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

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Page35

Crossculturalmigrationsofclassicaltexts

Theconceptualizationandpracticesoftranslationinantiquitylaidthebasisfor

moderntheories.Translationandlinguisticexchangewerepartofeveryday

publicandcommerciallifeinthecontextoftheancientMediterranean,Near

EastandNorthAfrica.TheGreeklanguage,inparticular,wascrucialtothe

expansionofRomanpowerandculturaldevelopment(seeLATIN

TRADITION).TranslationfromGreekintoLatinledtodebatesabout‘word

forword’versus‘senseforsense’approachesandaboutthepragmaticsof

domestication,strategiesforinterpretationandtheimpactofperformance

requirements(inpoliticsaswellastheatre).‘Senseforsense’translationwas

centraltotheapproachdevelopedbyCicero(firstcenturyBCE)andrefinedfor

sacredtextsbySt.Jerome(fourthcenturyCE).TheRomanpoetHorace

turnedthefocustothecreativeimpactinthetargetlanguage(ArsPoetica133–

34,firstcenturyBCE).EvenSchleiermacher’smodelofpreservingthealterity

ofthesourceforthetargetaudiencewastosomeextentanticipatedinthe

developmentofaRomancriticalvocabularyfordescribingdifferentkindsof

relationshipbetweenGreektextsandtheirLatinanalogues.Thisrecognized

differenttranslationpracticesinvolvedintransmissionandREWRITING,

includingvariation,exchange,transferandtransformation.Therewasa

sometimesuneasyrelationshipbetweenrecognitionoftheauthorityofthe

sourcetextandthemoreculturallyconfidentdesireforthetargettexttoacquire

astatusofitsown.LatintranslationofGreektextsincludedearlyversionsof

GreekplaysandofHomerthatledtoanautonomousLatinliteratureinwhich

intertextualitysupplementedtranslationasthemainaestheticdriver.

Inlateantiquityandthemedievalperiod(whenLatinremainedtheofficial

languageoftheChristianchurchintheWest),Christianattitudestothereligious

andmoralvaluesofthetextsreshapedtransmissionpatterns.Translationof

materialcollectedinAlexandriaandotherlibrariesprovedvitalinpreserving

Greekmedical,mathematicalandphilosophicaltexts.IntheAbbasidperiod

(secondandthirdcenturiesH.,equivalenttotheeighthandninthcenturiesCE),

theseweretranslatedintoArabic,sometimeswithSyriacasanintermediary

language(seeARABICTRADITION).Thisactivitywasepitomizedinthe

workofDarElHikmah(WisdomHouse)inBaghdad(Etman2008).Together

withtheworkofthetwelfthcenturyCordovanphysicianandphilosopherIbn

Rushd(Averroës),whichwasoftenmediatedthroughHebrewandLatin

translations,thesetranslationsledtotherecuperationofGreekscienceand

philosophyandtheirincorporationintotheWesternintellectualtraditionduring

theRenaissance(Etman2004;Haddour2008).

TheworkofthetranslatorsintoArabicwasessentiallyscholarly.However,

otherstrandsofmigratorytranslationdevelopedthroughcreativework,suchas

therewritingofGreekandRomantextsbyneoclassicaldramatistsinFrance

andthecreativetranslationofepicswithintheBRITISHTRADITION.Inthe

lateseventeenthandeighteenthcenturies,theresponsestoVirgilbyJohn

Dryden(1631–1700)andtoHomerbyAlexanderPope(1688–1744)notonly

contributedtodebatesabouttherelationshipbetweenthesourcetextandthe

targetlanguagebutalsobecamecanonicalliteraryworksintheirownright.

Dryden’sinterestinsatireledhimtotranslatefromLatin(PersiusandJuvenal)

anddemonstrateoncemorethecapacityofclassicaltextstobeusedasa

vehicleforcontemporarypoliticalcritique,alreadypioneeredbyDenham

(PooleandMaule1995:xxxvi).Denhamsawtranslationasinvolvingaprocess

similartoalchemy(‘transfusion’),whileDryden’spreferredapproachwas

‘paraphrasing’,i.e.keepingtheauthor‘inview’butfollowingthewordsless

strictlythanthesense.Thisapproachwaslessfreethan‘imitation’butmore

creativethan‘metaphrase’(Hopkins2008).Dryden’stranslationofVirgil’s

Aeneid(1697)wasextensivelyexcerptedinthecommonplacebooksofpoetry

thatshapedeighteenthcenturytastes.HisLITERARYtranslationsdirectly

influencedlaterpoetssuchasPope,Gray,Byron,Burns,Coleridge,Hopkins,

TennysonandBrowning.Dryden’sworkshowshowaweboftranslation

practicescombinesboth‘domesticating’and‘foreignizing’elementsandhow

categorizationsofthesecanshift.Heusedprevioustranslations;absorbedthe

languageofhispredecessorsSpenser,ShakespeareandMilton,itselfalready

classicized(Haynes2003),andinturninflu

Page36

encedpracticeandaestheticsinbothtranslationandliterature,makingthe

boundariesbetweenthetwomoreporous.

