Early Theories of Translation Part 2

And so bifel upon a day, Forsothe _as I you telle may_ Sir Thopas wolde outride,

and

The briddes synge, _it is no nay_, The sparhauke and the papejay

may easily be paralleled by pa.s.sages containing references to source.

A good ill.u.s.tration from almost every point of view of the significance and lack of significance of the appearance of these phrases in a given context is the version of the Alexander story usually called _The Wars of Alexander_. The frequent references to source in this romance occur in sporadic groups. The author begins by putting them in with some regularity at the beginnings of the _pa.s.sus_ into which he divides his narrative, but, as the story progresses, he ceases to do so, perhaps forgets his first purpose. Sometimes the reference to source suggests accuracy: "And five and thirty, as I find, were in the river drowned."[80] "Rhinoceros, as I read, the book them calls."[81] The strength of some authority is necessary to support the weight of the incredible marvels which the story-teller recounts. He tells of a valley full of serpents with crowns on their heads, who fed, "as the prose tells," on pepper, cloves, and ginger;[82] of enormous crabs with backs, "as the book says," bigger and harder than any common stone or c.o.c.katrice scales;[83] of the golden image of Xerxes, which on the approach of Alexander suddenly, "as tells the text," falls to pieces.[84] He often has recourse to an authority for support when he takes proper names from the Latin. "Luctus it hight, the lettre and the line thus it calls."[85] The slayers of Darius are named Besan and Anabras, "as the book tells."[86] On the other hand, the signification of the reference in its context can be shown to be very slight. As was said before, the writer soon forgets to insert it at the beginning of the new _pa.s.sus_; there are plenty of marvels without any citation of authority to add to their credibility; and though the proper name carries its reference to the Latin, it is usually strangely distorted from its original form. So far as bearing on the immediate context is concerned, most of the references to source have little more meaning than the ordinary tags, "as I you say," "as you may hear," or "as I understand."

Apart, however, from the matter of context, one may make a rough cla.s.sification of the romances on the ground of these references.

Leaving aside the few narratives (e.g. _Sir Percival of Galles_, _King Horn_) which contain no suggestion that they are of secondary origin, one may distinguish two groups. There is, in the first place, a large body of romances which refer in general terms to their originals, but do not profess any responsibility for faithful reproduction; in the second place, there are some romances whose authors do recognize the claims of the original, which is in such cases nearly always definitely described, and frequently go so far as to discuss its style or the style to be adopted in the English rendering. The first group, which includes considerably more than half the romances at present accessible in print, affords a confused ma.s.s of references. As regards the least definite of these, one finds phrases so vague as to suggest that the author himself might have had difficulty in identifying his source, phrases where the omission of the article ("in rhyme," "in romance," "in story") or the use of the plural ("as books say," "as clerks tell," "as men us told,"

"in stories thus as we read") deprives the words of most of their significance. Other references are more definite; the writer mentions "this book," "mine author," "the Latin book," "the French book." If these phrases are to be trusted, we may conclude that the English translator has his text before him; they aid little, however, in identification of that text. The fifty-six references in Malory's _Morte d'Arthur_ to "the French book" give no particular clue to discovery of his sources. The common formula, "as the French book says," marks the highest degree of definiteness to which most of these romances attain.

An interesting variant from the commoner forms is the reference to _Rom_, generally in the phrase "the book of Rom," which appears in some of the romances. The explanation that _Rom_ is a corruption of _romance_ and that _the book of Rom_ is simply the book of romance or the book written in the romance language, French, can easily be supported. In the same poem _Rom_ alternates with _romance_: "In Rome this geste is chronicled," "as the romance telleth,"[87] "in the chronicles of Rome is the date," "in romance as we read."[88] Two versions of _Octavian_ read, the one "in books of Rome," the other "in books of ryme."[89] On the other hand, there are peculiarities in the use of the word not so easy of explanation. It appears in a certain group of romances, _Octavian_, _Le Bone Florence of Rome_, _Sir Eglamour of Artois_, _Torrent of Portyngale_, _The Earl of Toulouse_, all of which develop in some degree the Constance story, familiar in _The Man of Law's Tale_. In all of them there is reference to the city of Rome, sometimes very obvious, sometimes slight, but perhaps equally significant in the latter case because it is introduced in an unexpected, unnecessary way. In _Le Bone Florence of Rome_ the heroine is daughter of the Emperor of Rome, and, the tale of her wanderings done, the story ends happily with her reinstatement in her own city. Octavian is Emperor of Rome, and here again the happy conclusion finds place in that city. Sir Eglamour belongs to Artois, but he does betake himself to Rome to kill a dragon, an episode introduced in one ma.n.u.script of the story by the phrase "as the book of Rome says."[90] Though the scenes of _Torrent of Portyngale_ are Portugal, Norway, and Calabria, the Emperor of Rome comes to the wedding of the hero, and Torrent himself is finally chosen Emperor, presumably of Rome. The Earl of Toulouse, in the romance of that name, disguises himself as a monk, and to aid in the illusion some one says of him during his disappearance, "Gone is he to his own land: he dwells with the Pope of Rome."[91] The Emperor in this story is Emperor of Almaigne, but his name, strangely enough, is Diocletian. Again, in _Octavian_, one reads in the description of a feast, "there was many a rich geste of Rome and of France,"[92] which suggests a distinction between a geste of Rome and a geste of France. In _Le Bone Florence of Rome_ appears the peculiar statement, "Pope Symonde this story wrote. In the chronicles of Rome is the date."[93] In this case the word _Rome_ seems to have been taken literally enough to cause attribution of the story to the Pope. It is evident, then, that whether or not _Rome_ is a corruption of _romance_, at any rate one or more of the persons who had a hand in producing these narratives must have interpreted the word literally, and believed that the book of Rome was a record of occurrences in the city of Rome.[94] It is interesting to note that in _The Man of Law's Tale_, in speaking of Maurice, the son of Constance, Chaucer introduces a reference to the _Gesta Romanorum_:

