BIBLICAL
STUDIES
1/1996
Folia
Anglistica
founded in 1996
Autumn 1996
Published by the Faculty of
Philology of
Moscow State University
Editor:
Marklen Konurbayev
© Faculty of Philology, Moscow State University, 1996
© Dialogue MGU, 1996
No part of this issue may be translated or reproduced in any form
without written permission from the publishers.
Folia Anglistica,
1996, No1 Biblical Studies
Table of Contents:
DOES IT RING A BELL? (reopening the Bible for the Occident)
Anna Komarova, Marklen Konurbayev, Andrei Lipgart..............
BIBLICAL WORDS AND THEIR ‘POLYPHONIC’ CAPACITY
Velta Zadornova..........................................................
СЕМАНТИКА И РИТМ МОЛИТВЫ
Конурбаев
М.Э...........................................................
ON HOW DO WE ACTUALLY FEEL ABOUT TIME?
Tatyana Komova......................................................... 45
BIBLE TRANSLATING: AN OVERVIEW OF PHILOLOGICAL
INDISPENSABLES
Lina Gorchakova......................................................... 50
Abstract: The Bible as a unique cultural phenomenon provides
excellent material for anthropological research in general, and also for
understanding its role in the cultural life of so many nations. The authors of
the present article argue that no discussion of the relative value of existing
biblical translations is possible unless the dialectical unity of conceptual
world-view and the linguistic world-view is taken into account. Only then can
the variant-invariant problem be adequately solved. By way of giving an example
the authors of the article discuss the role and status of the English Bible in
the English cultural and religious tradition.
It
is already for more than 2000 years that the Bible keeps attracting the
attention of historians and theologists, linguists and literary critics, ethnographers
and archeologists – scholars and scientists working in all those fields of
knowledge which are one way or another connected with religion, its origin and
influence on world-culture. It is practically the only large source of
information in the psychology, culture, sociology and ethnography of Christian
religion. The studies into the Old and New Testaments’ style, authorship, the
specificity of various translations from Hebrew, Greek and Latin to other
languages show how a young sect began its growth into a major world religion.
Method
For
a biblical scholar who studies the Bible linguistically there is a great
anthropological question to be answered before he actually proceeds with his
purely linguistic observations: whether the existing numerous translations of
the original text are its counterparts in those nations which accepted
Christianity. Few will deny the fact that “the civilisation of the Western
world is (in many respects) grounded upon the ancient civilisation of the
Mediterranean coast: ... the coast of Palestine from which flows that invisible
stream which has saturated the consciousness of modern Europe”. (L.Binyon s.a.)
Scholars
of this trend study the Bible (which one will not fail to recognise as being a
collection of works of Hebrew literature) as a source, origin and foundation of
national literatures. One of the immediate tasks of a biblical anthropologist
is to establish the role this text plays in the life and culture of so many
nations around the world. Methodologically, with hundreds of Bible translations
from the original Hebrew into other languages, he may not and ought not
separate himself from the trend of linguistic research which is based on what
R.Jakobson called “the correlation of invariant and variation which is the key
question in the whole of the contemporary scholarly thinking”.
The
aim of the present research is to explain and expound how the literary poetic
monument of the Hebrews became acceptable for so many other nations. In some
cases it even became the core of national cultural background, as is the case
with the English Bible, for example: the mentioning together of Shakespeare,
Milton and the Bible became an idiomatic phrase in the English language today.
We
want to know in particular how certain elements of the linguistically unique
world-view of the Hebrews assimilated in other cultures and whether the text of
the Scriptures remained the same through so many centuries, from a language to
a language, from a culture to a culture, and what we mean by introducing the
most unusual for “the official Jew” (3, 175) word-combination – the English
Bible, or the Russian Bible, or the German Bible, etc. This problem is closely
connected with the one formulated by Eugene Nida so long ago: “What did the
text mean to people who were original receptors? ... what it should mean to
Christians to-day?” (12, 177). It would be presumptuous on our part to consider
the problem in its stunning globality and we are going to concentrate in this
paper on the following aspect: what made the parabolic, allegorical
presentation of concrete reality, so dear to the Judaean heart, equally
acceptable for so many other nations (each with its own acceptation of the
conceptual and the linguistic world views).
The dialectics of
form and content
Before
we go any further, a short digression is called upon, for the terms ‘conceptual
world-view’ and ‘linguistic world-view’ have been abused to such an extent,
that a more sensitive reader might not be able to repress his resentment at
seeing these terms again in this paper. Here we have used these appellations
not to show reverence to a time-honoured and generally respected piece of
gobbledegook but because these nomenclatures, the way we understand them, are
directly relevant to what we are going to expound.
Conceptual
world view exists extralinguistically; it is the sum total of what people know
about the world around, their experiential ‘anthropological’ (social,
scientific, political, religious, cultural, etc.) background.
Linguistic
world-view is the way people clothe their mental ‘conceptual’ images in words
with the help of language and can vary considerably from language to language,
depending on linguistic categories and their functioning in each particular
language.
In
contrast with the linguistic world-view, the conceptual world-view is
essentially the same with all nations, which can be proved by adducing one of
the numerous “thematic classifications” (1, 55-56).
Conceptual
and linguistic world-views are constantly overlapping and interweaving with
each other and exist in a kind of dialectical relationship, the conceptual
extralinguistic system developing the language, and the latter making
conceptual world-view change and presenting it in a more detailed and refined
form by means of metaphor, imagery and other purely linguistic devices. All
attempts at idolizing only one aspect of this dichotomy to the detriment of the
other may distort the actual picture.
In
contrast with historical and theological knowledge which belongs to one’s
conceptual world-view, poetry, as one of the highest manifestations of human
creativity, forms part of the linguistic world-view, something unique and
specific for the speakers of each particular language. Books are read not
merely for edification, but for enjoyment too, for poetry, linguistic
creativity is an attempt at presenting the already known feelings and
impressions (constituent parts of conceptual world-view) in a new and original
form. Thus, poets sometimes find more astounding and unexpected details in
phenomena with which people are familiar, they discover certain connections and
associations which have never been noticed previously, and contribute to seeing
things in a new light.
For
this reason, poetry cannot be rendered adequately in a foreign language; it
never sounds exactly the way it does in the original, even when it is done in
such closely related languages as German and English, let alone the
incompatible ones (in terms of grammatical and lexical organisation) like
English and Hebrew. Even if the conceptual foundation of a text is preserved,
its linguistic shape will be different, however hard-working and talented the
translators may be.
At
this stage the problem presented as the title of the subsequent subdivision
becomes topical. Indeed, how does one know:
One or many?
When
one sets about studying the Russian, the English or the German Bible
philologically there is often an advice heard from a learned biblical scholar not
to take a random version of the text, but “the best”, the one approved and
recognised by the whole course of literary development: Church-Slavonic
translation of the Bible – when one deals with the Russian religious tradition,
the Authorised (King James) Version – in the case of the Anglo-Saxon culture,
D.Martin Luther’s Bible – in the German religious tradition What could be the
reasons for such preferences?
To
be able to answer this question it is necessary to consider it from the
so-called “functional point of view”: in this connection the ideas of Jan de
Waard and Eugene Nida presented in the book “From one language to another”
appeared to be of great help to us. (12). The authors of the book claim that
they offer “a translation approach for avoiding wooden literalness as well as
glib and imprecise paraphrase”. The task of the translator is “to let the
original author speak for himself ... to transmit the meaning of the text,
without compromising it, even when the second language imposes serious limitations”(12).
The authors of the scholarly research under consideration go far beyond mere
semantic accuracy and explore the more difficult problems of retaining the
effect of such rhetorical devices as repetition, rhythm and irony.
The
scholars put forward two main objectives the translator will have to deal with:
first of all ( leaving aside the question of the authorship, for it is
obviously a topic for a separate broad scholarly study) (10) they concentrate
on the role of the Message in the Bible and, secondly, on the form of
presentation. The only purpose to be observed by the translators is that the
Message should be there and that it should be presented in the manner which
becomes the Holy Book: there could not be any question of a familiar or any other
lighter style to appear.
The
versions that ‘dare’ to simplify the text to that extent already cannot claim
to be The Holy Book in the proper sense of the word, whose aim is to change the
mentality of people and to turn them to faith. Not infrequently translators
forget that they should appeal not only to reason or common sense but also and
mainly to a person’s heart. The Version of the Bible which succeeds in
achieving this effect, i.e. to pass over to different people the Message in the
duly respectful manner are presumably good translations (as is the case with
the mentioned above versions). There are quite a few books however, which only
bear on their cover the well-known title – the Bible. But there are very few
which have the right to be called so.
Slicing and splicing
To understand the phenomenon of the Bible and its
surprising “suitability” for so many different cultures, one is supposed to be
able to distinguish between three layers of presentation in the text under
analysis: a) the historical layer, b) the
ethical and c) the aesthetic one.
Since
the time when the Old Testament appeared in its original Hebrew version, which
was recognised by the members of this small religious community as something indivisible
and bearing superior moral, social and historic importance, beginning with the
recognition of Israel as a separate nation with its own national and religious
customs and traditions – the Bible has been considered as one of the most
important documents, which marked the succession of events in the history of
the nation. The principal difference between this historical narration and any
other learned book devoted to the study of the history of this or that nation
is that all events described in the Scriptures (however small and unimportant)
are treated, and evaluated against the background of faith moral, the law of
Moses. This ethical and religious motive of every fall and rise of the people,
upon which the prosperity and the good of the nation was fully based makes this
book different from all other historical narratives.
The
aesthetics of the book is the style and the rhetoric by means of which the
events in question have been presented. That’s exactly where the linguistic
world-view and the conceptual world-view, come together. At the same time it is
very difficult (if at all possible) to distinguish clearly and distinctly
between them. A historian who is accustomed to dealing with the usually
inexpressive historical narration (only occasionally interspersed with personal
remarks of the author of the text) cannot help being nonplussed by the amount
of allegories and metaphors he may find in the Scriptures (which, as has
already been said, is claimed to be a historical narration). The text so lavishly
endowed with ambiguities, mysteries and parabolic comparisons ceases to be the
historical narration in the proper sense of the word, but rises to the level of
imaginative writing. The only possible justification of this mode of expression
could be the one we find in S.Sandmel’s famous book “Judaism and Christian
beginnings”: “The Rabbinic parables are clear clues to the disposition of the
Rabbinic mind toward concreteness, rather than to the abstractions such as
marked Greek thought” (8,106). It transpires, therefore, that all the three
layers of the text we have singled out are indissoluably connected with each
other. Some may call this unity “myth” (11, 54 ff.,78), others describe it “as literature made of faith and
a faith-making literature, rooted alike, in a history...” (11,30). But
basically this is the way Hebrews perceived the world. This was the world of
their concepts, their Weltanschauung.
The biblical allegory is a sample of the Hebrew linguistic world-view
incorporating in the best way their conceptual world-view.
The
tradition of allegorical vision of the world was something a Hebrew historian
recognised as the aspect which made him different from others. The New
Testament Evangelist (being perfectly aware of the fact that the message presented
in this form could be misinterpreted by different cultures) makes a point of
introducing the explanation of the tradition into the Scriptures:
“ Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
He answered and
said unto them, Because it is given unto you
to know the
mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to
them it is
not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall
be given, and
he shall have more abundance: but whosoever
hath not,
from him shall be taken away even that
which he hath.
Therefore speak I to them in parables:
because they
seeing see not; and hearing they hear not,
neither do
they understand.”
Matthew .13:10-14
“For verily I say unto you, That many
prophets and
righteous men have desired to see those
things which you
see, and have not seen them; and to hear
those things
which ye hear, and have not heard
them.”
Matthew .13:17
The
greater part of the Scriptures is made by the prophetic books. To them belongs
the role of initiators of certain customs and traditions in the nation, the
disclosure and revealing of the laws of faith and their observation, and,
finally (however questionable and unusual this statement might seem), the
status of the poets of Israel, though they could consider themselves just as
chroniclers. Nothing could prove it better than the discovery which was made by
Bishop Lowth. The fact that the Old Testament contained much of poetry was
clear to so many biblical analysts. The difficulty consisted in the fact that
even in Psalms and other biblical songs no sign of meter or rhyme could be
found. (11, 108). To R.Lowth we owe the understanding of the basic principle of
Hebrew poetry: “Lowth’s rediscovery of the principles of Hebrew parallelism
also pointed the way toward (another) conclusion scarcely less significant for
the history of biblical criticism: “ ... the Hebrew prophets were also the
poets of Israel” (11, 117). The prophesies of the great prophets of Israel
(3,34ff.) appear to be three faceted narrations: they contain the history
of the nation, including the judgements of their lives and deeds in accordance
with the law of Moses, the message which is as different
from the usual information passed over from one person to another as could be,
for very often it was fraught with all kinds of mysteries and ambiguities; and,
finally, the ancient Hebrew poetic literature with its
own rules of comparisons, metaphors, figures of speech – with the rhetoric of
its own.
Sit trium series
una
The
three elements we have mentioned can hardly be separated and are usually
perceived as global whole. When translated from one language into another this
three-faceted unity begins to suffer all kinds of metamorphoses: the historical
layer would actually present no difficulty and could be understood by different
nations as it is , as facts of reality; as far as prophets’ messages are
concerned (which very often appear in the Bible in the form of a mystery), here
a good translator always tried to literary keep to the original as closely as
he could, for fear of distorting the original message. All interpretations of
such elements are doomed to failure, for it is really difficult to imagine that
the book of this calibre, of this cultural and religious value could appear in
the “clear, unambiguous and easy to understand way” (Good News Bible,
Introduction).
However,
even here all kinds of difficulties may arise in connection with such a
complicated theological and religious concept as mystery. The misunderstanding
of these elements in the Bible by various nations – different from the Hebrews
are due to different comprehensions of the concept ‘mystery’ itself. (4,
517-520). At the same time, when the meaning of this or that word or
word-combination is not absolutely clear, the choice of the wrong word by the
translator may evoke all kinds of associations which would lead to the wrong
perception of this or that passage of the Bible as compared with the original
text.
“Behold, thou art fair, my love;
behold, thou art fair;
thou has doves’ eyes within thy locks:
thy fair hair is as a flock of goats,
that appear from mount Gilead.
2 Thy teeth are like a flock of sheep that
are even shorn
which came up from the washing;
whereof everyone bear twins,
and none is barren among them.”
Song 4:1-2
As
has already been said, the Scriptures stand out among so many other books –
historical narratives or literary works – for their quite specific, unique
spirit of mysteriousness. Waard and Nida believe that “Most ambiguities in the
original text are due to our own ignorance of the cultural and historical
backgrounds of the text”(12, 39). However, there are obviously other places in
the Bible which will remain as mysterious as they are and all attempts at
presenting these extracts in a straightforward and unarguable way will be
doomed to failure. Let us take for example 1 Kings 19:8-12, the passage which
so many people have been trying to explain in the translation with respect to
its last line in the passage “the still small voice” (which being literally translated
from Hebrew means “a voice of thin silence”). Many modern translators reject
the ambiguity of the original text. Thus we have “a low murmuring sound” in the
New English Bible and “the soft whisper of a voice” in Good News Bible.
Quite
a few translators of the Bible are averse to the oddity and paradox of the
original text, obviously neglecting the fact that human religion cannot be
presented in the “natural, clear, simple and unambiguous” way3. This also seems impossible on the only
ground that when thus interpreted the original text obviously loses its
integrity. We could speak here in terms of what Dennis Nineham called “Cultural
totalities”, defining the term as the “unified coherent complexes, any aspect
of which can only be understood in relation to the whole” (11,123), (12). With
this idea in mind and also guided by the belief that the Bible is the “literary
inspired word of God”, the King James Bible translators “took care as far as
they could not to interpret it or make it more easily understood for the
masses. /…/ In so far as it is obscure and ambiguous it is obscurity and
ambiguity that is faithful to the original”. (11,123). Having translated the
line from 1King 19:12 as “a still small voice” the King James Bible translators
gave the literal translation from the original Hebrew (in Elizabethan English
“small” could also mean “thin”).
