Paper 15: Module 02: E-Text

PAPER 15: MODULE 02: E-TEXT

UGC MHRD e Pathshala

Subject: ENGLISH Principal Investigator: Prof. Tutun Mukherjee, University of Hyderabad

Paper Title: Literary Translation in India Paper Coordinator: Prof. T.S. Satyanath, University of Delhi

Module 2: From the Romans to the Victorians Author: Rindon Kundu, Junior Research Fellow, Department of Comparative Literature, Jadavpur University

Content Reviewer: Prof. T.S. Satyanath, University of Delhi Language Editor: Dr. Mrinmoy Pramanick, University of Calcutta

From the Romans to the Victorians Contents Objectives of the Module 1. Introduction

2. Early Theorists – Romans:

2.1 Cicero (106 BC – 43 BC)

2.2 Horace (65 BC – 8 BC)

3. Medieval Period:

3.1 Anglo-Saxon

3.2 Arabic

4. Pre-Renaissance:

4.1 Bible Translation

4.2 Etienne Dolet (1509–46)

5. Renaissance:

5.1 George Chapman (1559-1634)

5.2 Thomas Wyatt (1503–42) and Earl of Surrey (c. 1517–47)

6. Seventeenth Century:

6.1 John Dryden (1631–1700)

6.2 John Denham (1615-69)

6.3 Abraham Cowley (1618-67)

7. Eighteenth Century

8. Nineteenth Century:

8.1 Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768 – 1834)

9. Summary of the Module

10. References

Objectives of the Module: This module starts with a general introduction of translation history and then moves towards the historical overview of the ‘translation theories’ and its chronological development which has been discussed and divided into eight units. These subunits have focused on different types and perspectives of translation theories across generations and historical periods and thus will attempt to show the paradigm shifts in the progression of a human activity where different tongues have interplayed with each other. From this module we will learn the historical overviews and the different methods of translation from Roman to Victorian.

1. Introduction:

People may argue that a translator is alone while translating. Sitting on a lonely writing desk s/he only has the source text in front of it. S/he does not need translation theories as a guide while translating. Sherlock Homes once said, on a different topic although, “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to fit facts.” If we keep aside the complex debatable relationship between translation practice and theory, there is no point in arguing that to understand the evolution of translation practices; we have to understand the historiography of translation theories. Susan Bassnett rightly argued, “No introduction to Translation Studies could be complete without consideration of the discipline in an historical perspective.”i Close study of the theorists of the period narrated below will clearly show how the concept of originality and authenticity evolved in the epistemological understanding of Western translations which later spread to India and affected Indian understanding of translation with the coming in of the British imperialists.

2. Early Theorists – Romans:

2.1 Cicero (106 BC – 43 BC):

George Steiner in his seminal book After Babel (1997) has distinguished the history of translation theory, practice and literature into four parts:

The first period would extend from Cicero’s famous precept not to translate verbum pro verbo, in his Libellus de Optimo genere oratorum of 46 B.C. and Horace’s reiteration of this formula in the An poetica some twenty years later, to Holderlin’s enigmatic commentary on his own translations from Sophocles (1804) … This epoch of primary statement and technical notation may be said to end with Alexander Fraser Tytler’s (Lord Woodhouselee) Essay on the Principles of Translation issued in London in 1792 (Steiner 248)

Douglas Robinson too, in his anthology, titled, Western Translation Theory. From Herodotus to Nietzsche (1997/2002) has admitted the primacy of Cicero (46 B.C.) in the history of translation theory:

Cicero is often considered the founder of Western translation theory; certainly he is the first to comment on the processes of translation and offer advice on how best to undertake them. His remarks on the pedagogical use of translation from Greek to Latin in the training of an orator were expanded by Horace, Pliny the Younger, Quintilian, and Aulus Gellius in Rome, adapted for medieval Christian theology by Jerome, and cited repeatedly by Catholics and Reformers and Humanists in support of their translatorial and pedagogical principles from the fourteenth to the seventeenth centuries. (Robinson 7)

