TranslationTheoriesbeforetheTwentiethCenturyContentsLiteralorfreetranslation?Schleiermacher’stheorizationVictoriancontroversy4.BibletranslationsMarcusTulliusCicero

(106-43BC)Ciceroopposedword-for-wordtranslationandunderlinedthattranslatorsshouldnotact“asaninterpreter,butasanorator,keepingthesameideasandtheforms”.Thepopularityofatranslationrestsonitscaptureoftheoriginalstyleandforceinsteadofindiscriminaterepresentation,anditshouldnotbecountedout“tothereaderslikecoins”butbepaid“byweight”.Horacedidnotthinkitnecessaryto“worryaboutrenderingwordforword”.Hewouldrather“rendersenseforsense”.Hefavoredatranslator’sfaithfulnessandobjectedtoword-for-wordtransfer.？InthelastChineseparagraphinp.7ofthehandout,therearethreereasonsforflexiblemethodsinancientRome.Whatarethey?FlaccusQuintusHoratiusHorace(65-8BC)aChristianasceticandBiblicalscholarHetranslatedGreekOldTestamentintoLatinandtheNewTestamentfromHebrewintothepopular,non-literaryLatin.Heproposedthetermsense-for-sense.“intranslatingfromtheGreek…Irendernotwordforword,butsenseforsense.”？Arethereanyreasonsforthepriorityoffreetranslation?Inotherwords,howshallwejustifyJerome’sstandpointsbasedontheparagraph?(p.20)St.Jerome(342-420)SeventeenthCentury1.AbrahamCowley:Imitation?WhydidCowleydefendimitation?Whatishismajorreason?(p.24)Next>>2.JohnDrydenoftenseenasthefirstsystematictranslationtheoristinthewest.Atranslatorhastherightnottocopywordforwordincasethespiritintheoriginalislost,butthedecencyoffreedomisindispensable.Atranslatorshould“entirelyandperfectlycomprehendthegeniusandsenseofhisauthor,thenatureofthesubject,andthetermsoftheartorsubjecttreatedof”sothattheadaptationwouldnot“injuretheauthor”.Threecategories:p24-25verbalcopier？Servile,literaltranslation？Dancingonropeswithfetteredlegs？3.AlexanderFraserTytler(1747——1814)EssayonthePrinciplesoftranslation(1797)agoodtranslation3principles:Howtotranslate??Couldweregardthethirdmaximassimilarwith嚴復’s“雅”？(p.26)ComparativeimportanceNineteenthCenturySchleiermacherTwotypesoftranslatorworking(p.27)Realquestion(p.27)Twopaths(p.27)Naturalizingvs.alienating(p.28)Tovalorizetheforeign(p.28)BackgroundinformationIn1813,duringtheNapoleonicwars,FriedrichSchleiermacher’slectureUeberdieVerschiedenenMethodendesUebersetzens(“OntheDifferentMethodsofTranslating”)viewedtranslationasanimportantpracticeinthePrussiannationalistmovement:itcouldenrichtheGermanlanguagebydevelopinganeliteliteratureandthusenableGermanculturetorealizeitshistoricaldestinyofglobaldomination.Andyet,surprisingly,Schleiermacherproposedthisnationalistagendabytheorizingtranslationasthelocusofculturaldifference,notthehomogeneitythathisideologicalconfigurationmightimply,andthat,invarious,historicallyspecificforms,haslongprevailedinEnglish-languagetranslation,BritishandAmerican.Hermeneuticangle“Thegenuinetranslator”isawriter“Whowantstobringthosetwocompletelyseparatedpersons,hisauthorandhisreader,trulytogether,andwhowouldliketobringthelattertoanunderstandingandenjoymentoftheformerascorrectandcompleteaspossiblewithoutinvitinghimtoleavethesphereofhismothertongue”.