There
are quite a few passages in the Bible which could be understood only through
the prism of Hebraic national religious traditions. This is the case with Ecclesiastes
12:1-8, which is famous for its profound metaphoric imagery:
Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy
youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt
say, I have no pleasure in them;
2 while the sun, or the light, or the moon,
or the stars be not darkened, nor the clouds return after the rain:
3 in the day when the keepers of the house
shall tremble, and the strong men shall bow themselves, and the grinders cease
because they are few, and those that look out of the windows be darkened,
4 and the doors shall be shut in the
streets, when the
sound
of the grinding is low, and he shall rise up at the voice of the bird, and all
the daughters of music shall be brought low;
5 also when they shall be afraid of that
which is high, and fears shall be in the way, and the almond tree shall
flourish, and the grasshopper shall be a burden, and desire shall fail: because
man goeth to his long home, and the mourners go about the streets:
6 or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the
golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel
broken at the cistern.
7 Then shall the dust return to the earth
as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.
8 Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher;
all is vanity.
Ecclesiastes
is generally recognised as one of the best works of classical literature,
though we cannot help agreeing that certain images will remain absolutely
“mute” for most orthodox occidental readers (at least they will not be
perceived in the way the Hebrew author meant them to be understood).
According
to most commentaries the phrase “and the almond tree shall flourish”, for
example, is the depiction of the old age and grey hair, for it blossoms only in
winter and is all covered with white flowers. If we turn to the examples from
classical Russian literature, we shall find that the comparison with the
flourishing almond-tree was often used to emphasise the beauty of a young
woman” : “ÿ ïüþ çà
öâåòóùèé
ìèíäàëü” (14) Also, the phrase “the
grasshopper shall be a burden” – to mean the body, is definitely to be
misunderstood in so many cultures. But the interesting thing is that the discrepancies
between conceptual world-view of the authors of Hebrew text and that of modern
English and Russian readers do not hamper the achieving of the similar
aesthetic effect. Both in the English an in the Russians versions of the text
it is not a boring and trite piece of ponderous didactics, because the
mysteriousness of images only increases the feeling of futility and finiteness
of human physical existence, typical of this book of the Old Testament. The
fact that the philosophical, the aesthetic purport, the actual “thing-meant”
(5) of the original text is preserved in translations makes such literal,
word-for-word explanations as “almond tree” – “an elderly person” something
unnecessary and even irritating. The power of the dialectics of the extract’s
linguistic form and conceptual content is so great, that it requires no further
amplification.
In
the first two verses of the passage we find the ideal impersonation of a young
man, who is presumably in the first bloom of his life and is for a moment unable
to think of those shadows which as the wise Preacher knows, will soon begin to
accumulate. And although the author is putting it negatively (12:2) the
radiance of the picture ceases to be complete from the very beginning. The
young and the not so young readers of Ecclesiastes are warned that one day
those “clouds” will “return after the rain”.
This
day comes; the radiance is gone; in the next two verses we are astounded by the
profusion of extremely unusual images, which taken as they are say little to
the Occident. But we would prefer to forget about the connection between them
and purely material and banal objects (“grinders cease because they are few”
meaning teeth and “those that look out of the windows be darkened” denoting
eyes). We do not need these down-to-earth equivalents to destroy the mysterious
impression the verses produce, for they are self-sufficient and not abstract at
all. They signify the physical, the material decay of life: its material
sustenance is almost gone (“the sound of the grinding is low”), it is
dwindling. The colours are no longer bright; there is some strange silence
around, one is possessed by the feelings of alienation and aloofness (“the
doors shall be shut in the streets”, “the daughters of the music shall be brought
low”). The end of the day, its evening is skilfully equated with the physical
decline of a person.
A
person who is no longer very young often changes his attitude to the
surrounding world: when he is getting weak, the everlasting energy of Nature
does not fill his heart with joy, and he would rather observe something more
congenial to his own sad contemplations. The next two verses, beginning with
“also when they shall be afraid of that which is high” and ending with “the
wheels broken at the cistern” logically continue to describe a human being’s
decline as manifested first and foremost in the surrounding world. But now it
is not its physical aspect; here we see the non-material, the spiritual side of
the same process. In the first two verses the images stood ‘erect’ as it were.
Then those ‘material’ images “prostrated themselves’. Here the same thing
happens, but not in the physical sense (“fears shall be in the way”, “the
almond tree shall flourish”). This combination of material and spiritual
decline of a man reflects in external images, those from the ‘outer’ world,
naturally leads to him “going to his long home”: simultaneously certain objects
of nature, those otherwise explainable “grasshoppers” and “almond trees” reach
their destination, their climax, after which the inevitable decay is to follow.
“The silver cord”, “the golden bowl”, “the pitcher at the fountain”, “the wheel
at the cistern” are symbols emphasising the transient character of life, its
finiteness both in the physical and in the spiritual sense.
The
two verses that follow (“Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was”
etc.) have been widely quoted in the course of the last two millennia; they
express the helplessness of a human being in the face of death, the only
consolation is that all this is being done in accordance with divine Will. It
has been and still remains a marvellous poetic text which reflects the whole
process of man’s decay up to the “mortal coil” going under and the spirit
returning “unto God, who gave it”. Borrowing a term from musicology we can say
that this is a wonderful cadence for the whole passage. Here naturally the
question of the form of translation arises. “It is not right to speak of the
Greek or Hebrew text(or a literal translation of such) as being merely the form
and a freer idiomatic translation as being the meaning.
To
do justice to primary religious language one must preserve in translating
something of the transcendent quality of the forms”. (12, 22). It would be
wrong to eliminate all the “sublime obscurity” and try to rewrite primary
religious language in the style of a textbook on theology. Overzealous attempts
to explain everything in the Scriptures may actually rob the primary religious
language of its creative power to effect commitment and reorient human
lives”.(12, 36). The latter remark is of a particular importance to us for it
is closely connected with the explanation of the nomenclatures – conceptual
world-view and linguistic world-view we have adduced above.
The
conceptual world-view of the original text is transposed and presented by means
of purely linguistic devices characteristic of each particular language. The
text of the translation becomes worthwhile only when not merely the external,
the ‘factive’, the conceptual side of the original is preserved, but when
something poetically valuable is created. This is of course impossible, unless
the translators manage to employ the unique qualities of the target language,
and produce something poetically and philosophically precious in its own right.
At this point we pass on to the discussion of the variant/invariant
relationship between numerous translations of the Bible, because they show with
varying degree of uniformity the dialectics of the conceptual ‘what’ and the
linguistic ‘how’ of this great religious and poetic monument.
Onus proferendi
We
believe that it was not the wording of the original text of the Bible, nor its
style and genres that made it possible for so many nations to accept the text,
the original text bearing in itself (even in so many translations) the
unerazable trace of the ancient Hebrew culture and perception, something which
is not “selbstverstandlich” for the
orthodox occidental reader of the Bible. Having accepted the doctrine, which
came to these nations through the missionaries, interpretations and
explanations, the first Christians perceived the text in its original form as
God’s own word, which is inevitably associated with all kinds of mysteries and
solemnity to be found in the Bible – fundamental book of the religion. Another
anthropological aspect of this problem is the way different translations of the
Bible influenced the literary culture of the people on whose language the Bible
has been translated.
The English Bible
or the Bible of the English?
We
began our analysis with the English translation of the Bible, with the view of
expanding the field of research unto so many other translations of the
Scriptures in order to establish its role in other peoples’ cultures.
Even a superficial glance at various
English translations of the Bible will show the divergency of styles and
approaches to the translation.
However, the translation made in 1611
at the order of King James I was commonly recognised as the monument of the
classical English literature, on which so many English works of literary art
would rest. The mentioning of such names as Jane Austen, John Bunyan, Charles
Dickens would suffice to prove this obvious statement. In the English-speaking
community today, quite a lot of believers accept no other translation but the
Authorised Version. At the same time, more and more younger people to-day
already fail to understand the language and grandeur of the style of this
version and not infrequently turn to those versions which G.Orwell so aptly
described as “Moses in a lounge-suit”. (6, 337-351) In spite of the lamentable
deterioration of “literariness” in modern world and preference of so many
people to lighter kinds of reading, it is commonly agreed that no other English
translation of the Bible was believed to be as grand and important as the
Authorised Version. “The King James Bible has so impressed our minds and became
so truly an English classic, that no more recent translation can take its
place” (13, 176). This phenomenon obviously goes far beyond the questions of
faith. In an attempt to give a tangible explanation of the fact, a serious
biblical scholar will have to carry out not only the study of the precision of
the translation, its faithfulness to the original, but also (and mainly) the
poetics of the text of the King James Bible per
se.
It has also been generally recognised
that the original compilers of the Scriptures in Hebrew did a lot of work to
make the text of the Bible presentable as one book (the diversity of styles,
collected under the cover of one book induced them to make painstaking efforts
bringing the Bible to the level, when it could be perceived as something united
and indivisible). The translators of the King James Bible went even further in
this direction; it is clear from the unity of style of this version that they
had a certain “pre-concept” for the target they tried to achieve. A careful
comparison of this version with the Hebrew original shows, that much of the
stylistic divergence we find in the Hebrew Bible has been levelled out and
brought up to one – “stately and noble” English language. (13, 176). Even the
presentation of direct speech shows no variation of style, the whole text
flowing smoothly, as if coming from one narrator.
On
the one hand, the translators were very careful with every word and made every
effort not to introduce any personal interpretation of the text (as we often
find in some modern translations of the Bible); on the other hand, we cannot
but think that they had at least two reasons to bring the whole text to one
style: partially it was due to the “non-unified” character of the text (the
King James translators did exactly the same thing that so many other
translators did before them: they tried to “bunch-up” the whole of the text –
oracles, visions, historical narratives, hymns, etc. – by one style) The
unification of styles required a specially elaborated method of work on the
text. In spite of the fact that there were 52 translators all in all, by the
time the translation was finished the English Christian world received a single
stylistically uniform text: it was not the collection of “bits and pieces” of
52 individual styles, but one monumental work of verbal art. The translation
was carried out along the following lines: by the time a translator completed
the translation of the passage he was responsible for, the passage was brought
to the judgement of a special commission which was called upon to listen to
the translation. This procedure helped to reveal many drawbacks of style and
clumsiness of the tongue. The second reason for the preference for grand and
magniloquent style was the recognition of the importance of the task: the Bible
being a Holy book differs from all other books in one particular feature, viz.
when dealing with God’s word no one will have the responsibility of claiming
that some part of it is more important than another. Hence the sceptical
attitude of the King James Bible translators to the referential qualities of
the text, from the point of view of the original language. No interplay of
styles or intonations (bringing out one part of it and damping down another)
was thought possible. Everything was considered to be equally important.
There
is probably one more explanation of the selection of style: the title page of
the Authorised Version announces that it is appointed “TO BE READ IN CHURCHES”.
Many a scholar unanimously agree that it is a lectern Bible, very suitable for
declamation in stone buildings. This is an aspect which is also to be taken
care of – for the church prayer is something which is felt with your heart
rather than perceived rationally. Therefore, the rhetoric of the text was
of very great interest and importance.
All this made so many writers turn to
this text in search of better wording, pleasant-sounding comparisons –
strikingly simple and still never losing the tone of solemnity in allegories
and parables.
At this point we become confronted with
a paradox: in the case of the Authorised Version we deal with the translation
which is very close to and very remote from the original – very close in
revealing the message, very remote stylistically.
Conclusion
There can be little doubt that
the Bible provides invaluable material for anthropological research. It plays a
very special role in cultures of different nations which accepted Christianity.
In connection with this point a clear parametrical opposition of the conceptual
and the linguistic world-view was introduced. We have been trying to prove that
the Bible as one global literary whole can be viewed from three separate,
though interrelated standpoints: as a historical document, as a religious book
and as a poetic monument. While the first and the second aspects are connected
with the conceptual world-view, which is basically the same with all nations,
the biblical text as poetry belongs to the linguistic world-view which is
unique in each particular language. Hence the incompatibility of the
functioning of the Biblical text as a whole in different cultures. In this
article we have tried to illuminate one aspect of this extremely complicated
process, where the Bible turned out to be “the golden link” as it were between
dogma and such massive layer of national culture as literature, the imaginative
writing, the reason for it being the particular approach of the translators of
the Bible to the task they were supposed to fulfil and the result of this work,
which marked the whole epoch in the history of literature.
***
Bibliography:
1. Olga
Akhmanova Optimisation of natural communicative systems. - Hague-Paris: Mouton.
1977. - pp.55-56.
2. Laurence
Binyon s.a. Introduction//The Bible designed to be read as literature.
London:Heinemann Limited.
3.
Joe Brice.. The Book Supreme. London: Epworth Press. 1949
4. Frazer
J.G. The Golden Bough. A Study in Magic and Religion. Abridged edition. London:
Macmillan & Co. Ltd. - 1963. pp.517-520
5.
Sir Allan Gardiner The Theory of Speech and Language. Oxford. 1951
6.
Orwell G.. Collected Essays., London. 1961 pp.337-351
7.
Polubichenko L.V. Philological topology.Moscow 1985..
8.
S.Sandmel. Judaism and Christian beginnings., Oxford. 1978 p.106
9. Stong’s
Exhaustive Concordance. Compact
edition. Baker Book House, Michigan. 1978. p.77
10. Jeffery
L.Sheler. “Who wrote the Bible?” // US News and World report. 1990, Dec.10,
11. M.Wadesworth.
Ways of reading the Bible. The harvester Press: Sussex. ed. 1981 pp.54-78
12. Jan
de Waard and Eugene Nida. From one language to another. New York: Thomas Nelson
Publishers. 1986.
13. Laura
H.Will “A literary Guide to the Bible. New York: George H. Doran Company. 1922
p.176 ff.
14. Òîëñòîé
A.Í. Õîæäåíèå
ïî ìóêàì.
Ñîáðàíèå ñî÷èíåíèé
â 10 òîìàõ. Ì, 1969. – ò. 5–6.
15. ßêîáñîí
Ð.Î.
Ïðåäèñëîâèå //
Ãàìêðåëèäçå
Ò.Â., Èâàíîâ
Â.Â.
Èíäîåâðîïåéñêèé
ÿçûê è
èíäîåâðîïåéöû
. Òáèëèñè. 1984
Abstract: The author of the article asserts that the expressivity of fiction depends, to a considerable extent, on the choice of
words. Words used in literary works are much more capacious semantically and
stylistically than those in non-creative writing. In intellective communication
words are often absorbed by syntagmatic sequences whereas in verbal art they
acquire great weight and significance.
The article proves this
point on the basis of the so-called ‘biblical’ words, which are thus marked in
dictionaries to say that they actually occur in the Authorized Version of the
Bible. The reason why such words are listed and explained in dictionaries is
that the King James Bible has been, until comparatively recently, a text which the
absolute majority of the English population was perfectly familiar with and
which formed the background of their culture. The role of the words in
producing the aesthetic impact in the Bible should not be underestimated,
writes the scholar. As has been shown, the modern ‘replacements’ may not only
change the style, tone or modality of the text, but also be detrimental to its
global purport.
There can be little doubt that
as far as literature is concerned its expressivity first and foremost depends
on words. Words used in literary works are much more capacious both
semantically and stylistically than those in non-creative writing. In what may
be called intellective communication words tend to be absorbed by syntagmatic
sequences whereas in verbal art they themselves acquire great weight and
significance, more readily display their connotations and associations. The
main prerequisite of verbal art consists in the writer being aware of their
potential.
Extensive research in the
field has shown that in studying literature a distinct line should be drawn
between the polyphony and the
polysemy of words. It has been believed that a ‘polysemantic’ word has several
meanings as a lexeme, but it actualizes only one of its meanings in every
particular context. Thus, for instance, the word “taste” has the meaning “the
sensation that is produced when food or drink is put in the mouth” in “Sugar
has a sweet taste” or “I don’t like the taste of this wine” and it means “a
personal liking or preference for smth.” in “She has expensive taste in
clothes”. It turns out, however, that this widely accepted but over-simplified
approach is applicable only to intellective communication or trivial, everyday
situations. This is not the case when we turn to verbal art where words can be
made to realize different semantic and stylistic potentialities. Otherwise
stated, words in imaginative writing can be used in such a way as to display
more than one meaning or shade of meaning in the same context. We can even go
so far as to say that this is one of the primary features that distinguish
literary texts from all other imaginable kinds of writing, because it is one of
the implements of verbal artistic creativity. It should be mentioned in passing
that this peculiarity has nothing to do with pun or word-play, which, as a
rule, are aimed at producing comic effect.
