None of us can read all possible languages. For many of the important books that shaped our lives, from literary works that broadened our minds to philosophy treatises which opened new ways of thinking to us, we had thus to rely on translations. Which in turn meant trusting translators and the choices they made. And though there are many possible and valid ways to translate the written word from one language into another – on a spectrum that runs from ephemeral attempts to craft an equivalent text to complete re-imaginings – sometimes there are obvious mistakes.¹ And none of these mistakes are perhaps as remarkable, or as instructive on the noble craft of translation itself, as those that can be found in the two attempts to translate Simone de Beauvoir’s Le Deuxième Sexe in English, both called The Second Sex.²

Simone de Beauvoir was a French existentialist philosopher and many of her works discuss being a women in the world – including their often disadvantaged societal position.³ And this includes her perhaps most influential effort, the 1949 essay – if you can still call a two-volume book of almost a thousand pages that – Le Deuxième Sexe.⁴ And one tragic aspect of the problems with its attempted translations into English, is that some of the nuances present in De Beauvoir’s thinking are not accurately represented in the adjacent societal and scholarly debates. Because these debates often primarily harken back to the aforementioned English editions with all of their mishaps.⁵ Today we are going to see how this happened and with a bit of luck we may learn a few things about the do’s and don’ts of translating philosophical works along the way.

This blog is also available in Dutch.

Appreciating Translators

First and foremost, I must maintain that (almost) any effort at translation is admirable. It is, generally speaking, a thankless task with regard to both prestige and financial rewards.⁶ As the publisher of the first translation of Le Deuxième Sexe remarked to their chosen translator: “[T]ranslating has always been dog’s work – never well paid and seldom if ever bringing the translator any glory.”⁷ Apparently blissfully unaware that he was one of those people that could change this situation. But translating is also an intellectual joy as well as a valuable contribution to the available pool of human knowledge and the access thereto. Whether we talk about eminently important novels, non-fiction, podcasts, radio programs, and films or the more humble written, visual and spoken efforts, translators open entire worlds to us that would have otherwise remain out of reach.⁸ Translation brings people together.

As such, the comments that I reiterate here are not meant as an attack on the translators themselves.⁹ What’s more, many mistakes will turn out to be the consequence of business practices within publishing – not the translators own choices. All in all we can justifiably conclude that it is better to have attempted to translate something and failed at it, than to never have tried such a venture at all.

The First Translation (1953)

The first translation of De Beauvoir’s Le Deuxième Sexe merits an entire book on its own. The translator selected was one Howard Parshley, a fierce advocate of the value of an English edition. And it was that advocacy which landed him the job, more or less by accident.¹⁰ As a professor in zoology, though with a versatile background that included philology, he had never translated such a book.¹¹ And there was a heartbreaking caveat: the publisher demanded extended cuts in the texts – condensations which Parshley admirably fought to be kept at a minimum.¹² He is empathically not the villain here.¹³ Furthermore, many of the philosophical concepts in the book, most prominently De Beauvoir’s existentialism, were deemed to be superfluous by the higher-ups.¹⁴ The publisher’s liaison for French works even spelled ‘existentialism’ wrong in one such dismissal.¹⁵ These cuts and the lack of philosophical rigor of those involved in the project are the main source of many of the mistakes that could be found in the eventual book when it arrived in bookstores during 1953.

The discourse on these missteps was begun in earnest in 1983 with Margaret Simons’ critical essay The Silencing of Simone de Beauvoir.¹⁶ But I have mostly based my remarks here on a later critique that builds on Simons’ efforts, the 2004 article While We Wait by Toril Moi.¹⁷ Because Moi would later also discuss to problems with the second, unabridged translation. The cuts in this first translation, Moi observes, are not haphazard – we can see some consistent trends. References to entire intellectual frameworks, like Socialist Feminism, have disappeared and – especially cruel with respect to a book with such a subject – the names of 87 women were eradicated. It does not come as a surprise therefore that this English version of Le Deuxième Sexe obscures one of its most celebrated proofs of women’s disadvantaged societal position at the time of writing: their lived experience.¹⁸ But this is not the only part of De Beauvoir’s deliberations that was left out. Because the mandated shortened paragraphs and abbreviations led to a lot of rewritten sentences wherein other evidence was omitted and the more intricate philosophical insights became less clear.¹⁹ As a result, many of the thoroughly argued points in the French original now appear to be merely De Beavoir’s particular opinion.²⁰ Consequently, this translation not only shortchanges De Beauvoir’s acumen but also contributes to the harmful and historically prevalent underestimation of female thinkers.²¹

In addition, as alluded to above, such mishaps hamper the philosophical debates that are based on or reference this first edition of The Second Sex. Moi convincingly illustrates this with De Beauvoir’s ideas on motherhood. Where De Beauvoir writes that motherhood was not a free choice at the time when she worked on the book – having a child would generally hamper a professional career in that period, for example – the translation makes it a categorically unfree choice. This is courtesy of translating the French word ‘actuellement’ – meaning something in the vein of ‘at this moment’ – as the English word ‘actually’.²² As such, it is no surprise that even measured writers like Drucilla Cornell thought that De Beauvoir advocated foregoing motherhood altogether.²³ And in her misunderstanding of De Beauvoir because of these and other translation errors, Cornell finds herself in good company. Because many a famous thinker, like Judith Butler and Penelope Deutscher, attributed philosophical errors to De Beauvoir, which are only present in this translation of her work.²⁴ And to be clear – unlike the first English translation of Le Deuxième Sexe – this is not the (entire) responsibility of these thinkers and writers. Because no-one can read all languages and many of those who partake in science and scholarship have to rely on translations at one point or another in their careers.

