George
Steiner in his work “After Babel”, divides the history of translation into
four periods. The first starts from the
statements of Cicero and Horace on translation up to the publication of
Alexander Tytler’s “Essay on the Principles of Translation” in 1791. The chief features of this period is that it
gave importance to empirical focus. The
statements and theories about translation were directly from practical work of
translating. The second period runs up
to the publication of Larbaud’s “Sous I’invocation de Saint Jerome” in
1946. This period is characterized by
the development of vocabulary and methodology of approaching translation. The third period begins with machine
translation in the 1940s. The theories
in this period were characterized by structural linguistics and communication
theory. The fourth period starts
sometime from 1960s and is based on the metaphysical inquiries into translation
and interpretation.
This division of translation is highly
personal, because the first period covers a span of 1700 years while the last
two cover a mere thirty years.
Susan Bassnett divides the history
of translation in the following order, which is more extensive and conducive.
The Romans
Eric Jacobson claims that
translation is a Roman invention. Cicero
and Horace discuss more about translation.
They say that the two main functions of the translation are much similar
to the functions of a poet: the
universal human duty of acquiring and disseminating wisdom and the special art
of making and shaping a poem. The Romans
were popular translators because they were less creative. They were forced to translate so that they
could create their own literature. They
believed that with translation the SL is to be imitated and not to be crushed
by the too rigid application of reason.
They advocated sense for sense translation and not word for word. The Romans translated as a part of enriching
their literature than more of translation.
It is therefore believed that they had the habit of borrowing and even
coining words.
Bible Translation
With the spread of Christianity,
translation came to acquire another role, that of disseminating the word of
god. Christianity, which is a text based
religion presented the translator with a mission that encompassed both
aesthetic and evangelistic criteria.
Translation of the New Testament by
St. Jerome was commissioned by Pope Damasmus in 384 A.D. following Cicero, St. Jerome declared that he
had translated sense for sense rather than word for word. But the fine line between the stylistic
license and heretical interpretation was a stumbling block in the field of
translation.
In the 17th century,
Latin began to decline from the state of universal language. Problems intensified with the growth of
concepts of national cultures and reformations.
Transaltion came to be used as a weapon in religious and political
conflicts.
The first translation of the
complete Bible in English was the Wycliffe Bible produced between 1380 and 1384. This marked the start of great flowering of
the English Bible translations linked to the chaging attitudes to the role of
the written text in the church.
John Wycliff was a famous theologian
from Oxford. He put forward the theory
of dominion by grace, that is man is responsible to god and his law. This theory also meant that the Bible was
applicable to all human life and each man should be granted access to that
crucial text in a language that he could understand. Though Wycliff had some followers, they were
denounced as ‘lollards’. But the idea
was maintained by Purvey. Purvey revised
the first edition before 1408.
The second Wycliff Bible contains a
prologue, which describes the following four stages of translation process:
1.
A collaborative effort of
collecting old Bibles and glosses and establishing an authentic latin source
text.
2.
A comparison of the versions
3.
Counseling with the old
grammarians about hard words and complex meanings
4.
Translating as clearly as
possible the sentence, that is the meaning
Purvey too states clearly that the
translator should translate after the sentence and the meaning should be
plain. He said that text must be used by
laymen. But it was said that ‘the pearl
was cast before swine.’
In the 16th century with
the advent of printing the history of Bible, translation acquired new
dimensions. William Tyndale translated New
Testament in 1525 and printed. His
intention was also to offer a clear version as possible to the layman. But he was burnt alive, because he had translated
the new testament from Greek and Hebrew.
In 16th century, Bible
was translated into large number of European languages. Hebrew Bible appeared in 1488, Erasmus
published first Greek New Testament in 1516 and Martin Luther published the
German version in 1522.
Early Theorists
With the invention of printing press
in the fifteenth century serious attempts were made to formulate theory of
translation. One of the first writers to
come out with translation theory is a French humanist, Etienne Dolet. He published a short outline of translation
principles in “How to translate well from one language to another”. He established five principles for the
translator:
1.
The translator must fully
understand the sense and meaning the original author.
2.
The translator must 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.
George Chapman while translating Homer
stresses and emphasizes Dolet’s views.
Chapman states that a translator must:
·
Avoid word for word renderings
·
Attempt to reach the spirit of
the original
·
Avoid over loose translations
The Renaissance
Reformation was a major reason for
translation during the renaissance.