The term ‘polyphony’ is a
musical term denoting a form of musical writing in which a number of different
patterns of notes are sung or played together. It has been used in literary
criticism to refer to the interplay of voices in a novel. There is every reason
to believe that its application by analogy to words used in literature is quite
justified. Thus, ‘lexical polyphony’ may be defined as simultaneous realization
and intertwinement of different meanings (shades of meanings) of a word in a
particular context.
Theoretically speaking, any
word can be used in such a way as to display all its semantic-stylistic
capacities. But some words of the language potentially tend to be more
polyphonic than others. It depends on the peculiarities of the development of
meanings (especially important is their interdependence) and the poetic
associations a word has acquired in the course of its existence. Thus, there
can be no doubt about the semantic-stylistic potentialities of the word
‘fortune’. It is of Latin origin and goes back to the Roman goddess Fortuna. At
the beginning of the XIV century it was first used in a transferred meaning –
“(good or bad) luck, success” – in a religious epic of an anonymous writer. In
the XVI century, that is, in Shakespeare’s time, it acquires the meaning
“possessions, wealth, property” (which is inseparable from “good luck and
success”). The history of this word reflects the history of the nation, the
changes which took place in its social life. All the meanings are intertwined
and logically follow one another.
Shakespeare makes use of the
semantic globality of the word, as in: “Call me no fool till heaven has sent me
fortune”. (As You Like It: II, 7,
19). Here ‘fortune’ means not only “good luck, success”, but implies also
“wealth, property”; one meant the other in Shakespeare’s time.
The difference between words
in terms of their ‘polyphonic’ capacity can be demonstrated if we compare
different translations of the Bible: the King James Bible (the so-called
“Authorised Version”) and its modern counterparts – “The New Testament in
Modern English”, 1959 (N.T.), “Good News for Modern Man”, 1966 (G.N.), “The
Jerusalem Bible”, 1974 (J.B.) and “The Holy Bible”, 1979 (H.B.) (1). The King
James Bible, in which 47 eminent scholars of the day were engaged, appeared in
1611 (2). All the ensuing generations were brought up on this version of the
Bible. It has been a source of wisdom and inspiration for many an English
writer. It has been generally acknowledged as the greatest monument of English
literature which has been quoted and referred to more than any other piece of
writing.
In the 1940-s new translations
of the Bible into modern English began to appear. Church authorities believed
that the Bible should be brought down to the understanding of the masses to
prevent them from abandoning their religious allegiances. The translators’ aim,
therefore, was “to bring the modern clarity of the text before the ordinary
reader” and to produce a version “suitable for public and private reading,
teaching, preaching, memorizing and liturgical use”(3). But “the clarity of the
text” which the editors of modern versions claim to pursue cannot be achieved
without detriment to the essential qualities of the Bible – its poetic
(aesthetic) and mystical nature.
Most English philologists and
men of letters objected to the modern revisions of the Bible. They rightly
assumed that the Authorised Version appeared when what is usually described as
modern English had already taken a definite shape (4). The King James Bible was
a later contemporary of Shakespeare. It is well-known that Shakespeare’s plays
are staged without translating them into modern English. The Bible cannot be
more difficult for the contemporary audience than Shakespeare’s works,
especially as it is not meant to be apprehended through the fleeting impression
of the audience’s ears. The printed text of the King James Bible is something
that is part and parcel of English life, something that every English person is
acquainted with (5).
It is well-known that a work
of literature can be fully appreciated (let alone adequately translated) only
if it is apprehended as a dialectical unity of form and content. In the case of
verbal art we are interested not only in what the writer tries to convey to his
readers (the message itself) but how he speaks about it. It is especially
important when what we deal with is the Bible which has always impressed
English-speaking people (not only Christians) by its “incantational” character,
by the beauty of its language. Translating the text of the Bible into simple
modern parlance in order to make it accessible to people today leads nowhere,
for the text, ‘stripped’ of its poetic qualities, loses its impact. All
attempts to divorce content from form in the case of the Bible translation
results in a kind of ‘digest’ which hardly ever reaches the status of verbal
art.
“Symplification” of the King
James text manifests itself in the modern translations on all linguistic
levels. In the present article we shall confine ourselves to the lexical level
(6). A systematic confrontation of texts will help us to see the difference
between the “flat”, one-sided words of the transpositions and the rich, polyphonic
words of the Authorized Version.
Nowadays, besides the texts of
the Old and New Testaments, the philologist has at his disposal also the Bible
Concordance which is no less important philologically than the Bible itself
(7). Viewed through the prism of the Concordance a particular word appears in a
new light, against the background of all its uses in the classical biblical
texts (8).Thus we are provided with the global “pictures” of all the words
under investigation and this makes the lexical analysis not only much easier
but also more interesting and scientifically grounded.
The first thing to notice when
we compare the texts in question is that some words (and phrases) of the
Authorized text are regularly omitted in the modern transpositions. One of them
is “behold” (it is often preceded by the conjunction “and”), which occurs
mainly in the imperative and functions as an interjection calling attention to
something important or unexpected: 1)”And, behold,
there arose a great tempest in the sea... (Matthew, 8:24); 2) “...and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran
violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters”
(Matthew, 8:32); 3) “And, behold,
the whole city came to meet Jesus...(Ibid:34). “Behold” adds a specific force
to the text. Without it the narration becomes a mere matter-of-fact account of
events. Cf.: 3) “So everybody from that town went out to meet Jesus...” (G.N.);
“At this the whole town set out to meet Jesus” (J.B.), etc. “Behold” also forms
part of the temporal structure of the text and the latter becomes temporally
distorted when “behold” is left out with the ensuing grammatical changes: “And,
behold, there cometh one of the
rulers of the synagogue...” (Mark, 5:22) – “Then one of the synagogue officials
came up” (J.B.).
In contrast to “behold”, for
which, as we observe, there are no equivalents in the modern versions, the
so-called verba dicendi (words of
speaking), i.e. verbs whose specific function is to introduce direct or
reported speech, are systematically replaced in the translations. The main
tendency is to substitute a modern (colloquial) word or construction for an
archaic one, for instance: “And he spake
many things into them in parables, saying...” (Matthew, 13:3) – “He used
parables to tell them many things” (G.N.);
“...and he told them many things in
parables. He said...” (G.B.). In the same way “said unto” becomes “said to”,
“replied”, “answered”, “exclaimed”, “spoke up”, “remarked”; “cried out” is
turned into “screamed”, “shouted”, etc.
It is noteworthy that when verba dicendi are used with those parts
of the text which are assumed to have been actually uttered by Jesus Christ,
they are never used in postposition but always precede the ‘microtext’ in
question: the reader is thus prepared to listen to ‘God’s word’. Because of the
unwarranted change in the word-order these parts of the text lose much of their
weight and significance. The style becomes conversational: “And he said unto
them, Go” (Matthew, 8:32) – “Go”, Jesus told them” (G.N.); “Then go!’, said Jesus
to them” (N.T.).
The most important
pronouncements which are taken as belonging to Jesus Christ are often
introduced by the complex equivalents of verba
dicendi, such as “verily I say unto you/thee” (“Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the
kingdom of heaven”, Matthew, 19:23; “For verily
I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in
no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled”, Matthew, 5:18; “Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by
no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing”, Matthew,
5:26). The translators who indulge in ‘decking out Moses in a lounge suit’
replace this recurrent phrase by polylexemic equivalents of verba dicendi of the following kind: “I
tell you the truth” (H.B.), “I tell you solemnly” (G.B.), “Remember this!”
(G.N.), “Believe me”, “I assure you” (N.T.).
By choosing phatic expressions
like “behold” and “verily I say unto you” the authors of the King James Bible
have achieved a firmly established stylistic effect which is of greatest
importance. The reader derives pleasure from recognizing these lexical units,
which direct his attention to the most important parts of the narration and
contribute to the unique, ‘inescapable’ rhythm of the biblical text. Devoid of
these phatic elements, the texts of the modern translations sound impersonal
and ‘levelled out’.
The authors of the modern
translations seem to set great store by all kinds of connectives which are used
sparingly in the Authorized text. The most widely used connective in the
Authorized Version is “therefore”, which in the subsequent translations is
regularly replaced by less formal expressions, such as: 1) “For whosoever hath,
to him shall be given, /…/ but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away
even that he hath./Therefore speak I
to them in parables... (Matthew,13:12-13) – “...This is the reason that I use parables to talk to them” (G.N.);
“...This is why I speak to them in
these parables” (N.T.); “...The reason
I talk to them in parables is...”
(J.B.). A closer look at the text of the Authorised Version shows that
“therefore” does not connect different parts of the narration logically, its
function is largely rhythmical (“And they had then a notable prisoner, called
Barabbas. /Therefore when they were
gathered together, Pilate said unto them...”, Matthew, 27:16-17). If this is
the case, translation-equivalents like “this is why”, “this is the reason that”
do not make much sense.
It is typical of the modern
translations to begin a sentence with an opening phrase which is meant to
connect adjacent verses. The following examples may show how through this the
biblical text, which is superbly economical, loses its dignity and is turned
into a kind of ‘prattle’: “Let your light so shine before men that they may see
your good works” (Matthew, 5:16) – “In
the same way your light must shine before people, so that they will see the
good things you do...” (G.N.); “And there was a good way off from them an herd
of many swine feeding” (Matthew, 8:30) – “It
happened that in the distance there was a large herd of pigs” (N.T.).
It is common knowledge that in
all developed languages there is a number of words that may be described as
bookish, or literary, i.e. more typical of the written than of oral form of
speech. Some of these words are marked in dictionaries as ‘biblical’ to say
that they actually occur only in the Authorized Version of the Bible (for
example, “verily”, “heal”, “multitude”, “smite”, etc.). If they occur in some
other texts they are immediately associated with the Bible and are recognized
as such. The reason why such words are listed and explained in dictionaries is
that the King James Bible has been, until comparatively recently, one of the
most widely spread texts, a text which the absolute majority of the English
population was perfectly familiar with.
In the modern versions
‘biblical’ words are, as a rule, replaced by ‘everyday’ ones. This, obviously,
cannot be done without impairing the general purport of the text. When “heal” (“come
and lay thy hands on her, that she may be healed”,
Mark, 5:23) is replaced by “cure” or “to make better” it loses its magic
quality. A mystery that cannot be explained or rationally understood becomes a
trivial and ordinary thing.
The same applies to
“multitude” which is incomparably more capacious semantically than “crowd” (the
equivalent suggested by the authors of all the modern versions). To begin with,
“crowd” never occurs in the King James Bible or the Revised Version (9),
whereas “multitude” is used in these texts dozens of time, both in the singular
and in the plural: “a multitude of
people”, “the multitude of years”, “multitude of waters”, “a multitude of great forces”, “Jesus saw
great multitudes about him”, etc. (10).
Through this it has acquired a wide range of associations (11). It also has
dignity to the modern speaker, who must regard “crowd” as something down-to
earth and inseparable from contemporary life (Cf.: “There was a crowd of people waiting for a bus”).
“Smite” is another ‘biblical’
word which is never preserved in the translations: “...but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to
him the other also” (Matthew, 5:39) – “If anyone slaps you on the right cheek...” (G.N.); “If a man hits your right cheek...” (N.T.); “If
someone strikes you on the right
cheek...” (H.B.). The translators may be justified in their attempt to replace
an obsolescent word by one of the current synonyms. But they have to take into
account the tradition which “smite” has built up for itself all the way through
the Bible. None of the modern synonyms has the implication “to destroy, to
defeat utterly” which forms part of the semantics of “smite” (“...how king of
Babylon should come and smite the
land of Egypt”, Jeremiah, 46:13). This makes the verb “to smite” more
“energetic” and powerful than its counterparts even when it is used in its
nominative meaning. When translators use “hit” or “knock” it produces a comic
effect in the biblical context.
In what follows we shall
adduce (in the alphabetical order) some more literary words frequently used in
the Bible, with their ‘equivalents’ in the four modern translations.
G.N. N.T. H.B.
J.B.
ARISE get up get up get up
get up
(Mark,5:41)
“Arise” is stylistically
elevated and cannot possibly be replaced in the important and unusual context
by the humdrum “get up”.
BESEECH beg plead plead
plead
(Mark,5:23)
Although the three words have
semantically much in common (“to beg – to ask humbly”; “to plead – to make
continual and deeply felt requests”; “to beseech – to ask eagerly and
anxiously”), “beseech” is much more ‘dignified’ than the other two. A person can
beseech standing up but he has to get down on his knees to plead or to beg.
“Begging” is the act of the poor when they need assistance; “beseech” is more
suitable for the ruler. It should be borne in mind that Jesus Christ was looked
upon as a heretic. If a man who is right at the top of the hierarchy of the
temple turns to a heretic for help, he can only “beseech”, “pleading” (let
alone “begging”) is out of the question.
GLORIFY praise praise praise
praise
(Matthew,5:16)
“Praise” is more general and
indefinite than “glorify”; it may rise to a high degree but usually it implies
a lower degree of admiration: “praise – to speak favourably about somebody or
something”. “Glorify” suggests the highest degree of praising. Moreover, it is
stylistically more elevated than “praise” and originally associated with God.
Its nominative meaning is “to give praise and thanks to God, worship God”. The
unsuitability of “praise” in the biblical context becomes obvious.
PLAGUE trouble trouble suffering
complaint
(Mark,5:34,29)
“Plague” is another rich and
powerful word which can be used figuratively and converted into a verb. Here it
is replaced by the ‘flat’ and ‘uninteresting’ modern terms. If “plague” suggests
death and incurability, “complaint” and “trouble” make us think only of
discomfort or inconvenience.
RULER president official official
ruler
(Mark,5:22)
“Official” is never used in the
King James Bible whereas “ruler/rulers” occur in the biblical text quite a
number of times, not only in the nominative but also in a transferred sense,
for instance, “...the rulers of the
darkness of this world”, Ephesians, 6:12). “Official” does not lend itself so
easily to metaphoric transposition. Besides, “official” suggests someone much
further down on the social scale than “ruler”; the latter implies authority and
power, the former – bureaucracy. There is no contact between an official and
God and there is supposed to be one between God and the ruler of the synagogue.
As far as “president(s)” is concerned it is used in the Bible mainly in the
combination “presidents and princes” (“Then this Daniel was preferred above the
presidents and princes”, Daniel,
6:3).
SORROWFUL sad crestfallen sad sad
(Matthew,19:22)
“Sorrowful” reflects the inner
experience of a person, while “crestfallen” is mainly the outward
manifestation. “Sad” is closer in meaning to “sorrowful”, but too short and
abrupt-sounding.
TORMENT punish torture torture
torture
(Matthew,8:29)
“Torment” is a broader term
than “punish” or “torture”. It goes all the way from the mildest of teasing to
the most violent of tortures. As far as “punish” is concerned it has nothing of
“torment” in it, whereas “torture” has far too much of “torment” (“torture” is
an excess of “torment” and concerns body more than mind). It is interesting to
note that, according to the Bible Concordance, “torture” is only once used in
the biblical text: “Women received their dead raised to life again: and others
were tortured, not accepting
deliverance...” (Hebrews, 11:35).
VESSELS containers flasks jars
flasks
(Matthew, 25:4)
“Vessel” is a formal word with
the general meaning: “hollow receptacle, esp. for a liquid”. “Container”, in
spite of its semantic affinity with “vessel”, sounds too modern and appears
ridiculous in the biblical context due to its collocations in present-day
English (it is mainly associated with “container traffic/port/ship, etc.”).
