Paper 15: Module 02: E-Text
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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 1 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 2 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: 3 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 4 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 5 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.