Despite the official condemnations and even executions of some outstanding adherents of the idea of sense-to-sense translation of any written matter (including the ecclesiastic and philosophic works), the controversy between the supporters of now three different approaches to translating continued unabated all through the periods of Classicism (17th - 18th centuries) and Enlightenment (the 18th century). These three trends which appeared long before and were
employed during the Middle Ages, have been mentioned already on the preceding pages and are as follows:
1. The ancient «strict and truthful» word-for-word translation of ecclesiastic (the Septuagint) and philosophic works. The basic principles of the trend were considerably undermined by Luther's and Tyndale's translations of the Bible;
2. The unrestricted free translation introduced by Horace and Apuleius, which had established an especially strong position in France and gained many supporters there;
3. The old trend adhering to the Cicero's principle of regular sense-to-sense translation without the unrestricted reductions or additions to the texts/works in their final translated versions.
The supporters of the latter approach, whose voices began to be heard more and more loudly in the 17lh and 18th centuries in various West European countries, strongly condemned any deliberate lowering of the artistic level or changing of the structure of the original belles-lettres works. They demanded in J.W.Draper's words that «Celtic literature be as Celtic as possible and Hottentot literature as Hottentot in order that the thrill of novelty might be maintained»1. The English critic meant by these words that the translator should faithfully convey not only the content but also the artistic merits of the source language works. John Dryden (1630-1700), another outstanding English author and literary critic, tried to reconcile these two historically opposite trends and sought a middle course between the «very free», as he called the second trend, and the «very close» (i.e. word-for-word) approach. He demanded from translators «faithfulness to the spirit of the original» which became a regular motto in the period of Classicism and Enlightenment, though far from all translators unanimously supported this idea. Thus, the German translator and literary critic G.Ventzky put forward the idea (and vigorously supported it) that the translated belles-lettres works «should seem to readers to be born, not made citizens».2 This was not so much a demand for a highly artistic rendition, in the true sense of present-day understanding of faithful artistic translation, than a slightly camouflaged principle of adjustment of the source language works to current readers by way of free, unrestricted sense-to-sense rendering. And he realized this postulate in his translation practice.
' See: Draper J.W.The Theory of Translation in the 18,h Century. In: Neophilologus, VI.- DenHaag, 1921,p.254.
2 See: Franzel J.W.Geschichte des Ubersetzens im 18 Jahrhundert. - Leipzig, 1914, p.39.
/14
Alongside of these trends regular free adaptation was widely practised during the 17th -18th centuries. The latter was considered to be a separate means or principle of translation as well. The most outspoken defender of this kind of «translation» in Germany was Frau Gottsched and her adherents Kriiger, Laub and J.E.Schlegel. She openly recommended «to modernize and nationalize» the foreign authors' works, «to change their scenes of events, customs and traditions for the corresponding German customs and traditions.»1 Moreover, Frau Gottsched recommended the use of dialectal material in translation and practised unrestricted free interpretation of original belles-lettres works.2 These views of Frau Gottsched, G.Ventzky and their adherents on translation radically differed from those expressed by their sturdy opponent, the noted critic and translator J.Breitinger, who considered the source language works to be individual creations whose distinguishing features should be fully rendered into the target language.3