“Flasks” and “jars” point to a particular vessel, thus impairing the general
character of the word suitable for the genre of a parable (12).
The general tendency, then, is
to do away with all obsolescent and/or elevated words and replace them by
widely used modern equivalents. As can be clearly seen even from a superficial
comparison of texts this substitution is most unwelcome. By doing so the
authors of the new versions get rid at the same time of all the semantically
capacious and stylistically invaluable words weakening the aesthetic potential
of the text.
The study of the modern
transpositions of the Bible has shown that the most flagrantly unacceptable
equivalents are those which never occur in King James’s or Revised texts. Thus
the first requirement is to study the Bible Concordance and (if there is need
to simplify) to choose words which would suit the style and the content of this
monument of English literature.
There are instances, however,
when the changes can be justified from a semantic point of view. It should be
borne in mind that the Bible is full of “obscure” places which require
explanation and commentary. It is natural for the modern translators to look
for equivalents which will make it easier for the contemporary reader to
understand the text. In all such cases semantic clarity makes up for stylistic
inadequacy in the translation-equivalents: “And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out...” (Matthew,
5:29) – “So if your right eye causes
you to sin, take it out...” (G.N.);
“...And whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment” (Matthew, 5:21) – “...anyone who commits murder will be brought before the judge” (G.N.),
“...and anyone who does so must stand
his trial” (N.T.), “...and if anyone does kill he must answer for it before the court” (J.B.).
It is also noteworthy that
certain word-forming patterns appear to be more typical of modern
transpositions than of the Authorized Version. Adverbs in “-ly” are a case in
point (13). They occur more frequently in the modern translations than in the
King James Bible. Although “-ly” words in the biblical text require special
investigation, certain preliminary remarks can be made here and now. Thus, for instance,
there is every reason to believe that words in “-ly” are hardly ever used in
the Authorized Version as mere intensifiers: 1) “The heart is deceitful above
all things, and desperately wicked;
who can know it” (Jeremiah, 17:9); 2) “...she (Babylon) shall be utterly burned with fire” (Revelation,
18:8).
Modern translators, on the contrary, use “-ly” adverbs almost
entirely as intensifiers. This lends an
informal touch to the utterance, as in, for example, “My little daughter lieth
at the point of death” (Mark, 5:23) – “My little daughter is desperately sick” (J.B.). When
“desperately” is used in the combination “desperately wicked” in the Old
Testament it is meant to say that the heart is so wicked that it is at the
point of despair. But in contexts like “I was desperately ill yesterday”, “The lecture was desperately boring”, “The cake is desperately hard”, “desperately” is no longer a word of full
lexical meaning but a dead intensifier. “Desperately sick” is also a cliché
in modern English meaning “temporarily indisposed” and evidently cannot produce
any aesthetic impact on the reader.
Examples of this kind can be
multiplied. On the one hand, the text of the modern transpositions becomes
superficial because of fillers-in, like “completely”, “utterly”, “simply”, for
instance: “And they marvelled at him” (Mark, 12:17) – “This reply took them completely by surprise (J.B.); “And
they were astonished with great astonishment” (Mark, 5:42) – “At this they were
completely astonished” (H.B.);
“...and they were sore amazed in themselves beyond measure, and wondered”
(Mark, 6:51) – “They were utterly
and completely dumbfounded ...”
(J.B.), “They were completely
amazed” (H.B.).
On the other hand, the adverbs
in “-ly” that are used in their full lexical meaning and play an important role
in the Authorized Version are systematically omitted. This is how the two above
examples with “desperately” and “utterly” are rendered in the modern
translations: 1) “The heart is more devious than any other thing, perverse too:
who can pierce its secrets?” (J.B.), “The heart is deceitful above all things
and beyond cure. Who can understand it?” (H.B.); 2) “She will be burned with
fire” (G.N.), “She will be burned right up” (J.B.), “She will be consumed by
fire” (H.B.).
It follows that every time the modern
translators choose an alternative expression they invariably play down the
aesthetic impact. Evocative, ‘polydimensional’ words, ringing many bells, are
ousted by casual ones that have no magic or power of suggestion. This is one of
the reasons why the new versions do not appeal to the reader’s aesthetic sense,
whatever their pragmatic value may be (14).
***
Notes :
1.
J.B.Phillips. The
New Testament in Modern English for Schools. – Glasgow, Collins, 1959; Good News
for Modern Man./The New Testament in Today’s English Version. – 2-nd ed. –
N.Y., American Bible Society, 1966; The Jerusalem Bible. /Popular edition with
abridged introductions and notes. – Lnd., Darton, Longman & Todd, 1974; The
Holy Bible. /New International Version. – Lnd.–Toronto, 1979.
2.
The King James
Bible arose out of a conference at Hampton Court, convened by James I in 1604.
The undertaking is said to be proposed by Dr.Reynolds, president of Corpus
Christi College, Oxford, and was supported by the king. The translation that
has received the name of “Authorised Version” is largely based on the previous
attempt by William Tyndale who was the first to translate New Testament into
English from the Greek text (1525-6), with some additions from John Wycliffe
(1382-8).
3.
The Holy Bible. –
Lnd.–Toronto, 1979, p.VI.
4.
W.H.Auden, for
instance, believed that the Authorised Version appeared “at exactly the right
moment, when the English language had already become more or less what it is
today, so that the Authorised text is no more difficult to follow than
Shakespeare.” (The quotation is borrowed from his article “I have a Ferocious
Bee in My Bonnet”).
5.
It is absurd to
replace “charity” by “love” or “the Holy Ghost” by “the Holy Spirit” only
because the modern child might think that “charity” in “Though I speak with the
tongues of angels and have not charity” means what it means today, and “ghost”
might be understood by him as a kind of “spook”. “But why”, W.H.Auden wittily
remarks, “should a child not imagine that “the Holy Spirit” was some kind of
hard liquor?” (Ibid.).
6.
It must be made
quite clear that I am not trying to attempt the overall analysis of the text of
the Bible. It is common knowledge that the biblical text is a mixture of
completely different materials, only some parts of which lend themselves to
linguostylistic and linguopoetic analysis. Nor am I concerned with the study of
the contents of the Bible, since there is extensive literature on the subject.
My examples will mainly come from the New Testament, with occasional references
to the books of the Old Testament as well.
7.
Strong’s
Exhaustive Concordance (showing every word of the text of the common English
version of the canonical books and every occurrence of each word in regular
order). – Grand Rapids (Michigan), Baker Book House, 1978.
8.
The
Concordance-Lexicon is based on both the Authorised Version and the Revised
English Version (an improvement of the Authorised text of the New and Old
Testaments published in 1881 and 1885, respectively).
9.
It is not
registered in “Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance”.
10.
See Strong’s Exhaustive
Concordance, p.701. The following random examples show how “multitude” is used
in the meaning “a large crowd of people”: “When he was come down from the
mountain, great multitudes followed
him” (Matthew, 8:1); “And a great multitude
followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were
diseased” (John, 6:2).
11. According to A.A.Lipgart
(А.А.Липгарт. Лингвопоэтическое сопоставление: теория и метод. – М., 1994, с.126)
the appearance of “multitude” in the Authorised Version was not justified,
since the earlier translation by W.Tyndale, based on the Greek text, contained
the equivalent “people” in the same or similar contexts. This assumption may be
valid as such, but nobody can deny the fact that “multitude” appears to be more
capacious semantically than “people” and through its recurrent use in the Bible
it has acquired greater metaphoric potential. For instance, it enabled Charles
Dickens in “Great Expectations” to use the word figuratively in reference to
“stars”: “And then I looked at the stars, and considered how awful it would be
for a man to turn his face up to them as he froze to death, and see no help or
pity in all the glittering multitude”
(Ch.7).
12. “Vessel” is part of the
parable of the ten virgins.
13. A special study of adverbs
in “-ly” is made in: ГвишианиН.Б. Полифункциональные слова в языке и речи. –
М., Высшая школа, 1979.
14. There can be no
doubt that the aesthetic value of King James’s Bible depends not only on the
power of words but on the specific features of the rhythmical organization of
the text (see Липгарт, op.cit., p.217). But the role of the words in producing
the aesthetic impact should not be underestimated. As has been shown, the
modern ‘replacements’ may not only change the style, tone or modality of the
text, but also be detrimental to its global purport.
Abstract: The article is devoted to the study of the
relationship between rhythm and semantics. The author of the article chose the
Lord’s Prayer to prove an idea, that even two seemingly similar texts will
sound differently in different contexts. Thus, the Lord’s Prayer, as a part of
liturgy, will have a different rhythmical picture from the same prayer in the
preaching of Jesus Christ in the Gospel according to St.Matthew and in the
Gospel according to St.Luke. The scholar presents a thorough analysis of the rhythm
of prayer on different linguistic levels to reveal the unity of the form and
content and explain how the
modification of the segmental level may influence the global comprehension of
the text.
Вряд
ли для кого-то сегодня прозвучит анахронизмом мысль, высказанная академиком
Щербой Л.В. более 50 лет назад: “Основная задача филологии – пишет ученый – это
отличное понимание текстов”(4). Стараясь по возможности не злоупотреблять столь
модным сегодня термином "когнитивность" и "когнитивный подход",
мы посчитали необходимым высветить лишь одну сторону того, что Щерба назвал
"пониманием", а именно, функциональный аспект изучаемого произведения
речи.
Применительно к библейскому тексту, который является
предметом рассмотрения данной статьи, вопрос о его функциональной ориентации
является далеко не праздным. Дело в том, что этот текст уже много веков
многократно перерождается во всевозможных обработках, переложениях,
интерпретациях и адаптациях. Получая уже хорошо знакомый текст в новом виде,
читатель вправе задать вопрос: “Почему? Что еще, кроме уже известного и
усвоенного мною смысла, я должен увидеть в этом тексте?”
Еще в конце 60-х годов немецкие лингвисты достаточно
лаконично обозначили пути развития лингвистики, поставив эпиграфом к новому
направлению лозунг – “Nicht Bedeutung, aber Sinn!” (9).
Следуя этому принципу, даже достаточно протяженный отрезок текста, поставленный
в новое языковое окружение, наполняется новым функциональным содержанием. В
Англии подобного рода метаморфозы с библейским текстом становились предметом
жарких споров теологов и филологов чаще, чем где бы то ни было. Результатом
этих споров и новых попыток улучшить священный текст становились монументальные
творения, которые нередко справедливо причисляют к разряду произведений
классической литературы – мы имеем в виду Новый Завет в переводе Тиндейла,
Библию Короля Иакова и, конечно, английский молитвослов 17 века, более
известный под названием The Book of Common Prayer.
В пределах данной статьи мы остановимся на очень
коротком, но ярком тексте Молитвы Господней, который представлен в трех разных
ипостасях – в Евангелии от Матфея, Евангелии от Луки[1] и в
молитвослове:
9 Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
11 Give us this day our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil:
For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
(Matthew
6:9-13)
2 Our Father which art in
heaven, Hallowed be thy name.Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven,
so in earth.
3 Give us day by day our daily bread.
4 And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive
everyone that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver
us from evil.
(Luke
11: 2-4)
Our Father, which art in
heaven, Hallowed be thy Name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, in earth as
it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our
trespasses, As we forgive them that trespass against us. And lead us not into
temptation; But deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, The power, and
the glory, For ever and ever. Amen.
(The
Book of Common Prayer).
Если подходить к рассмотрению этих трех текстов строго
филологически, то необходимо признать, что несмотря на внешнюю схожесть, это
три разных произведения речи. Первые два текста представляют собой часть
проповеди и, таким образом, требуют рассмотрения в более широком контексте
проповедей Иисуса Христа.[2] Третий – часть литургии, и контекстом для него, без сомнения, является
церковная служба. Значимым является также и различие в расстановке знаков
препинания и употреблении некоторых слов.
Общеизвестно, что ритмически даже два совершенно
идентичных текста, поставленных в разное языковое окружение, могут звучать
совершенно по разному, в зависимости от выполняемой ими функции (6). Это
связано, прежде всего, с особой расстановкой акцентов в ином контекстуальном
окружении. Сегодня, когда узкие специальные исследования все более активно
вытесняются исследованиями текстологического характера (2), каждое частное
рассмотрение специфики того или иного языкового явления должно оцениваться с
точки зрения его функционирования и взаимодействия со всеми другими уровнями
языка.
Ритм, с
этой точки зрения представляет собой явление совершенно уникальное и отчасти
автономное, поскольку понимается, в самом широком смысле, как особая
организация, построение языкового материала, где в центре внимания стоит
регулярность, повторяемость употребления всех единиц текста (1). В этом смысле
мы можем говорить о ритме на диакритическом уровне, о ритме морфологическом, о
ритме употребления единиц лексического уровня, о ритме синтаксическом, что, в
конечном итоге, должно составить основу рассмотрения ритма на семантическом,
метасемиотическом и метаметасемиотическом уровнях. При этом на ритм сегментный,
латентно заложенный в тексте, накладывается ритм сверхсегментный, диктуемый
более широким контекстом.
В проповеди, где основой содержания всегда служит тот или
иной отрывок из Библии, автор всегда может дополнительно выделять слова и
обороты, на которых строится дальнейшее толкование. В Библии, в устах Иисуса
приводимая здесь молитва звучит несколько иначе, чем в литургии.
Проповедь и литургия – это два особых, выходящих за рамки
нейтральности выразительных речевых жанра (3). Однако эта выразительность имеет
в них разную эмфатическую направленность.
В
Библии мы имеем не молитву, в собственном смысле этого слова, а пример молитвы,
который дает своим ученикам Иисус. Причем приоритеты выразительности обозначены
здесь достаточно четко: предварив текст молитвы словами "But when ye pray,
use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be
heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your
Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.", Иисус
делает упор на том, что выбор слов для молитвы ограничен и сама молитва призвана
быть выражением глубокой веры и смирения. Расстановка акцентов в
библейском тексте молитвы предопределяется пунктуационно прописанным
членением предложений на синтагмы. Несмотря
на то, что слого-ударный ритм не дает “раствориться” ни одному значимому слову,
более весомыми все же оказываются слова, стоящие на стыках синтагм, поскольку
именно здесь происходит предопределенный пунктуационными знаками интонационный
“всплеск”.
Перед
создателями английского текста стояла достаточно сложная задача подобрать такие
слова и обороты, чтобы текст был стилистически и ритмически выдержан в одном
тоне и не создавал неясностей.
Приведем
сравнительный ритмический анализ трех вариантов текста молитвы Господней с тем,
чтобы установить, возникает ли между ними различие на семантическом и
метасемиотическом уровнях в силу различий сегментно- и акцентно-ритмических.
|
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW |
THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER |
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST.LUKE |
|
1/ Our Father which art in heaven, |
1/ Our Father, which art in
heaven, |
1/ Our Father which art in heaven, |
|
2/ Hallowed be thy name. |
2/ Hallowed be thy Name. |
2/ Hallowed be thy name. |
|
3/ Thy kingdom come. |
3/ Thy kingdom come. |
3/ Thy kingdom come. |
|
4/ Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
|
4/ Thy will be done, in earth as it
is in heaven. |
4/ Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. |
|
5/ Give us this day our daily bread. |
5/ Give us this day our daily bread. |
5/ Give us day by day our daily bread. |
|
6/ And forgive us our debts, |
6/ And forgive us our trespasses, |
6/ And forgive us our sins; |
|
7/ as we forgive our debtors. |
7/ As we forgive them that trespass
against us. |
7/ for we also forgive everyone that is
indebted to us. |
|
8/ And lead us not into temptation, |
8/ And lead us not into temptation; |
8/ And lead us not into temptation; |
|
9/ but deliver us from evil: |
9/ But deliver us from evil: |
9/ but deliver us from evil. |
|
10/ For thine is the kingdom, |
10/ For thine is the kingdom, |
-- |
|
11/ and the power, |
11/ The power, |
-- |
|
12/ and the glory, |
12/ and the glory, |
-- |
|
13/ for ever. |
13/ For ever and ever. |
-- |
|
14/ Amen. |
14/ Amen. |
-- |
Нам представляется, что ритмически наиболее
сбалансированной и благозвучной является молитва в английском молитвослове. Это
благозвучие достигается благодаря рамочной структуре, подмеченной составителями
этого текста при работе над собственно библейскими вариантами молитвы.
