FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58  
59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   >>   >|  
would not become him; he does not desire ... to have swych eloquence As sum curials han, ner swych asperence In utteryng of here subtyl conceytys In wych oft-tyme ful greth dysceyt is.[145] To covet the craft of such language would be "great dotage" for an old man like him. Yet like those of Lydgate and Caxton, Bokenam's protestations are not entirely convincing, and in them one catches glimpses of a lurking fondness for the wordiness of fine writing. Though Pallas has always refused to lead him Of Thully Rethoryk in-to the motlyd mede, Flourys to gadryn of crafty eloquens,[146] yet he has often prayed her to show him some favor. Elsewhere he finds it necessary to apologize for the brevity of part of his work. Now have I shewed more compendiously Than it owt have ben this noble pedigree; But in that myn auctour I follow sothly, And also to eschew prolixite, And for my wyt is schort, as ye may se, To the second part I wyl me hye.[147] The conventionality, indeed, of Bokenam's phraseology and of his literary standards and the self-contradictory elements in his statements leave one with the impression that he has brought little, if anything, that is fresh and individual to add to the theory of translation. Whether or not the medieval period made progress towards the development of a more satisfactory theory is a doubtful question. While men like Lydgate, Bokenam, and Caxton generally profess to have reproduced the content of their sources and make some mention of the original writers, their comment is confused and indefinite; they do not recognize any compelling necessity for faithfulness; and one sometimes suspects that they excelled their predecessors only in articulateness. As compared with Layamon and Orm they show a development scarcely worthy of a lapse of more than two centuries. There is perhaps, as time goes on, some little advance towards the attainment of modern standards of scholarship as regards confession of divergence from sources. In the early part of the period variations from the original are only vaguely implied and become evident only when the reader can place the English beside the French or Latin. In _Floris and Blancheflor_, for example, a much condensed version of a descriptive passage in the French is introduced by the words, "I ne can tell you how richly the saddle was wrought."[148] The romance of _Arthur_ ends with the statement,
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58  
59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Bokenam

 
original
 

Caxton

 

French

 

sources

 

Lydgate

 

standards

 

theory

 
period
 

development


predecessors

 

confused

 

indefinite

 

excelled

 

comment

 
compelling
 

necessity

 

recognize

 
faithfulness
 

suspects


profess

 

translation

 

Whether

 

medieval

 
individual
 

progress

 

satisfactory

 

reproduced

 

content

 

mention


generally

 

doubtful

 
question
 
writers
 

version

 

condensed

 

descriptive

 

passage

 

introduced

 

English


Floris

 
Blancheflor
 

romance

 

Arthur

 

statement

 

wrought

 

richly

 

saddle

 
reader
 
centuries