Mona Baker & Gabriela Saldanha. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (2nd edition)

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Page348

oftheirreaders.Hencetheyreplacedtheirliteraltranslation,asless‘open’to

understanding,byalater,slightlyfreertranslation.Therewerefewprecedentsin

BibletranslationintheMiddleEnglishperiodtosuggestthisapproach.Most

translationsparaphrasedthetextand/orincludedsecondarymaterial;

alternativelyandexceptionally,theRollePsalter,thoughincludinganextensive

commentary,translatedtheBibleversesveryliterally.Comparisonwiththese

otherversionsshowstheconsiderableachievementoftheWycliffitetranslations.

Ecclesiasticalreactionwasswiftanddecisive.By1409theArchbishopof

CanterburyhadforbiddenthemakinganduseofallunlicensedBible

translations;thereaftertheWycliffitesmostlyoperatedclandestinely.The

prohibitionironicallyprecededaconsiderableincreaseintherangeandvariety

ofothertranslatedtextsinthefifteenthcentury,increasinglyinprose,bynamed

translators.Twonamesmustsufficetosuggestthisrange.Inaround1440

RobertParkerproducedatranslationofPalladiuswhichhispatron,Humphrey

DukeofGloucester,correctedindraft,havingcommissionedit,withothers,as

partofaprojectto‘enrichEnglishletters’(Pearsall1977:240);about1470

MalorycompletedhisMorteD’Arthur,aworkpartlyfromFrench,partlyfrom

anearlierEnglishwork,andpartlyoriginal.TheMortewaspublishedin1485

byWilliamCaxton,withwhoseworkwedrawtowardstheRenaissance.

Thesixteenthandearlyseventeenthcenturies:Reformationand

Renaissance

IfCaxton’spresseshadimmediatepracticaleffectsonthetransmissionof

vernaculartexts,thetranslationsoftheWycliffiteBibleandChaucerindicatethe

twoareasinwhichtranslationactivityreallytookoffinthesixteenthcentury–in

particular,duringthefirsttenyearsofElizabethI’sreign(1558–68),whenfour

timesasmanytranslationswereproducedasinthefiftypreviousyears

(Barnstone1993:203):theBibleandclassicalliterature.Thankstotheerratic

butpowerfulsupportofthemonarchy,translationhelpedforgeanational

identitybothEnglishand(religiouslyandintellectually)reformed.Inthisproject,

Bibletranslation,muchofitpublishedabroad,playsacrucialrole.

Bibletranslations

IntherunuptoandaftermathofHenryVIII’sbreakwithRome,thepressure

forreligiousreform,originatingoncemoreinclericalcircles,ledtoanexplosion

ofBibletranslations.ThefirstandmostimportantwasWilliamTyndale’s

translationoftheNewTestament(1525),basedforthefirsttimeontheGreek

editionofDesideriusErasmus(1516;seedutchtradition).Facedwiththe

ongoingbanonvernacularBibletranslations,TyndaletravelledtotheContinent

topublishit.In1526itenteredEnglandillegally(Daniell1994).

WithinadecaderelationshadaltereddramaticallybetweenHenryVIIIandthe

papacy,andlargenumbersofvernacularBibleswerecirculatinginEngland.

TheseincludedpiratededitionsofTyndale’sNewTestamentandhis1534

revision;MilesCoverdale’scompleteBible,publishedinZurichin1535andin

Englandin1537;andaBibleissuedbyJohnRogersunderthepseudonymof

JohnMatthew(Antwerp,1537),basedonTyndaleandCoverdale.In1539a

revisionoftheRogersBibleappeared,byRichardTaverner,intheyearthat

ThomasCromwell,HenryVIII’sVicarGeneral,appointedCoverdaleto

overseetheprintingoftheBible.ThetitlepageofCoverdale’snewedition,the

Great(1539),showedHenryVIIIhandingBiblestoCromwellandArchbishop

Cranmertodistributetoagratefulcrowd(Wilson1976:70;King1982:192):a

clearrepresentationoftheinvolvementofthestateinthepublicationofBible

translations.

Fromthenuntilthe1611version,awholeseriesofBibletranslationswas

produced,theresultsofthe‘wishesandcounterwishes’(Kitagaki1981:45)of

Henry’sProtestantandCatholicsuccessors.AmongsttheProtestantswhofled

totheContinentaftertheaccessionofQueenMaryin1553wereateamof

translatorswhoproducedtheGenevaBible.Thistranslationwasthemost

widelyreadbookinElizabethanEngland(Jensen1995:31),reprintedaslateas

Page349

1715andusedevenbythosewhofavouredthe1611Bible(Norton1993),

althoughepiscopaloppositionpreventeditsprintinginEnglanduntil1575:by

thentheBishopshadattemptedunsuccessfullytoreplaceitwithaneditionof

theirown,theBishops’Bible(1568),arevisionoftheGreatBible(Norton

1993:I.116).