Дело в том, что в зависимости от расстановки логических
ударений (или типичной картины акцентов), слова с дифтонгами или трифтонгами
могут восприниматься как более или менее протяженные, а дифтонг приравниваться
либо к долгому, либо к краткому звуку, нередко соотносимому с двуслоговыми
единствами, а трифтонг восприниматься как ди- или моносиллаб. Это может
использоваться для задания определенной ритмико-мелодической картины.
В первом предложении молитвы в Евангелии от Матфея
используется трифтонг -our- . Первая синтагма в Библии длиннее, чем в
английском молитвослове (BCP):
|
Евангелие
от Матфея |
ВСР |
|
Our Father which art in
heaven, /È — È/È — È — È/ 8 слогов |
Our Father, / — È/— È/ 4 слога which art in heaven /È — /È/ — È/ 5
слогов |
Разделение этой синтагмы на две части было, по-видимому,
обосновано следующим: в Евангелии от Матфея наблюдается некоторый дисбаланс стоп[3]: первая
короткая стопа амфибрахического типа, состоящая из 3 слогов, в некотором смысле
перевешивается более протяженной стопой, состоящей из 5 слогов, которая сама по
себе отличается правильностью и симметричностью. Перцептивно ударный слог -art-
уравнивается по протяженности с первым слогом слова heaven
благодаря позиционному укорачиванию звука [a:]
перед глухим согласным. Данная стопа начинается с безударного и заканчивается
безударным. Поставив под ударение первое слово синтагмы, описанный выше
ритмический дисбаланс оказывается достаточно удачно решен (хотя и не лишен
некоторых недостатков): безударный краткий моносиллаб -our- как
бы превращается в двуслоговое слово с характерной для данного текста
хореической структурой[4]. Данное
изменение в рисунке ударений позволяет практически безболезненно и удачно
разделить все первое предложение на две ритмические группы – первую с почти
стихотворно правильным двухстопным хореем: Our Father, и
вторую с уже описанной здесь симметричной ритмической картиной.
Аналогичную картину наблюдаем во второй синтагме молитвы
в Евангелии от Матфея – Hallowed be thy name – c
характерным выделением значимых слов и довлеющей себе слого-ударной симметрией,
где умозрительно можно предположить некоторую ритмическую соотнесенность с
предыдущей синтагмой, в которой начальные и конечные безударные второй стопы – which art in heaven –,
регулярно противопоставляются начальным и конечным ударным в третьей синтагме;
кроме того, количество слогов в них равное – по 5 слогов в каждой:
which art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy name.
|
2. È — È — È |
|
3. — ÈÈÈ — |
Думается, однако, вряд ли такая структура ударений
подойдет для литургии, где даже при видимой симметрии ударных слогов в начале и
в конце строки, нагромождение трех последовательных безударных слогов не
способствует созданию благозвучия. Такая структура вполне соответствует задачам
проповеди, в которой передача заданного смысла никогда не будет жертвоваться в
угоду дополнительной орнаментальности. В данном случае раз усвоенная и принятая
верующими проповедь становится частью молитвенного богослужения, в котором
задачи создания величественности, торжественности и благозвучия выступают на
первый план.
Однако в том случае, когда два конечных звука слова -name-
произносятся как бы в один слог, то эвфонические возможности конечного сонанта
оказываются недостаточно реализованными: утрачивается возможность создания
дополнительной благозвучности через перцептивное соотнесение конечных сонантов
в словах -heaven- первой синтагмы и -name-
второй синтагмы. Для того, чтобы реализовать указанную возможность, моносиллаб
-name-
должен произноситься с некоторым удлинением дифтонга и более протяжным
произнесением финального сонанта, что хорошо сочетается с идеей перцептивной
изохронии в этой строке. На слух первый слог слова hallowed с
несколько протяженным произнесением сонанта воспринимается одинаково по длине с
первым слогом слова -name- при условии, если данное слово произносится
указанным выше способом. Такое произнесение как бы превращает моносиллаб в
двуслоговую единицу хореического типа и вся строка будет иметь рамочную
структуру с хореическим началом и концом и центральной двусложной стопой,
состоящей из двух последовательных ударных слогов:
Hallowed be thy name
/ — È/ — —/
— È/
Именно такое изглашение, на наш взгляд, будет характерным
для литургии, где в полной мере реализуются все возможности для создания
дополнительного благозвучия и изохронии. Слово -be- с
конечным напряженным узким гласным перекликается с сужающимся дифтонгом слова -thy-. На
слух каждое из этих слов равно по протяженности двухслоговому -hallowed- и
конечному -name-.
Второе предложение молитвы, состоящее из 4-х слогов и
сонанта в сильной позиции в исходе предложения звучит одинаково как в Евангелии
от Матфея так и в английском молитвослове: Thy kingdom come.
Ударная
структура третьего предложения в Евангелии от Матфея кажется вполне правильной
и благозвучной:
Thy will be done in Earth
/È — /È — /È — /
Это правильный трехстопный ямб. Однако переход от второй
к третьей стопе несколько затруднен вследствие артикуляторно неблагоприятного
соположения двух сонантов – один из которых стоит в сильной позиции, а второй в
слабой. Для того, чтобы “высвободить” сильный сонант и позволить ему в полной
мере реализовать свои эвфонические возможности (в паре со словом -heaven-,
стоящим в конце предложения и перекликающимся с конечными сонантами всех
предыдущих строк) последняя ямбическая стопа была перенесена в литургическом
варианте в следующую синтагму:
Thy will be done,
/È — /È — /
in Earth as it is in heaven
/È — /ÈÈ — /È — È/
Несмотря на видимый разнобой в структуре ударений трех
стоп во второй синтагме этого предложения (ямб, анапест, амфибрахий), на слух
она воспринимается как некое правильное ритмически сбалансированное единство,
что, по-видимому, объясняется столь типичным для английского ритма
“подлаживанием” протяженности стоп, входящих в одну синтагму, друг под друга
для создания эффекта изохронности (8; 10). Происходит это следующим образом. В
первой стопе -in earth- – два
монослоговых элемента и явная нехватка одной моры для того, чтобы уравняться по
длительности с двумя последующими стопами, содержащими по три слога (три
моносиллаба во второй стопе и один моносиллаб и дисиллаб в последней стопе). Нехватка
данного элемента компенсируется виртуальной паузой в конце первой стопы. Конечный
глухой согласный первой стопы хорошо помогает более полной ее (паузы)
реализации. Концовка второй стопы несколько уподобляется по звучанию первой,
благодаря слабому оглушению конечного звонкого свистящего, что дополнительно
создает эффект, напоминающий внутреннюю рифму стихотворных произведений. Сонант
в конечном безударном слоге третьей стопы хорошо сочетается с финальными
ударными слогами двух предыдущих стоп.
Аналогичное уподобление стоп по долготе и звучанию внутри
синтагмы наблюдается и в следующем предложении молитвы, состоящем из 8 слогов:
Give us this day our daily
bread
|
Евангелие
от Матфея |
Английский
молитвослов |
|
/ — È/È — /È — È/— |
/ — È/ —/
— /È — È/— |
Некоторое изменение ритмической структуры 5-го
предложения в английском молитвослове, по сравнению с тем, что мы находим в
Евангелии от Матфея, оправдывается, на наш взгляд, не столько стремлением
усовершенствовать сам ритм этих строк (ср. в Евангелии от Матфея,
And forgive us our debts,
As we forgive our debtors.
/ — È/È — /È — / —/
/È — /È — / — È/ — È/[5]),
сколько сделать более выразительными окончания синтагм. Монослоговой
латинизм -debt- заменяется трехслоговым латинизмом trespasses,
который в Евангелии от Матфея употребляется сразу после самой молитвы в 14-15
стихе (см. ниже).
Благодаря трехслоговой дактилической структуре слова -trespasses-, его
изглашение несколько замедляется, что хорошо соотносится с предыдущими
сонорными концовками синтагм, которые в сильной позиции создают сходный эффект
замедленного произнесения. Троекратный свистящий в слове -trespasses- не
дает полностью раствориться слабоударному окончанию. А неблагозвучное,
практически теряющееся противопоставление debts-debtors
заменяется более выразительным и по силе и по позиции ударений
противопоставлением – them-us. Ритмически, как и в предыдущих случаях, данное
предложение выдержано в балансе зеркальных противопоставлений ямб-хорей,
которое содействует лучшему осмыслению и восприятию противопоставления
семантического:
And forgive our trespasses
as we forgive them,
that trespass against us
/ — È/ — È/ — È/ — ÈÈ/
/È —/È — / — /
/—/ — È/È — / —/
(английский молитвослов).
ср. -in earth- / — È/ vs -in heaven- /È— È/
В следующих двух синтагмах, которые звучат почти
идентично в Евангелии от Матфея и в английском молитвослове[6], слуховая
ритмическая гармония целиком основана на заданной схеме логических ударений[7]. Вот
как выглядят эти две строки в плане соотношения сильных и слабых слогов:
Евангелие
от Матфея:
And lead us not into
temptation,
but deliver us from evil
/—/ — È /—/ — È/È — È/
/—/È — È/ —/ —/
— È/
На
первый взгляд может показаться, что эти две строки симметрично
противопоставлены друг другу хореическим началом в первой строке хореическому
концу во второй; и амфибрахическим концом первой строки, амфибрахическому
началу второй:
lead us vs evil
temptation vs deliver
Однако
в силу того, что в молитве основной ритмический упор делается в конце строки, на
слух эти две строки сбалансированы именно финальным сходным узором[8]
расстановки акцентов:
/È — È/ —ÈÈ/È — È/
È/È — ÈÈ/È — È/
Конечные сонорные усиливают впечатление симметрии.
Завершающее
славословие воспринимается в том же ритмическом ключе, что и предыдущее
предложение, где симметрично соотносятся финальные амфибрахические стопы. Данная
слуховая симметрия была подмечена составителями английского молитвослова,
которые несколько усовершенствовали ритм этой части молитвы, в том виде как она
была представлена в Евангелии от Матфея, опустив союз -and- и
добавив одну амфибрахическую стопу -for ever- в
последнюю строку, тем самым создав симметричную рамочную структуру[9]:
|
Евангелие
от Матфея |
Английский
молитвослов |
|
/È — È/È — È/ È/È — È/ È/È — È/ /È — È/ / — È/ |
/È — È/È — È/ /È — È/ È/È — È/ /È — È/È — È/ / — È/ |
***
Благодаря
особой расстановке знаков препинания в английском молитвослове значительно
усовершенствованной оказывается акцентно-слоговая структура синтагм. Вот как
соотносятся между собой по количеству
слогов строки в Евангелии от Матфея и в английском молитвослове[10]:
|
Евангелие
от Матфея |
Английский
молитвослов |
||||||
|
4+5 |
9 |
7 |
|
4+5 |
9+9 |
6 |
|
|
5 |
7 |
4 |
|
6 |
5 |
3 |
|
|
4 |
7 |
4 |
2 |
4 |
6 |
4 |
2 |
|
6+6 |
9 |
3 |
|
4+8 |
9+8 |
6 |
|
|
|
8 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
В
английском молитвослове хорошо просматривается рамочная структура синтагм с
более протяженным началом и концом и короткими синтагмами в середине. Эффект
симметрии и изохронности поддерживается в английском молитвослове четко
прописанной рамочной схемой логических
ударений[11]:
|
Евангелие
от Матфея |
Английский
молитвослов |
||||||
|
3+2 |
4+2 |
2 |
|
2+2 |
3+2 |
2 |
|
|
2 |
2 |
1 |
|
4 |
2 |
1 |
|
|
3+2 |
3+2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
3+2 |
|
|
Подобная ритмическая акцентно-слоговая структура молитвы Отче
наш в английском молитвослове свидетельствует о том, что по замыслу
редакторов этой части литургии ее темп значительно замедляется, а конечные сонорные,
столь аккуратно выведенные на конец строк, при данном темпе придают тексту
должную певучесть.
***
Несколько модифицированным, благодаря перерасстановке
слов и пунктуации в английском молитвослове, оказывается интонационный контур. Первая синтагма Евангелия от Матфея, разбитая
в английском молитвослове запятой на две[12],
получает два финальных нисходящих контура, как бы задающих тон последующему
интонационному рисунку. В этом интонационном контексте перенос ямбической стопы
-in earth- в
следующую синтагму оказывается вполне закономерным, т.к. при этом
восходяще-нисходящая шкала, используемая для противопоставления двух сфер -in earth- vs -in heaven- опять
сменяется двумя финальными нисходящими контурами, как бы отчерчивая эту часть
молитвы от той, которая следует за ней, поскольку следующий стих – Give us this day our daily bread –
несмотря на то, что он тоже завершается нисходящим контуром, начинается с более
высокой ноты, чем предыдущий. Введение трехслогового -trespasses-
несколько переориентировало и функционально переобозначило нисходяще-восходящий
тон четвертого стиха Евангелия от Матфея, заменив противопоставление ädebts vs æour debtors более
зримым и запоминающимся äthem vs æus.
Несколько измененным в английском молитвослове
оказывается тринадцатый стих Евангелия от Матфея. Смена знака препинания с
запятой на точку с запятой после восьмой строки и замена строчной буквы
начального -but- девятой строки на прописную означает удлинение
финального сонорного и паузы в конце восьмой строки, а также смену
восходяще-нисходящего контура, который мы находим в Евангелии от Матфея на два
нисходящих контура. Стоящее в конце девятой строки двоеточие подводит
интонационно-эмфатическую черту под этой частью молитвы, поскольку, как
показали проведенные нами ранее исследования библейской пунктуации (3), этот
знак препинания, как правило, сигнализирует смену тембра. Таким образом, вторая
часть молитвы оказывается объединена рамочной интонационной схемой:
|
æ
æ |
ä
æ |
ä
ä |
Это деление молитвы на три части всецело подтверждается
нашими наблюдениями ее акцентно-слоговой структуры: 1) для каждой части
характерна рамочная слоговая структура с более протяженным началом и концом и
короткими синтагмами в середине; 2) блестяще соотносятся между собой слоговая и
акцентная структура каждой из частей (см. приведенную выше схему); 3) первая и
третья части молитвы оказываются соотносимы по протяженности. Синтагмы второй
части молитвы длиннее. Характерный перепад хореических, ямбических и амфибрахических
стоп первой и третьей частей сменяется во второй части перепадом стоп
дактилического и амфибрахического типа. На лексическом уровне это объясняется
введением латинизмов, имеющих трехслоговую структуру: trespass(es), temptation, deliver.
*
Акцентно-слоговой и интонационный анализ молитвы в
английском молитвослове выявляет три связанных между собой ритмических модели. Несмотря
на изменения, внесенные в библейский текст составителями литургического текста,
(направленные, прежде всего, на придание ему большей изохронности и
благозвучия), заложенные в евангельском тексте основы деления, хотя и были
заменены в молитвослове, тем не менее границ деления не нарушили. Библейский
текст также диктует нам необходимость деления на три части, хотя и на несколько
иных принципах.
*
В
евангельском тексте выявленный ритмический рисунок подтверждается и на лексико-синтаксическом уровне: первая
часть начинается и заканчивается амфибрахической стопой -in heaven-. Причем
соотнесенность завершающего 10-й стих придаточного -as it is in heaven- и
начального придаточного -which art in heaven-
кажется вполне закономерной как на синтаксическом, так и на акцентно-слоговом
уровне.
Данная
рамочная конструкция, “обнимающая” две короткие синтагмы кажется здесь вполне
очевидной. В латинском тексте, в отличие от текста английского молитвослова и
Евангелия от Матфея Библии Короля Иакова, первая часть объединяется особым
морфо-синтаксическим построением 3-х центральных синтагм с глаголом в начальной
позиции и местоимением в конце:
Pater noster qui es in
caelis,
Sanctificetur nomen tuum;
adveniat regnum tuum;
fiat voluntas tua
siat in caelo et in terra.
