Early Theories of Translation | Page 8

I kan, After the lettre, in ordre effectuelly.
Thogh I not folwe the wordes by & by, I schal not faille teuching the
substance.[41]
Osbern Bokenam declares that he has translated
Not wurde for wurde--for that ne may be In no translation, aftyr
Jeromys decree-- But fro sentence to sentence.[42]
There is little attempt at the further analysis which would give this
principle fresh significance. The translator makes scarcely any effort to
define the extent to which he may diverge from the words of his
original or to explain why such divergence is necessary. John de
Trevisa, who translated so extensively in the later fourteenth century,
does give some account of his methods, elementary, it is true, but
honest and individual. His preface to his English prose version of
Higden's Polychronicon explains: "In some place I shall set word for
word, and active for active, and passive for passive, a-row right as it
standeth, without changing of the order of words. But in some place I
must change the order of words, and set active for passive and
again-ward. And in some place I must set a reason for a word and tell
what it meaneth. But for all such changing the meaning shall stand and
not be changed."[43] An explanation like this, however, is unusual.
Possibly the fact that the translation was in prose affected Trevisa's
theorizing. A prose rendering could follow its original so closely that it
was possible to describe the comparatively few changes consequent on
English usage. In verse, on the other hand, the changes involved were
so great as to discourage definition. There are, however, a few
comments on the methods to be employed in poetical renderings.
According to the Proem to the Boethius, Alfred, in the Anglo-Saxon
period, first translated the book "from Latin into English prose," and

then "wrought it up once more into verse, as it is now done."[44] At the
very beginning of the history of Middle English literature Orm attacked
the problem of the verse translation very directly. He writes of his
Ormulum:
Icc hafe sett her o thiss boc Amang Godspelles wordess, All thurrh me
sellfenn, manig word The rime swa to fillenn.[45]
Such additions, he says, are necessary if the readers are to understand
the text and if the metrical form is to be kept.
Forr whase mot to laewedd follc Larspell off Goddspell tellenn, He mot
wel ekenn manig word Amang Godspelless Wordess. & icc ne mihhte
nohht min ferrs Ayy withth Godspelless wordess Wel fillenn all, & all
forrthi Shollde icc wel offte nede Amang Godspelless wordess don Min
word, min ferrs to fillenn.[46]
Later translators, however, seldom followed his lead. There are a few
comments connected with prose translations; the translator of The Book
of the Knight of La Tour Landry quotes the explanation of his author
that he has chosen prose rather than verse "for to abridge it, and that it
might be better and more plainly to be understood";[47] the Lord in
Trevisa's Dialogue prefixed to the Polychronicon desires a translation
in prose, "for commonly prose is more clear than rhyme, more easy and
more plain to understand";[48] but apparently the only one of Orm's
successors to put into words his consciousness of the complications
which accompany a metrical rendering is the author of The Romance of
Partenay, whose epilogue runs:
As ny as metre can conclude sentence, Cereatly by rew in it have I go.
Nerehand stafe by staf, by gret diligence, Savyng that I most metre
apply to; The wourdes meve, and sett here & ther so.[49]
What follows, however, shows that he is concerned not so much with
the peculiar difficulty of translation as with the general difficulty of
"forging" verse. Whether a man employs Latin, French, or the
vernacular, he continues,

Be it in balede, vers, Rime, or prose, He most torn and wend, metrely
to close.[50]
Of explicit comment on general principles, then, there is but a small
amount in connection with Middle English translations. Incidentally,
however, writers let fall a good deal of information regarding their
theories and methods. Such material must be interpreted with
considerable caution, for although the most casual survey makes it clear
that generally the translator felt bound to put into words something of
his debt and his responsibility to his predecessors, yet one does not
know how much significance should attach to this comment. He
seldom offers clear, unmistakable information as to his difficulties and
his methods of meeting them. It is peculiarly interesting to come upon
such explanation of processes as appears at one point in Capgrave's Life
of St. Gilbert. In telling the story of a miracle wrought upon a sick man,
Capgrave writes: "One of his brethren, which was his keeper, gave him
this counsel, that he should wind his head