Early Theories of Translation Part 3

I made it not forto be praysed, Bot at the lewed men were aysed.[115]

Consequently he eschews the difficult verse forms then coming into fas.h.i.+on, "ryme cowee," "straungere," or "enterlace." He does not write for the "disours," "seggers," and "harpours" of his own day, who tell the old stories badly.

Non tham says as thai tham wrought, & in ther sayng it semes noght.[116]

A confusion of p.r.o.nouns makes it difficult to understand what he considers the fault of contemporary renderings. Possibly it is that affectation of an obsolete style to which Caxton refers in the preface to the _Eneydos_. In any case, he himself rejects "straunge Inglis" for "simple speche."

Unlike Robert of Brunne, Andrew of Wyntoun, writing at the beginning of the next century, delights in the ornamental style which has added a charm to ancient story.

Quharfore of sic antiquiteis Thei that set haly thare delite Gestis or storyis for to write, Flurist fairly thare purpose With quaynt and curiouse circ.u.mstance, For to raise hertis in plesance, And the heraris till excite Be wit or will to do thare delite.[117]

The "antiquiteis" which he has in mind are obviously the tales of Troy.

Guido delle Colonne, Homer, and Virgil, he continues, all

Fairly formyt there tretyss, And curiously dyt.i.t there storyis.[118]

Some writers, however, did not adopt the elevated style which such subject matter deserves.

Sum usit bot in plane maner Of air done dedis thar mater To writ, as did Dares of Frigy, That wrait of Troy all the story, Bot in till plane and opin style, But curiouse wordis or subtile.[119]

Andrew does not attempt to discuss the application of his theory to English style, but he has perhaps suggested the reason why the question of style counted for so much in connection with this pseudo-historical material. In the introduction to Barbour's _Bruce_, though the point at issue is not translation, there is a similar idea. According to Barbour, a true story has a special claim to an attractive rendering.

Storyss to rede ar delitabill, Supposs that thai be nocht bot fabill; Than suld storyss that suthfast wer, And thai war said in gud maner, Have doubill plesance in heryng.

The fyrst plesance is the carpyng, And the tothir the suthfastness, That schawys the thing rycht as it wes.[120]

Lydgate, Wyntoun's contemporary, apparently shared his views. In translating Boccaccio's _Falls of Princes_ he dispenses with stylistic ornament.

Of freshe colours I toke no maner hede.

But my processe playnly for to lede: As me semed it was to me most mete To set apart Rethorykes swete.[121]

But when it came to the Troy story, his matter demanded a different treatment. He calls upon Mars

To do socour my stile to directe, And of my penne the tracys to correcte, Whyche bareyn is of aureate licour, But in thi grace I fynde som favour For to conveye it wyth thyn influence.[122]

He also asks aid of Calliope.

Now of thy grace be helpyng unto me, And of thy golde dewe lat the lycour wete My dulled breast, that with thyn hony swete Sugrest tongis of rethoricyens, And maistresse art to musicyens.[123]

Like Wyntoun, Lydgate pays tribute to his predecessors, the clerks who have kept in memory the great deeds of the past

... thorough diligent labour, And enlumyned with many corious flour Of rethorik, to make us comprehend The trouthe of al.[124]

Of Guido in particular he writes that he

... had in writyng pa.s.synge excellence.

For he enlumyneth by craft & cadence This n.o.ble story with many fresch colour Of rethorik, & many riche flour Of eloquence to make it sownde bet He in the story hath ymped in and set, That in good feyth I trowe he hath no pere.[125]

