1. Translation theory before the XX century
LESSON 2

2. Early history of the discipline (1/2)
The practice of translation is ancient and was crucial for the dissemination of key cultural texts and concepts.
CICERO already discussed about different ways of translating:
«Ho tradotto da oratore, non già da interprete di un testo con le espressioni stesse del pensiero, con gli stessi modi di rendere questo, con un lessico appropriato all’indole della nostra lingua. In essi non ho creduto di rendere parola con parola, ma ho mantenuto ogni carattere e ogni efficacia espressiva delle parole stesse».
1. VERBUM E VERBO (word for word)
2. VERBUM QUOD IDEM DECLARAT (sense for sense)
3. QUOD UNO GRAECI… ID PLURIBUS VERBI EXPONERE (paraphrase)
(Cicero, De Finibus III)

3. Early history of the discipline (2/2)
ST. JEROME
«Ego enim non solum fateor, sed libera voce profiteor me in interpretatione Graecorum absque scripturis sanctis, ubi et verborum ordo mysterium est, non verbum e verbo, sed sensum exprimere de sensu»
Word-for-word VS sense-for-sense

4. Translation in the XVI-XVII century
First attempts at a systematic translation theory
John Dryden Étienne Dolet
Preface to his translation of Ovid’s Epistles (1680) La manière de bien traduire d’une langue en aultre (1540)
Alexander Fraser Tytler
Essay on the principles of translation (1790)

5. John Dryden’s categories (1/3)
The XVII-century England marked an important step forward in translation theory Many translations of the Bible and Greek and Latin Classics into English… …but since translation was considered an exercise in creativity, most of these renderings were extremely free John Dryden criticised this approach!

6. John Dryden’s categories (2/3)
In the preface of his translation of Ovid’s Epistles (1680), Dryden reduced translation to three categories Metaphrase  “word by word and line by line translation” Paraphrase  “the author is kept in view by the translator, but his words are not so strictly followed as his sense” Imitation  “forsaking” both words and sense

7. John Dryden’s categories (3/3)
Literal translation free translation adaptation
word for word sense for sense
metaphrase paraphrase imitation
Dryden preferred paraphrase, and rejected the other two (metaphase as being “servile, literal translation” and imitation because it does “the greatest wrong to the memory and reputation of the dead”
 He advocated an author-oriented approach!

8. Étienne Dolet’s principles
In general, Dryden and other writing on translation at the time are very prescriptive, describing what – in their opinion – it should be done to produce a successful translation
Similarly, also Étienne Dolet (1540) proposed his 5 principles:
The translator must understand perfectly the content and intention of the author.
The translator should have a perfect knowledge of the language from which he is translating (SL) and an equally excellent knowledge of the language into which he is translating (TL).
The translator should avoid the tendency to translate word to word.
The translator should employ the forms of speech in common usage.
Through his choice and order of words the translator should be able to produce to total overall effect with an 'appropriate tone'.

9. Alexander Fraser Tytler’s principles
The first comprehensive and systematic study of translation in English: Essay on the principles of translation (1790)
While Dryden was more “author-oriented”, Tytler preferred a translation oriented towards the TL reader
Three general “laws” for a good translation:
The translation should give a complete transcript of the ideas of the original
The style and manner should be the same character with that of the original
The translation should have all the ease of the original
(Tytler, 1797/1997: 209)

10. Schleiermacher’s foreignizing approach (1/3)
Über die verschiedenen Methoden des Übersetzens (1813)
Romantic approach  interpretation is not based on any absolute truth, but on the individual‘s inner feeling and understanding
Schleiermacher differentiates two types of translators
Dolmetscher Übersetzer
works on commercial texts works on artistic texts
He focuses on this second type of texts = the more creative one!

11. Schleiermacher’s foreignizing approach (2/3)
He moved over the dichotomy word-for-word or sense-for-sense, and claimed that the translator can only opt for two approaches:
Either the translator leaves the writers in peace as much as possible and moves the reader towards him, or leaves the reader in peace and moves the writer towards him
(Schleiermacher, 1813/2004: 49)
Move the reader towards the writer Move the writer towards the reader
Alienating method Naturalizing method
He preferred an alienating method  foregnizing approach

12. Schleiermacher’s foreignizing approach (3/3)
Moving the reader towards the writer
FOREGNIZATION alienating method
Emphasizing the value of the foreign, bending the TL to serve to ensure faithfulness to the ST
The translator – and expert in both SL and TL – can help the less competent reader to appreciate the ST

13. Summary
The general trend, from Cicero to the XX century, was to mainly focused on the dichotomy literal (word-for-word) VS free (sense-for-sense) translation.
In the XVII century, Dryden’s triad of metaphrase, paraphrase and imitation marked the beginning of a more systematic definition of translation.
Schleiermacher’s foregnizing approach influenced scholars in modern times.

14. References
BASSNETT, S Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge. MUNDAY, J Introducing Translation Studies. Theories and Applications. London and New York: Routledge. SCHLEIERMACHER, F. 1813/2004. “On the different methods of translating”, in Lawrence Venuti (ed) The Translation Studies Reader. London and New York: Routledge.

15. THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION!
PROF.SSA LAURA LIUCCI