HISTORY OF TRANSLATION THEORY
Historical perspective is fundamental element of introduction to Translation Studies. The scope of historical research is too wide to be covered by single book. What is important while reading this book is to consider role, function and lines of approach to translation which changed over the years in European and American culture. It is not advisable to emphasize that translation is very important part of literary and cultural history.
PROBLEMS OF ‘PERIOD STUDY’
George Steiner in After Babel divided literature on the theory, practice and history of translation into 4 periods:
· First period extends from Cicero and Horace statements on translation up to the publication of Alexander Fraser Tyler’s Essay on the Principles of Translation (1791). It is characterized by ‘immediate empirical focus’, which stands for statements and translations emerged from practical work of translating.
· Period of theory and hermeneutic enquiry with development of vocabulary and methodology. The end of second period id Laubaud’s publication Sous I’invocation de Saint Jerome (1946).
· The third period begins about 1940s when first publications of translated papers on machine appear. It is characterized by introduction of structural linguistics and communication theory into the study of translation.
· Fourth period (coexisting with the third) emerged in early 1960s and is characterized by idea of translation that states the discipline in a wide frame that includes a number of other disciplines.
What needs to be emphasized is that the human culture as a dynamic system is difficult to be divided into periods which corresponds with Steiner’s unequal division (first period covers 1700 years and last two periods lasts for approximately 30 years).
There are certain concepts of translation that dominate at different times, i.e.:
· T. S. Steiner examined English translation theory between 1650-1800 starting with Sir John Denham and ending with William Cowper and analyzed translator as a painter or imitator.
· Andre Lefevre made a collection of statements and documents that concerns the establishment of German tradition of translation.
· F. O. Matthiesson analyses 4 major translators of sixteenth century (Hoby, North, Florio and Philemon Holland) in a less systematic approach.
· Timothy Webb studies Shelley as translator who involves analyses of the work of an individual translator in connection with the rest of his opus and contemporary concepts of role and status of translation.
This kind of studies aims to investigate changing concepts and does not deal with strict notions of period. This is a reach field for future research. Studies of past translators focused too often on question of influence rather than on the process of creation.
Purpose of this chapter is to rise questions rather than answer them and to point the areas where further research should be made.
THE ROMANS
Eric Jacobsen claims that translation is the Roman invention. Cicero and Horace had a great influence on successive generations of translators, and both consider translation within the wider context of the two main functions of the poet: universal human duty of gaining and spreading wisdom and the special art of making a poem.
Translation was so significant for Romans that is started to be considered whether Romans are able to create imaginative literature, at least until the first century BC. Creative imagination of Greeks was compared with practical Roman mind and the Roman exaltation of their Greek friends models has been seen as prove of their lack of individuality. Estimating in terms of these values is quite wrong, Romans perceived themselves as continuation of their Greek models, Roman literary critics discussed Greek texts without seeing the language. There is a hierarchy of Roman literary system which overrides linguistic boundaries and that system in turn shows Roman ideal of the hierarchical yet caring central state based on the true law of Reason. Cicero claims that as king rules over his subjects, mind dominates the body, but warns that where Reason dominates as master ruling his slaves, 'it keeps them down and crushes them'.
Both Horace and Cicero in their observations on translation, distinguish between word for word translation and sense for sense translation. The basic principle of enriching their native language and literature through translation leads to a stress on the aesthetic criteria for the TL product than on more strict notions of 'fidelity'.
Process of enrichment of the literary system was integral part of the Roman concept of translation. So widespread was the habit of borrowing words. Horace compared this process of the addition of new words and the decline of other words to the changing leaves in spring and autumn, seeing this process of enrichment as natural and desirable. The art of the translator, for Horace and Cicero, then, consisted in sensible interpretation of the SL text so as to produce a TL version based on the principle of expressing not word for word but sense for sense.
There is another dimension to the Roman concept of enrichment through translation, i.e. the pre-eminence of Greek as the language of culture and the ability of educated Romans to read texts in the SL. Taking these factors into account, positions of translator and the reader change. The Roman reader was able to consider the translation as a meta-text in relation to the original. The translated text was read through the source text, in contrast to the way in which a monolingual reader can only approach the SL text through TL version. For Roman translators, process of transferring a text from language to language may be perceived as an exercise in comparative stylistics, since they were free from the demands of having to 'make known' either the form or the content, and consequently did not need to subordinate themselves to the frame of original. The good translator, therefore, assumed the reader's knowledge with the SL text and was bound by that knowledge, for any evaluation of his skill as translator would be based on a imaginative use he was able to make of his model.
Roman translation, therefore, may be perceived as unique. Moreover, it is essential to remember that with the extension of Roman Empire, bilingualism and trilingualism became widely common. The apparent license of Roman translators, much quoted in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, must therefore be seen in the context of the overall system in which that approach to translation was applied.