The central characteristic of this period, as pointed by Susan Bassnett in her book Translation Studies (1980/2002) “is that of ‘immediate empirical focus’, i.e. the statements and theories about translation stem directly from the practical work of translating.” (Bassnett 48) The main theme of this period is the beginning of the debate between ‘word-for-word’ translation and ‘sense-for-sense’ translation, a debate that has a long lasting effect on the later ages. Situating the origin of literary translation in ‘the age of Romans’, Hugo Friedrich points out in his short speech titled “On the Art of Translation” (1965) that, according to the Romans, translation means “transformation in order to mould the foreign into the linguistic structures of one’s own culture”. (Biguenet and Schulte) Cicero (1st Century BCE) has divided the translation practice as two separate polarities. One extreme here and the other extreme there: “Man of Interpreter” and “Man of Orator”; the former is supposed to be very literal, delivering exactly what the other party has said, the replacement of each individual word of Source Text (Greek) with its closest grammatical equivalent in Latin, whereas the latter is supposed to reinvent the taste, procuce a speech that would move the listeners and make the

text anew. Cicero visualizes translation as a stylistic change of the source text according to the stylistic features of the target language at the same time not violating the form, shape and ideas of the source text. He is the firsdt theorist in the history of the translation studies who clearly distinguishes between ‘word-for-word’ translation and ‘sense-for-sense’ translation. He says:

I translate the ideas, their forms, or as one might say, their shapes; however, I translate them into a language that is in tune with our conventions of usage … Therefore, I did not have to make a word-for-word translation but rather a translation that reflects the general stylistic features … and the meaning … of foreign words. (Cicero printed in Schulte and Biguenet 1992: 12)ii

2.2 Horace (65 BC – 8 BC):

According to Quintus Horatius Flaccus, better known as Horace in English world as he mentions in his Ars poetica (c. 10 BC – 8 BC), the goal of translation should be producing an aesthetically pleasing and creative text in the Target Language. Douglas Robinson warns us that though there are terms of classifications regarding translation process – 'free' and 'faithful', neither Cicero nor Horace have used the terms like 'free' or 'translation' to denote their process. Only Horace has used the term 'faithful'. Both Horace and Cicero did not advocate servile imitation of the source language (SL) text.iii In the Classical Roman or Ciceronian/Horatian tradition, most of the educated Romans had a fair knowledge of Greek. So translation from Greek language into Latin language was not for those who can not understand the Greek, but for those aesthetes who would appreciate the beauty of the translatorial process into Latin. The stress was on enriching Latin vocabulary and language rather than on showing faithfulness to the original Greek text. That is why Horace advised the translator to invent new words to add to the vocabulary of his language. The primary responsibility of the translator was to the target language (TL) reader and so there was no need to translate word for word. It was enough if they were able to reproduce the sense of the original Source Language work.

Horace, in his Art of Poetry, warns against the imitation of the source model:

A theme that is familiar can be made your own property so long as you do not waste your time on a hackneyed treatment; nor should you try to render your

original word for word like a slavish translator, or in imitating another writer plunge yourself into difficulties from which shame, or the rules you have laid down for yourself, prevent you from extricating yourself.iv

According to Bassnett, since “enrichment of the literary system is an integral part of the Roman concept of translation” Horace and Cicero both considered “judicious interpretation of the SL text so as to produce a TL version based on the principle non verbum de verbo, sed sensum exprimere de sensu (of expressing not word for word, but sense for sense), and his responsibility was to the TL readers.”v So in this Classical Roman period we see that the 'sense-for-sense' translation has been preferred over 'word-for-word' translation.

3. Medieval Period:

During the Middle Age and Renaissance, there was no concrete theory of translation as such. Their methods of translation adapted by individual translator as described in the prefaces, introductions, commentaries etc of the translations are the only sources to know about their translation strategies.

