Early Theories of Translation. Flora Ross Amos

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 luste 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 passages, which so many English translators had perpetrated in silence:

      Her bewte dyscry fayne wolde I

       Affter the sentence off myne auctowre,

       Butte I pray yowe of thys grette labowre I mote at thys tyme excused be;[107]

      Butte who so luste 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 attitude 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 relationship between romance and history and the uncertain division between the two. The early chronicles of England generally devoted an appreciable space 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 passages from various authors, with little attempt at assimilating 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 Godfrey of Bullogne the enumeration of the great names of history includes Arthur and Charlemagne, and the story of Godfrey is designated as "this noble 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 passages like the following: