On the Earliest English Translation of the Laws of Oléron and Its Editions

Q2 Arts and Humanities Studia Anglica Posnaniensia Pub Date : 2020-03-01 DOI:10.2478/stap-2020-0004
K. Lis
{"title":"On the Earliest English Translation of the Laws of Oléron and Its Editions","authors":"K. Lis","doi":"10.2478/stap-2020-0004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The Laws of Oléron are a compilation of regulations binding in north-western Europe. They concern relationships on board a ship and in ports, as well as between members of one crew and those of another when it comes to safe journey. Even though the “code” was known in England at the beginning of the 14th century, it was only in the 16th century that it was translated from French into (Early Modern) English. The literature on the topic mentions two independent 16th-century renditions of the originally French text (Lois d’Oléron) but disagrees as to the authorship of the earliest translation, its date and place of creation, the mutual relationship between the two, their content and respective source texts. Strikingly, three names appear in this context: Thomas Petyt, Robert Copland, and W. Copland. The picture emerging from various accounts concerning the translations is very confusing. It is the purpose of this paper to trace the history of the misconceptions surrounding the Early Modern English versions of the Laws of Oléron, and to illustrate how, by approaching them from a broader perspective, two hundred years of confusion can be resolved. The wider context adopted in this study is that of a book as a whole, and not of an individual text within the book, set against the backdrop of the printing milieu. The investigation begins with a brief inquiry into the lives and careers of the three people named with respect to the two renditions, in an attempt to determine whether these provide any grounds for disagreement. The analysis also juxtaposes the relevant renditions as far as their contents, layout, and the actual texts are concerned in order to establish what the relationship between them is and whether it could account for the confusion surrounding the translations.","PeriodicalId":35172,"journal":{"name":"Studia Anglica Posnaniensia","volume":"55 1","pages":"79 - 118"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studia Anglica Posnaniensia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/stap-2020-0004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract The Laws of Oléron are a compilation of regulations binding in north-western Europe. They concern relationships on board a ship and in ports, as well as between members of one crew and those of another when it comes to safe journey. Even though the “code” was known in England at the beginning of the 14th century, it was only in the 16th century that it was translated from French into (Early Modern) English. The literature on the topic mentions two independent 16th-century renditions of the originally French text (Lois d’Oléron) but disagrees as to the authorship of the earliest translation, its date and place of creation, the mutual relationship between the two, their content and respective source texts. Strikingly, three names appear in this context: Thomas Petyt, Robert Copland, and W. Copland. The picture emerging from various accounts concerning the translations is very confusing. It is the purpose of this paper to trace the history of the misconceptions surrounding the Early Modern English versions of the Laws of Oléron, and to illustrate how, by approaching them from a broader perspective, two hundred years of confusion can be resolved. The wider context adopted in this study is that of a book as a whole, and not of an individual text within the book, set against the backdrop of the printing milieu. The investigation begins with a brief inquiry into the lives and careers of the three people named with respect to the two renditions, in an attempt to determine whether these provide any grounds for disagreement. The analysis also juxtaposes the relevant renditions as far as their contents, layout, and the actual texts are concerned in order to establish what the relationship between them is and whether it could account for the confusion surrounding the translations.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
论奥律的最早英译及其版本
摘要:《奥拉西姆法》是一部对西北欧具有约束力的法规汇编。它们涉及船上和港口的关系,以及一名船员与另一名船员之间的安全航行。尽管“密码”早在14世纪初就在英国为人所知,但直到16世纪才从法语翻译成(早期现代)英语。关于这一主题的文献提到了两个独立的16世纪法语原版(Lois d’ol),但对于最早的译本的作者、创作日期和地点、两者之间的相互关系、它们的内容和各自的源文本,意见不一。引人注目的是,有三个名字出现在这篇文章中:托马斯·佩蒂特、罗伯特·科普兰和w·科普兰。关于翻译的各种说法呈现出的景象令人十分困惑。这是本文的目的,以追溯历史上的误解,围绕着早期现代英语版本的法律的奥利姆萨伦,并说明如何,通过接近他们从一个更广阔的角度,可以解决两百年的困惑。在本研究中采用的更广泛的背景是一本书作为一个整体,而不是书中的单个文本,在印刷环境的背景下设置。调查首先对与这两起引渡案件有关的三个人的生活和职业进行了简短的调查,试图确定这是否提供了任何分歧的理由。分析还就其内容,布局和实际文本进行并列,以确定它们之间的关系以及它是否可以解释围绕翻译的混乱。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Studia Anglica Posnaniensia
Studia Anglica Posnaniensia Arts and Humanities-Literature and Literary Theory
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
Aesthetic Pleasure and Negative Aesthetic Experience in the Old English Martyrology Review: Forgeries and Historical Writing in England, France, and Flanders, 900–1200 By Robert F. Berkhofer III. The Boydell Press, 2022. Pp. xi, 348 EmCat-Eng: A catalogue of 1,759 basic emotion terms in English What’s in a Title? Some Remarks on the Semantic Features of Kenning-Like Titles in George R. R. Martin’s A Song of Ice and Fire Series Urban Imagery in the Old English Exodus and its Hermeneutics
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1