BIBLE TRANSLATION
With the spread of Christianity, translation gained another role: to spread the word of God. Translator had a mission to provide both aesthetic and evangelistic criteria. The history of Bible translation is accordingly a history of western culture in microcosm. Translations of the new testament were made early, , and St Jerome's quarrelsome version that was to have such influence on succeeding generations of translators commissioned by Pope Damasus in AD 384. Following Cicero, St Jerome declared he had translated sense for sense, but the problem of the fine line between what constituted stylistic license and what constituted heretical interpretation was to remain a major stumbling block for centuries.
Bible translation was a key issue well into the seventeenth century, and the problems intensified with the growth of concepts of national cultures and with the coming of Reformation. Translation was used as a weapon in dogmatic and political conflicts as nation states began to weaken, evidenced in linguistic terms by the decline of Latin as a universal language.
The first fully translated Bible into English was the Wycliffite Bible produced between 1380 and 1834, which marked a start of great flowering of English Bible translation. John Wycliffe, the Oxford theologian, put forward the theory of 'domination by grace' according to which man was immediately responsible to God and God's law. Since his theory meant that the Bible was applicable to all human life in followed that each man should be granted access to the crucial text in a language that he could understand. Wicliffe's views, which attracted a circle of followers, were attracted as heretical and he and his group were denounced as 'Lollards', but the work he began continued to flourish after his death and his disciple John Purvey revised the first edition some time before 1408.
The second Wycliffite Bible contains a general prologue, composed between 1395-6 and the fifteenth chapter of the Prologue describes 4 stages of the translation process:
1. collecting old Bibles and glosses and establishing an authentic Latin source text;
2. a comparison of the versions;
3. giving advice with 'old grammarians and old divines' about hard words and complex meanings; and
4. translating as clearly as possible the 'sentence' (i.e. meaning), with the translation corrected by a group of collaborators.
Political function of the translation was to make the complete text of the Bible accessible, so this led to a definite position on priorities by the translator: purvey's Preface states that the translator shall translate 'after the sentence' (meaning) and not only the words, 'so that the sentence be as open or opener, in English as in Latin and go not far from the letter'. The aim of this idiomatic and intelligible version is that the text could be utilized by the layman. The extent of its importance may be measured by the fact that the bulk of the 150 copies of Purvey's revised Bible were written even after the prohibition of translations circulated without the approval of diocesan or provincial councils in July 1408.
In the sixteenth century the history of Bible translation gained new dimensions with the advent of printing. William Tyndale's version of New Testament was printed in 1525. He proclaimed intention in translating was also as clear version as possible to the layman.
The same century saw the translation of the Bible into a large number of European languages, in Protestant and Roman Catholic versions. In 1482, the Hebrew Pentateuch had been printed at Bologna and the complete Hebrew Bible appeared in 1488, whilst Erasmus, the Dutch Humanist, published the first Greek New testament in Basle in 1516. This version was to serve as the basis for Martin Luther's 1522 German version. Translations of the New testament appeared in Danish in 1529, in Swedish in 1526-41, and the Czech Bible appeared between 1579-93.
William Tyndale attacked the hypocrisy of church authorities who forbade the laypeople to read the Bible in their native language for the good of their souls, but nevertheless accepted the use of vernacular for 'histories and fables of love and atones and of ribaldry as filthy as heart can think, to corrupt the minds of youth'.
The history of Bible translation in sixteenth century in connected with the rise of Protestantism in Europe.
The aims of the sixteenth-century Bible translators may be collocated in 3 categories:
1. To clarify errors arising from previous versions, due to inadequate SL manuscripts or to linguistic incompetence.
2. To produce an accessible and aesthetically satisfying vernacular style.
3. To clarify points of dogma and reduce the extent to which the scriptures were interpreted and re-presented to the common people as a meta-text.
Martin Luter in Cicrular Letter on Translation (1530), emphasizes significance of (2) that he uses phrases 'to translate' and 'to Germanize' almost indiscriminately. What he also stresses is the importance of the relationship between style and meaning.
The Renaissance Bible translators perceived fluidity and intelligibility the TL text as an important criteria, but were equally concerned with the transmission of a literally accurate message. Precision was of central importance and yet because Bible translation was an integral part of the upward shift in the status of the vernacular, the question of style was too vital. Luther advised the would-be translator to add to add to a wealth of imagery in the SL text by drawing on the vernacular tradition too. Since the Bible is a text that each individual reader must interpret in the reading, each successive translation attempts to allay doubts in the wording and offer reader a text in which they may put their trust.
For the (often anonymous) translator of the Bible in the sixteenth century was a radical leader in a struggle to further man's spiritual progress. He collaborative aspect of Bible Translation represented yet another important aspect of that struggle.
THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY
Pivotal changes in the role of translation during the mid-seventeenth century were caused by the results of the Counter-Reformation, the struggle between absolute monarchy and the evolving Parliamentary system.
Ancient masters became models for writers and „imitation” kind of direction. Classics’ texts were significantly translated in France, and French writers by English. Art however was not only identified as ‘imitative skill’.
