By João Gabriel Pereira da Silveira

The selected text is part of an essay (On the Duty of Civil Disobedience), first published in 1849 by Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862). The author is of American nationality and was a poet, naturalist, researcher, and philosopher, having ecological and libertarian conceptions. Thoreau had writing that suited his personality well: it was ardent and definitive. With him, there was no economy of words. Being considered by many the founder of anarchism, the author had a certain aversion to the state authorities and was assiduously in favor of the extinction of the state – considered by him unjust and unnecessary –, as can be seen in the excerpt taken from the following :

“I meet this American government, or it's representative the State government, directly, and face to face, once a year, no more, in the person of its tax-gatherer; this is the only mode in which a man situated as I necessarily meet it, and it then says distinctly, Recognizes me; and the simplest, the most effectual, and, in the present posture of affairs, the indispensable mode of treating with it on this head, of expressing your little satisfaction with and love for it, is to deny it then. My civil neighbor, the tax-gatherer, is the very man I have to deal with,— for it is, after all, with men and not with parchment that I quarrel,— and he has voluntarily chosen to be an agent of the government.”

Literal translation (English-Portuguese):

“Eu encontro este Governo Americano, ou seu representante o Governo do Estado, diretamente, e cara a cara, uma vez por ano, não mais, na pessoa do seu coletor de impostos; este é o único modo em que um o homem situado como eu sou encontra-o necessariamente; e diz então distintamente, Reconheça-me; e o mais simples, o mais eficaz, e, na atual postura dos assuntos, o modo indispensável de tratar com ele nesta cabeça, de expressar sua pouca satisfação com e amor por ele, é negá-lo então. Meu vizinho civil, o coletor de impostos, é o mesmo homem com quem tenho que lidar, pois é, afinal, com os homens e não com pergaminho que eu discuto, e ele foi voluntariamente escolhido para ser um agente do governo.”

Commentary on literal translation: it is a translation that, however direct, is endowed with terms that somehow "soften" the speech of the author, which has as one of its main features the offensive and anti-economic writing on the State.

Domestication and Foreignization of translation:

“Encontro diretamente, frente a frente, esse Governo Americano, ou seu representante, o Governo do Estado, uma vez por ano, nada mais que isso, sob a forma de coletor de impostos. Esta é a única maneira pela qual um homem na minha situação pode necessariamente encontrá-lo. E ele me diz, de forma clara: ‘reconheça-me!’. E a maneira mais simples, mais efetiva e, dadas as circunstâncias atuais, mais indispensável de tratar desse assunto com ele e demonstrar insatisfação nítida e ‘carinho’ é, então, rejeitá-lo. O coletor de impostos, civil como eu, é exatamente o homem com quem eu devo negociar, até porque eu discuto com homens, e não pergaminhos. E ele escolheu voluntariamente ser um agente do governo.”

Commentary on Domestication and Foreignization of translation: In literal translation, there is the placement of certain words that do not match the semantic load of the source text, such as the translation of the terms "love" (amor) – put ironically by the author, and "deal" (lidar). In the second translation (domestication and foreignization of translation), I chose to replace "amor" with "carinho" and mark it in quotes, so that the reader can identify the irony presented by the author since he hated to receive visits from considered men "the personification of the State". Then, regarding the translation of the term "Deal", there was the substitution of the word "lidar" for "negociar", since the latter presents equivalence closer to the context of speech and to the conceptions of the author, who was not in favor of paying taxes and sought, where possible, an alternative to escape the situation.

Conclusion:

Drawing a brief comparison between the two translations, although both are close, some details must be taken into consideration to bring the reader closer to the main ideas that guide the author and his writing. Thoreau was a man who faced state institutions without fear and made it very explicit through his ironies and fervent statements. Therefore, it is essential to adapt the ideas of the author contained in the original text to the translated text, with special attention to the historical, political and social context to which the author was inserted and which, consequently, directly influenced his writing, for only then will the reader of the translated text receive an impact similar to that received by the native reader.