Попытка повторить данный ритмический морфо-синтаксический
рисунок в Евангелии от Луки, на наш взгляд, перцептивно разбила первую часть
молитвы на две в силу особого произнесения в сильной позиции финальных
сонорных:
ср. Our Father
which art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done,
as in heaven,
so in earth.
Некоторым образом соотносятся между собой на
лексико-синтаксическом уровне 11 и 12 стихи Евангелия от Матфея :
Give us this day our daily
bread.
And forgive us our debts,
as we forgive our debtors.
Три входящие в них синтагмы объединяются ступенчатым
расположением в них элемента -give-:
1 слог первой синтагмы
3 слог второй синтагмы
4 слог третьей синтагмы
и неизменным появлением на пятом слоге местоимения -our-[13].
*
Данное деление подтверждается и на морфологическом уровне, где от одной части к другой с достаточной
очевидностью наблюдается смена одной грамматической формы другой.
Для более полного осознания функциональной значимости
заданной здесь грамматико-морфологической организации молитвы, в основе которой
лежит категория наклонения, особое внимание надо в первую голову обратить на
своеобразие семантики каждого из выделяемых традиционной грамматикой наклонения
(5, 342; 7, 181). Три выделяемых нами части молитвы объединяются одной
модальной направленностью, а именно побуждением к действию: от более мягкой
формы в первой части, через категорический императив второй и к утверждающему
индикативу третьей части.
Формально-грамматически
ядро первой части основано на т.н. сослагательном I.
Однако модально-семантический аспект этой формы наклонения в некотором смысле
противоречит общей смысловой и контекстуальной направленности молитвы. “Основная
мысль, выражаемая сослагательным I, это неуверенность в реальности данного явления. Последнее
рассматривается говорящим как возможное, предположительное, допустимое...” (5,
349-350). Однако большинство исследователей едины в том, что нередко формы
сослагательного I сближаются с императивом. “Хотя в целом и принципиально
эти формы и разграничиваются, все же они стоят очень близко друг к другу и в
некоторых случаях их отличительные признаки стираются” (5, 346). Именно
близость этих двух наклонений в плане выражаемой модальности дало основание
некоторым исследователям объединить их в одно т.н. оценочно-желательное
наклонение (7, 182). При таком подходе именно модальность и семантика выступают
на первый план. В центре этого наклонения оказывается желание, различные
степени побуждения к действию, а, в некотором, роде смущающее исследователя
молитвы противопоставление “реальность-нереальность”, составляющее основу
традиционной системы наклонений в английском языке, исчезает.
В молитве Господней три выявленные части несколько
отличаются друг от друга по силе утверждения и выразительности пожелания. В
этом смысле здесь наблюдается постепенная смена общей тональности от более
мягкой оценочно-желательной модальности первой части (которая на наш взгляд все
же граничит с утверждением), к полному утверждению в конце. Эхом перекликаются
первая и третья части молитвы:
Thy kingdom come – thine is
the kingdom
Thy will be done – and the
power,
Hallowed be thy name – And
the glory
In earth as it is in heaven
– for ever and ever
Необходимо однако подчеркнуть, что при расстановке
акцентов традиционное разграничение на сослагательное I и
повелительное наклонение играет немаловажную роль, поскольку повелительное
наклонение, в отличие от форм сослагательного I,
характеризуется отсутствием подлежащего, а это уж является некоторым внешним
моментом, подчеркивающим смысловое расхождение рассматриваемых форм (5, 345). В
первой части два акцента на подлежащем и на сказуемом довлеют ее общей более
мягкой английском модальности, которая контрастирует с имеющим яркое акцентное
ядро императивом второй части[14]. Удачным
представляется выбор морфологически более экспрессивного варианта императива
отрицания - Lead us not -,
требующего по законам английской просодии смещения акцента с глагола на
отдельно стоящую отрицательную частицу, что также призвано поддержать ритмическое
единство и симметрию этой части.
Не
менее удачным является выбор синтаксической инверсии в третьей, доксологической
части, которая усилила утверждающую тональность молитвы и обеспечила постановку
акцентов на конечных словах, модально-семантически перекликающихся с первой
частью. В этом смысле некоторое изменение в акцентно-слоговой структуре этой
части в английском молитвослове, по сравнению с Евангелием от Матфея, хотя и
несколько ослабило столь типичную для эпическо-повествовательной библейской риторики
напевность, создаваемую многосоюзием, все же оказалось вполне справедливым с
семантико-просодической точки зрения, поскольку удлинение пауз перед ключевыми
словами, возникающее в силу общей тенденции поддержания изохронности на
значимых элементах текста, способствовало их более яркому акцентному выделению,
а следовательно и утверждающий тон молитвы.
Наши наблюдения над семантико-фонологической,
формально-морфологической и лексико-синтаксической организацией молитвы
Господней, на наш взгляд, с достаточной очевидностью показали, что общая
тональность молитвы, понимание ее семантики теснейшим образом зависит от
ритмо-синтаксического построения текста. Анализ показал, что изменения,
внесенные создателями литургического текста в библейский вариант молитвы, не
только не нарушили, а наоборот, подчеркнули и усилили ее утверждающий пафос и
ее торжественно-величественную простоту и симметричность, что было бы
невозможно без тщательного сопоставления всех уровней языка. Основным
структурным элементом, поддерживающим ритм молитвы является рамка:
амфибрахическая стопа на акцентно-слоговом уровне;
нисходяще-восходяще-нисходящий контур на уровне интонации и др.
*
Несколько подробнее необходимо остановиться на том, как
ритм анализируемой молитвы предопределяется более широким контекстом Библии.
Ритмический рисунок в каждой из трех рассматриваемых нами
вариантов молитвы хотя и очень схож, все же имеет некоторые различия и
соотносим с контекстом, в котором произносится молитва.
Так в Евангелии от Матфея молитва Господня является
частью большего ритмического единства 6-ой главы Евангелия, основная задача
которой – подчеркнуть для верующих необходимость тайного выполнения некоторых
обрядов. Призыв к соблюдению таинства подкрепляется лексико-семантическим
параллелизмом в конце каждого смыслового единства в пределах главы:
But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right
hand doeth: that thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in
secret himself shall reward thee openly.
*
But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast
shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which
seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
*
But thou when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face; that
thou appear not unto men fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy
Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
*
В некотором смысле это призыв к молящемуся соблюдать
простоту и избегать напыщенности при соблюдении обряда. В молитве это выбор
только самых необходимых слов, избегая напыщенных повторов. Именно на этих
словах и будет ставиться основной логический акцент в молитве. При этом, как
уже отмечалось выше, молитва снабжена небольшой комментирующей строкой в 14-15
стихе, которая высвечивает элемент покаяния. Не случайно именно этот 12 стих в
молитве подвергается наибольшему лексическому варьированию (в 14 веке здесь мы
встречаем германское слово -gyltas-, в Евангелии от Матфея
латинизм -debt-, в Евангелии от Луки - sin-, в английском
молитвослове - trespasses-). В Евангелии от Матфея, как мы уже видели, этот акцент
был сделан с помощью акцентной привязки к элементу -give- и к
местоимению -our- в 12 стихе.
Несколько иначе расставлены акценты в Евангелии от Луки,
которые также продиктованы контекстом. Молитва Господня здесь открывает 11
главу, а последующий комментарий фактически ставит один сильный акцент на то,
что составляет основу любой молитвы –прошение, просьбу:
5 And he said unto them, Which of you shall have a friend, and shall go
unto him at midnight, and say unto him, Friend, lend me three loaves;
6 for a friend of mine in his journey is come to me, and I have nothing
to set before him?
7 And he from within shall answer and say, Trouble me not: the door is
now shut, and the children are with me in bed; I cannot rise and give thee.
8 I say unto you, Though he will not rise and give him, because he is
his friend, yet because of his importunity he will rise and give him as many as
he needeth.
9 And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and you
shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.
10 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth;
and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
11 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he
give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?
12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?
13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your
children; how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them
that ask him?
Данный
контекст отчасти объясняет, почему здесь нет финального славословия, которое мы
находим в Евангелии от Матфея. Однако, как и в Евангелии от Матфея, первая
часть отделена от второй своеобразным ритмическим рисунком, в котором за счет
постепенного укорачивания синтагм, акценты становятся более яркими и
запоминающимися. В последнем предложении этой части вместо двух акцентов в
Евангелии от Матфея и в английском молитвослове находим три:
Our Father which art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done,
as in heaven,
so in earth.
Вторая
часть также построена на ритмическом балансе слогов и ударений, подчеркивающих,
в соответствии с описанным выше контекстом, императив прошения. Серединная
синтагма, выделенная как пунктуационно, так и длиной, как бы отделяет два
соотносимых слоговых единства:
|
Give us day by day our
daily bread. And forgive us our sins; |
|
for we also forgive everyone that is indebted to
us. |
|
And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil. |
Вот как
выглядит эта часть молитвы в Евангелии от Луки в плане соотношения количества
слогов в отмеченных нами частях:
|
9 |
|
9 |
|
6 |
16 |
8 |
Контекст в данном случае предопределяет большее
количество акцентов, чем в Евангелии от Матфея, что и было выполнено
переводчиками Библии Короля Иакова.
Сравнивая текст молитвы Господней в Евангелии от Матфея и
в Евангелии от Луки, обнаруживаем различие в расстановке акцентов лишь в двух
строках. В 4 строке Евангелия от Матфея под эмфатически ударением оказываются
слова earth и heaven. В Евангелии от Луки переводчики посчитали необходимым
пунктуационно выделить предикативную часть предложения. Различие наблюдается
также и в оформлении 6-ой и 7-ой строк. В Евангелии от Матфея наблюдается
большая спаянность двух частей сложного предложения, благодаря запятой в конце
первой части и видимого противопоставления дополнения главной части дополнению
придаточной части. Составители английского молитвослова учли ритмо-мелодические
и семантические особенности обоих текстов и создали на их основе новый текст,
отличающийся слуховой и смысловой гармонией. Надо признать, что нередко упор на
звуковую сторону текста приводит к созданию исключительно своеобразных
семантических единств, в которых ритм сегментных единиц полностью
предопределяет смысл текста. Английский молитвослов сумел избежать голой
орнаменталистики. В молитве Господней сбалансированы план выражения и план
содержания. Она является образцом тончайшего филологического подхода к
редактированию и воспроизведению текста оригинала, новое воспроизведение
которого наилучшим образом соответствует задачам нового узуса.
***
Литература
1. Ахманова
О.С. Словарь лингвистических терминов. –
М., 1966. – 608 с.
2. Гришунин
О методах текстологии. // Известия Академии наук. Сер. Филол. Науки. – М.,
1989, –т.48, N. 4.
3. Конурбаев
М.Э. Тембральная организация английской речи (на материале Библии Короля
Иакова). Дисс. … канд.филол. наук. – М., 1993.
4. Рукописное
наследие В.Ф. Шишмарева в Архиве Академии наук СССР. Описание и публикации. –
М.-Л., 1965. – C. 218.
5. Смирницкий
А.И. Морфология английского языка. – М., 1959. – С.342
6. Чаковская
М.С. Текст как сообщение и воздействие. – М.: Высш.шк., 1986 – 128 с.
7. Blokh M.Y. A
Course in Theoretical English Grammar. – Moscow, 1994. – P.181.
8. Ilse Lehiste
Isochrony reconsidered. // Journal of Phonetics, 1977. – No.5. – P. 253-263
9. Th. Lewandowski:
Linguistisches Wörterbuch
3. Quelle & Meyer, Heidelberg. S.604-605.
10. Kenneth Pike General
Characteristics of Intonation. // Intonation. Edited by D.Bolinger. – Penguin
Education, 1972, – P. 53.
Abstract: The paper considers the questions of the interface
between semantics and syntax (1, 2, 3) using the functional-cognitive approach
so widely spread among modern anglicists. This approach implies an ever growing
interest to different styles of speech with special reference to human factor.
The researcher uses this approach to investigate the conceptual category of
Time in the unity of diachrony and synchrony1.
There are many interpretative theories of Time in philosophy,
logic and natural sciences. Of special interest for the researcher is the time
stratum connected with the development of the story, disclosed and unraveled by
the narrator. It brings in a unique interplay of factual, historical and
grammatical Time in a piece of writing. The paper adopts the taxonomic
presentation of the concept of Time which is found in Henry Halley's Bible
Handbook. It gives four time interpretations of events depicted in the Book of Revelation (5) generally
known as “Preterist”, “Historical”, “Futurist” and “Spiritualist” (5, 684).
According to this taxonomic system a panorama of events delineating the
successive steps and basic features of the Church's struggle for victory
extends our vision of Time making it truly historical.
A futurist approach will mainly focus
on the time of “the Lord's coming and the End of the World”. The so-called spiritualist acceptation “separates the
imagery of the Book from any reference to historical events – those of John's
days, or those at the time of the End”. The language fulfills here its semiotic
function. Anyone who “takes the language in its most apparent meaning, will
find the simplest, most obvious, most natural, most evident and most reasonable
interpretation in combining at least two of them: the Historical and the Futurist
ones: some of the visions picturing epochal events and features of Christ
History; some forecasting the momentous upheavals of the Last Days; and some,
possibly referring to both the earlier perhaps, being typical and predictive of
the later “ ( 3, 684). In what follows there is a further extension of the
ideas thus expounded.
It is generally acknowledged
that prediction or making something known in advance is a speculative function
of our mind about events which are yet non-perceived, non-experienced,
non-identified (1). Being socially grounded, prediction is meant to satisfy
quite a number of needs of a society. From the functional point of view
prediction must be a completely individual linguistic and psychological
activity closely related to the predictive competence and world outlook of the
foreteller.
Let us consider an interplay of different
time references in 22 chapters of the Book of Revelation of St. John, which is
revealing things to come (cf. 1:1,19; 4:1). It was written to unfold the Future,
to chart the course and destiny of all people in the past, in the present and
in the years to come. In terms of prevailing emotion it is possible to single
out two opposites here: one is connected with a philosophy of “come what may”,
of a life of never ceasing blessedness awaiting the righteous, the second one
is strongly associated with the wrath of God for the unrepentant, unless they
get eventually redeemed. The modern
English language displays a great number of collocations of time which are
differently emotionally coloured: improve
each (shining) hour, a moment to call one's own, have one's moments, to get
one's day, make someone's day, to be someone's day, a red-letter day, to win
the day, to save the day, as happy as the day is long, many happy returns of
the day, etc. These are rather optimistic in meaning and feeling and
express what one hopes for, wishes and actually gets. In other collocations of
time we have a less optimistic view, often with a specification of a certain
time span, limit or duration: at the
eleventh hour, on the spur of the moment, in someone's time, those were the
days!, the longest day must have an end, etc. There are some phrases in which the dark side of time and the
vanity of our pursuits are shown as a real possibility: doom's day, put off the evil hour, put off the evil day, the witching
hour, etc.
In Roget's Thesaurus of English words
and phrases “emotion, religion and morality” are joined into one thematic group
and may be viewed as one general dimension of categorization. (7) This section
takes ‘joy’ as a head-word including among others such words as happiness and enjoyment. The reference to futurity is placed together with volition. Volition, exercise of will is further subdivided into individual volition, social and specially social, if it implies consent
or offering. Conditional social volition is
associated with promise, guarantee,
security and observance, the latter uniting obedience, compliance and fidelity.
In the context of the King James Bible all
these dimensions of categorization are fully implemented in the unity of their
pictorial and predictive functions. Time, Volition and its Divine Power make a
frame for an interpretation that follows.
***
The Book of Revelation can be divided into
two temporal parts: chapters 1-3 describe the happenings in St.John’s days. In
seven letters written and sent to seven churches St.John was portraying “under
divine direction heavenly appraisals of earthly churches”. Chapters 4-22 cover
the time from then on till the day of Judgment and describe what “shall be
hereafter”. Thus, the book is essentially predictive, the visions being given
“to help steady the church for the awful days ahead”. The book was written in
the lurid light of burning martyrs. The Church at the time was only 66 years
old and the Christians were suffering persecutions. Time reference in the Book
of Revelation is usually given through verbal collocations with will (22) and shall (12). There are some repetitive structures with time
reference shown through the Indefinite Present and Modal predicates with be, like in: for the time is at hand; the beginning and the ending which is, and
which was, and which is to come; He that overcometh shall not be hurt.