In the old Romayn gestes may men fynde Maurice's lyf, I bere it not in mynde.

Such vagueness and uncertainty, if not positive misunderstanding with regard to source, are characteristic of many romances. It is not difficult to find explanations for this. The writer may, as was suggested before, be reproducing a story which he has only heard or which he has read at some earlier time. Even if he has the book before him, it does not necessarily bear its author's name and it is not easy to describe it so that it can be recognized by others. Generally speaking, his references to source are honest, so far as they go, and can be taken at their face value. Even in cases of apparent falsity explanations suggest themselves. There is nearly always the possibility that false or contradictory attributions, as, for example, the mention of "book" and "books" or "the French book" and "the Latin book" as sources of the same romance, are merely stupidly literal renderings of the original. In _The Romance of Partenay_, one of the few cases where we have unquestionably the French original of the English romance, more than once an apparent reference to source in the English is only a close following of the French. "I found in scripture that it was a barge"

corresponds with "Je treuve que c'estoit une barge"; "as saith the scripture" with "Ainsi que dient ly escrips";

For the Cronike doth treteth (sic) this brefly, More ferther wold go, mater finde might I

with

Mais en brief je m'en pa.s.seray Car la cronique en brief pa.s.se.

Plus deisse, se plus trouva.s.se.[95]

A similar situation has already been pointed out in _Ywain and Gawin_.

The most marked example of contradictory evidence is to be found in _Octavian_, whose author alternates "as the French says" with "as saith the Latin."[96] Here, however, the nearest a.n.a.logue to the English romance, which contains 1962 lines, is a French romance of 5371 lines, which begins by mentioning the "grans merueilles qui sont faites, et de latin en romanz traites."[97] It is not impossible that the English writer used a shorter version which emphasized this reference to the Latin, and that his too-faithful adherence to source had confusing results. But even if such contradictions cannot be explained, in the ma.s.s of undistinguished romances there is scarcely anything to suggest that the writer is trying to give his work a fact.i.tious value by misleading references to dignified sources. His faults, as in _Ywain and Gawin_, where the name of Chretien is not carried over from the French, are sins of omission, not commission.

No hard and fast line of division can be drawn between the romances just discussed and those of the second group, with their frequent and fairly definite references to their sources and to their methods of reproducing them. A rough chronological division between the two groups can be made about the year 1400. _William of Palerne_, a.s.signed by its editor to the year 1350, contains a slight indication of the coming change in the claim which its author makes to have accomplished his task "as fully as the French fully would ask."[98] Poems like Chaucer's _Knight's Tale_ and _Franklin's Tale_ have only the vague references to source of the earlier period, though since they are presented as oral narratives, they belong less obviously to the present discussion. The vexed question of the signification of the references in _Troilus and Criseyde_ is outside the scope of this discussion. Superficially considered, they are an odd mingling of the new and the old. Phrases like "as to myn auctour listeth to devise" (III, 1817), "as techen bokes olde" (III, 91), "as wryten folk thorugh which it is in minde" (IV, 18) suggest the first group. The puzzling references to Lollius have a certain definiteness, and faithfulness to source is implied in lines like:

And of his song nought only the sentence, As writ myn auctour called Lollius, But pleynly, save our tonges difference, I dar wel seyn, in al that Troilus Seyde in his song; lo! every word right thus As I shal seyn (I, 393-8)

and

"For as myn auctour seyde, so seye I" (II, 18).

But from the beginning of the new century, in the work of men like Lydgate and Caxton, a new habit of comment becomes noticeable.

