Reimagining Literary History Through a Translating Consciousness: A Critical Reading of G. N. Devy’s “Translation and Literary History: An Indian View”
.jpg)
This blog is a part of an assignment of the Comparative Literature & Translation Studies. In this blog I'm going to discuss about, Reimagining Literary History Through a Translating Consciousness: A Critical Reading of G. N. Devy’s “Translation and Literary History: An Indian View”. Let's begin with my personal academic Information.
Personal Details:-
Name: Akshay Nimbark
Batch: M.A. Sem.4 (2023-2025)
Enrollment N/o.: 5108230029
Roll N/o.: 02
E-mail Address: akshay7043598292@gmail.com
Assignment Details:-
Topic:- Reimagining Literary History Through a Translating Consciousness: A Critical Reading of G. N. Devy’s “Translation and Literary History: An Indian View”
Paper: 208
Subject code & Paper N/o.: 22415
Paper Name:- Comparative Literature & Translation Studies
Submitted to: Smt. S.B. Gardi Department of English M.K.B.U.
Date of submission: 17 April2025
Points to Ponder:-
- Abstract
- Key Words
- Introduction
- Revisiting the Western Metaphysics of Translation
- Translation as Origin: A Counter-View from India
- The Concept of ‘Translating Consciousness’
- Limitations of Western Linguistics and the Need for a New Framework
- Translation and Literary History: Rethinking Origins
- Postcolonial Dimensions of Translation
- Conclusion
Abstract
In the essay “Translation and Literary History: An Indian View,” G. N. Devy challenges the Western metaphysical understanding of translation as exile, proposing instead a culturally rooted Indian perspective where translation becomes a mode of continuity, transformation, and revitalization. This research paper critically engages with Devy’s argument, highlighting the ontological and epistemological implications of translation in constructing literary history. It explores key concepts such as the “translating consciousness,” the limitations of Western linguistic models, and the significance of multilingualism in Indian literary traditions. By situating Devy’s ideas within broader postcolonial and comparative frameworks, the paper argues for a redefinition of literary historiography that accounts for the dynamic interplay between languages, cultures, and histories.
Keywords: G. N. Devy, translation theory, literary history, Indian literary traditions, translating consciousness, multilingualism, postcolonial literature
Introduction
The role of translation in shaping literary traditions has long been under-theorized, especially in the context of non-Western literary cultures. G. N. Devy’s essay “Translation and Literary History: An Indian View,” originally published in Post-Colonial Translation: Theory and Practice (1999), presents a radical rethinking of translation as not merely a linguistic operation but a cultural and historical phenomenon embedded within a unique worldview. Through a critique of the Western metaphysics of translation—which associates it with exile, guilt, and loss—Devy offers an alternative Indian conception rooted in philosophical ideas of reincarnation, continuity, and the fluidity of form and essence.
This research paper aims to engage critically with Devy’s essay, examining the philosophical, linguistic, and historical dimensions of translation as articulated through an Indian lens. It will contextualize Devy’s argument within broader translation theories, including the works of Roman Jakobson, J. C. Catford, and structuralist linguistics, while foregrounding the significance of India’s multilingual heritage in the construction of its literary history.
Revisiting the Western Metaphysics of Translation
Devy opens his essay with J. Hillis Miller’s evocative claim: “Translation is the wandering existence of a text in a perpetual exile.” This view, Devy argues, is deeply embedded in the Western metaphysical framework derived from the Christian myth of the Fall and the Babel narrative (Devy, 2). Translation, from this vantage, is perceived as a “fall from the origin,” a movement away from the authentic towards the derivative. Consequently, literary criticism in the West tends to treat translation with suspicion, relegating it to the periphery of literary value systems.
This perception is further shaped by the Western emphasis on individualism and originality. Literary texts are seen as extensions of personal genius, and translation, as a delayed imitation, is considered inferior. Devy points out how even celebrated literary acts in Western history—such as the King James Bible, or Chaucer’s adaptations of Boccaccio—have been framed within this metaphysical guilt and chronological hierarchy (Devy, 2–3).
Translation as Origin: A Counter-View from India
In contrast to this Eurocentric framework, Devy posits that Indian literary traditions are inherently translational. Drawing from Indian metaphysics, where the soul migrates from one body to another without loss of essence, Devy argues that translation in India is a revitalizing process rather than a fall from originality (Devy, 7). Here, literary significance is ahistorical and can manifest across generations without being diminished.
The lack of emphasis on originality in Indian aesthetics—where stories, plots, and characters are reused and reinterpreted—supports a view of literature as a continuum. Authors are valued not for inventing but for reanimating, recontextualizing, and reinterpreting existing narratives. From this perspective, translation becomes the lifeblood of literary history rather than its imitation.
Devy substantiates this with references to foundational figures in Indian literary traditions—Jayadeva, Hemachandra, Michael Madhusudan Dutta, Bankim Chandra Chatterjee—who initiated new genres and styles through acts of translation (Devy, 6–7). Their contributions underscore how translation was not just a linguistic operation but a creative and cultural enterprise central to Indian literary modernity.
