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

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Page358

selectedandaddedseculartexts,whichgraduallyattractedmoreinterestthan

moralandreligioussermons.OriginalswereadaptedtosuittheBulgarian

context,sothattranslationsnowsetouttoestablishnewrelationshipsbetween

writersandrecipients.

Itisperhapsworthsummarizingthemainfeaturesoftranslationactivitypriorto

theeighteenthcenturyatthispoint,beforeproceedingtodiscusstranslation

duringtheBulgarianrenaissance.

First,translationwasaratherbroadconcept.Translationswereintegralpartsof

thenationalliterature.SincetherewaslittlerespectforauthorshipintheMiddle

Ages,evenoriginaltextsincorporatedtranslatedelementsandborrowedideas,

imageryandplots.OldBulgariantranslatorswerealsowritersandtranslation

wasconsideredanactofcoauthorshipandcoediting.Itistherefore

impossibletomakearigiddistinctionbetweenoriginalandtranslatedliterature

duringthisperiod.Therewasnostrictboundaryandthisallowedintermingling

ofthetwotypesofcreativework.Nevertheless,literarytranslationexistedas

anindependentstructuralelementinthesystemofOldBulgarianliterature.

Second,translatedliteraturenotonlyservedBulgarianreadersbutalsospread

amongtheothersouthernandeasternSlavs,especiallyRussians,Ukrainians,

Serbsand,lateron,Romanians.Havingemergedacenturyearlier,Old

Bulgarianliteratureprovidedthefoundationfortheliteraturewhichallsouthern

andeasternSlavsweretoshareinduecourse.Itwasthemediatingliterature,in

amediatinglanguage,betweentheByzantinecultureandtheSlavs,anexponent

ofthemedievalcivilizationwhosemissionarybasiswassupportedby

translation;henceitsallSlavonicandinternationalimportance.

Finally,priortotheRenaissance,nootherEuropeanpeoplecameascloseto

theancientGreekphilosophersastheBulgariantranslators.Neighbouring

ByzantiumgaveOldBulgarianliteratureitsoverallartisticidentity,typeof

creativeperception,genresandpoeticvisionandprovidedcontactwithOriental

literatures.LinkswiththeCatholicWest,ontheotherhand,wereveryweak

duringtheMiddleAges.

ItisdifficulttocompareOldBulgarianandwesternEuropeanliteraturesintheir

medievalforms.Thetwoliteraturesdevelopedunderdifferenthistorical

conditionsandonthebasisofdifferentphilosophiesandaestheticvalues.There

arethereforefundamentaldifferencesbetweenthetwostreamsofByzantine

OrthodoxandwesternEuropeanculturewhichweretocometogetheronan

allEuropeanscaleintheeighteenthcentury.

TheBulgarianRenaissance:eighteenthandnineteenthcenturies

TheBulgarianRenaissanceisgenerallythoughttohavestartedwiththe

publicationin1762ofSlavonicBulgarianHistorybyPaisyiofChilendar

(1722–73),monkandenlightener.Translationfollowedthegeneral

developmentofBulgarianliteratureduringtheeighteenthcenturybutwas

characterizedbyanumberofdistinctivefeatures.

TranslationduringtheBulgarianRenaissanceassumedanewfunctionas

mediatorbetweenmedievalandmodernliterature.Thereforemany‘new

translations’appeared,forexampleAlexandria(aheroicfictionalepicabout

AlexanderofMacedonia,1796)andacollectionofexcerptsfromtheArabian

Nights,whichhadfirstbeentranslatedafewcenturiesearlier,thenew

translationswereupdatedtoreflectthemodernidiom.Thesetwotranslations

providedcontinuitywiththeoldliteratureandarethereforeconsideredas

markingthebeginningofliterarytranslationduringtheBulgarianRenaissance.

StoriesandThoughts(1802),bySophroniusofVratsa(1739–1813),marked

awholenewstageinthedevelopmentoftranslationsduringtheearly

Renaissance.Thisisacollectionof144fablesofAesopplusvariousnarratives.

Here,thenewmediatingfunctionoftranslationwasclearlyunderstoodto

includeinterpretingtheoriginal;also,theoldliterarylanguagewasbeginningto

undergoafundamentalprocessof‘democratization’.Thiscollectionrepresents

thefirstattempttodifferentiatestylisticlevelsofthelanguageandtoadjust

translationtothespecificgenreoftheoriginal.

