Mendeley TY _ JOUR ID - 1402071944364 TI - Translating Taboo: An Examination of Norms in Five 19th-Century English Translations of Gulistan JO - Pazhūhish-i Źabān va Adabiyyāt-i Farsī JA - ES LA - fa SN - 1735-1030 AU - Horri َAbolfazl AD - دانشگاه اراک Y1 - 2025 PY - 2025 VL - 72 IS - SP - 89 EP - 109 KW - Translational norms KW - Translating taboo KW - Communicative model KW - Shifts KW - Ideal reader. DO - N2 -

This article seeks, through a qualitative-explanatory approach and using available library tools based on the proposed translation norms by Toury, to demonstrate how the target language and culture readers receive, understand, and accept writers and works of the source language and culture. Two main questions are addressed: 1. How do translators perceive and understand the linguistic and especially cultural elements of source texts? 2. What happens if a single text in the source culture is decided to be translated into a single language in the target culture by more than two translators? It seems that readers of the target culture interpret and accept the contents of translated texts in a communication pattern and discourse significantly different from the pattern and discourse of the source culture. This article attempts to examine the understanding and acceptance of Sa’adi by five Western translators through the prism of how taboos are translated in a selection of stories from Gulistan in nineteenth-century England. The results show that Gladwin, Ross, and Eastwick prefer to relocate, soften, or remove taboos, while Platts prefers to translate taboos exactly or into Latin. Rehatesck, unlike other translators, tries neither to remove nor to soften or relocate taboos, nor to translate into Latin but rather translates all taboos like the original text and, through the strategy of fidelity and loyalty to the original text, presents Gulistan as it is to English-speaking readers, believing that previous translations of Gulistan are overly refined and sanitized.

 

Keywords: Translational norms, Translating taboo, Communicative model, Shifts, Ideal reader.

 

Introduction

This article discusses how readers of different languages and cultures
receive and understand authors and works of the source language and culture. It raises several questions: What happens when more than one translator decides to translate a single text from the source culture into a single language in the target culture? Can we assume that translators want to recreate the same interpretation of the author's work? For instance, is there a clear and definitive interpretation of Saadi's often taboo-laden stories and poems available, such that we might expect various translators to recreate that precise interpretation in English? Furthermore, do we even possess a thoroughly vetted and authoritative version of Gulistan or Bustan that would allow for a uniform translation in the target culture? Moreover, and perhaps more crucially, are we dealing with identical readers across different historical periods, such that we could reasonably expect translators to render these works in the same way for each generation of readers? This article attempts to examine the understanding and acceptance of Saadi's works from the perspective of Western translators/readers through the translation taboos in a selection of stories from the Gulistan, published in five English translations in 19th century England.

 

Background of the Study

There are resources available for the critique and analysis of translations of Saadi's works, including the Gulistan, into French, English, and German. Some sources provide the Persian Gulistan and one or two English translations in a bilingual format and make references to the quality of the translations in the introduction. These introductions are either a preliminary note (Gladwin and Rehatsek, 2005) or a Persian translation of introductions written by others. Additionally, some academic articles have examined the translation of certain cultural aspects of the Gulistan, among other issues, in English and French translations (Yousefi, 2017; Nekisaie et al., 2021; Zolfaghari et al., 2020). The discussion of the translator's position and translated works from the perspective of translation theory has also been addressed in various sources. For example, see Horri (2019; 2021). However, taboo translation in the context of translation norms has not been examined in detail in the five English translations of the Gulistan.

 

Methodology

Toury proposes three types of norms for translation strategy: initial
norms, operational norms, and preliminary norms. Initial norms refer to the translator's choices; translators decide whether to remain faithful to the norms in the source text and provide an adequate translation or to conform to the norms of the target language culture and provide an acceptable translation. Operational norms assist the translator in making decisions during translation and are either matrixial or textual frameworks.

 

Discussion

Taboo in Translation

The first translation of selected tales from Gulistan into English was made by Stephen Sullivan in 1774, though this version is currently unavailable to the author. The first complete translation was provided by Edward Gladwin in 1806, during the peak of the Neoclassical era and the dawn of Romanticism in England. Thus, the reasons that may be proposed for translating Gulistan into French and German in the seventeenth century, the age of Enlightenment and reason, differ from those relevant to the period of transition from Classicism to Romanticism in England. However, the fact remains that Gulistan was considered a textbook in India, and it is evident that with the arrival of the English in the subcontinent, following the establishment of the East India Company, the importance of learning Persian—the official language of the Mughal rulers in India—greatly increased.

It appears that Gladwin demonstrated great fidelity to the Gulistan text, striving to emulate Saadi’s style, which is characterized by ornate, rhythmic prose, to produce a faithful translation. Nevertheless, Archer contends that Gladwin leaned more toward prose in his translation (Archer, 2004: 14). From this perspective, it seems that English readers, both actual and implied, do not experience the translated Gulistan in the same way that Persian readers do, nor do they derive the same enjoyment. This discrepancy in understanding and appreciation between the Persian and English readership is not solely attributable to the rendering of Gulistan’s form and structure. Naturally, two languages—even if they share a common Indo-European root, as Persian and English do—are inherently distinguishable in terms of form and structure.

