论文部分内容阅读
【Abstract】D’Ablancourt is a famous French translator in 17th century.He distinguished himself as a most influential translator of classic works.However，his free way of translating has long been disputed.In this essay，a study will be made on D’Ablancourt’s translation thoughts as showed in the introduction to his translation of Lucian.The aim is to discuss the feasibility of D’Ablancourt’s translation theories and underline the importance of being faithful to the original.
【Key Words】D’Ablancourt； free translation； faithfulness
1.Introduction
“Les belles infèles” is a French phrase used by a 17th century translation critic Gilles Ménage to describe his contemporary translator Nicolas Perrot d’Ablancourt’s translation works.This phrase，which means “beautiful but unfaithful women”，vividly indicates that D’Ablancourt’s translation，though elegant and pleasing，is not faithful to the original work.However，generally speaking，faithfulness is the most basic requirement for any translator in any translation，as it were.In D’Ablancourt’s case，though to some extent might be quite excusable，there should also be no exception.In this essay a tentative text study will be made on D’Ablancourt’s translation thoughts as showed in the introduction to his translation of Lucian，then，critical analysis will be given from many perspectives on these thoughts，and is followed by discussion of the vital harms as well as some objective advantageous influences of his translating method.The final aim is to discuss the feasibility of D’Ablancourt’s translation theories and underline the importance of being faithful to the original.
2.D’Ablancourt’s Way of Translating
D’Ablancourt was acknowledged as the representative of free translation，that is，to translate not strictly following the original，whether in terms of meaning or style，and the translator takes great freedom in adding，omitting，adapting the original work in doing his，if that can still be called so in its broad sense，translation.In his article “To Monsieur Conrart （Dedication of French translation of Lucian）”，D’Ablancourt talked to his sponsor Monsieur Conrart about his thoughts on translating，for the purpose of justifying his translation methods and teaching his sponsor how to defend them from outside reproaches.
D’Ablancourt attached great importance to the elegance of translation and to his readers’ pleasant reading experience.Therefore，he “abridged the coarsest sections and prettified certain places that were too unrestrained”，for he believed that his conducting in this way could lead to “many benefits that could accrue to the public from reading this author” （D’Ablancourt 1654/2002：158）. D’Ablancourt believed that “[i]t was thus necessary to change all that in order to have a pleasing result” （D’Ablancourt 1654/2002：158）.Also，he was convinced that people could not tolerate the slightest fault of best authors just like they could not bear beautiful faces with something that should not be there； so D’Ablancourt naturally took the following as a summary of his methods of translating Lucian：“there are sections that must be changed or clarified，particularly when things are only done to please” and “[t]herefore，I do not always bind myself either to the words or to the reasoning of this author； and I adjust things to our manner and style with his goal in mind”（D’Ablancourt 1654/2002：158）.It’s clear that D’Ablancourt only kept the general meaning and purpose，and left behind all other matters of translation.
3.Comments on D’Ablancourt’s Translation Thoughts
We can observe from D’Ablancourt’s defends and find that his translation method is rather free and resembles what was called “imitation”，which has been greatly discussed by many other scholars.German translation theorist Friedrich Schleiermacher remarks that this sort of translation “is no longer that work itself，nor is it even an attempt to represent the sprit of its language effectively； it is far closer to the truth，in fact，to say that many new elements are introduced to displace the original’s foreignness” （Schleiermacher 2011：121），or in D’Ablancourt’s own words，“different reasoning as well as different words” （D’Ablancourt 1654/2002：158）.Schleiermacher disapproves this free translation because it sacrifices the identity of the original work and deviates way too far from the stricter sense of translation.
D’Ablancourt himself also admits “that is not really translation”，but believes that “it is worth more than translation”，and take Cicero’s famous saying “I did not translate them as an interpreter，but as an orator” as his defence （D’Ablancourt 1654/2002：159）.However，D’Ablancourt did not recognize that Cicero’s “working as an orator” did not mean adding and subtracting according to the translator’s will，but meant，as Cicero himself explained just behind his famous saying，“keeping the same ideas and the forms，or as one might say，the ‘figures’ of thought，but in language which conforms to our usage” （Cicero 2011：67）.Cicero’s translation is more close to what we nowadays call “liberal translation” and highly values the quality of faithfulness.