3.1 Anglo-Saxon: If we go through the Anglo-Saxon writers of the medieval age, we will find out suggestive statements from the prefaces of translated texts which give us a fair idea on the methods of translations employed in this era. The preface of the Alfred the Great’s Old English translation of Pope Gregory’s Pastoral Care (c. 590 AD) says “among other various and manifold troubles of this kingdom… sometimes word by word, and sometimes according to the sense”. In the translation of The Consolation of Philosophy of Boethius by King Alfred a similar kind of strategy was undertaken as he oscillates between word-for-word and sense- for-sense translation wherever he felt suitable. Robert Stanton, in his book The Culture of Translation in Anglo-Saxon England argues that “Alfred… demonstrated the tension between preservation and creation” and he “claimed translation as a preservative agent”.vi Aelfric, translating a century later, was using the similar kind of translation strategy, as he repeatedly uses sense-for-sense translation, not always word-for-word.

3.2 Arabic:

During the middle age, as Arabic became the international lingua franca, there were numerous translations of Greek philosophy, medicine, astrology and scientific books. Bayt al- Hikma (The House of Wisdom) in Baghdad during the rule of the caliph al-Ma’mūn, became the centre of translational activities. Various scientists cum translators like Ibn Ishāq, Ibn al- Batrīq, Ibn Rushd, Ibn Sīnā, and Farābī emerge during this era. The debate between the two major translation methods 'word-for-word' and 'sense-for-sense' translation also cropped up and while translators like Ibn Ishāq preferred 'sense-for-sense' translation, Ibn al-Batrīq tended to 'word-for-word' method.vii

4. Pre-Renaissance: By the 16th century the view that was gaining ground was that a personal knowledge of scripture is precisely what ordinary people needs the most for their own spiritual good. The intention of St Jerome, translating into Latin the Hebrew version of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New Testament, was that ordinary Christians of the Roman Empire should be able to read the word of God. ‘Ignorance of the scriptures’, he wrote, ‘is ignorance of Christ’.viii

4.1 Bible Translation: “Western translation theories owe a good deal to sacred text translation as, because of the special issues involved, the subject area provided a major impetus for comment and argument about authority, translatability and methodology.”ix The major shift in the history of the translation history came with the spread of Christianity – strictly a text-based religion. Though the Roman translators preferred ‘sense-for-sense’ translation over ‘word-for-word’, the Bible translators has been instructed by the Church strictly to avoid ‘sense-for-sense’ method. Since the term ‘translation’ means interpretation, ‘sense-for-sense’ method or ‘free translation’, it could lead to open interpretation of the word of God and thus blasphemy. So the concept of fidelity or absolute rendering of the original text is solicited. Though St Jerome, following Cicero and Horace, one of the first translators of the Bible, did a ‘sense- for-sense’ translation and later this version became the founding stone of Vulgate Bible. St. Jerome in defence of his translation of the Greek Old Testament into Latin says, “Now I not only admit but freely announce that in translating from the Greek - except of course in the

case of the Holy Scripture, where even the syntax contains a mystery - I render not word-for- word, but sense-for-sense.”

The first translation of the complete Bible into English was the Wycliffite Bible (1380-1384) and the target of the translation was the public access of the biblical knowledge by each and every person. Obviously, he and his followers were attacked as heretics. After his death, John Purvey, disciple of Wycliffe, revised the translation and in his preface clearly states that the translator should translate ‘after the sentence’ (meaning) and not only after the words’ (literal).x William Tyndale’s translation of the New Testament (1525) based upon ‘sense-for-sense’ method was also intended to offer as much a clearer version as possible to the layman, but to protect the preoccupation of the Roman Catholic Church for the ‘correct’ established meaning of the Bible, he was burned by the Church. Any translation diverging from the accepted interpretation was likely to be deemed heretical and to be censured or banned. Jeremy Munday in his book Introducing Translation Studies (2008) has observed that, “advances in the study and knowledge of the Biblical languages and classical scholarship, typified by Erasmus’s edition of the Greek New Testament in 1516 and the general climate of the Reformation and spurred by the new technology of the printing press, led to a revolution in Bible translation practice which ‘dominated sixteenth-century book production’ in Europe.”xi

