It is also necessary to compare the passages of the translation with the passages of other translations of the same work. For Berman, it is necessary to choose the important passages of the original and compare them with the translation to then look at the translation and its project.
The translator then decided on the principles and standards that will guide his translation, according to his own motivations and the rules of the socio-cultural context. The translation project is, in a way, the meeting of these two concepts. The translation project, on the other hand, is influenced by the translating position of the translator and by the translation horizon. 79), (8) is : “ the set of linguistic, literary, cultural and historical parameters which” determine “the action and thinking of a translator ”, in other words, the sociocultural context which influences it. The translation horizon, according to Berman (1994, p. In the light of these observations, we will always consider the dominant tendency of 17 th and 18 th century translation as being that of Les Belles Infidèles and that of the 19 th century as being that of literal translation, and we propose to verify whether the translation strategies of the translators of Paradise Lost fit into these frames of reference or not. 230) (7) demonstrated, he made omissions and sometimes strayed from the meaning of the original knowing that fully well, a fact evidenced by his footnotes where he indicated having made changes. The translation of Paradise Lost of John Milton by Louis Racine is an example, because it claimed to be faithful, but as Jean Gillet (1975, p. However, as Marie-Elisabeth Bougeard-Vëto pointed out, the majority of the information we have on it has been taken from the paratext and the metatext on the translation and not from the translations themselves, and it seems to us that despite adherence to the fidelity (in the sense of respect for the original) of various authors of this period, we find suspicious differences in meaning between the translations and the originals, unlike the translations which would have been completely adapted according to their author and who are sometimes more faithful than they initially seemed to be, like what noted Lieven D’hulst (1990) (5) and Wilhelm Graeber (1996). She recalls that we have little precise information on the subject, that the methodology of historical studies in translation is deficient, that the information on which we rely to establish this hyphenation is mainly taken from prefaces by authors and treatises on translation and not from the translations themselves and, finally, that the manner of translating was not homogeneous.Īs we have seen, different ways of perceiving translation coexisted in the 18 th and 19 th centuries and it can be reductive to consider it as belonging to a single current. 228-243) (4) questions the traditional separation between the era of word-for-word translation and that of Les Belles Infidèles.
0 kommentar(er)
