번역과 초월언어, 그리고 문학적 사유의 방향 - 한용운의 주해와 창작의 의미를 중심으로 -

Abstract

Walter Benjamin, in his essay The task of the translator, argues that the task of the translator does not depend on how well he does in translating the original text with his technical ability at the human level, but on how well does in demonstrating the ability to call and evoke the transcendental pure language in the intermediate stage in languages. He found his ultimate goal in the discovery of transcendental language implicitly delivered through the meeting of these languages, thereby excluding concern for secular languages. This means that he deals with the problem of language and translation from the point of view of extrinsic transcendence. Han Yong-un is noteworthy in that he establishes his view of language and translation by turning Benjamin`s extrinsic transcendence upside down. In the footnotes of his annotated book Siphyundamjuhae(십현담주 해), Han Yong-un argues that his footnotes have been established by the interpretation of unexpressed meaning(言外之旨) in which the difference from others exists.(According to Roman Jakobson, translations such as this are a kind of inner language translation) His unexpressed meaning is similar to Benjamin`s pure language in that it is not inherent within the text or the language but is supposed to be located outside. But when it is specifically reviewed, Han Yong-un`s unexpressed meaning is a meaning that is inherent within the language and, at the same time, keeps the transcendental state rather than the meaning which exists irrelevant to the text. He calls this meaning in the translation of Buddhist scriptures the sacred meaning``. The difference of views between Benjamin and Han Yong-un regarding transcendental language comes from the difference of views towards transcendence or world. Han Yong-un consistently argues for intrinsic transcendence while Benjamin puts stress on extrinsic transcendence. Han Yong-un regards the earth as the place where transcendence has already been accomplished, namely beyond-here. The here in beyond-here is not the target of beyond but the consequence arrived through the beyond. It is not to go there beyond or independent of here but here is the already reached place that has already passed through the several beyond waves. His poem anthology, Nimui Chimmuk(님의 침묵) is the accumulation of this point of view. This anthology is the (poetically realized) philosophical response to the Siphyundamjuhae, that is, the consequence of the translation with the different language of ours. Therefore, the two translations are mutually complementary. Siphyundamjuhae is no more a translation responding poetically to the original poem than Nimui Chimmuk is translation as a different language. The intersection of the two is beyond-here as the immanent transcendence. The achievement of Han Yong-un is conspicuous when we refer to the voice of Benjamin about translation.

벤야민의 독특한 번역론, ｢번역가의 과제｣는 번역의 문제를 통해 언어의 본질과 초월언어의 문제를 다루며, 또한 문학의 바탕이 되는 세계관에 주목하게 한다는 점에서 눈여겨볼 만한 논의다. 그러나 이 글을 실용적인 관점에서 읽으려는 모든 시도는 실패할 수밖에 없다. 이 글의 목적은 이용가능한 번역 방법 혹은 번역론을 제시하는 데 있지 않기 때문이다. 그가 번역가의 과제로 제시하는 것을 살펴보아도 이 점은 분명하 다. 원작의 메아리를 깨워 번역어 속에서 울려 퍼지게 하는 의도, 번역어를 향한 바로 그 의도를 찾아내는1) 것, 낯선 (원작의) 언어 마력에 걸려 꼼짝 못하고 있는 순수언어를 번역자 자신의 언어를 통해 해방시키고 또 작품 속에 갇혀 있는 언어를 그 작품의 재창작을 통해 해방시키는 것(최성만: 139)이라는 과제는 실용적인 차원에 적용할 수 없는 이상적인 원론이다. 그래서 해체주의적 관점에서 번역의 근원적 불가능성에 초점을 맞추어 읽으려는 폴 드 만의 논의나, 언어의 낯설음을 환기함으로써 번역의 이국성을 강조하는 탈식민주의적 논의 모두 벤야민의 논점을 자기 관점의 합리화를 위한 제국주의적 읽기의 도구로 소모하고 있을 뿐이다.