Estado, 97, de 22 de abril de 1996.
https://www.boe.es/eli/es/rdlg/1996/04/12/1/con
Ríos Ruiz-Esquide, E. (2008). Florilegio Aforístico: El Pensamiento Aforístico
de Unamuno. Paremia, 17,179-187.
https://cvc.cervantes.es/lengua/paremia/pdf/017/016_rios.pdf
Robles, L. (1996). Epistolario Americano: (1890-1936). Ediciones Universidad
de Salamanca.
Schaper, B. (2013). The Importance of the Literary Title and its Implications
for Translation Theory. Focus on German Studies, 20, 101-112.
https://journals.uc.edu/index.php/fogs/article/view/42/29
Tahir-Gürçağlar, Ş. (2011). Retranslation. In M. Baker, & G. Saldanha (Eds.),
Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (2nd ed., pp. 233-236).
Routledge.
The Argonaut. (1928, 1 December). Metaphysics in Fiction.
The New York Times. (1929, 2 December). A playful Comentary.
Unamuno, M. (1976). Novela/Nivola. Mist, Abel Sánchez, and How to Make a
Novel [Novela/Nivola: Niebla, Abel Sánchez y Cómo se hace una
novela]. Princeton University Press.
Unamuno, M. (2000). Mist: A Tragicomic Novel [Niebla: Una novela
tragicómica]. University of Illinois Press.
Unamuno, M. (2006). Juan Cruz a Translation of Niebla (Fog) by Miguel de
Unamuno [Juan Cruz. Una traducción de Niebla, de Miguel de
Unamuno]. Forma Arts And Media Ltd.
Unamuno, M. (2014). Mist [Niebla]. Liverpool University Press.
Unamuno, M. (2017). Fog: A Novel [Niebla: una novela]. Northwestern
University Press.
Unamuno, M. (2021). Niebla. Cátedra.
Venuti, L. (2004). Retranslations: The Creation of Value. Bucknell Review,
47(1), 25-38.