Lastly,KingJamesIconvenedaconferenceatHamptonCourtin1604,at

whichagreementwasgiventoaproposalforthecreationofanewtranslation

whichwouldbe,inthewordsoftheproposer,JohnReynolds,‘answerableto

thetruthoftheOriginall’(Kitagaki1981:48).Although,unliketheGreatand

Bishops’Bibles,thisBiblewasneverofficiallyauthorized(Wilson1976:147),

theKing,withBishopBancroft,gaveasetofrulesforitsmakingtosixteamsof

translators.Itwastobearevision,ratherthananewtranslation;traditional

readings(principally,thoseoftheBishops’Bible)shouldbepreservedasfaras

possible;doctrinaltendentiousnesswastobechecked,andaccuracyachieved,

throughamultiplecheckingsystemwithinandbetweencommittees.Themood

wasoneofconciliationratherthan,asbefore,ofcontestation,andthe

translatorsusedthemanytranslationsfromTyndaleonwardstocreate,in

Reynolds’swords,‘outofmanygood[Bibles]…oneprincipallgood

one’(Kitagaki1981:63):the1611Bible.Ofcourse,thehugesuccessofthis

versionowesasmuchtoeconomicandpoliticalastoliteraryinterests(Norton

1993:I.212ff.).

MeanwhileexiledCatholicshadalsoproducedavernacularBible,knownas

theRheims–Douaiversion(1582–1610).Theprefaceexplainsthatthis

‘Catholictranslation’preciselyfollowsthe‘oldvulgarapprovedLatin’(Jones

1966:111).RevisedintheeighteenthcenturybyBishopChalloner,andagainin

thenineteenth,itremainedtheofficialtranslationforRomanCatholicsuntilthe

twentiethcentury.Throughoutthatperiodthe‘oldvulgarapprovedLatin’was

anintegralpartofRomanCatholicselfdefinition;ifweexcepttranslationsfrom

theGreekin1836andfromGreekandHebrewin1935–49,theVulgate

remainedthebaseforCatholictranslationsuntiltheappearanceoftheJerusalem

Bibleinthe1960s:itslastgreatmonumentisthetranslationofit(1945–49)by

RonaldKnox(Dayras1993:44–59).

Classicalandothersecularliterature

Althoughthetranslator’sdutieswerelessstringentinrelationtosecularthanto

sacredtexts,thetranslationofsecularmaterialduringthesixteenthandearly

seventeenthcenturiesrunsbroadlyparalleltothatoftheBibleduringthisperiod.

Latinwasstillthemainlanguageofscholarship,butonemajordifference

betweenthesixteenthcenturyandearlierperiodsisthedirectinfluenceofGreek

literature.TranslationsofDemosthenes,Homer,IsocratesandPlutarchoccur

frequently,oftenbywayofanintermediatesource:thusSirThomasNorth’s

translationofPlutarch’sLives(1579)wasbasedonJacquesAmyot’sFrench

translation.

AswiththeBibletranslations,differenttranslationsofthesameseculartext

werefrequentlyincompetitionwitheachother,aneconomicrivalryassociated

withtheincreaseinthepublishingtrade.ThusThomasPeendcomplains,inthe

prefacetohisHermaphroditusandSalmacis(1564),fromOvid’s

Metamorphoses,aboutArthurGolding’shavingforestalledhimwitha

translationofthecompletetext.Moreover,translatorsoftendiscusstheirwork

intermsofcontestation:PhilemonHolland,the‘translatorgeneral’oftheage,

describedhisenterpriseasaconquest(Sampson1941:145).Secular

translationswereoftenthesiteofadebatebothongoingandancient(and

regularlyfocusedbythequestionofBibletranslation)abouttheadequacyofthe

vernaculartotransmittherichesofclassicallearning,whetherGreek,Latin,or

evenoftheotherEuropeanvernaculars.

Otherssawthetranslativetask,bycontrast,asapatrioticacttoimprovethe

culturalpositionoftheEnglishnation.NicholasGrimald,bytranslatingCicero’s

ThreBokesofDuties(1556),wantedto‘dolikewiseformycountrimen:as

Italians,Spaniardes,Dutchmen,andotherforeinshaveliberallydonefor

theyrs’(Jones1966:44).NotonlyGreekandRomanauthorsweretranslated.

NorthtranslatedtheFablesofBidpai(c.1589)fromanintermediateItalian

versionoftheArabic.OthertranslatorsturnedtoEuropeanlanguages:

AlexanderBarclay’sShypof…Folys(1509)wastranslated,bywayof

Locher’sLatinversion,from