A metaphor of ambassadors was made by D’Ablancourt when defending his way of translating：“ambassadors are accustomed，for fear of appearing ridiculous to those they strive to please，to dressing themselves according to the fashion of the country where they are sent” （D’Ablancourt 1654/2002：158-159）.However，it is believed that the ambassadors，except for trying to please that nation’s people，have something more important to do：to represent and show their native country and bridge the culture of two peoples.As for the divergence of language and culture，it’s the ambassadors’ duty and responsibility to face the obstacle and help them to communicate in a faithful and trustworthy way，not to please people by telling them that there is no difference. To translate freely can surely please and satisfy the target readers，if they do not look into the original work and compare.However，it wiped out the diversity and divergence between languages and cultures.But this does not mean they do not exist.The author has the right to be showed to his readers intact.And the readers have the right to know the author in the way he is.There are some places that can be hard for the target readers to comprehend，but it is what the original is.Translators should have a broader vision than merely try to please the reader.All people can share together the treasures of language and culture，just in the way as Schleiermacher put it （1992：165）：
“With the help of our language all nations would then be able to enjoy whatever beauty the most different times have brought forth，to the extent that foreigners can succeed in doing this in a pure and perfect manner.Indeed，this appears to be the real historical aim of translation as we have grown used to it now”.
4.Harm to the Author and Reader
A good translation is not an absolute literal translation，nor is an absolute liberal translation.It usually lays some where in-between.D’Ablancourt abridges and prettifies whenever he thinks necessary.What the readers get is only D’Ablancourt’s comprehension of the author and his work.The reader who wants to know Lucian’s true thoughts completely will disappoint in his rendering.D’Ablancourt’s translation，though beautiful like a seductive woman，is way too far beyond liberal translation and tends to be excessively free.The more one believes it，the more he gets cheated，for it has been unfaithful in the first place.And beautiful women are not necessarily to be unfaithful.There have been lots of women that are both pleasant to the eye and faithful to the heart.We believe that most men will prefer the later kind for their precious quality of being faithful.
Apart from the harm to the readers，the greatest unfair was inflicted to the author.D’Ablancourt’s free translation and imitation are “the most advantageous way for a translator to show himself，but the greatest wrong which can be done to the memory and reputation of the dead” （Dryden 2011，92）.The author presented his best but was not justly treated.His intellects should be respected by the translator and be given full credit.It may cause trouble if Lucian were living to read D’Ablancourt’s willful manipulation of his work.
However，due to many kinds of reasons，D’Ablancourt’s translation was also accepted and praised by many people at that time （qtd.in，Tan，1991：88）.Objectively speaking，regardless of his unfaithful translation，he introduced Lucian and his work and made more people know about this author and his work.That’s the advantageous influence these translations made.And though they are not faithful in the meaning，they set very good example of how to remain the original style and manner for other translators. 5.Conclusion
It must be clarified that this essay is not here advocating word-for-word translation，but，rather，discuss the defect and irrationality of D’Ablancourt’s translation thoughts from the perspective of basic translation principle of fidelity.It is improper and unwise to sacrifice the meaning of the original in order to keep the clarity and purity of style.Translators have to face the obstacle and handle it ingeniously in stead of merely pursing delicacy and embellishment and clearing up the divergence under the excuse of for the readers’ sake.Tytler once criticized D’Ablancourt’s when discussing the priority of meaning，style and manner，and ease when translating，saying that D’Ablancourt’s translations are “model of ease，of elegance，and perspicuity； but he has considered these qualities as the primary requisites of translation，and both the sense and manner of his originals are sacrificed，without scruple，to their attainment” （1907/2011：107）.Faithfulness is the most basic requirement of translation.The more the translator departs from the principle of faithfulness，the further will his translation get away from the ideal protocoltype.