The Second Translation (2009)

Maybe the foregoing convinced you of the need for a new translation, but it would take a lot more to persuade the relevant publisher. When the aforementioned Simons, Moi and others brought these concerns to the publisher’s attention, their attitude was one of casual dismissal.²⁵ Their arguments ranged from monetary – the book did not sell well enough to justify a new translation – to sophistry – perfect translations are impossible anyway. And even initially convincing sounding explanations often fell flat. Like De Beauvoir’s erstwhile praise for The Second Sex is belied by the author’s later wish for a new translation when she found out the true extent of the truncation of her book and all the rewriting.²⁶ It was only after money was sourced from others that the publisher relented.²⁷ In 2009 a newly translated and ostensibly unabridged version of The Second Sex was published and the translators would explain the various choices they made a year later in an academic article.²⁸

Despite the arduous efforts necessary to convince the publisher of the imperative for and (perhaps more pertinent) the financial feasibility of a new edition or the new translator’s own accountability, this novel translation did not please everyone. And this was for a number of compelling reasons. The aforementioned Moi again treats us to a few elucidating and somewhat entertaining examples, some of which I’ll discuss below.²⁹ The translators chosen were two American English teachers living in Paris, Constance Borde and Sheila Malovany-Chevallier, who had written text- and cook books but whose experience with translation was fairly limited. However, as their aforementioned explanatory article illustrates, they rigorously applied themselves to this momentous task and understood its importance. And their work is not without merit, as a number of positive reviews shows.³⁰ But this does not devalue, I fear, Moi’s concerns, to which we turn now.

Ironically, it is perhaps because they took much of the criticism on the first edition to heart, that these new translators sometimes stumble. For instance, they tried to be as faithful to the French text as possible. But many of the longer sentences that worked in the original language are more cumbersome to read here than broken up in Parshley’s genial English prose. And the often all too literal translations again obfuscate the points that De Beauvoir makes. For example, the French term ‘maison d’abbatage’, in context denoting a brothel that offers short visits, is translated in English as ‘slaughter house’. This is a simple example, which many readers will pick up on, but the missteps regarding De Beauvoir’s philosophical terminology are not so easy to spot for most. Here the involvement of a philosophical consultant would have made all the difference. Because, especially when the original author is no longer with us, translation is a craft that benefits from collaborators.³¹ And though Borde and Malovany-Chevallier learned a lot from their implicit dialogue with Parshley’s version and his critics, more specialized assistance could – I think –have benefited the final result.³²

We may therefore conclude that we are left with two translations of Le Deuxième Sexe that each present their own specific shortcomings. One is an abridged version of the work which is eminently readable, but flawed in its presentation and communication of De Beauvoir’s ideas. While the other is complete but less elegantly translated and is too much beholden to the original text to be entirely clear.

Conclusion: The Frontiers of Translation

Finally we arrive at an interesting overarching question: can any of these two English translations really be called Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex? All translation is, to a certain extent, adaptation. Because literal or equivalent translations are mostly impossible and – if we would attempt such a project – would almost always end up being partly or entirely unreadable.³³ Though such attempts could constitute their own form of art, I suppose. But with the cuts and other editorial decisions made by Parshley and his publisher, as well as with the rather literal transpositions and apparent fumbling regarding some of the finer philosophical vocabulary by Borde and Malovany-Chevallier, we may see these translations – at best – as derivative works. And this is illustrated by the prevalent misinterpretations and lack of understanding by those relying on these translations for their knowledge of Le Deuxième Sexe, even experts who work in the same field as De Beauvoir.

We should nonetheless give credit to the efforts by these translators, whatever the mistakes in their ultimate products. And not only because Parshley fought tirelessly to get De Beauvoir’s most famous work translated and valiantly resisted cuts and changes when possible. Or because Borde and Malovany-Chevallier took up a project of massive proportions that was long overdue and the likes of which they had never endeavored before. But also because all the missteps we discussed today – as well as the inevitable flaws in my own regular translations in service of this blog – teach us something about the importance of proper translations and the many intricacies of this multifaceted craft.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.

Subscribe and never miss a blog!