Less distinguished translators show a similar development. The author of _The Holy Grail_, Harry Lonelich, a London skinner, towards the end of his work makes frequent, if perhaps mistaken, attribution of the French romance to

... myn sire Robert of Borron Whiche that this storie Al & som Owt Of the latyn In to the frensh torned he Be holy chirches Comandment sekerle,[99]

and makes some apology for the defects of his own style:

And I, As An unkonning Man trewly Into Englisch have drawen this Story; And thowgh that to yow not plesyng It be, Yit that ful Excused ye wolde haven Me Of my necligence and unkonning.[100]

_The Romance of Partenay_ is turned into English by a writer who presents himself very modestly:

I not acqueynted of birth naturall With frenshe his very trew parfightnesse, Nor enpreyntyd is in mind cordiall; O word For other myght take by lachesse, Or peradventure by unconnyngesse.[101]

He intends, however, to be a careful translator:

As nighe as metre will conclude sentence, Folew I wil my president, Ryght as the frenshe wil yiff me evidence, Cereatly after myn entent,[102]

and he ends by declaring that in spite of the impossibility of giving an exact rendering of the French in English metre, he has kept very closely to the original. Sometimes, owing to the shortness of the French "staffes," he has reproduced in one line two lines of the French, but, except for this, comparison will show that the two versions are exactly alike.[103]

The translator of _Partonope of Blois_ does not profess such slavish faithfulness, though he does profess great admiration for his source,

The olde booke full well I-wryted, In ffrensh also, and fayre endyted,[104]

and declares himself bound to follow it closely:

Thus seith myn auctour after whome I write.

Blame not me: I moste endite As nye after hym as ever I may, Be it sothe or less I can not say.[105]

However, in the midst of his protestations of faithfulness, he confesses to divergence:

There-fore y do alle my myghthhe To saue my autor ynne sucche wyse As he that mater l.u.s.te devyse, Where he makyth grete compleynte In french so fayre thatt yt to paynte In Englysche tunngge y saye for me My wyttys alle to dullet bee.

He telleth hys tale of sentament I vnderstonde noghth hys entent, Ne wolle ne besy me to lere.[106]

He owns to the abbreviation of descriptive pa.s.sages, which so many English translators had perpetrated in silence:

Her bewte dyscry fayne wolde I Affter the sentence off myne auctowre, b.u.t.te I pray yowe of thys grette labowre I mote at thys tyme excused be;[107]

b.u.t.te who so l.u.s.te to here of hur a-raye, Lette him go to the ffrensshe bocke, That Idell mater I forsoke To telle hyt in prose or els in ryme, For me thoghte hyt taryed grette tyme.

And ys a mater full nedless.[108]

One cannot but suspect that this odd mingling of respect and freedom as regards the original describes the att.i.tude of many other translators of romances, less articulate in the expression of their theory.

To deal fairly with many of the romances of this second group, one must consider the relations.h.i.+p between romance and history and the uncertain division between the two. The early chronicles of England generally devoted an appreciable s.p.a.ce to matters of romance, the stories of Troy, of Aeneas, of Arthur. As in the case of the romance proper, such chronicles were, even in the modern sense, "translated," for though the historian usually compiled his material from more than one source, his method was to put together long, consecutive pa.s.sages from various authors, with little attempt at a.s.similating them into a whole. The distinction between history and romance was slow in arising. The _Morte Arthure_ offers within a few lines both "romances" and "chronicles" as authorities for its statements.[109] In Caxton's preface to _G.o.dfrey of Bullogne_ the enumeration of the great names of history includes Arthur and Charlemagne, and the story of G.o.dfrey is designated as "this n.o.ble history which is no fable nor feigned thing." Throughout the period the stories of Troy and of Alexander are consistently treated as history, and their redactors frequently state that their material has come from various places. Nearly all the English Troy stories are translations of Guido delle Colonne's _Historia Trojana_, and they take over from their original Guido's long discussion of authorities. The Alexander romances present the same effect of historical accuracy in pa.s.sages like the following:

This pa.s.sage destuted is In the French, well y-wis, Therefore I have, it to colour Borrowed of the Latin author;[110]

Of what kin he came can I nought find In no book that I bed when I began here The Latin to this language lelliche to turn.[111]

The a.s.sumption of the historian's att.i.tude was probably the largest factor in the development of the habit of expressing responsibility for following the source or for noting divergence from it. Less easy of explanation is the fact that comment on style so frequently appears in this connection. There is perhaps a touch of it even in Layamon's account of his originals, when he approaches his French source: "Layamon began to journey wide over this land, and procured the n.o.ble books which he took for authority. He took the English book that Saint Bede made; another he took in Latin that Saint Albin made, and the fair Austin, who brought baptism hither; the third he took, (and) laid there in the midst, that a French clerk made, who was named Wace, who well could write.... Layamon laid before him these books, and turned the leaves ...

pen he took with fingers, and wrote on book skin, and the true words set together, and the three books compressed into one."[112] Robert of Brunne, in his _Chronicle of England_, dated as early as 1338, combines a lengthy discussion of style with a clear statement of the extent to which he has used his sources. Wace tells in French

All that the Latyn spelles, ffro Eneas till Cadwaladre; this Mayster Wace ther leves he.

And ryght as Mayster Wace says, I telle myn Inglis the same ways.[113]

Pers of Langtoft continues the history;

& as he says, than say I,[114]

writes the translator. Robert admires his predecessors, Dares, whose "Latyn is feyre to lere," Wace, who "rymed it in Frankis fyne," and Pers, of whose style he says, "feyrer language non ne redis"; but he is especially concerned with his own manner of expression. He does not aspire to an elaborate literary style; rather, he says,