D’Ablancour’s free way of translating goes against the basic rule of faithfulness and received vehement critics.However，D’Ablancourt’s translation was not only the product of D’Ablancourt himself，but also a product of the translator’s times.All rewritings，whatever their intention，reflect a certain ideology and a poetics and as such manipulate literature to function in a given society in a given way （Levefere 1992：Preface）.Therefore，the reasons why D’Ablancourt translate in this way can be further studied from many perspectives：ideology，patronage，poetics，religion，etc.Researches on these subjects will surely add new information to and make more complete the study of D’Ablancourt’s translation thoughts.
References：
[1]D’Ablancourt，Nicolas Perrot.To Monsieur Conrart （Dedication of French translation of Lucian）.1654.Trans.David G.Ross.Western Translation Theory：From Herodotus to Nietzsche （second edition）.Ed.Douglas Robinson.Manchester：St.Jerome Publishing，2002.Robinson 158-159.
[2]Schleiermacher，Friedrich.“On the Different Methods of Translating.” 1813.Trans.Douglas Robinson.Selected Readings in Western Translation Theory.Ed.Dun Guangang.Changsha：Hunan Normal University Press，2011.121.
[3]Cicero，Marcus Tullius.Trans.H.M.Hubbell.“The best Kind of Orator.” Selected Readings in Western Translation Theory.Ed.Dun Guangang.Changsha：Hunan Normal University Press，2011.67.
[4]Schleiermacher，Friedrich.“On the Different Methods of Translating.”Translation/History/Culture：a sourcebook.Ed.André Lefevere.New York：Routledge，1992.165.
[5]Dryden，John.“The Three Types of Translation.” Selected Readings in Western Translation Theory.Ed.Dun Guangang.Changsha：Hunan Normal University Press，2011.92.
[6]Tan Zaixi.A Short History of Translation in the West.Beijing：Commercial Press，1991.88.
[7]Tytler，Alexander Fraser.The Three General Laws of Translation.Selected Readings in Western Translation Theory.Ed.Dun Guangang.Changsha：Hunan Normal University Press，2011.107.
[8]Lefevere，André.“General editors’s preface.” Translation，Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame.New York：Routledge，1992.
【Key Words】D’Ablancourt； free translation； faithfulness
1.Introduction
“Les belles infèles” is a French phrase used by a 17th century translation critic Gilles Ménage to describe his contemporary translator Nicolas Perrot d’Ablancourt’s translation works.This phrase，which means “beautiful but unfaithful women”，vividly indicates that D’Ablancourt’s translation，though elegant and pleasing，is not faithful to the original work.However，generally speaking，faithfulness is the most basic requirement for any translator in any translation，as it were.In D’Ablancourt’s case，though to some extent might be quite excusable，there should also be no exception.In this essay a tentative text study will be made on D’Ablancourt’s translation thoughts as showed in the introduction to his translation of Lucian，then，critical analysis will be given from many perspectives on these thoughts，and is followed by discussion of the vital harms as well as some objective advantageous influences of his translating method.The final aim is to discuss the feasibility of D’Ablancourt’s translation theories and underline the importance of being faithful to the original.
2.D’Ablancourt’s Way of Translating
D’Ablancourt was acknowledged as the representative of free translation，that is，to translate not strictly following the original，whether in terms of meaning or style，and the translator takes great freedom in adding，omitting，adapting the original work in doing his，if that can still be called so in its broad sense，translation.In his article “To Monsieur Conrart （Dedication of French translation of Lucian）”，D’Ablancourt talked to his sponsor Monsieur Conrart about his thoughts on translating，for the purpose of justifying his translation methods and teaching his sponsor how to defend them from outside reproaches.
