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

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Page353

twoworksbyEsquiros,whohadhelpedwiththeHugo.Theseproductionsare,

admittedly,ofvaryingsignificance.TheLyttelton–Gladstoneventure–as

Newmannoted,amateurwork,consistingofsetpiecetranslations–wasvery

differentfromWraxall’sadventureyarns.AlongsideRossetti’sfinelynuanced

awarenessthat‘atranslation…remainsperhapsthemostdirectformof

commentary’(Rossetti1911),Wraxallwascuttinganobsceneexpression

‘whichmaybehistoricalbutisdisgusting’(and,sincethefollowingchapter

‘consist[ed]ofaglorificationofthisabominableword’,cuttingthattoo)

(Wraxall1862).Moreover,theHomertranslationswerepartofabooming

industry:areviewerofMorris’sAeneid(1875;Faulkner1973:216)notedthe

regularityoftheirpublication.

Inevitably,theforegoingaccountomitsimportantnamesandtexts:the

orientalizersEdwardFitzgerald,RobertBurton,JamesLegge(whotranslated

fromChinese)andMaxMüller(fromSanskrit);LadyCharlotteGuest

(Mabinogi);revisionsofthe1611andReims–DouaiBibles,themostimportant

oftheformer(1881–95)knownastheRevisedVersion;EleanorMarx

Aveling,andtheIbsentranslatorsWilliamArcherandEdmundGosse.

ItalsoomitsArnold’sOnTranslatingHomer(1861)which,likePopeand

Cowperbeforehim,criticizedseveraltranslationsofHomer,includingthoseof

Wright(1859–65)andNewman(1856),thelatteralreadyunderattackfora

translationofHorace(Venuti1995a:124–7).Bothrepliedinkind;Arnold

repliedtothelatterinLastWords(1862).Foralltheirdifferences(ibid.:118–

46),ArnoldandNewmanwerebothchildrenoftheRomanticrevolution.Both

sharedwithmostoftheircontemporariestheRomanticviewofthetranslator’s

‘duty…tobefaithful’(Newman)totheoriginal,asthetranslatorsofthe1611

Biblehadbeen(Arnold),andofthenecessary‘unionofatranslatorwithhis

original’inagoodtranslation(Arnold).Theirdisagreement,then,waslessabout

endsthanaboutmeans.ForArnold,sinceHomerisaclassic,thetranslation

shouldadoptthelanguageofthatundoubtedclassic,the1611Bible.Itsmetre,

however,shouldreplicatetheoriginal’shexameters.Newman,whosawHomer

asprimitiveandpopular,usedballadmetreandwhathecalleda‘Saxo

Norman’languageandalaterwriter‘WardourStreetEnglish’(Venuti1995a:

141–2;Kelly1979).AgainstArnold’sbiblicalmodel,Newman’swasofthe

missionarywhosetranslationforthe‘Feejees’retainedthephrase‘Lambof

God’andriskedunintelligibility.

Thisprotractedandlargelypointlessexerciseinironyandacrimonycastlong

shadows.Arnold’sauthoritywaswidelyacknowledgedinthenineteenth

century(andwellintothetwentieth);hisrecommended‘KingJamesEnglish’

wasadoptedbyBenjaminJowettandAndrewLang.Newman’spracticewas

largelyignored.But,asVenuti(1995a)notes,itrepresentsanimportant

tendencyinnineteenthcenturytranslation,oneanticipatedbythemedievalizing

translationsofRobertSouthey,andechoedinRobertBrowning’sAgamemnon

(Robinson1991:245)andtheverydifferentworkofMorrisandRossetti,to

‘foreignize’theoriginal(Venuti1995a:20)andmakereadersconsciousofthe

gapbetweentheirowncultureandtheOtherwhichtheoriginalembodies.This

distinctionbetweenrecessive‘foreignizing’anddominant‘domesticating’strains

oftranslationresemblesanothermaderegularlyinthenineteenthcentury–inthe

prefacesofCary,Birch,MrsRamsay,NewmanandArnold–betweenwhat

JohnBensonRosecalled‘scholar’stranslations’(GreekDramas,1867–72)

andthosedestinedforthecommonreader,adistinctionwithclearechoesofthe

theorizingsofGermanRomanticism.

Thepresent

Thetwentiethcentury,andbeyond,owesmuchofitsagenda,inrespectof

translation,totheassumptionsandpracticeofthenineteenth.Foreignclassics

havecontinuedtobetranslatedinpopularimprintswhichappealtoan

increasinglymonolingualreadership,suchasWorld’sClassics(1901),

Everyman(1906–),Loeb(1912–),andPenguinClassics(1946–),thelast

nameddistinguishedbyitsdecisiontocommissionnewtranslationsofall

publishedworks.ImportanttranslationshavebeenproducedbyConstance

GarnettandMaxHayward(Russianclassics),ArthurWaley(Chinesepoetry),

HelenWaddell(medievalLatinlyrics),W.ScottMoncrieffandE.V.Rieu

(Greekclassics).Duringtheperiod1948–86,accordingtotheIndex

Translationum,

Page354

literarytranslationsofthissortaccountedfor35percentofalltranslations

publishedinBritain.