The history of Bible translation in the sixteenth century is intimately tied up with the rise of Protestantism in Europe. Martin Luther, chief protagonist in the history of Christian theology and Protestant Reformation, has shifted the focus towards the Target Culture and Target Readers instead of serving the Source Text and its intended readers. He has “advised the would-be translator to use a vernacular proverb or expression if it fitted in with the New Testament, in other words to add to the wealth of imagery in the SL text by drawing on the vernacular tradition too.” (Bassnett 56) The translation strategy has been shifted from the earlier ‘word-for-word’ method to produce ‘correct’ established meaning of the Bible, as desired by the Catholic church, to a method where the Bible becomes a text which each individual must reinterpret in the reading and “[t]he task of the translator went beyond the linguistic, and became evangelistic in its own right, for the (often anonymous) translator of the Bible in the sixteenth century was a radical leader in the struggle to further man’s spiritual progress.” (Bassnett 57) Luther follows St Jerome in rejecting a word-for-word translation strategy since it would be unable

to convey the same meaning as the Source Text and would sometimes be incomprehensible. His significance in the history of the Bible translation is the infusion of the ecclesiastical language with the language of ordinary people and his consideration of translation in terms focusing on the Target Language and the Target Text reader. In his Circular Letter on Translation (1530), as Bassnett has argued, “The Renaissance Bible translators perceived both fluidity and intelligibility in the TL text as important criteria, but were equally concerned with the transmission of a literally accurate message.”

4.2 Etienne Dolet (1509–46): Etienne Dolet, a French humanist, was one of the first theoretician, who tries to formulate translation theory, and who was found a heretic for his mistranslation of one of Plato’s dialogues. The Greek text (ST) Plato’s Axiochus stated that after a person dies, ‘there is nothing left’, which Dolet translated as: ‘there is nothing left at all’ (tu ne seras plus rien du tout) thus he put more emphasis in the target text rather than source text. The Church has interpreted it as denying the immortality of the soul and tried and executed him for heresy. Theo Harmens reflects upon Dolet’s short treatise (just over 1,000 words) titled, La manière de bien traduire d’une langue en aultre (How to Translate Well from one Language into Another), “It enjoys the honour of being the first general theoretical treatise on translation written in a West European vernacular. There are earlier texts in Latin, and there are also occasional texts, like prefaces, dedications and criticism, in various vernacular languages, but this is the first general reflection on translation in a European vernacular.”xii Susan Bassnett has summarised the principles of Dolet as follows:xiii

(1) The translator must fully understand the sense and meaning of the original author, although he is at liberty to clarify obscurities.

(2) The translator should have a perfect knowledge of both SL and TL.

(3) The translator should avoid word-for-word renderings.

(4) The translator should use forms of speech in common use.

(5) The translator should choose and order words appropriately to produce the correct tone.

Here, as we can understand, Dolet is stressing not only on sense-for-sense translation, but also on the fair understanding of the source language and culture as well as the target language and culture.

5. The Renaissance:

In the early years of the 15th C, Renaissance humanists insisted that the capacity to translate texts from Greek and Hebrew into Latin, and later into and between vernacular tongues, was a critical aspect of grammar and rhetoric.xiv

5.1 George Chapman (1559-1634):

George Chapman, the famous translator of Homer, restated the abovementioned Dolet’s principles in his dedication to the Seven Books (1598), “The work of a skilful and worthy translator is to observe the sentences, figures and forms of speech proposed in his author.” In the Epistle to the Reader of his translation of The Iliad he clarifies his position by sayingxv:

1. Avoid word-for-word rendering

2. Attempt to reach the ‘spirit’ of the original

3. Avoid over loose translations, by basing the translation on a sound scholarly investigation of other versions and glosses

Chapman had basically reiterated Dolet’s principles by giving importance to the understanding of the text.

5.2 Thomas Wyatt (1503–42) and Earl of Surrey (c. 1517–47): Towards the end of the sixteenth century, Wyatt and Surrey had enriched the status of poetic translation through the translations of Petrarch’s sonnets. Sometimes, Wyatt and Surrey keep close to the source text in Italian but quite often they show “faithfulness not to the words or sentences but to a notion of the poem in its relationship to the readers. In other words, the poem is perceived as an artefact of a particular cultural system, and the only faithful translation can be to give it a similar function in the target cultural system.”xvi

6. Seventeenth Century:

During seventeenth century we can see birth of influential translators cum theorists, i.e., Sir John Denham, Abraham Cowley and John Dryden. Undoubtedly Dryden became the face of the century by his classic triadic division of translation.

