![]() 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 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |