Early Theories of Translation | Page 4

who
were, for the most part, opposed to translation into the vernacular and
who, in addition to this, were in all probability especially suspicious of
the methods employed by Aelfric. These methods were strongly in the
direction of popularization. Aelfric's general practice is like that of
Alfred. He declares repeatedly[4] that he translates sense for sense, not
always word for word. Furthermore, he desires rather to be clear and
simple than to adorn his style with rhetorical ornament.[5] Instead of
unfamiliar terms, he uses "the pure and open words of the language of
this people."[6] In connection with the translation of the Bible he lays
down the principle that Latin must give way to English idiom.[7] For
all these things Aelfric has definite reasons. Keeping always in mind a
clear conception of the nature of his audience, he does whatever seems
to him necessary to make his work attractive and, consequently,
profitable. Preparing his Grammar for "tender youths," though he
knows that words may be interpreted in many ways, he follows a
simple method of interpretation in order that the book may not become
tiresome.[8] The Homilies, intended for simple people, are put into
simple English, that they may more easily reach the hearts of those who
read or hear.[9] This popularization is extended even farther. Aelfric

explains[10] that he has abbreviated both the Homilies[11] and the
Lives of the Saints,[12] again of deliberate purpose, as appears in his
preface to the latter: "Hoc sciendum etiam quod prolixiores passiones
breuiamus verbis non adeo sensu, ne fastidiosis ingeratur tedium si
tanta prolixitas erit in propria lingua quanta est in latina."
Incidentally, however, Aelfric makes it evident that his were not the
only theories of translation which the period afforded. In the preface to
the first collection of Homilies he anticipates the disapproval of those
who demand greater closeness in following originals. He recognizes the
fact that his translation may displease some critics "quod non semper
verbum ex verbo, aut quod breviorem explicationem quam tractatus
auctorum habent, sive non quod per ordinem ecclesiastici ritus omnia
Evangelia percurrimus." The Preface to Genesis suggests that the
writer was familiar with Jerome's insistence on the necessity for
unusual faithfulness in translating the Bible.[13] Such comment implies
a mind surprisingly awake to the problems of translation.
The translator who left the narrow path of word for word reproduction
might, in this early period, easily be led into greater deviations from
source, especially if his own creative ability came into play. The
preface to St. Augustine's Soliloquies quoted above carries with it a
stimulus, not only to translation or compilation, but to work like that of
Caedmon or Cynewulf, essentially original in many respects, though
based, in the main, on material already given literary shape in other
languages. Both characteristics are recognized in Anglo-Saxon
comment. Caedmon, according to the famous passage in Bede, "all that
he could learn by hearing meditated with himself, and, as a clean
animal ruminating, turned into the sweetest verse."[14] Cynewulf in his
Elene, gives us a remarkable piece of author's comment[15] which
describes the action of his own mind upon material already committed
to writing by others. On the other hand, it may be noted that the
Andreas, based like the Elene on a single written source, contains no
hint that the author owes anything to a version of the story in another
language.[16]
In the English literature which developed in course of time after the

Conquest the methods of handling borrowed material were similar in
their variety to those we have observed in Anglo-Saxon times.
Translation, faithful except for the omission or addition of certain
passages, compilation, epitome, all the gradations between the close
rendering and such an individual creation as Chaucer's Troilus and
Criseyde, are exemplified in the works appearing from the thirteenth
century on. When Lydgate, as late as the fifteenth century, describes
one of the processes by which literature is produced, we are reminded
of Anglo-Saxon comment. "Laurence,"[17] the poet's predecessor in
translating Boccaccio's Falls of Princes, is represented as
In his Prologue affirming of reason, That artificers having exercise,
May chaunge & turne by good discretion Shapes & formes, & newly
them devise: As Potters whiche to that craft entende Breake & renue
their vessels to amende.
...
And semblably these clerkes in writing Thing that was made of
auctours them beforn They may of newe finde & fantasye: Out of olde
chaffe trye out full fayre corne, Make it more freshe & lusty to the eye,
Their subtile witte their labour apply, With their colours agreable of
hue, To make olde thinges for to seme newe.[18]
The great majority of these Middle English works contain within
themselves no clear statement as to which of the many possible
methods have been employed in their production. As in the case