6.1 John Dryden (1631–1700): John Dryden, in his important ‘Preface’ to Ovid’s Epistles (1680), tackled the problems of translations by formulating three basic typesxvii:

(1) metaphrase, or turning an author word by word, and line by line, from one language into another;

(2) paraphrase, or translation with latitude, the Ciceronian ‘sense-for-sense’ view of translation;

(3) imitation, where the translator can abandon the text of the original as he sees fit.

In Dryden’s understanding, ‘metaphrase’ represented ‘word-for-word’ translation, ‘paraphrase’, ‘sense-for-sense’ translation, and ‘imitation’, ‘free’ translation. By adding a third dimension, that is to say, imitation, to the study and practice of translation, Dryden has (re)evaluated the theories established by the scholars dating from the times of Cicero and Horace.xviii Dryden criticizes translators, who adopt ‘metaphrase’ method, as being a ‘verbal copier’. Such ‘servile, literal’ translation is dismissed by Dryden. He says, ‘’Tis much like dancing on ropes with fettered legs – a foolish task.’ Similarly, Dryden rejects ‘imitation’, where the translator uses the ST ‘as a pattern to write as he supposes that author would have done, had he lived in our age and in our country’. ‘Imitation’, in Dryden’s view, allows the translator to become more visible, but does ‘the greatest wrong . . . to the memory and reputation of the dead’. Dryden considers the ‘paraphrase’ method of translation, which is in between the two extremes – ‘metaphrase’ and ‘imitation’ – as the best method of translation. ‘Paraphrase’ implies that the translator grasps the sense (apparently unique, without any possible ambiguous significations), and, without any possibility for error, decides the best way to re-express it in the reader’s language. This term also comes from the Greek "paraphrázō", i.e. "I express near". This triadic model proposed by Dryden had an immense impact on the later writers especially Pope.

6.2 John Denham (1615-69)

John Denham in his Preface to his translation of The Destruction of Troy (1656) sees translator and original writer as equals, but operating in different social and temporal context. The translator’s duty to his SL text, according to him, is to exact what he perceives as the essential core of the work and to reproduce or recreate the work in TL.xix

6.3 Abraham Cowley (1618-67)

Abraham Cowley in his‘Preface’ to his Pindarique Odes (1656) asserts that his translation aims not so much at letting the reader know precisely what the original author said as what was his way and manner of speaking.” Hence, it can be concluded that Cowley believes in free translation.xx

7. Eighteenth Century

Alexander Frazer Tytler (c. 1747–1813) published The Principles of Translation (1791), a systematic study of the translation process in English and stated the following principles:

1) The translation should give a complete transcript of the idea of the original work.

2) The style and manner of writing should be the same character with that of the original.

3) The translation should have all the ease of the original composition.xxi

The first two principles are basically hinting towards the age-old debate between word-for- word translation and sense-for-sense translation. The first principle indicates the translators to be faithful to the content of the original text whereas the second one is asking the translators to be free from the source text’s constraints. Lawrence Venuti argues that in the third principle, Tytler is asking for translator’s fluency and ease. Tytler’ book can be claimed to be the first detailed discussion of the questions involved.

8. Nineteenth Century:

The nineteenth century was characterized by two conflicting tendencies: (1) Translator as a creative genius; (2) Translator as a mechanical being.