“Thereaderofthetranslationwillbecometheequalofthebetterreaderoftheoriginalonlywhenheisablefirsttoacquireanimpressionoftheparticularspiritoftheauthoraswellasthatofthelanguageinthework”.Lefevere,A.(ed.andtrans.)(1977)TranslatingLiterature:TheGermanTraditionfromLuthertoRosenzweig,Assen:VanGorcum.?shouldagenuinetranslatorapplyparaphrase,imitation,orsomethingelse?(P.136-138,handouts)SchleiermacherandVenutiForeignizationvs.Domestication“Thetranslatormustthereforetakeashisaimtogivehisreaderthesameimageandthesamedelightwhichthereadingoftheworkintheoriginallanguagewouldaffordanyreadereducatedinsuchawaythatwecallhim,inthebettersenseoftheword,theloverandtheexpert,thetypeofreaderwhoisfamiliarwiththeforeignlanguagewhileityetalwaysremainsforeigntohim:henolongerhastothinkeverysinglepartinhismothertongue,asschoolboysdo,beforehecangraspthewhole,butheisstillconsciousofthedifferencebetweenthatlanguageandhismothertongue,evenwhereheenjoysthebeautyoftheforeignworkintotalpeace”.OnthebasisofSchleiermacher(1838)’sinclinationto“leavethewriterinpeaceasmuchaspossibleandbringthereadertohim”(qtd.inVenuti1995:19-20,cf.Sch?ffner1999:5),Venutihasdistinguishedforeignizationfromdomestication.“Schleiermacherallowedthetranslatortochoosebetweendomesticationmethod,anethnocentricreductionoftheforeigntexttotarget-languageculturalvalue,bringingtheauthorbackhome,andforeignizationmethod,anethnodeviantpressureonthesevaluestoregisterthelinguisticandculturaldifferenceoftheforeigntext,sendingthereaderabroad”.(Venuti1995:21)Schleiermacher:“Itisanactthatrunscountertobothnatureandmoralitytobecomeadesertertoone’sownmothertongueandtogiveoneselftoanother”.Venuti：“itwouldseemthatforeignizingtranslationdoesnotsomuchintroducetheforeignintoGermancultureasusetheforeigntoconfirmanddevelop…anidealculturalselfonthebasisof…aculturalnarcissism[ofSchleiermacher]”.Newman&ArnoldControversyNewman:foreigness,archaismArnold:transparency，winner，scholars’authorityBassnett’scriticism:elitismandmarginalizationNewman’sIdeasFrancisNewman(1805-1897),theaccomplishedbrotheroftheCardinal.Inthe1850s,NewmanchallengedthemainlineofEnglish-languagetranslation,arguing“Cowper’sattempttotranslateHomerhadprovedasgreatafailureasPope’s”andsuggestingthat“asensiblechangeistakingplace,fromourrecentacquaintancewiththeextenttowhichtheGermanshavecarriedpoeticaltranslation”(Newman1851:371).Newman’stheoryofforeignizationrequiresthestandardsoftransparentdiscourse,butalsofromanArnoldianconceptofthenationalculturethatfavorsanacademicelite.HewasthefirstinasmallgroupofVictoriantranslatorswhodevelopedforeignizingstrategiesandopposedtheEnglishregimeoffluentdomestication.Newman,F.W.1851.“RecentTranslationsofClassicalPoets,”

