Translating a text and not writing it is a hard-to-attain goal that must make the translator sense illimitable difficulties,
affirm, as soon as comprehending them, that "every
translation is a treason" and confirm sadly that an "ugly faithful is better than a treacherous beautiful".
Hence, this attitude suggests a certain theory of the text, and, moreover, a certain concept of writing and language. It is also based on a philosophy of the identity and the otherness and a particular theory of model and version. We neither can afford nor intend to draw any comparison between these attitudes and theories and their antithetical ones. We will only content ourselves with asking some questions about them.
This attitude claims to shorten the distances between languages and overcome the difference between them for the sake of identity and unity. But is there any unity even within the same language? What about the fact that every linguistic system includes variety in it? Aren't there many languages within one language? What about the nowadays myriad texts that are written in many languages?
Every text contains, explicitly or implicitly, other texts as well as quotations from other languages. It might use words that are stranger to the language in which it has been written. Thus, every text is a translation, even when remaining untranslated. Translation is no secondary task that comes in the second place after writing the original text. Therefore, the translator is an author and the author is a translator.The translator is not a guest that should be kept outdoors, to whom must not be easily open the book, whose name's letters are faintly printed on the cover, and whose rights are seldom discussed, on the contrary of the author's.