In many cases predication
functions as a warning:
Repent, or else I will come
unto thee quickly...; He that hath an ear let him hear..., To him that
overcometh will I give...a white stone and in the white stone a new name
written, which no man knoweth saving he, that receiveth it.
Shall and will represent
the opposition of the evil and the righteous:
Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil
shalt cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried..., and I will give thee
a crown of life.
An artistic combination of the categorial forms of the Past, Present
and Future in Chapter 6 reveals inevitability of the events to come. The role
of the Present Perfect in a context like this is to bring together these three planes
of narration. The exclusive value of the moment of speaking is supported by the
introduction of a question form: And who
shall be able to stand? Categorial forms of tense are able to point out the
time of action or an event, but also to show their sequence and order2 .
In Chapter 7 the categorial forms of Taxis fulfill very much the same
function, where the forms of Taxis bring together Past and Present:
Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed
the servants of our God in their foreheads.
These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed
their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
The events are shown here so as to demonstrate a greater distance
between happenings which “came out”, as
compared to those, when “these… have
washed…” and “have made”
something. There are three concluding verses in this chapter, that are used as
connectives in rendering “what is now and what is to come”:
15 … he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.
16 They shall hunger no more, neither thirst, neither shall the light
shine on them, nor any heat.
17 For the Lamb which in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and
shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all
tears from their eyes.
These forms in the present context do not render any idea of intention
or volition. The passage is understood as a promise of what is to come. The
forms of Future Perfect and Future Indefinite are employed to show the distance
of events3
For example,
“ 7 And when they shall have finished their testimony the beast that
ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall
overcome them, and kill them.
8 And their bodies shall lie in the street of the great
city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was
crucified.” (Rev 11)
***
The forms of Tense, Taxis and Modality, it seems, are used with high
level of creativity in the Book of Revelation. The compilers of the English
text not infrequently resort to the interplay of their categorial and
contextual meanings, on the one hand, and their stylistic potentialities, on
the other. Due to this fact it is possible to interpret fictive as factive,
events to come – as events which have already taken place, the future as the
past. We believe that this way of presenting the future events rests on two
time interpretations, viz. linear and
circular. The former unfolding
within the latter so that the reader could actually perceive the steps. Thus,
for example, the events that are narrated in Rev 11:9 as the future ones are
presented in Rev 11:11 as have already taken place:
11:9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall
see their dead bodies three days and a half, and shall not suffer their dead
bodies to be put in graves.
11:11 And after three days and a half the spirit of life from God
entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon
them which saw them.
In Rev 17:5 the reader is given a very complex syntactic structure
where Time is rendered in all its forms so that he or she could fully
appreciate the relationship between “now” and “then”, “the known” and “the
unknown”. If for the purposes of comparison we confront the corresponding
passages in English and in Russian we will see that in Russian the predicate
plays quite a different syntactic-stylistic role:
17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of
the bottomless pit; and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth
shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the
foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and
yet is.
In Russian we find:
“выйдет из бездны”, “пойдет в погибель”, “ и удивятся” и
“явится”
By way of conclusion, we may once again stress the point that verbal
forms in the analyzed text are employed for creating the world both real and
unreal, a picture of the world that can be placed in Time and shown in its
dynamics, as moving from the Future to the Past, from predictions to actual
happenings, thus making the warnings and promises brought closer together.
The study of Time in its relation to Grammar, Lexis and Culture has proved
highly rewarding in recent investigations carried out in the Department of
English linguistics at Moscow State University, and gives us a hope to extend
it to other areas of philology and adjoining disciplines.
***
Bibliography:
1.
Komova T.A. The
Renaissance of the Interface between Semantics and Syntax. // Lateum-MAAL
NEWSWLETTER, Moscow, 1991, – No.1, p.26.
2. Комова
Т.А. Модальный глагол в языке и речи. – M: МГУ,
1990.
3. Комова
Т.А. Взаимодействие лексического, грамматического и лексико-фразеологического
выражения отрицания в предикативных формах глагола в современном английском
языке. Автореф. Дисс. … доктора филол. наук. – М., 1989. – С.23-25
4.
Будагов
Р.А. Что такое развитие и совершенствование языка? М., 1977. – C.254.
5.
Halley's Bible
Handbook. An Abbreviated Bible Commentary by Henry Halley. – Harper Collins
Publishers, 1959. – P.683-686.
6.
Longman
Dictionary of Idioms. – Longman, 1979. – 387p.
7.
Roget's Penguin
Thesaurus of English words and phrase. – PenguinBooks, 1987. – P.406-514.
Abstract:
The article surveys the basic criteria and recognized methods laid down by
years of experience in Bible
translating. The scholars of the Bible and biblical style have
repeatedly emphasized the idea that the style of this book is not homogeneous.
Long history of linguistic transformations of this text has left its traces.
Variation of functional styles in the text requires special attention and
detailed investigation in any undertaking connected with yet another adaptation
and transformation of the text. It seems to be reasonable to consider it as a
unity of stylistically diverse works of verbal art tied together and inspired
by one Spirit, one idea.
The author of the article
agrees with an opinion that the text of the Bible can be examined in terms of
linguopoetics in order to appreciate its artistic merits and enjoy them. At the
same time, it seems to be historically and methodologically inaccurate to
approach the Bible merely as a work of fiction. Such interpretation would be
simplified and incomplete. Today, when the word of the Bible still appeals to
so many believers, it is early to regard it only as a cultural relic of bygone
ages.
Method
It has become traditional among authors of linguistic papers to start
the discussion of the origin of language by referring to the biblical text. The
elucidation of this theme through the Scriptures is probably as old as the Bible
itself. The Genesis of Language has always been one of the most intellectually
appealing issues of philosophy of language and linguistics per se from the times of the burning disputes between fathers of
the Church and heretic philosophers until now.
At present the phenomenon in question is being studied from the
standpoint of several sciences – philosophy of language, psychology,
linguosemiotics and linguistics. However, the crucial question of all these
investigations, the analysis of that stage of brain activity where ideas take
the shape of language units, still remains unsolved. In recent decades an
increasing interest in the cognitive processes stimulated the growth of the new
branch of linguistics which adopted the name borrowed from psychology and currently
known as cognitive linguistics.
The term “cognitive” however does not mean that the methods of
psychological research should be automatically applied to the analysis of the
natural human language. There is an essential philological requirement for an
exhaustive understanding of a text, which makes it incumbent on a professional
reader to look more closely at the background context of a work of verbal art,
to resort to adjacent sciences in order to reveal the subtlest nuances of
meaning. By the term “cognitive” we shall henceforth understand an approach to
the analysis of a work of verbal art which involves taking into consideration
all psycho- and sociolinguistic connotations evoked by the given text. In a
way, this method bridges the gap between linguistics and literary criticism.
Anxious voices of both linguists and literary critics lamenting the
divorce of two branches of philology have been heard for a while. Thus, for
example, R. Fowler writes: “It is obvious that grammar in itself, the individual’s
ability to produce English, or French, or Russian, sentences, gives no reason
at all for the production of one sentence rather than another, a speaking
machine programmed just with a grammar of English could produce English
sentences only in an utterly unmotivated fashion. But sentences do not occur
randomly: there are always good reasons why in normal linguistic performance a
certain sentence should be produced rather than some other. These reasons have
to do with topic, style, social etiquette, tradition, rhetorical design, and so
on – factors external to language but central to the structural organization of
the culture that employs the language”(11).
One of the distinguishing features of the cognitive approach to the
analysis of texts is the including into the field of the reader’s vision
manifestations of the subjective position of the author. This
approach has a lot in common with the method of linguopoetic analysis
elaborated in the works of Velta Zadornova and her disciples (4). There are in
fact two sides of the problem. On the one hand, we have to take into account
the author’s specific attitude to the hero and the narration, expressed either explicitly, or implicitly. On the other hand, cognitive
method cannot undervalue individual stylistic peculiarities characteristic of a
particular author. All our attempts at the interpretation of the author’s ‘alter ego’ will remain nothing
else but empty speculations unless we carry out a meticulous examination of the
language the author uses.
Functional styles in the
Bible
In spite of
possible ambiguities that may arise in connection with the explained here
acceptation of the term ‘cognitive’, we would assume that this approach can
shed new light on the traditional system of functional styles (or registers as they are otherwise called).
This approach is of vital importance when dealing with the text of matchless literary weight and aesthetic power in the
English cultural tradition – the King James Bible.
It has been made
abundantly clear by a number of biblical scholars, that this text cannot be
approached solely from the point of view of the well-known theory of functional
styles suggested by academician V.V.Vinogradov (2,6,7). The Bible, like any
other sacred book serves various purposes. Its first goal stipulates the
necessity of two strategies: persuasion
and impact. Persuasion is fully based on logical proof, while impact is
often based on the flurry of emotions. It is difficult to decide positively
which of these functions dominates in the biblical text.
The problem of authorship in
the biblical text
The problem of style is closely connected with the problem of
authorship. Before going any further we would like to make it clear, that we
fully agree with those scholars who regard biblical text as a unique work of
verbal art in which an enormous variety of different styles is displayed.
Religion seals the lips of the researchers as soon as they try to name the
author of this text. Those people who actually described events and left us the
manuscripts were inspired by the Almighty and often they say that they were
only taking heavenly dictation.
The history of translation of the Bible into English counts several
centuries, but in comparison with the lifespan of the Bible it is a fairly
short period. As distinct from the ancient manuscripts, translations were made
by people whose names are usually known. The problem of authorship and
copyright in literature is well established. But the style of the Bible does
not, as we have already claimed, equal the style of imaginative writing because
it has a different sense and purport. The very fact that the sacred text was
diachronically transposed calls for an explanation.
Biblical connotations in
diachrony
The development of a language and the inevitable changes of semantics
lead to the darkening of the meanings of ancient masterpieces. It is common
knowledge that most of the modern readers of Shakespeare in the
English-speaking community need commentaries on Shakespearean language to
understand the meaning of the text better, to say nothing of the appreciation
of its artistic merits. Even the greatest masterpieces of verbal art are
susceptible to ageing as well as the language itself. Presumably, these changes
of semantic structure of the language influence the relationship between the
text and the reader.
As time goes by, the vertical context of the Bible – the whole bunch of
connotations evoked by the text in the reader’s mind and shared by all members
of the given linguistic community also changes. Living conditions change,
customs become obsolete and the face of the Earth gradually transforms.
However, basic moral issues change very slowly and, obviously, it is getting
more and more difficult for the reader to see in his mind’s eye the events
described in the Bible not because he lacks imagination, but because he does
not have enough background knowledge. The narration loses its expressivity, its
power and its readers. But the Bible, obviously, is not destined for such
gloomy processes.
Very naturally the question arises here: how do the contemporary
readers understand the Bible? Does the modern understanding of this text differ
from the way our distant forerunners apprehended it ages ago?
When introducing the Bible to heathen tribes by means of translating it
into their tongues this new philosophic doctrine was establishing the new moral
and ethic concepts. Biblical language, when it was confronted to the ancient
languages of pagan folks, drastically changed the latter. At the same time, the
language itself, being closely tied with pagan religions and serving to express
its worldview had to be dramatically transformed in order to convey the Message
of that caliber. Thus the new Christian system of notions was making its way
through the struggle against the grammar and semantic categories of receiving
cultures.
Call for changes
It was not by coincidence that the King James Bible appeared at the
time when, on the one hand, Christianity in England had undergone significant
changes and, on the other hand, the English language had achieved the new stage
of its development marked by the reappearance of the literary norm against the
background of regional dialects. Similarly, the new English translation of the Bible
was called for. The King James Bible could not any more communicate Christian
doctrine with utmost clarity and at the same time keep the readers and
listeners fascinated and impressed (if the words are at all relevant for the
theological approach). It goes without saying that the changes in the
grammatical structure of the given language are connected with the
transformations of cognitive processes which take place in the minds of
language users. Historic development of mankind calls for revisions of even the
most reputable translations of ancient sacred texts in order to preserve their
status of unquestionable treasures of the human consciousness and science.
This noble goal moved the scholars working under the auspices of the
International Bible Society to join intellectual forces and encyclopedic
knowledge for carrying out a grandiose project: to translate ancient Hebrew,
Aramaic and Greek manuscripts into the contemporary English language. This is
how the New International Version of the Bible – one of the currently most
reliable versions of the Bible – was created.
As time goes by biblical language is becoming more and more complicated
in the comprehension of contemporary readers, remote from the present day
spoken and even literary language. This “aging” of the text leads to blurring
of the sense, to all sorts of ambiguities and misinterpretations. Apparently,
the scholars who participated in this project were first of all motivated by
the idea that the religious and the philosophic message contained in the
biblical text is still of paramount value for the readers.
Some of the problems in the course of the translation work are
discussed in the books written by Eugene Nida who headed the team of the
scholars. Over the past several decades the scholars of humanities have been
much worried by significant shifts and changes in the attitude and approaches
to the Bible. Technical progress and many archaeological discoveries of the
first half of this century inevitably challenged people’s views on the events
known from the biblical text.
Breaking seals of ancient kings’ burials and moving their ashes to
museum halls unveils sacred mysteries of the past, (to say nothing of political
doctrines propagating atheism and which have dramatically influenced the history
of the twentieth century). Thus, for example, E. Zeren, the German
archaeologist, journalist and author of books about archeological
investigations of the places described in the Bible and other ancient sources,
wrote sadly about the attempts to understand the true meaning of the Bible by
contemporary readers. To his mind, we shall never grasp the real meaning of
biblical statements because the inner symbolic meanings concealed in them is
beyond our comprehension. Symbolism of ancient religions and mythology appears
to be a locked casket the key of which is lost for good.
***
The Grass Roots of the Art
The problem of decoding
biblical symbolism
The problem of decoding biblical symbolism is a subject of special study. However, we certainly admit
the fact that philologists can and should protect this precious document from
losing significance and impact, albeit it appears to be impossible to preclude
ambiguities and dubious interpretations from contemporary way of reading it.
Eugene A. Nida and Jan de Waard in the book “From
one language to another. Functional equivalence in Bible translating” warn
about the danger of reading irrelevant information into the text. Thus, they
say: “A verbal written text is essentially a record of the meaning indicated by
a series of signs, but the text is never a perfect transcript. It is always
devoid of certain features of intonation, voice quality, and … lacks very
important elements of paralinguistic and extralinguistic features. Decoding
devices (principles of exegesis) should attempt to obtain from the text all the
meaning that resides in it, but it is certainly dangerous to attempt to
introduce more into a text than it contains”(15).
Biblical elocution
Presumably, the
Bible is aimed at communicating its message to large congregations, and it
appears that this purpose is often best achieved by means of reading it aloud.
Therefore, all “updated” transpositions should comply with the peculiar
biblical rhetoric stipulated by the rules of elocution. This aspect of the
study of the Bible from the philological standpoint is minutely examined during
the investigation carried out by M.E.Konurbayev(6). In his dissertation paper
the researcher focuses on the oral presentation of the Bible and emphasizes the
role of the interplay of speech timbres in this book. Of paramount importance,
states the scholar, is the ability of the reader to trace the features of one
general underlying epic timbre, which forms the basis of functional peculiarity
of all other biblical timbres and preserve these features in the reading.
Our bibliographic
studies into the matter showed that even the oldest translations of the Bible
into European languages were targeted at public readings, which is more than doubtful
with original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek manuscripts. There is always an
elocutional specificity about every translation of the Bible. After being
rendered by means of this or that language, the text of the Bible is no longer
perceived as a translation from a foreign (dead) tongue, but becomes part and
parcel of a particular culture and a language which adopts it. In fact, this is
the way Christian culture and faith expands.