Submit

References

1. Juliane House, “Overt and Covert Translation”, in: Yves Gambier & Luc van Doorslaer (eds.), Handbook of Translation Studies – Volume 1 (Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publication, 2010), p. 245; Guide Hansen, “Translation ‘Errors’”, in: Yves Gambier & Luc van Doorslaer (eds.), Handbook of Translation Studies – Volume 1 (Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publication, 2010), p. 385-387. For the development of the study of this spectrum, see: Susan Bassnett, Translation (London: Routledge, 2014), p. 6-36.
2. The original French book was published in two volumes, see: Simone de Beauvoir, Le Deuxième Sexe – Vol. 1: Les Faits et les Mythes (Paris: Gallimard, 1949); Simone de Beauvoir, Le Deuxième Sexe – Vol. 2: L’Expérience Vécue (Paris: Gallimard, 1949). For the translations, see: Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, translated by Howard M. Parshley (New York: Vintage books, 1953); Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, translated by Constance Borde & Sheila Malovany-Chevalier (London: Jonathan Cape, 2009).
3. Thomas Flynn, Existentialism: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), p. 98-102.
4. Toril Moi, “While We Wait: Notes on the English Translation of The Second Sex”, in: Emily R. Groshol (ed.), The Legacy of Simone de Beauvoir (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 2004), p. 37; Susan Bassnett, Translation, p. 61.
5. Moi, “While We Wait”, p. 54-56.
6. Francis Jones’ remarks on translators of poetry are, I think, by and large also applicable to translation as a whole, see: Francis R. Jones, “Poetry Translation”, in: Luc van Doorslaer & Yves Gambier (eds.), Handbook of Translation Studies – Volume 2 (Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2011), p. 120-121.
7. Cited in: Yolanda Astarita Patterson, “Who Was this H.M. Parshley? The Saga of Translating Simone de Beauvoir’s ‘The Second Sex’”, Simone de Beauvoir Studies 1992, 9 (1), p. 43.
8. Bassnett, Translation, p. 1-3.
9. We can criticize people’s skills, without doubting their good intentions, see: Moi, “While We Wait”, p. 63.
10. Patterson, “Who Was this H.M. Parshley?”, p. 41-42.
11. Moi, “While We Wait”, p. 63.
12. Patterson, “Who Was this H.M. Parshley?”, p. 43; Moi, “While We Wait”, p. 63-64.
13. Toril Moi, “The Adulteress Wife”. London Review of Books 2010, 32 (3), p. 3-6.
14. Patterson, “Who Was this H.M. Parshley?”, p. 43. For the general consequences of this attitude for the translation itself, see: Moi, “While We Wait”, p. 42-43.
15. Patterson, “Who Was this H.M. Parshley?”, p. 45.
16. Margaret Simons, “The Silencing of Simone de Beauvoir: Guess What’s Missing from The Second Sex”, Women’s Studies International Forum 1983, 6 (5), p. 559–564.
17. Moi, “While We Wait”, p. 37-68.
18. Ibidem, p. 41; Simons, “The Silencing of Simone de Beauvoir”, 560, 562.
19. For a concise summary of the translation’s worst offenses in this regard, see: Moi, “While We Wait”, p. 46-54.
20. See in general: Elizabeth Fallaize, “Le Destin de la Femme au Foyer: Traduire ‘‘La Femme Mariée’’ de Simone de Beauvoir”, in: Christine Delphy & Sylvie Chaperon (eds.), Cinquantenaire du Deuxième Sexe: 1949-1999 (Paris: Editions Syllepse, 2002), p. 468-474.
21. Moi, “While We Wait”, p. 46, 54.
22. Ibidem, p. 57-58.
23. Drucilla Cornell, At the Heart of Freedom: Feminism, Sex and Equality (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998), p. 27.
24. Moi, “While We Wait”, p. 55-56; Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (New York: Routledge, 1990), p. 152, note 20, p. 153 note 21; Penelope Deutscher, Yielding Gender: Feminism, Deconstruction and the History of Philosophy (London: Routledge, 1997), p. 177.
25. Moi, “While We Wait”, p. 61-67.
26. Richard Gillman, “The Man Behind the Feminist Bible”, New York Times Book Review May 22^nd 1988, p. 40. Though we should be mindful of the glaring biases in this source, it gives valuable information about the publisher’s erstwhile stances, see: Moi, “While We Wait”, p. 41, note 7.
27. Toril Moi, “The Adulteress Wife”, London Review of Books 2010, 32 (3), p. 3-6.
28. Constance Borde & Sheila Tulsa Malovany-Chevallier, “Translating The Second Sex”, Tulsa Studies in Women’s Literature 2010, 29 (2), p. 437-445. For this edition, see: Supra note 2.
29. Moi, “The Adulteress Wife”, p. 3-6. But she is not alone in this, see for example: Francine du Plessix Gray, “Dispatches From the Other”, The New York Times May 30^th 2010, Book Review, p. 6.
30. For example, see: Catriona Crowe, “Second Can Be the Best”, The Irish Times December 19^th 2009, Weekend, p. 11.
31. Bassnett, Translation, p. 123-130.
32. That is not to say that Borde and Malovany-Chevallier were ignorant of the philosophical aspects of the book. On the contrary, see: Borde & Malovany-Chevallier, “Translating The Second Sex”, p. 438, 444-445.
33. There is of course a world of nuance to this statement, see: Bassnett, Translation, p. 147-167; David Bellos, Is that a Fish in Your Ear? Translation and the Meaning of Everything (London: Particular Books, 2011).