During these period the translators concentrated on the affirmation of
the present through the use of contemporary idiom and style. They also frequently replace the indirect
speech with that of the direct speech.
In poetry, the translations of Wyatt and Surrey led critics to describe
their translations as adaptations but his is misleading. Their translations were not faithful the
roginal words but to the notion of meaning of the poem.
The Seventeenth Century
In 17th century the
French people were busy translating the classics. Sir John Denham whose theory of translation
was expressed in his preface to his translation of “The Destruction of Troy”
covers both the formal aspect and the spirit of the work. Denham considers the original author and the
translator as equals but operating in a clearly different social and temporal
contexts. Abraham Cowley in his preface
to his “Pindaique Odes” says boldly that he added and deleted words as he wished.
John Dryden in his preface to “Ovid’s
Epistles” formulates three types of translation:
§
Metaphrase – word for word
translation
§
Paraphrase – sense for sense
translation
§
Imitation – translator can
abandon the original text as he sees it fit
Of the three Dryden chooses the
second as the best.
18th Century
Dr. Johnson in his work “Life of
Pope” has advocated that a translator can add something to the original work of
art while translating. This addition is
possible and allowed only when it leads to the elegance of the work. During 18th century a translator
is called as a painter or imitator. The
translator has a moral duty both to the SLT and the receiver. Goethe, an eminent scholar of the 18th
century, said that every literature must pass through three phases of
translation:
·
Epoch – acquaints us with
foreign countries on our own terms
·
Appropriation through
substitution and reproduction, where the translator absorbs the sense of a
foreign work but reproduces it in his own terms
·
The highest part of translation
is one which aims for perfect identity between the SL text and the TL text, and
the achieving of this mode must be through the creation of a new manner which
fuses the uniqueness of the original with a new form and structure.
Alexander Fraser Tytler in his work
“Principles of Translation” comes out with three principles of translation:
1.
The translation should give
complete transcript of the idea of the original work.
2.
The style and manner of writing
should be of the same character with that of the original.
3.
The translation should have all
the ease of the original composition.
Tytler is against Dryden’s concept
of paraphrase, because it leads to loose translation. Tytler says that a translator is a painter
but he should not use the same colours of the original painter.
Romantic Age
Coleridge in his “Biographia
Literaria” talks about the concepts of imagination and fancy. Though these two concepts belong to the
understanding of literature it was also applied in the field of translation. It gave rise to the problem whether
translation is a creative or a mechanical process. Friedrich Schlegal said that translation is a
category of thought than something associated with language and literature.
Post Romanticism
Friedrich Schleiermacher insisted in
creating a new sub-language for the use in translating literature only. D.G. Rossetti insisted in the translator’s
subservience to the forms and the language of the original. Oscar Wilde commented on William Morris’
translation of “Odyssey” and “Aeneid” as a “true work of art, a rendering not
merely of language into language but of poetry into poetry.”
The Victorians
The Victorians were keen on the fact
that a translation need to convey the remoteness of the orginal in time and
place. Translation was considered as an
activity that enriches the intellectual and cultivated reader on moral and
aesthetic grounds. Matthew Arnold in his
lecture “On Translating Homer” said that a translator is a scholar and he must
be evaluated by a lay reader. Henry
Wadsworth Longfellow compared a translator with a technician rather than a poet
or a commentator. Edward Fitzgerald is
known for his “The Rubayat of Omar Khayyam”.
He considers the SL as a clay and a translator moulds it into the
TL. Translator is considered as a live
sparrow than a stuffed eagle. Eugene
Nida advocated the spirit of exlusivism in translation. Translator is a skillful merchant offering
exotic wares to the discerning few.
Conclusion
To sum up the history of translation
from the age of colonial expansion to the first world war, it could be done as
follows:
1)
Translation as a scholar’s
activity, where the pre-eminence of the SL text is assumed de facto over any TL
2)
Translation as a means of
encouraging the intelligent reader to return to the SL original
3)
Translation as a means of helping
the TL reader become the equal of the original, through deliberately contrived
foreignness in the TL text
4)
Translation as a means whereby
the individual translator who sees himself enchanted offers his own pragmatic
choice the TL reader
5)
Translation as a means through
which the translator who seeks to upgrade the status fo the SL text because it
is perceived as being on a lower cultural level