Theclassicaltranslation/transmissionsymbiosisalsoactivatesthecrossingof

boundariesofcultureandclass.Forexample,Arabtranslatorsinfluencedthe

RenaissanceinEurope;EuropeantraditionreciprocatedatthetimeoftheArab

Nahda(Awakening,c.1870–1950),whentheimpactofclassicaltextswas

partlyshapedbythelinkswithFrenchculture.FollowingNapoleon’sinfluence,

studentsandscholarsfromEgypthadbeenabletoworkinParis,andthis

enabledRifa’aRafi’ElTahtawi(1801–72)totranslateFénelon’sLes

AventuresdeTélémaque(1699)intoArabic(seeARABICTRADITION).

Fénelon’sworkhadbeeninspiredbyHomer’sOdyssey.Subsequently,interest

inGreektextsthathadnotpreviouslybeentranslatedintoArabicprofitedfrom

theavailabilityofFrenchtranslations.ThesestimulatedthepanMediterranean

culturalworkofTahaHussein,who,in1925,foundedtheClassicsdepartment

atCairoUniversity(Pormann2006)andledtothetranslationoftheplaysof

SophoclesintoArabic(1939),whichinturninfluencedArabtheatre.Since

then,fourArabicversionsofSophocles’OedipusTyrannoshavebeen

translatedintoEnglish(Carlson2005)andhaveencouragedthereengagement

betweenArabicandAnglophoneclassicalscholarshipandtheatrecriticism.

ThehistoryoftranslationintoEnglishalsomapsthehistoryofeducation,

historiographyandpopularcultureandissometimesdistinctiveforitsuseofless

wellknowntexts(Hall2008).Inthenineteenthandtwentiethcenturies,social,

genderandeducationalbarrierswereincreasinglybreachedandredefinedby

theavailabilityofinexpensivepopulartranslations(forexamplethosepublished

byBohn,Everyman,PenguinandthebilingualLoebseries)andthemore

prominentroletakenbyfemaletranslators(Hardwick2000).Intheearly

twentiethcentury,thebestsellingtranslationsofGreekplaysbytheOxford

RegiusProfessorGilbertMurrayalsoledtocommerciallysuccessfulLondon

theatreproductionsandtothedevelopmentofastrongBBCradiobroadcast

tradition(Wrigley2005).IntheUSA,thedemandsmadebyundergraduate

humanitiesand‘greatbooks’coursesfromthe1920sand1930sonwards

createdahugemarketfortranslationsofclassicaltexts,especiallyepic,

DRAMAandhistoriography(Schein2007).Translationsbyscholarssuchas

RichmondLattimore(1951,1965)andRobertFitzgerald(1961,1974),andby

RobertFagles(1984,1990,1996)whocollaboratedwiththeclassicistBernard

Knox,influencedbothliterarycriticismandpopularconceptionsoftheancient

world.E.V.Rieu’sprosetranslationsofHomer(1946,1950)soldmillionsof

copiesandwerepublicizedaserodingdifferencesbetweenancientandmodern

idiom.Rieu’sworkmadedirectspeechcolloquial(withtheunintendedresultof

datingit)andwascriticizedforlosingthe‘nobility’thathadbeenattributedto

HomerbyMatthewArnold(Hardwick2000).OneofRieu’sreaderswas

PatrickKavanagh,whosepoem‘OnLookingintoEVRieu’sHomer’(1951)

alludedtotheinfluenceoftranslationsonpoetswhodidnotknowGreek(cf.

JohnKeats’s‘OnLookingintoChapman’sHomer’,1817)and,byusing

imagesfromHomertolinkparochialsquabblesinruralIrelandwithglobal

conflict,alsobraidedintotheIrishpoetictraditionasenseofthealignmentof

ancientandmodernexperiencethatcontributedtotheuseofclosetranslations

ofclassicaltextsbyMichaelLongleyandSeamusHeaney(Harrison2008;

Hardwick2007a).

Relationshipsofpowerbetweensource,mediatingandtargetlanguages

andcultures

Becauseofthehistoricalandculturalstatusoftheclassicallanguagesthereisa

senseinwhicheventhemostpowerfultargetlanguagecanbeperceivedas

subalterninrelationtothem.Paradoxically,inimperialandPOSTCOLONIAL

contextstheappropriationofclassicalliteratureandideasineducationsystems

hasprovidedcountertextsthatbothchallengedimperialdominationand

providedthemesandformsforthedevelopmentofpostcolonialdebatesandof

newsensesofidentity(Budelmann2005).Examplesoftheexchangebetween

westAfricanandGreekmythologyandtheatricalpracticesincludeSoyinka’s

TheBacchaeofEuripides:ACommunionRite(1973),FemiOsofisan’s

Tegonni:AnAfricanAntigone(1999)