8.1 Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768 – 1834)

In 1813, the theologian and translator Friedrich Schleiermacher wrote a highly influential treatise on translation, “Über die verschiedenen Methoden des Übersetzens” (On the different methods of translating). Distinct from the age-old debate over the ‘literal’ and ‘free’ translation, Schleiermacher first distinguished two different types of translator working on two different types of text. These are: (1) the ‘Dolmetscher’, who translates commercial texts; (2) the ‘Übersetzer’, who works on scholarly and artistic texts and then he contrasted the translatorial methods of ‘alienation’ and ‘naturalization’. Schleiermacher argued that, there are only two paths open for the ‘true’ translator: “Either the translator leaves the writer in peace as much as possible and moves the reader toward him, or he leaves the reader in peace as much as possible and moves the writer toward him.”xxii The first method, Schleiermacher’s preferred one, is called ‘alienation’ since it moves the reader towards the writer by means of utilizing “an ‘alienating’ method of translation, orienting himself or herself by the language and content of the ST. He or she must valorize the foreign and transfer that into the TL.” (Munday 29) The second one is defined as ‘naturalization’ since here the ST author is moving towards the TT reader as close as possible, by means of utilizing “an ‘naturalizing’ method of translation, that the TT reader thinks the translated text as an original text in TL. Lawrence Venuti argues that, according to Schleiermacher, “these two paths are so very different from one another that one or the other must certainly be followed as strictly as possible, any attempt to combine them being certain to produce a highly unreliable result and to carry with it the danger that writer and reader might miss each other completely”xxiii According to Lefevere, Schleiermacher advocated word-for-word literalism in elevated language (not colloquial) to produce an effect of foreignness in the translation: “the more closely the translation follows the turns taken by the original, the more foreign it will seem to the reader.”xxiv

9. Summary of the Module:

So from this module we have learnt how the theories of translation has evolved over the ages in the West from Roman to Victorian period and also in the post-Victorian era shows that there existed a consciousness among the western theorists regarding the practice and

discussion of different translation approaches which they tried to theorize. This trend was conspicuously absent among the Indian practitioners and therefore it is very difficult to develop a historiography of translation theory as such in the Indian context. If we follow the trajectory of the thoughts related to translation from the Roman period as discussed in the module we can see how translation theory gradually evolved and how one theorist adds on to the ideas of the preexisting theorists thereby enriching translation studies as a discipline.

i See Bassnett, Susan. Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge, 2002. Print. pg. 47. ii See Almanna, Ali. and Mohammed Farghal. Contextualizing Translation Theories: Aspects of Arabic–English Interlingual Communication. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2015. Print. pg. 1 – 2. iii See Robinson, Douglas. “Free Translation”, Mona Baker ed. Routledge Encyclopaedia of Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge, 2001. Print. pg. 87. iv as quoted in Bassnett, Susan. Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge, 2002. Print. pg. 51. v ibid. pg. 52. vi See Stanton, Robert. The Culture of Translation in Anglo-Saxon England. Suffolk: D.S.Brewer, 2002. Print. vii See Almanna, Ali and Mohammed Farghal. Contextualizing Translation Theories: Aspects of Arabic–English Interlingual Communication. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2015. Print. pg. 3. viii St. Jerome, Commentariorum in Isaiam libri xviii ix Bartina, Francesca and Carmen Millán. (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Translation Studies, London and New York: Routledge, 2013. Print. pg. 464. x See Bassnett, Susan. Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge, 2002. Print. pg. 54. xi Munday has reached to this conclusion from Bobrick, B. (2003) The Making of the English Bible, London: Phoenix. xii https://www.ucl.ac.uk/translation-studies/translation-in-history/documents/Hermans_pdf xiii See Bassnett, Susan. Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge, 2002. Print. pg. 61. xiv http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195399301/obo-9780195399301-0290.xml xv See As-Safu, A. B. Translation Theories, Strategies And Basic Theoretical Issues. xvi Bassnett, Susan. Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge, 2002. Print. pg. 63. xvii ibid. pg. 66. xviii http://translationtheories.blogspot.in/2007/10/week-2_9330.html xix See Bassnett, Susan. Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge. 2002. Print. pg. 65. xx ibid. pg. 66. xxi ibid. pg. 69. xxii Translated by André Lefevere in Translation, History, Culture. A Sourcebook, edited by André Lefevere London and New York: Routledge. 1992. Print. pg. 149. xxiii See Venuti, Lawrence. The Translation Studies Reader. London and New York: Routledge, 2012. Print. pg. 49. xxiv See Lefevere, André. ed. Translation/History/Culture: A Sourcebook. London and New York: Routledge, 1992. Print. pg. 155.