None of these men point out the relations.h.i.+p between the style of the original and the style to be employed in the English rendering. Caxton, the last writer to be considered in this connection, remarks in his preface to _The Recuyell of the Histories of Troy_ on the "fair language of the French, which was in prose so well and compendiously set and written," and in the prologue to the _Eneydos_ tells how he was attracted by the "fair and honest terms and words in French," and how, after writing a leaf or two, he noted that his English was characterized by "fair and strange terms." While it may be that both Caxton and Lydgate were trying to reproduce in English the peculiar quality of their originals, it is more probable that they beautified their own versions as best they could, without feeling it inc.u.mbent upon them to make their rhetorical devices correspond with those of their predecessors. Elsewhere Caxton expresses concern only for his own language, as it is to be judged by English readers without regard for the qualities of the French. In most cases he characterizes his renderings of romance as "simple and rude"; in the preface to _Charles the Great_ he says that he uses "no gay terms, nor subtle, nor new eloquence"; and in the preface to _Blanchardyn and Eglantine_ he declares that he does not know "the art of rhetoric nor of such gay terms as now be said in these days and used," and that his only desire is to be understood by his readers. The prologue to the _Eneydos_, however, tells a different story. According to this he has been blamed for expressing himself in "over curious terms which could not be understood of the common people" and requested to use "old and homely terms." But Caxton objects to the latter as being also unintelligible.

"In my judgment," he says, "the common terms that be daily used, are lighter to be understood than the old and ancient English." He is writing, not for the ignorant man, but "only for a clerk and a n.o.ble gentleman that feeleth and understandeth in feats of arms, in love, and in n.o.ble chivalry." For this reason, he concludes, "in a mean have I reduced and translated this said book into our English, not over rude nor curious, but in such terms as shall be understood, by G.o.d's grace, according to the copy." Though Caxton does not avail himself of Wyntoun's theory that the Troy story must be told in "curious and subtle" words, it is probable that, like other translators of his century, he felt the attraction of the new aureate diction while he professed the simplicity of language which existing standards demanded of the translator.

Turning from the romance and the history and considering religious writings, the second large group of medieval productions, one finds the most significant translator's comment a.s.sociated with the saint's legend, though occasionally the short pious tale or the more abstract theological treatise makes some contribution. These religious works differ from the romances in that they are more frequently based on Latin than on French originals, and in that they contain more deliberate and more repeated references to the audiences to which they have been adapted. The translator does not, like Caxton, write for "a clerk and a n.o.ble gentleman"; instead he explains repeatedly that he has striven to make his work understandable to the unlearned, for, as the author of _The Child of Bristow_ pertinently remarks,

The beste song that ever was made Is not worth a lekys blade But men wol tende ther-tille.[126]

Since Latin enditing is "c.u.mbrous," the translator of _The Blood at Hayles_ presents a version in English, "for plainly this the truth will tell";[127] Osbern Bokenam will speak and write "plainly, after the language of Southfolk speech";[128] John Capgrave, finding that the earlier translator of the life of St. Katherine has made the work "full hard ... right for the strangeness of his dark language," undertakes to translate it "more openly" and "set it more plain."[129] This conception of the audience, together with the writer's consciousness that even in presenting narrative he is conveying spiritual truths of supreme importance to his readers, probably increases the tendency of the translator to incorporate into his English version such running commentary as at intervals suggests itself to him. He may add a line or two of explanation, of exhortation, or, if he recognizes a quotation from the Scriptures or from the Fathers, he may supply the authority for it. John Capgrave undertakes to translate the life of St. Gilbert "right as I find before me, save some additions will I put thereto which men of that order have told me, and eke other things that shall fall to my mind in the writing which be pertinent to the matter."[130] Nicholas Love puts into English _The Mirror of the Blessed Life of Jesus Christ_, "with more put to in certain parts, and also with drawing out of divers authorities and matters as it seemeth to the writer hereof most speedful and edifying to them that be of simple understanding."[131] Such incidental citation of authority is evident in _St. Paula_, published by Dr. Horstmann side by side with its Latin original.[132] With more simplicity and less display of learning, the translator of religious works sometimes vaguely adduces authority, as did the translator of romances, in connection with an unfamiliar name. One finds such statements as: "Manna, so it is written";[133] "Such a fiend, as the book tells us, is called Incubus";[134] "In the country of Champagne, as the book tells";[135] "Cursates, saith the book, he hight";[136]

