Abstract
This study seeks a comprehensive dialogue between the adherents of archaizing translation, its opponents, and those in the middle. It revisits archaism as a literary strategy, comparing the practice with archaizing translation as a translation strategy, and surveying its grammatical and syntactic features. Why have contemporary archaizing translations been held to be failed, and why—less often--have they been championed? Three main positions--the theoretical defenses, compromises such as Robinson's 'strange loop', and excoriations of the practice--are chronicled. I attend to each side’s (sometimes faulty) assumptions. Is translational pastness but patina, pastiche, and appropriation, or a revitalization?
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