D’Ablancourt attached great importance to the elegance of translation and to his readers’ pleasant reading experience.Therefore，he “abridged the coarsest sections and prettified certain places that were too unrestrained”，for he believed that his conducting in this way could lead to “many benefits that could accrue to the public from reading this author” （D’Ablancourt 1654/2002：158）. D’Ablancourt believed that “[i]t was thus necessary to change all that in order to have a pleasing result” （D’Ablancourt 1654/2002：158）.Also，he was convinced that people could not tolerate the slightest fault of best authors just like they could not bear beautiful faces with something that should not be there； so D’Ablancourt naturally took the following as a summary of his methods of translating Lucian：“there are sections that must be changed or clarified，particularly when things are only done to please” and “[t]herefore，I do not always bind myself either to the words or to the reasoning of this author； and I adjust things to our manner and style with his goal in mind”（D’Ablancourt 1654/2002：158）.It’s clear that D’Ablancourt only kept the general meaning and purpose，and left behind all other matters of translation.
3.Comments on D’Ablancourt’s Translation Thoughts
We can observe from D’Ablancourt’s defends and find that his translation method is rather free and resembles what was called “imitation”，which has been greatly discussed by many other scholars.German translation theorist Friedrich Schleiermacher remarks that this sort of translation “is no longer that work itself，nor is it even an attempt to represent the sprit of its language effectively； it is far closer to the truth，in fact，to say that many new elements are introduced to displace the original’s foreignness” （Schleiermacher 2011：121），or in D’Ablancourt’s own words，“different reasoning as well as different words” （D’Ablancourt 1654/2002：158）.Schleiermacher disapproves this free translation because it sacrifices the identity of the original work and deviates way too far from the stricter sense of translation.
D’Ablancourt himself also admits “that is not really translation”，but believes that “it is worth more than translation”，and take Cicero’s famous saying “I did not translate them as an interpreter，but as an orator” as his defence （D’Ablancourt 1654/2002：159）.However，D’Ablancourt did not recognize that Cicero’s “working as an orator” did not mean adding and subtracting according to the translator’s will，but meant，as Cicero himself explained just behind his famous saying，“keeping the same ideas and the forms，or as one might say，the ‘figures’ of thought，but in language which conforms to our usage” （Cicero 2011：67）.Cicero’s translation is more close to what we nowadays call “liberal translation” and highly values the quality of faithfulness.
A metaphor of ambassadors was made by D’Ablancourt when defending his way of translating：“ambassadors are accustomed，for fear of appearing ridiculous to those they strive to please，to dressing themselves according to the fashion of the country where they are sent” （D’Ablancourt 1654/2002：158-159）.However，it is believed that the ambassadors，except for trying to please that nation’s people，have something more important to do：to represent and show their native country and bridge the culture of two peoples.As for the divergence of language and culture，it’s the ambassadors’ duty and responsibility to face the obstacle and help them to communicate in a faithful and trustworthy way，not to please people by telling them that there is no difference. To translate freely can surely please and satisfy the target readers，if they do not look into the original work and compare.However，it wiped out the diversity and divergence between languages and cultures.But this does not mean they do not exist.The author has the right to be showed to his readers intact.And the readers have the right to know the author in the way he is.There are some places that can be hard for the target readers to comprehend，but it is what the original is.Translators should have a broader vision than merely try to please the reader.All people can share together the treasures of language and culture，just in the way as Schleiermacher put it （1992：165）：
“With the help of our language all nations would then be able to enjoy whatever beauty the most different times have brought forth，to the extent that foreigners can succeed in doing this in a pure and perfect manner.Indeed，this appears to be the real historical aim of translation as we have grown used to it now”.
4.Harm to the Author and Reader
A good translation is not an absolute literal translation，nor is an absolute liberal translation.It usually lays some where in-between.D’Ablancourt abridges and prettifies whenever he thinks necessary.What the readers get is only D’Ablancourt’s comprehension of the author and his work.The reader who wants to know Lucian’s true thoughts completely will disappoint in his rendering.D’Ablancourt’s translation，though beautiful like a seductive woman，is way too far beyond liberal translation and tends to be excessively free.The more one believes it，the more he gets cheated，for it has been unfaithful in the first place.And beautiful women are not necessarily to be unfaithful.There have been lots of women that are both pleasant to the eye and faithful to the heart.We believe that most men will prefer the later kind for their precious quality of being faithful.