The Concept of ‘Translating Consciousness’
A major theoretical contribution of Devy’s essay is the idea of a “translating consciousness.” This term refers to the bilingual or multilingual sensibility of Indian literary communities who navigate fluidly between languages without rigid hierarchies. Devy argues that India’s multilingualism fosters a cultural condition in which translation is normalized and internalized, rather than viewed as exceptional or secondary (Devy, 5).
Unlike the Western model of language learning—structured around first (L1) and second (L2) languages—India’s language environment is non-hierarchical and organic. Translation, in such a setting, is not marked by loss or rupture, but by continuity and enrichment. It is this translating consciousness, Devy contends, that enables Indian literary communities to operate within a spectrum of intersecting sign systems.
Devy’s idea resonates with the notion of hybridity in postcolonial theory, where cultural identities are not fixed but formed through negotiation, translation, and adaptation. In Homi Bhabha’s terms, the “third space” of enunciation can be aligned with the space of translating consciousness—fluid, dynamic, and generative.
Limitations of Western Linguistics and the Need for a New Framework
Devy critiques the applicability of Western linguistic theories to the study of translation, especially in multilingual contexts like India. He points out that major theories—including those by Jakobson and Catford—are rooted in monolingual data and fail to capture the complexity of interlingual relationships (Devy, 3–4).
Jakobson’s classification of translation into three types—intralingual, interlingual, and intersemiotic—is based on the premise that complete semantic equivalence is unattainable, particularly in poetry. This leads him to conclude that “poetry is untranslatable,” and that only creative translation is possible (Jakobson, 1959).
Catford, in A Linguistic Theory of Translation, defines translation as a substitution process between language systems. But Devy critiques this mechanistic view, arguing that it overlooks the cultural and aesthetic dimensions of translation. Translation, for Devy, is not merely linguistic substitution but an act of transcreation—aesthetic replication and ideological negotiation.
Devy calls for a new linguistic theory grounded in multilingual realities. He emphasizes the need to move beyond the Saussurean fixation on systemic signs and towards a more phenomenological and experiential model that accommodates the fluid boundaries of Indian language practices (Devy, 5).
Translation and Literary History: Rethinking Origins
A key contribution of Devy’s essay is its reconceptualization of the relationship between translation and literary historiography. In the Western model, literary history is often linear and origin-focused, privileging texts deemed “original” and viewing translations as secondary. Devy challenges this by asserting that most literary traditions—including Anglo-Irish, Indian English, and settler literatures—are born out of translation (Devy, 3).
He contends that translation should not be seen as a deviation from literary origin but as its very mode of existence. In India, literary histories are not disrupted by translation—they are constituted by it. Therefore, a genuine theory of literary history must incorporate the phenomenon of translation not as marginal but as foundational.
The implication is that literary historiography needs to shift from a source-oriented model to a spectrum-based one—one that recognizes multiple coexisting origins, languages, and cultural currents.
Postcolonial Dimensions of Translation
Devy’s argument also has strong postcolonial implications. Translation, in the colonial and postcolonial context, is not neutral. It involves power, ideology, and identity. The colonial enterprise depended heavily on acts of translation—often violent and reductive—to assert control over native cultures. But postcolonial writers and thinkers have reclaimed translation as a space of resistance and creativity.
Devy’s notion of “translating consciousness” can be seen as an assertion of cultural agency. By embracing translation as a mode of authorship and history-making, Indian literary traditions subvert the colonial hierarchy of languages and reclaim their right to narrate in their own terms.
This also resonates with Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak’s view that translation is a form of ethical responsibility, especially when it involves the subaltern. For Spivak, the act of translation must preserve the other’s difference, resisting assimilation into the dominant discourse.
Conclusion
G. N. Devy’s “Translation and Literary History: An Indian View” offers a profound and necessary intervention in translation studies, comparative literature, and postcolonial historiography. By dismantling the Western metaphysics of translation and advocating for an Indian perspective rooted in multiplicity, fluidity, and transformation, Devy redefines both the practice and theory of translation.
His concept of “translating consciousness” offers a powerful framework to understand Indian literary cultures not as monolithic or derivative but as vibrant, multilingual, and continuously evolving through acts of translation. In a world increasingly shaped by intercultural exchange and global flows, Devy’s vision provides a timely reminder of the need for inclusive, pluralistic, and decolonized approaches to literature and its histories.
Works Cited
Bhabha, Homi K. The Location of Culture. Routledge, 1994.
Catford, J. C. A Linguistic Theory of Translation. London: Oxford University Press, 1965.
Devy, G. N. “Translation and Literary History: An Indian View.” In Post-Colonial Translation: Theory and Practice, edited by Susan Bassnett and Harish Trivedi, Routledge, 1999, pp. 182–190.
Jakobson, Roman. “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation.” In On Translation, edited by R. A. Brower, Harvard University Press, 1959, pp. 232–239.
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. “The Politics of Translation.” In Outside in the Teaching Machine, Routledge, 1993, pp. 179–200.
Thank you.
.jpg)