Ross, like Gladwin, faced not only challenges in translating Gulistan at the microstructural level—such as those previously mentioned—but also in dealing with the translation of taboo subjects. He points out that taboo topics were prevalent among writers like Swift and Sterne, noting that it wasn’t just Saadi who addressed these matters; other poets and moralists have also referenced taboos in their works. Ross acknowledges that Saadi, in Gulistan, has largely shielded his text from crude vulgarity (Ross, 1890: 26). Ross further mentions that when he showed a copy of his translation to Gladwin, the latter admitted that he, too, had made alterations when translating taboo content, such as switching male characters to female ones, as we have previously illustrated. Thus, like Gladwin, Ross also endeavored to present a more refined and sanitized version of the taboos in his translation, catering to the sensibilities of English readers, particularly the young trainees of the East India Company. Therefore, Ross, by employing operational norms—especially at the textual level—attempted to avoid translating many of the taboo terms found in Gulistan.

Eastwick, after discussing the stylistic and literary features of Gulistan and citing the Eastern proverb "Every word of Saadi carries seventy-two meanings" (ibid.: 17), suggests that it is still possible to produce seventy more translations of Saadi’s works.

Eastwick admits how far his translation diverged from the original text, yet he became intent on recreating the prose and verse of the original in English (ibid.). Ultimately, he notes that he rendered Arabic phrases in italics and placed his own explanatory and interpretive comments within brackets (ibid.: 18).

Unlike what Gladwin, Ross, and Eastwick do—making certain modifications, omissions, and substitutions of taboo content to satisfy their English readership through operational norms—John Platts strives to translate all taboos exactly as they appear in the Persian Gulistan. For example, he restores all references to male characters that Gladwin, Ross, and Eastwick had changed to female characters.

Rehatsek, for his part, argues that previous translations of Gulistan had been overly sanitized and refined. In his translation, while maintaining compatibility with the freer English language, he made an effort to render all the taboo expressions and passages into English. A broad comparison of selected passages from Gulistan with Rehatsek’s translation and those of earlier translators reveals that he neither omitted, softened, nor altered any of the taboos, nor did he translate them into Latin. Instead, he faithfully translated all the taboos as they appear in the original text (for example, refer to the stories mentioned here in Rehatsek’s translation).

On the whole, based on the norms proposed basically by Toury, it appears that English translators of the Gulistan, from Gladwin, the first translator, to Rehatsek, the latest translator in the nineteenth century, have adopted different strategies, which we will discuss based on Toury's proposed translation norms. If Gladwin, Ross, and Eastwick prefer to shift soften, or omit taboos, and John Platts prefers to translate taboos verbatim or into Latin, Rehatsck finds the opportunity to translate the Gulistan and Baharestan into English under the light of freedoms created in society and readers' broad views, which according to Archer, should be faithful to the original text and not overlook any point and should be clear and simple and most importantly, in English from beginning to end.

 

Conclusion

This article aimed to demonstrate how English translators of the Gulistan in the nineteenth century brought taboos into the realm of English-speaking readership through translation norms. Rehatsek's translation of the Gulistan and Bustan coincides with the substitution of English for Persian in India, and it is clear that the practice of publishing English translations without Persian, which was common during the time of Ross, Eastwick, and Platts, has become prevalent. It seems that readers in the target culture understand and accept the content of translated texts in a completely different communicative pattern and discourse from that of the source culture.

 

References

Archer, J. W. (2004) Introduction. In Golestan and Bustan of Saadi: Bilingual edition. Translated by Edward Rehatsek and J.M. Wynne (pp. 13-55), Edited by Houshang Rahnama. Tehran: Hermes.

Bodaghi, Zabihollah (1989) Golestan Farsi: Farsi-English. Tehran: Fajr-e-Islam.

Baker, Mona (2000) ‘Towards a Methodology for Investigating the Style of a Literary Translator’, Target (2): 241-266.

Brancaforte, Elio. “Persian Words of Wisdom Travel to the West: Seventeenth-Century European Translations of Saʿdi’s Gulistan.” Daphnis 45 (2017): 450–72.

Even-Zohar, Itamar. 1978. Papers in Historical Poetics. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.

Gladwin, F., & Rehatsek, E. (2005) English translation of Golestan. Edited by Mahmood Hakimi. Tehran: Ghalem.

Nakisaei, Niloofar, Nemati, Azadeh, Mirza Suzani, Samad (2021) A Comparative Study of Transposition in English Translations of Gulistan of Saadi: A Case Study of Thackston’s and Rehatsek’s Translation. Journal of Language and Translation. 11(1),77-89.

Rehatsek, E. (2004) Golestan. Edited by Houshang Rahnama. Tehran: Hermes.

Shuttleworth, M., & Cowie, M. (2011) Dictionary of Translation Studies. Translated by Farzaneh Farhazad, Gholamreza Tajvidi, and Mozdek Bolouri. Tehran: Yalda Qalam.

Toury, Gideon. ‘Translated Literature: System, Norms, Performance: Toward a TT-oriented Approach to Literary Translation,’ Poetics Today, 1981

Wickens, J.M. (2004) Bustan. Edited by Houshang Rahnama. Tehran: Hermes.

Yousefi, Sarah (2017) Translation of Cultural Specific Items: A Case Study of Gulistan of Saadi. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 4 (5), 62-75.

Zarrinkoub, Abdolhoseyn (2000) Hadeeth-e-Khosh-e-Saadi. Tehran: Sokhan.

Zolfaghari, Hasan., & Behrouz, Seyyedeh.Ziba (2021) Recognizing cultural and literary patterns prevalent in translations of Saadi's Golestan: A comparative analysis of three translations by Rass, Rehatsek, and Doformery. Fanon-e-Adabi, 12(1), 167-184. Doi: 10.22108/liar.2020.123687.1880.

 


UR - rimag.ir/en/Article/44364 L1 - rimag.ir/en/Article/Download/44364 ER -