Her body lyeth in strong castylle And Bulstene, seith the boke, it hight;[137]

In the yer of ur lord of hevene Four hundred and eke ellevene Wandaly the province tok Of Aufrike--so seith the bok.[138]

Often, however, the reference to source is introduced apparently at random. On the whole, indeed, the comment which accompanies religious writings does not differ essentially in intelligibility or significance from that a.s.sociated with romances; its interest lies mainly in the fact that it brings into greater relief tendencies more or less apparent in the other form.

One of these is the large proportion of borrowed comment. The constant citation of authority in a work such as, for example, _The Golden Legend_ was likely to be reproduced in the English with varying degrees of faithfulness. A _Life of St. Augustine_, to choose a few ill.u.s.trations from many, reproduces the Latin as in the following examples: "as the book telleth us" replaces "dicitur enim"; "of him it is said in Glosarie," "ut dicitur in Glossario"; "in the book of his confessions the sooth is written for the nonce," "ut legitur in libro iii. confessionum."[139] Robert of Brunne's _Handlyng Synne_, as printed by the Early English Text Society with its French original, affords numerous examples of translated references to authority.

The tale ys wrytyn, al and sum, In a boke of Vitas Patrum

corresponds with

Car en vn liure ai troue Qe Vitas Patrum est apele;

Thus seyth seynt Anselme, that hit wrote To thys clerkys that weyl hit wote

with

Ceo nus ad Seint Ancelme dit Qe en la fey fut clerk parfit.

Yet there are variations in the English much more marked than in the last example. "c.u.m l'estorie nus ad c.u.n.te" has become "Yn the byble men mow hyt se"; while for

En ve liure qe est apelez La sume des vertuz & des pechiez

the translator has subst.i.tuted

Thys same tale tellyth seynt Bede Yn hys gestys that men rede.[140]

This attempt to give the origin of a tale or of a precept more accurately than it is given in the French or the Latin leads sometimes to strange confusion, more especially when a reference to the Scriptures is involved. It was admitted that the Bible was unusually difficult of comprehension and that, if the simple were to understand it, it must be annotated in various ways. Nicholas Love says that there have been written "for lewd men and women ... devout meditations of Christ's life more plain in certain parts than is expressed in the gospels of the four evangelists."[141] With so much addition of commentary and legend, it was often hard to tell what was and what was not in Holy Scripture, and consequently while a narrative like _The Birth of Jesus_ cites correctly enough the gospels for certain days, of which it gives a free rendering,[142] there are cases of amazing attributions, like that at the end of the legend of _Ypotis_:

Seynt Jon the Evangelist Ede on eorthe with Jhesu Crist, This tale he wrot in latin In holi bok in parchemin.[143]

After the fifteenth century is reached, the translator of religious works, like the translator of romances, becomes more garrulous in his comment and develops a good deal of interest in English style. As a fair representative of the period we may take Osbern Bokenam, the translator of various saint's legends, a man very much interested in the contemporary development of literary expression. Two qualities, according to Bokenam, characterize his own style; he writes "compendiously" and he avoids "gay speech." He repeatedly disclaims both prolixity and rhetorical ornament. His

... form of procedyng artificyal Is in no wyse ner poetical.[144]

He cannot emulate the "first rhetoricians," Gower, Chaucer, and Lydgate; he comes too late; they have already gathered "the most fresh flowers."

Moreover the ornamental style would not become him; he does not desire

... to have swych eloquence As sum curials han, ner swych asperence In utteryng of here subtyl conceytys In wych oft-tyme ful greth dysceyt is.[145]

To covet the craft of such language would be "great dotage" for an old man like him. Yet like those of Lydgate and Caxton, Bokenam's protestations are not entirely convincing, and in them one catches glimpses of a lurking fondness for the wordiness of fine writing. Though Pallas has always refused to lead him