Cultural polyphony
What is important
for a biblical scholar is the knowledge of the so-called cultural ‘polyphony’
of the text, the term introduced into linguistics from musicology to emphasize
the intratextual and extralinguistic ties of the symbols concealed in it. We
have to agree with those who declare that all contemporary attempts to decipher
the original meanings of biblical statements1
and make them clearer for contemporary readers are doomed to failure: even the
most educated scholars whose background knowledge is sufficient to allow them
to read between the lines of this symbolically and metasemiotically capacious
text cannot recognize all allusions and historic and cultural references the
Bible abounds in .
In this connection a small digression is called for. The point is that
the biblical text itself forms the background of so many works of verbal art,
bringing in a peculiar system of symbols, the knowledge of which is absolutely
necessary for the proper understanding of the whole text.
The influence of the Bible on the history and development of the
English culture is evident enough. Biblical allusions in the English literature
have been thoroughly investigated by I.V.Gubbenet in connection with ‘the
vertical’ context of classical works of English literature (3). We should also
mention the contribution made by L.V.Polubichenko and the method of philological
topology suggested by her (8). These scholars managed to examine a
considerable amount of works of imaginative writing and reveal the role of
biblical allusions in the cultural consciousness of the English-speaking world.
In contexts where the function of impact is predominant quotations from the
Bible strengthen metasemiotic loading of discourse. The structure and
functioning of these allusions in literature may differ from epoch to epoch,
from author to author, but the mentioning of biblical episodes and personages
always remains a powerful means to increase metasemiotic force of the text and its imagery. Let us draw an example from Shakespeare’s play Macbeth:
“ MACDUFF:
I am not treacherous.
MALCOLM:
But Macbeth is.
A good and virtuous nature
may recoil
In an imperial charge. But I
shall crave your pardon.
That which you are, my
thoughts cannot transpose:
Angels are bright still
though the brightest fell;
Though all things foul would
wear the brows of grace,
Yet grace might still look
so.”
“ Macbeth”, Act
IV, Scene iii.
The allusion to Satan in this passage is
evident enough. In the context of the tragedy it assumes a symbolic meaning: comparing his father’s
murderer with the devil Malcolm attaches extraordinary, global importance to
the calamities that fell upon his home country and his forebears’
throne. Biblical opposition between symbolic white and black colours, the
former signifying good and the latter – evil, is developed later in the same
scene:
“ MALCOLM:
It is myself I mean, in whom I
know
All the particulars of vice so
grafted
That, when they shall be
opened, black Macbeth
Will seem as pure as snow, and
the poor state
Esteem him as a lamb, being compared
With my confineless harms.
MACDUFF:
Not in the legions
Of horrid hell can come a
devil more damned
In evils to top Macbeth.”
Symbolism of
colours, especially the one mentioned above is so conventional in the present day
literature, that although we can still associate it with the biblical imagery,
we do not look for its roots, although it goes back to pagan beliefs and cults.
This example
would bring us back to a point often made by numerous highly reputable scholars,
concerning the complicated and versatile character of the cultural and the
historic context of the Bible2. It is
certainly true that the more background information we obtain, the stronger is
the temptation to solve the riddles of ancient times. The danger of
misinterpreting the text by reading into it more symbolism than it contains is
quite apparent here. However, for a great many of contemporary educated readers
of the Bible, irrespective of their religious background, this book is a work
of verbal art – an aesthetically complete one global whole, and it should be
viewed accordingly.
The English Bible as a work
of verbal art
One of the most profound research papers which deals with the
comparison and evaluation of different translation of the Bible into English
was written recently by A.A. Lipgart (7). A part of his paper is devoted to
linguopoetic confrontation of works of imaginative writing. Apart from the King
James Bible and “The New International Version”, A.A.Lipgart discusses “The
International Version”, “Good News Bible” and Tyndale’s New Testament. Having
confronted all these translations on the levels of words and word-combinations,
syntactic and rhythmic organization, the researcher came to the conclusion that
the texts display similar elements fulfilling the function of impact. Their
presence in the text is a sufficient evidence of the fact that translations of
the Bible can lend themselves to linguopoetic analysis.
Rhythm
One of the aspects singled out in the course
of this research which proves the assumption that the method of linguopoetic
analysis is applicable to English translations of the Bible is the rhythmic
organization of the text. Although the phenomenon in question has been in the
focus of scholarly attention throughout the twentieth century, systemic
approach to it was formulated quite recently
in the works by T.N.Shishkina, O.V.Alexandrova and other scholars (1,9). One of
the most intricate questions which arises in this connection is whether we can
describe biblical language as poetry or prose? If both types of speech are to
be found in biblical text, then, how to distinguish between them? It goes
without saying that these questions are closely connected with the problem of
defining the style of the Bible.
It has not been our
task to give a profound and a detailed explanation of the role of rhythm in the
English Bible in this article3.
However, the mentioning of this aspect of Bible translating was absolutely
necessary for a more or less complete mapping out of the problem. An important
note to be taken into account by the translators is that rhythm, even being a
mere formal element, plays a significant metasemiotic role in the Bible.
It is of great importance to define carefully the
units of rhythm and the levels of language on which they would occur. In the
book “Registers and Rhythm” T.N.Shishkina described the results of her
investigation of rhythm of prose on the
segmental level. The author confronted artistic text with the text
belonging to the scientific register. T.N.Shishkina suggested a principle of
“balanced variety” as the underlying principle of the English speech. It goes
down to the alteration of different in length syntagms while the types of this
alterations vary from register to register. As was convincingly shown by
O.V.Alexandrova, expressivity of artistic prose is conditioned by the way
rhythmic units are distributed in the flow of speech. Otherwise stated, it
depends on phrasing, and in the written speech the units of phrasing are marked
off by means of punctuation marks, whereas in oral speech phrasing is realized
with the help of metasemiotic pauses (which are to be distinguished from
syntactic diarhemes).
Being still
unable to decide whether the biblical text belongs to the scientific register,
or, to the register of aesthetic impact, we can try to apply here the
principles which were elaborated to suit the purposes of investigation of
either purely artistic, or purely intellective texts. In this respect the book
by Simeon Potter “Our Language” appears to be very helpful. Simeon Potter
divides all sentences into three types4.
They are: “loose”, “balanced” and “periodic”. “In the so-called loose sentence the writer or speaker
states fact after fact just as these occur to him, freely and artlessly.(...)
In the periodic sentence the climax
comes at the close. The reader is held in suspense until at last he hears what
he has long been waiting for, and only then is he able to comprehend the
meaning of the sentence as a whole.” The third – is the balanced type, which “satisfies a profound human desire for
equipoise and symmetry and it has long been at home in Hebrew, Greek and Latin,
and many other languages both ancient and modern. It may express two similar
thoughts in parallelism or two opposing thoughts in antithesis.”
As we could see
from this quotation, the scholar proceeds mainly from the way ideas are
organized in one’s mind and are expressed by means of language, in other words,
from communicative-dynamic division of sentence or its division into theme and
rheme. In the context of multiple changes in the course of language history
this approach to the study of the Eternal Book might prove very fruitful.
Syntactic parallelism
However great is
the importance of the content, much information is hidden in the form of the
language. There is an essential difference between versification in ancient
Hebrew and the Indo-European versification. Verse in Hebrew is characterized by
parallelism. This discovery was made by
Bishop Lowth. Since then the use of syntactic parallelism in the Bible has
been studied by many a scholar. It is one of the crucial principles of
syntactic and rhythmic organization of the text.
Translators of
the Bible use this device extensively to render biblical verses, and often
accompany it with various sound and semantic repetitions all over the text:
Psalm 144 (AV)
|
Blessed be the Lord my
strength, which teacheth my hands to
war, and my fingers to
fight: my goodness, and my
fortress; my high tower, and my
deliverer; my shield, and he in whom I trust; who subdueth my people
under me. |
Lord, what is man, that
thou takest knowledge of him! or the son of man, that
thou makest account of him! man is like to vanity: his days are as a shadow that passeth away. |
(NIV)
|
Praise be to the Lord my
Rock, who trains my hands for
war, my fingers for battle. He is my loving God and my fortress, my stronghold and my
deliverer, my shield, in whom I take
refuge, who subdues people under
me. |
O Lord, what is man that
you care for him, the son of man that you
think of him? Man is like a breath; his days are like a
fleeting shadow. |
The Temptation of Jesus (Luke 4) (AV)
And Jesus being full of the
Holy Ghost returned from Jordan,
and was led by the Spirit into
the wilderness,
being forty days tempted of
the devil.
And in those days he did eat
nothing: and
when they were ended, he
afterward hungered.
(NIV)
Jesus, full of the Holy
Spirit, returned from the Jordan and
was led by the Spirit in the
desert, where for forty days he was
tempted by the devil. He ate
nothing during those days, and at
the end of them he was
hungry.
The translators of the NIV
avoid using polysyndeton in the narrative and use other homogeneous syntactic
constructions than those used in the AV. In Psalms the translators of the NIV
introduce a very special division into lines. Metasemiotic function of this
composition needs to be studied in greater detail, but it seems to be evident
that the translators of the contemporary version were trying to avoid stylistic
merging of prose and poetry in the Bible.
Biblical commentaries and
the problems of translation
There are a great many translations of the Bible, but there are no less
comments on the Bible which would help the translators in their work. Many
places in the sacred text still remain obscure and evoke debates about their
meaning. Ambiguities and misunderstandings are partly due to the difference
between the languages of the original and modern languages, and partly to the
time gap which separates contemporary readers from their ancestors who lived
almost two thousand years ago. Medieval theology strongly influenced the common
understanding of the Bible. It was based on repeated reading of one and the
same text. During that time multiple comments and interpretations of many
passages of the Bible appeared, which incorporated the historical and cultural
information of different nations. These comments defined in a stated fashion a
certain relationship between different parts of the text and interpreted
biblical symbols and images. This gave words and word-combinations special
metasemiotic colouring that they do not develop in other contexts.
Preserving communicative
force
We would assume that metasemiotic functioning of this text to a
considerable extent depends on extralinguistic factors, such as cultural and
linguistic situation of a particular country and cultural background of a
particular group of readers. In all times biblical text possessed its own
style, incomparable with the styles of literature of a corresponding period. As
has already been shown by some biblical scholars, stylistic correspondences
between different parts of the text in the AV, is also to be found in contemporary
translations. This observation brings us to the conclusion that in the mind of
a contemporary reader the Bible occupies the same place as it did in the minds
of his distant forebears, even in spite of the fact that since then the input
of information has drastically increased and keeps on growing day after day.
What really changes are the rules of grammar and vocabulary. That is
why certain updating of the Bible is inevitable if the role of communicative
function has to be maintained. Otherwise, the text still retaining its ability
to enchant the readers by mesmerizing sounding of solemn archaic language –
will lose its persuasive ability. Not infrequently texts containing archaisms
are perceived as solemn and elevated. Even the translators of the King James
Bible resorted to the stated device to raise the status of the new translation
in the eyes of their contemporaries. This kind of misinterpretation could
hamper correct understanding and evaluation of the King James Bible today.
Essentially, this is the reason why new translations were called for in the
twentieth century.
1 “Take the affirmation “He was
a very stately man”. Around the
word “stately” cluster memories
and valuations of various and peculiar kinds,
memories with which ethical
and aesthetic judgements are
inextricably mixed... Here words are
paramount and there are no real synonyms...
The things about which
one speaks are
so intangible, so elusive,
that the presence of the word itself is necessary if s
the thing is to be focussed at all..
Let there be no mistake about it,
however; even in abstract statements,
the word-meaning can
never be identical with
the thing-meant, no matter how
closely welded together the two may be.”
Sir Alan Gardiner.
The theory of
Speech and Language.
2 Mashal
– to use figurative language (an allegory, adage, song or the like); to resemble - be like,
compare, use (as a) proverb, speak in
(proverbs); n. a similie (as an adage, poem, discourse), byword, like, parable,
proverb. A Concise dictionary of the Hebrew Bible//Strong's Exhaustive
Concordance. Compact edition.Baker Book House, Michigan, 1978, pp.77.
3 Good News Bible. Preface, 1976.
[1] Текст молитвы взят из Библии
Короля Иакова, которая, в некотором смысле, является текстом каноническим не
только для англичан, но и для большинства людей,воспитанных в традициях
английской языковой культуры.
[2] Учение о христианском
церковном проповедничестве, разбирающее вопросы о сущности, содержании и построении проповеди, ее изложении и
произношении известно под термином гомилетика.
Ср. Малый энциклопедический словарь
Ф.А.Брокгауза и И.А.Эфрона. – М. 1994. – т. 1
[3] В данной статье мы используем терминологию, обычно применяемую
при анализе поэтических текстов, что, на наш взгляд, кажется удобным и вполне
обоснованным, поскольку в центре внимания оказывается ритм, основу которого
составляет изохронность, регулярность и повторяемость языковых едениц. Основу
ритма в нашем случае, как и в стихотворных текстах, составляет слог, а минимальные повторяющиеся слого-акцентные
единства оказываются соотносимы с поэтической стопой.
[4] ср. слова kingdom, Father, heaven,
hallowed, power, glory.
[5] Во второй строке ритмическое
противопоставление ямбической и хореической структуры кажется наиболее удачным
для изглашения, в особенности если учесть,
как данное противопоставление подчеркивается расстановкой логических
ударений.
[6] Ср. анализ интонационного
контура ниже в даной статье.
[7] О том, каким образом эта схема задается на лексико-морфологическом
уровне мы говорим ниже на стр 39.
[8] Для удобства восприятия
слог, несущий логическое ударение, обозначен здесь значком /—/, остальные слоги
обозначены значком /È/
[9] Как и в предыдущем случае
слог, несущий логическое ударение, обозначен здесь значком /—/, остальные слоги
обозначены значком /È/
[10] Для большей наглядности
ритмически соотносимые стопы поставлены в таблице в одну строку.
[11] Как и в предыдущей таблице
для большей наглядности ритмически соотносимые стопы поставлены в одну строку.
[12] Что кроме указанных выше причин делалось для того, чтобы акцентно
приблизить ее к латинскому источнику: ср. Pater
noster qui es in caelis.
[13] Любопытно, что именно эти два стиха дополнительно толкуются Иисусом Христом: в Евангелии от Матфея в
14 и 15 стихах:
For
if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
but if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive
your trespasses.
и в Евангелии от Луки, сразу после текста
молитвы в притче о просящем взаймы у
друга своего в полночь три хлеба. – см. об этом ниже в данной статье.
[14] Ср. что говорилось выше о роли элемента -give- в поддержании благозвучия второй части.
1 As one of the leading representatives of the Moscow school of
Philology put it: “Что же касается грамматической категории времени, то и она
имеет отношение к тому, как человек “ощущает” себя во времени в ту или иную
эпоху. (4)
2 As, for
example, in: "Some sightseeing,anyway,"
I said "Cara will like that –
she,as Sebastian will have told you, is your hostess here".
(E.Waugh Brideshead revisited.Penguin Books.-1987.-P.115.) Graphically the above mentioned relationship can be
shown in the following way:
I
moment of indefinite present
speaking is
hostess here
immediate
future
will have told
3 The scheme
that has been
given above can be further extended in the following way:
I
the moment of indefinite present
speaking is hostess here-
immediate future
will have told
indefinite future
shall
make, shall overcome
1 Not
to be confused with the intentions of the translators of the text which can be
revealed through a minute linguistic and philological analysis
2 see for e.g. Joe Brice The
Book Supreme. London: Epworth Press. 1949
3 Some more detailed observations are given in the same issue in the
article by M.E.Konurbayev.
4 Or
four to be more precise, for he
also singles out the so-called
“contaminated” sentences.The examples he adduced help to understand what stands for this word: “But whom say ye that
I am?' (St.Mathew, XVII, 15) is frequently quoted from the King James Bible as
an example of ungrammatical
accusative whom used as the complement of the
verb to be. The sentence is a good example of a blending of “Who
say ye that I am?” and “Whom say ye me to be?”(...) A.V. of the Bible
containes not one instance of it.”