ProspectiveReview,7(August):369-403.“Inmanypassagesitisofmuchvaluetorendertheoriginallinebyline(Newman1856:viii-ix)Schleiermacher:‘themorecloselythetranslationsfollowstheturnstakenbytheoriginal,themoreforeignitwillseemtothereader”.(Lefevere1977:78)IntheprefacetohisversionoftheIliad,heofferedaconciseaccountofhistranslationmethodbycontrastingitwithfluent,domesticatingmethodthatdominatedEnglishtranslationsincetheseventeenthcenturyOneoftheseis,thatthereaderought,ifpossible,toforgetthatitisatranslationatall,andbelulledintotheillusionthatheisreadinganoriginalwork.Ofcourseanecessaryinferenceformsuchadogmais,thatwhateverhasaforeigncolourisundesirableandisevenagravedefect.Thetranslator,itseems,mustcarefullyobliterateallthatischaracteristicoftheoriginal,unlessithappenstobeidenticalinspirittosomethingalreadyfamiliarinEnglish.FromsuchanotionIcannottoostronglyexpressmyintensedissent.Iamatpreciselytheopposite;toretaineverypeculiarityoftheoriginal,sofarasIamable,withthegreatercare,themoreforeignitmayhappentobe,whetheritbeamatteroftaste,ofintellect,orofmorals.[…]theEnglishtranslatorshoulddesirethereaderalwaystorememberthathisworkisanimitation,andmoreoverisinadifferentmaterial;thattheoriginalisforeign,andinmanyrespectsextremelyunlikeournativecompositions.ComparedtoSchleiermacher,Newmanenlistedtranslationinamoredemocraticculturalpolitics,assignedapedagogicalfunctionbutpitcheddeliberatelyagainstanacademicelite.Newmanarguedfordecentralizedgovernment,landnationalization,women’ssuffrage,theabolitionofslavery.HecriticizedEnglishcolonialism,recommendinggovernmentreformsthatwouldallowthecolonizedtoenterthepoliticalprocess.IntheprefacetohisIliad,NewmandefinedmorepreciselythesortofarchaismHomerrequired.“TheentiredialectofHomerbeingessentiallyarchaic,thatofatranslationoughttobeasmuchSaxo-Normanaspossible,andoweaslittleaspossibletotheelementsthrownintoourlanguagebyclassicallearning.”(Newman1856:vi).Homer’s“style”requiredalikesolution:“itissimilartotheoldEnglishballad,andisinsharpcontrasttothepolishedstyleofPope,Sotheby,andCowper,thebestknownEnglishtranslatorsofHomer”(ibid.:iv).Newman,F.W.(ed.andtrans.)1856.TheIlliadofHomer,London:WaltonandMaberly.ButNewman’sarchaismwasattackedfordeviatingtoofarfromthefamiliar,thetransparent:“WecannotbutconsiderthatMr.Newman’sdictionisneedlesslyantiquatedanduncouth;andthat,althoughhehasnotadmittedanyexpressionswhichareunintelligiblefromtheirantiquity,hehasomittedtoobservethefurthercaution,thatarchaismshouldnotappearplainlytobeconstrainedorassumed,lestalaboured,artificialstyleofEnglishshouldsuggesttheideaofalaboured,artificialstyleofGreek…”MatthewArnold’sAttackOnTranslatingHomer(1861)“itmaybesaidofthatunionofthetranslatorwithhisoriginal,whichalonecanproduceagoodtranslation,thatittakesplacewhenthemistwhichstandsbetweenthemthemistofalienmodesofthinking,speaking,andfeelingonthetranslator’spart”defecatestoapuretransparency,”anddisappears.”Arnold,M.1960.OntheClassicaltradition,ed.R.H.Super,AnnArbor:UniversityofMichiganPress.“SoessentiallycharacteristicofHomerishisplainnessandnaturalnessofthought,thattothepreservationofthisinhisownversionthetranslatormustwithoutscruplesacrifice,whereitisnecessary,verbalfidelitytohisoriginal,ratherthanrunanyriskofproducing,byliteralness,anoddandunnaturaleffect”.(1960:157-158)Newman’s“manner”was“eminentlyignoble,whileHomer’smanneriseminentlynoble”(ibid.:103).Newman’sarchaismdeviatedformtheacademicreadingofHomer.“WhyareMr.Newman'slinesfaulty?Theyarefaulty,first,because,asamatterofdictio,theexpressions“Ogentlefriend”,“eld,”“insooth,”

