Within the depth-psychology corpus, ‘translation’ operates on at least three distinct registers that frequently interpenetrate. The first is the pragmatic-philological register: the labor of rendering sacred, philosophical, or clinical texts across linguistic boundaries, where translators of the I Ching, the Philokalia, the Tibetan liberation texts, and Jung’s own Collected Works confront the irreducible problem of carrying not merely words but entire conceptual and spiritual worlds into a new tongue. The second register is the theoretical-linguistic one, explored most rigorously by Benveniste, who interrogates what is structurally lost or distorted when terms such as énonciation or langue are submitted to cross-linguistic equivalence — revealing that translation is never a neutral relay but an interpretive act conditioned by the anisomorphic nature of languages. The third, and most psychologically charged, register is articulated by Hillman, who insists that translation is inherently ‘traitorous’ because it presupposes a universalism of mind and place that archetypal psychology denies: to transfer speech is to attempt the impossible transfer of soul. These three registers — the philological, the structural-linguistic, and the depth-psychological — form the primary axes of tension around which the concordance entry for ‘translation’ must be navigated.
All translations are traitorous and treacherous, because they assume what is said in one place can be said anywhere.
Hillman argues that translation enacts a monotheistic fantasy of universal placelessness, betraying the soul’s rootedness in particular place and culture.
, Archetypal Psychology, 1983thesis
The German version was retranslated into Chinese and it was only after the meaning of the text had been fully brought out that we considered our version to be truly a translation.
Wilhelm describes a rigorous back-translation method that treats the rendered version as provisional until meaning is confirmed by return to the source, framing translation as a dialogical and verificatory process.
, The I Ching or Book of Changes, 1950thesis
The German version was retranslated into Chinese and it was only after the meaning of the text had been fully brought out that we considered our version to be truly a translation.
Baynes and Wilhelm jointly assert that the test of a genuine translation is the successful repatriation of meaning into the source language, privileging semantic fidelity over linguistic equivalence.
, The I Ching or Book of Changes, 1950thesis
The different distribution of ‘tongue’ and ‘language’ in English inclines an English-language reader to make different interpretative choices for ‘tongue’ than a French-language reader makes for langue, and translators need to take this into account.
Benveniste demonstrates that the anisomorphism of languages structurally prevents one-to-one correspondence in translation, making every rendered term a site of interpretive displacement.
, Last Lectures: Collège de France 1968 and 1969, 2012thesis
As I proceeded with the translation, I found that one very real compensation for my lack of Chinese remained, namely, the access to its philosophy afforded me through my growing knowledge of the work of Jung. This gave me a key to the archetypal world of the I Ching.
Baynes identifies Jungian analytical psychology as the hermeneutic instrument that substituted for philological competence, positioning depth-psychological knowledge as itself a mode of translation.
, The I Ching or Book of Changes, 1950supporting
As I proceeded with the translation, I found that one very real compensation for my lack of Chinese remained, namely, the access to its philosophy afforded me through my growing knowledge of the work of Jung.
The translator’s account foregrounds Jung’s psychology as a mediating framework that enabled access to the archetypal dimensions of a text otherwise inaccessible through linguistic means alone.
, The I Ching or Book of Changes, 1950supporting
Aufhebung is usually best annotated and left untranslated… Derrida’s translation is ‘la relève.’ The word comes from the verb relever, which means to lift up, as does Aufheben. But relever also means to relay, to relieve.
Derrida’s proposed translation of Aufhebung as ‘la relève’ is shown to be itself a philosophical intervention, using the duplicity of translation to expose the movement of différance within speculative dialectics.
, Margins of Philosophy, 1982thesis
For primary sources, the ‘alternate text’ and ‘translations’ are provided here as resources to readers, but except where explicitly noted, have not been used in this
A bibliographic note clarifies the methodological status of translations relative to primary sources in a scholarly ascetic corpus, marking translation as a supplementary rather than foundational apparatus.
aside
All the skilled ability of the two translators and of the Editor was required to produce a rendering which would be true both to the highly philosophical and classical Tibetan, with its many technical and idiomatic expressions, and to the requirements of literary English.
Evans-Wentz acknowledges the dual obligation of fidelity — to source-language philosophical precision and to target-language literary intelligibility — as the defining tension of sacred-text translation.
, The Tibetan Book of the Great Liberation, 1954supporting
Their real significance will be grasped only as the reader penetrates ever more deeply into the meaning of the passages in which they are to be found — indeed, as he penetrates ever more deeply into the theory and practice of the spiritual path they help to signpost.
The Philokalia translators argue that the meaning of key translated terms is not given by glossary alone but unfolds through progressive spiritual practice, situating translation within an experiential hermeneutic.
, The Philokalia, Volume 4, 1995supporting
The genius of the English language requires that the translation should be more intelligible than the Greek.
Jowett’s translator’s preface acknowledges that structural differences between ancient Greek and English demand interpretive addition, raising the philosophical problem of translation as augmentation rather than equivalence.
, Charmides, -380supporting
Austin, whom Benveniste cites in a French version in which ‘utterance’ is translated not as énonciation, but énoncé, which means unambiguously the text produced rather than the act of speaking.
Benveniste’s commentary on Austin’s French translation illustrates how a single terminological choice collapses the act/product distinction that is foundational to enunciation theory, demonstrating translation’s capacity to theoretically distort.
, Last Lectures: Collège de France 1968 and 1969, 2012supporting
I have also tried to break up the plainness with phrases and passages in quite different registers. Sometimes the metaphors and similes are surprising.
Wilson’s translator’s note articulates a poetics of variation and register-shifting as a means of conveying the tonal complexity of the Homeric original rather than reproducing a stable surface equivalence.
, The Odyssey, 2017supporting
The translation of the Iguvine Tables is usually expressed in Latin so that it is not particularly lucid.
Benveniste notes that the conventional Latin translation of the Iguvine ritual Tables impedes rather than clarifies interpretation, illustrating how the choice of target language shapes scholarly understanding of archaic institutions.
, Indo European Language and Society, 1973aside
Quotations from Latin and Greek sources are taken when possible from existing translations, but mostly they are of a composite nature, resulting from comparison of the existing translations with the original texts and with the German versions used by the author.
The translator’s note to Jung’s Symbols of Transformation describes a composite method that triangulates between existing renderings, original sources, and Jung’s own German versions, foregrounding translation as collaborative and provisional.
, Symbols of Transformation, 1952aside