Apart from the harm to the readers，the greatest unfair was inflicted to the author.D’Ablancourt’s free translation and imitation are “the most advantageous way for a translator to show himself，but the greatest wrong which can be done to the memory and reputation of the dead” （Dryden 2011，92）.The author presented his best but was not justly treated.His intellects should be respected by the translator and be given full credit.It may cause trouble if Lucian were living to read D’Ablancourt’s willful manipulation of his work.
However，due to many kinds of reasons，D’Ablancourt’s translation was also accepted and praised by many people at that time （qtd.in，Tan，1991：88）.Objectively speaking，regardless of his unfaithful translation，he introduced Lucian and his work and made more people know about this author and his work.That’s the advantageous influence these translations made.And though they are not faithful in the meaning，they set very good example of how to remain the original style and manner for other translators. 5.Conclusion
It must be clarified that this essay is not here advocating word-for-word translation，but，rather，discuss the defect and irrationality of D’Ablancourt’s translation thoughts from the perspective of basic translation principle of fidelity.It is improper and unwise to sacrifice the meaning of the original in order to keep the clarity and purity of style.Translators have to face the obstacle and handle it ingeniously in stead of merely pursing delicacy and embellishment and clearing up the divergence under the excuse of for the readers’ sake.Tytler once criticized D’Ablancourt’s when discussing the priority of meaning，style and manner，and ease when translating，saying that D’Ablancourt’s translations are “model of ease，of elegance，and perspicuity； but he has considered these qualities as the primary requisites of translation，and both the sense and manner of his originals are sacrificed，without scruple，to their attainment” （1907/2011：107）.Faithfulness is the most basic requirement of translation.The more the translator departs from the principle of faithfulness，the further will his translation get away from the ideal protocoltype.
D’Ablancour’s free way of translating goes against the basic rule of faithfulness and received vehement critics.However，D’Ablancourt’s translation was not only the product of D’Ablancourt himself，but also a product of the translator’s times.All rewritings，whatever their intention，reflect a certain ideology and a poetics and as such manipulate literature to function in a given society in a given way （Levefere 1992：Preface）.Therefore，the reasons why D’Ablancourt translate in this way can be further studied from many perspectives：ideology，patronage，poetics，religion，etc.Researches on these subjects will surely add new information to and make more complete the study of D’Ablancourt’s translation thoughts.
References：
[1]D’Ablancourt，Nicolas Perrot.To Monsieur Conrart （Dedication of French translation of Lucian）.1654.Trans.David G.Ross.Western Translation Theory：From Herodotus to Nietzsche （second edition）.Ed.Douglas Robinson.Manchester：St.Jerome Publishing，2002.Robinson 158-159.
[2]Schleiermacher，Friedrich.“On the Different Methods of Translating.” 1813.Trans.Douglas Robinson.Selected Readings in Western Translation Theory.Ed.Dun Guangang.Changsha：Hunan Normal University Press，2011.121.
[3]Cicero，Marcus Tullius.Trans.H.M.Hubbell.“The best Kind of Orator.” Selected Readings in Western Translation Theory.Ed.Dun Guangang.Changsha：Hunan Normal University Press，2011.67.
[4]Schleiermacher，Friedrich.“On the Different Methods of Translating.”Translation/History/Culture：a sourcebook.Ed.André Lefevere.New York：Routledge，1992.165.
[5]Dryden，John.“The Three Types of Translation.” Selected Readings in Western Translation Theory.Ed.Dun Guangang.Changsha：Hunan Normal University Press，2011.92.
[6]Tan Zaixi.A Short History of Translation in the West.Beijing：Commercial Press，1991.88.
[7]Tytler，Alexander Fraser.The Three General Laws of Translation.Selected Readings in Western Translation Theory.Ed.Dun Guangang.Changsha：Hunan Normal University Press，2011.107.
[8]Lefevere，André.“General editors’s preface.” Translation，Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame.New York：Routledge，1992.