“liefly,”

“advance,”

“man-ennobling,”

“sith,”

“any-gait,”and“slyoffoot,”areallbad;someofthemworsethanothers,butallbad:thatis,theyallofthemashereusedexciteinthescholar,theirsolejudge,excite…afeelingtotallydifferentfromthatexcitedinthembythewordsofHomerwhichtheseexpressionsprofesstorender.”(ibid.:133).“theballad-styleandtheballad-measureareeminentlyinappropriatetorenderHomer.Homer’smannerandmovementarealwaysbothnobleandpowerful:theballad-mannerandmovementareofteneitherjauntyandsmart,sonotnoble;orjog-trotandhumdrum,sonotpowerful”(ibid.:128)Newman’sreplyNewman’s“soleobjectis,tobringHomerbeforetheunlearnedpublic”(Newman1861:6).“Mr.Arnolddeprecatesappealtopopulartaste:wellhemay!Yetiftheunlearnedaretobeouraudience,wecannotdefythem.Imyself,beforeventuringtoprint,soughttoascertainhowunlearnedwomenandchildrenwouldacceptmyverses.Icoldboasthowchildrenandhalf-educatedwomenhaveextolledthem;howgreedilyaworkingmanhasinquiredforthem,withoutknowingwhowasthetranslator.“(ibid.:12-13).“Itisessentiallyanoblemetre,apopularmetre,ametreofgreatcapacity.Itisessentiallythenationalballadmetre”(ibid.:22).

Newman,F.W.(1861).HomericTranslationinTheoryandPractice.AReplytoMatthewArnold,Esq.,LondonandEdinburgh:WilliamandNorgate.Atpresentwehavenothingbuteccentricity,andarbitrarylikingsanddislikings.Ourliteratureshowsnoregardfordignity,noreverenceforlaw…Thepresentballad-maniaisamongtheresultsofthislicentiousness.(NorthBritishReview1862:348).“UnquestionablyMr.ArnoldisrightinplacingHomerinaverydifferentclassfromtheballad-poetswithwhomhehasfrequentlybeencompared.Theballad,initsmoreperfectform,belongstoarudestateofsocietytoatimewhenideaswerefew.ThiscannotbesaidofHomer.HisveryexistenceissufficientproofofasocialdevelopmentquiteequaltothatofShakespeare’stime,thoughfarsimplerinitsform”.hisunrhymedballadmetrehisquaintflatdictionhislaughtermovingepithetsan“unluckyburlesque”“themongrelballadmeasureofmodernGreece,aparticularlyinappropriatechoiceforHomer’spurenobility.Arnold’svictory“HisessayhasachievedundeservedimmortalityonlybybeingprintedinseveralmoderneditionsofArnold’sessays…:readerswhowishtoseewhatprovokedthebestofArnold’sHomericlecturesmayfinditinoneofthosevolumes.(Arnold1960:249).LessonsfromtheDebatePopulartaste“WhileIprofesstowritefortheunlearnedEnglishreader,yetImustnecessarilybejudgedbyclassicalscholarsonthequestionoffidelityandcorrectness.”(Newman1853:vi).Literalness≠foreignizationBiblicaltranslationProtestantism16thCentury(1536-1546)3translatorwarriors:étinneDoletWilliamTyndaleMartinLutherétienneDoletTragicexperiencesLaManieredebienTraduired’unelangueenaultre(TheWayofTranslatingWellfromOneLanguageintoAnother)fiveprinciplesWilliamTyndaleEnglishversionChristiantextsTheTorahImprisonmentin1535“IwoulddesirethatallwomenshouldreadethegospelandPaulesepistelesandIwoldtoGodtheyweretranslatedintothetongesofallmensothattheymightnotonlybereadandknowneofthescotesandyrishmen”.MartinLutherfatherofthemodernGermanlanguage“Dearfriend,nowit’sinGermanandfinished;anyonecanreadandstudythetext;youcanletyoureyesrunoverthreeorfourpageswithouteverhittingonasnag;andyoudon’tevennoticet