Betweentheendoftheeighteenthandthemiddleofthenineteenthcentury,

translationwasmarkedbyageneraltendencyfor

Page359

‘Bulgarianization’(freeinterpretationandliteraryrevisionoftheoriginaltosuit

Bulgariannational,historicalandpsychologicalspecificities).Thiswasanatural

resultoftheculturalandideologicaloverburdeningoftranslation:duetothe

slowdevelopmentoftheBulgarianintellectualelite,originalworksdidnotbegin

toappearuntilthelatestagesoftheBulgarianRenaissance.Itwastranslators

wholaidthefoundationsofmodernBulgarianliteratureintermsofrecurrent

themes,images,plots,genres,vocabularyandstylisticdiversity.Bulgarian

cultureneededtolearnfromnewmodelsandtransformthemintonationalones.

Aspartofthetendencytoadapttheoriginaltothereader’staste,translators

alsobecamesemiauthors,developingthecontentoftheoriginalandadding

theirowntext.

French,GermanandRussiansentimentalliteraturewasfrequently

‘Bulgarianized’,especiallysinceitprovidedasuitablecontextforusingthe

clichéswhichBulgarianreadershadlearnedfromsermons,hagiographyand

Damascenes.

TranslationsintoBulgarianwereoftenbasedonintermediateversionsinother

languages.Thiscanbeexplainedintermsofalackofappreciationof

‘copyright’asweknowittodayandtheurgentneedtomakecontactwith

severalEuropeanliteraturesatthesametime.

Theselectionoftranslationsdependedonwhatwasconsideredusefultothe

targetreaderratherthanontheimportanceoftheoriginaltextinitsownnational

context.TranslationsessentiallyprovidedtheBulgarianRenaissanceculturewith

itsbasicliterarymodels,morespecificallywithworksmeanttoteachhuman

virtuesortopresenthistoricalevents.

Aroundthemiddleofthenineteenthcentury,translatorswerepeoplewhohad

acquiredahighlevelofeducationandknowledgeoftheculturesofvarious

Europeancountries.Theywerethereforeinapositiontodevelopanindividual

approachtotheoriginalstheyworkedfromandtostrivetowardsachievinga

balancebetweentheneedtopreservetheartisticfeaturesoftheoriginaland,at

thesametime,producereadabletranslations.Inthecontextofthe

Enlightenment,thepracticeof‘Bulgarianization’inevitablycontinued,butit

slowlygavewaytoothermethodsoftranslation.Thegradualdevelopmentof

thenationallanguagealsoplayedapartinthisprocess.Ofparticularimportance

werethetranslationsbythegreatestwritersoftheBulgarianRenaissance,

whosetalentsenabledthemtousethefullpotentialofthelanguage(P.R.

Slaveikov,L.Karavelov,C.Botev,N.Bonchevandothers).

Diversetendenciesdevelopedinthechoiceofcertainforeignliteratures.Onthe

onehand,amuchwiderrangeofforeignliterarytextsbecameknownin

Bulgaria:French,Russian,German,Italian,English,American,Serbian,Greek,

etc.Ontheotherhand,translatorshadmoreopportunitiestochooseoriginal

texts,dependingontheneedsofthenationalliberationprocess.Writersofthe

FrenchEnlightenment,forinstance,weretranslatedonamassivescale(butthis

didnotstoptheflowoftranslationsofFrenchsentimentalists);thesameapplied

toRussianliterature,whichgraduallyassumedthefunctionofmediatorbetween

theBulgarianandEuropeancultures.Themostimportanttranslatorfrom

Russian,P.R.Slakeikov(1827–95),wasoneoftheleadingfiguresofthe

BulgarianRenaissance.HistranslationsofRussian,westernEuropeanand

Balkanauthorscontributedtothemetricandprosodicdevelopmentof

Bulgarianverse.Heusedallformsoftranslation:Bulgarianization,adaptation

(whereheusedotherauthors’ideasandplotsforhisowncreativepurposes),

andliteraltranslation.

Translatedandoriginalpoetrybegantoappearsimultaneouslyduringthis

period.TheBulgarianpoetictraditiondevelopedoutofthetensionbetween

folkloricformsandthoseofiambicpoetry.Agreatdealofdiversityexisted,and

stylisticandmetricinterpretationsvariedaccordingtothetranslator’soutlook

andobjectives.The‘revisedtranslations’whichwereundertakenatthetime

wereindicativeoftheliteraryaestheticsoftheperiod.

Scientificandpoliticaltranslationinfluencedthedevelopmentofnational

awarenessandrevolutionaryideology.Itdevelopedinresponsetoagrowing

interestintheissuesofgovernance,law,economicsandinmedicalandnatural

sciences.ThefirstBulgarianschoolbook,TheFishPrimer,whichwaswritten

byPeterBeron(1800–71)andpublishedin1824,containedtranslationsof

eighteenfablesofAesopandworksbyancientGreekauthors.Unlikeliterary

translations,scientificandpoliticaltranslationswerealwaysbasedontheoriginal

text.Theusual