· Denham considered that translator and original writer are equal, but function in evidently dissimilar temporal and social context. Translator’s obligation is to find out the most fundamental information from the source text and to duplicate or remake it in the target language.
· Abraham Cowley confirmed that translator should ‘take, left out and added what he pleases’ in translations, not presuming the reader to realize what was the accurate text of original author. Cowley did not consider his form of translation as imitation.
· John Dryden phrased three essential types of translation:
1. ‘metaphase’ – translating word by word, line by line
2. ‘paraphrase’ – translating with freedom
3. ‘imitation’ – translating with ability to abandon the text of the original
Dryden choose „paraphrasing’ as the most convenient type for him. He claimed that the translator must know perfectly both languages, features and ‘spirit’ of the original author, besides is obliged to translate text which should be similar to the original. Dryden named the translator as ‘portrait painter’. Following French models he has modernize the language of his origin text.
· Alexander Pope support the same idea as Dryden.
THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY
Ubiquitous rewritings of earlier texts, which defined and made obvious the vital spirit of a text, took place in the 18th century.
· Dr Johnson considering the inquiry of accompaniments to a text during translation, claimed that it is advisable if refinement is gained and nothing is taken away.
An important element in 18th century translation is the right of person to be addressed in his own terms, on his own ground; it corresponded to modifying concepts of ‘originality’
Theory of moral duty to the original subject and to receiver was common, but encounter a series of fundamental changes
· Goethe thought that every text must go through three phases of translation
1. text familiarize us with strange countries in our own terms
2. translator absorbs the sense of a strange work but duplicates it in his own terms
3. its purpose is to gain precise similarity between the SL text and the TL text, through making a new ‘manner’ combining rareness of the original with a latest form of structure
· Alexander Fraser Tytler released first systematic study in English of the process of translation. He established three fundamental principles:
1. the translator should present entire notation of the idea of the original work
2. character of writing should be the same in both texts
3. the transcription should posses all the facility of the original composition
Tytler confirm that the theory of ‘paraphrase’ contributed to unduly imprecise translations, even though that part of the translator responsibility is to explain uncertainties in the origin text, even if this follows exclusion or supplementation. He claimed that translator must make an attempt to take the very soul of his author
Writers progressively turn their attention from artist’s moral role to debate of theories of ‘imagination’
ROMANTICISM
Rejection of rationalism caused a stress on the vital function of the imagination, which redounded to the notion of latitude of creative force. Poets’ duty was to compose the poetry that would make again the universe.
· Coleridge summarize his theory of the difference between Fancy and Imagination, claiming that
1. IMAGINATION is extremely creative and organic power
2. FANCY is uninteresting mechanism
· August Wilhelm Schlegel outlined theory of the contradiction of mechanical and organic form of translation
Then, there occurred a question – how to define translation. Writers and translators had different answers to this inquiry. A.W. Schlegel affirms that all acts of speaking and writing are acts of translation and that the translator should preserve form of the original. Whereas F. Schlegel contended that translation is a category of thoughts.
Two contradictory tendencies can be specified in the early 19th century
1. translation as a category of thought and translator as a fertile genius
2. translation as a mechanical function of ‘making know’
Prominence of the Imagination prompt to the presumption that translation must be guided by the higher creativity. But this provoked problem of meaning.
· Shelley maintained that translation is an activity with a lower status, as ‘a way of complementing the dissimilarities between inspirations. He appears to turn from translation respected for their ideas to respected for their literary graces.
EDUCATION AND VARNACULAR
The role of translation was established before 15th and 16th centuries. Vernacular glosses founded in Latin manuscripts have provided essential information about European languages. First translators used word-for-word method, which was still described as translation. Nevertheless, glosses were not the only source of knowledge. King Alfred ( reign 871-99) had translated (or caused to be translated) a number of Latin text to help English people to understand the message and recover from devastation of the Danish invasions. He declared also the claims of English as a literary language in its own. Alfred knew two main techniques of translation ( of bishops and priest), which were:
· Word-by-word
· Sense-by-sense
In his times translation had moral and didactic purposes, mainly used in politics, far from its purely role of study a text.
Quintilian – Roman theoretician ( 1st century AD ) – had introduced different concept of translation. He underlined the usefulness of paraphrasing a text, where student has to analyze the structure of the text, not only understand the meaning of particular word. He distinguished two stages of translation:
· Writer has to be close to the paraphrase s/he analyze
· Writer has to add more of his style to make a text reliable
He recommended translating from Greek to Latin, and the Latin remained the language of the educational system for centuries.
But the vernacular literatures led to another alteration in the role of translation. A great influence on development of translation had literatures with little or no written tradition. In this situation translation acquired an additional dimension, as writers started to care for the status of their own language. It was the beginning of a new forms, described as:
· Vertical (source language → vernacular, where source text has a special value)
· Horizontal (source language → target language, where both have equal value)
** Gianfranco Folena’s suggestion
mar.lip