Similarly,thenineteenthcentury‘foreignizing’translationsbyprofessional

poetshavetheirequivalentsinthetwentiethcentury,aboveall,inthetranslations

oftheAmericanbornEzraPound.ForeignizingtranslationsinBritainincludethe

adaptationsofGreekandRomandramabyTedHughes(Seneca’sOedipus,

1969)andTonyHarrison(Aeschylus’sOresteia,1981).

Translationisnowmoreprofessionallyorganizedthaneverbefore.Translation

agencieshavesprungupinlargenumbers;academicandprofessionalcourses

andqualificationsarebecomingtheorderofthedayinBritain,especiallyat

postgraduatelevel.Moreimportantly,aparadigmshifthastakenplaceinthe

understandingoftranslationitselfasaphenomenonsincethe1970s.Terry

Eagleton’sreviewessay‘TranslationandTransformation’(1977)illustratesthis

shift.ThemainthrustofEagleton’saccount,inthelightof‘recentsemiotic

enquiry’,istounderminetheoppositionof‘source’and‘target’textandthe

‘fetishoftheprimarytext’(ibid.:72)takenforgrantedinwritingabout

translation,replacingitby‘thenotionofintertextuality’(emphasisinoriginal).

Eagletonemphasizestheproblematichermeneuticissuesofsystemsof

significationofwhichtranslationisaparadigmaticcase.Atthecentreofthisnew

criticismistheattempteddisplacementofevaluativeandpurelyformalcriticism,

andarecognitionoftheimportanceofnewdevelopmentsinculturalandcritical

theory.

Inthelightofthesedevelopments,thefinaldecadeofthetwentiethcenturyand

thebeginningofthetwentyfirstcenturywitnessedanupsurgeofinterestin

translationstudiesinBritain:newperiodicalsfromverydifferentperspectives

(TranslationandLiterature,1993–;TheTranslator,1995–;The

InterpreterandTranslatorTrainer,2007–;TheSignLanguageTranslator

andInterpreter,2007–;TranslationStudies,2008–);newseries(suchas

TopicsinTranslation,TranslationTheoriesExplored,Translation

PracticesExplained)and,asnotedearlier,numerouscoursesontranslationin

allitsaspects.Theomenslookgoodfordevelopmentsintranslationstudiesin

Britain.

Furtherreading

Brand1957;Cohen1962;Legge1963;Jones1966;Hargreaves1969;

GeorgeSteiner1975;T.R.Steiner1975;Wilson1976;Pearsall1977;Kelly

1979;Ashton1980;Bassnett1980/1991;Kitagaki1981;Hermans1985b;

Hudson1985,1988;McGerr1988;Ellisetal.1989;Copeland1991;Godden

andLagidae.1991;Levine1991;Robinson1991;Lefevere1992a;Norton

1993;Robinson1995;Venuti1995a;Ellisetal.1996.

ROGERELLISANDLIZOAKLEYBROWN

Bulgariantradition

TheearliestpeopleknowntohaveinhabitedtheBulgarianlandsintheBalkan

PeninsulaweretheThracians(anIndoEuropeantribe).Theydevelopedarich

cultureandlivedinclosecontactwithByzantiumaswellasthePersiaofthe

AechemenidesandotherIndoEuropeanpeoplesinAsiaMinor;inadditionto

GreektheyunderstoodthelanguagesoftheHuns,SarmatesandAvars.Inthe

sixthcenturytheygraduallymixedwiththetribesoftheEasterngroupof

SouthernSlavs,theProtobulgariansledbyKhanAsparoukh(c.644–701),who

camefromthenorthandsettledinpresentdaynortheastBulgariaattheendof

thesixthcentury.

Theyear681sawthefoundationofthefirstSlavonicBulgarianstate,

establishedthroughthemergerofSlavonicandProtobulgariantribeswhich

adoptedthename‘Bulgarians’.Theprocessoftheformationandconsolidation

oftheBulgarianpeopleandstatehoodcontinuedfromtheseventhtothemiddle

oftheninthcentury.In865,TsarBorisI(852–89)convertedthecountryto

Christianity;thishelpedovercometribaldifferences,sincethereweremany

differentpaganreligionsintheareaatthetime,andestablishedapowerful

medievalSlavonicstate,emulatingtheculturalstandardsofneighbouring

Byzantium.

Protobulgarianinscriptionspreservedonstones,metalvesselsandother

surfacesrevealthatboththeGreekalphabetandProtobulgarianruneswere

used.ThebestknownexampleistheHorsemanofMadara:astonerelief

depictingarulerordeityfromtheeighthcentury,with