Krzysztof Fordoński

The article presents and analyses Ode the 15th of the First Book of Casimire imitated, encouraging the Polish Knights after their last Conquest to proceed in their Victory, a little known anonymous English paraphrase of Maciej Kazimierz Sarbiewski’s Neo-Latin ode Lyr. I 15 Cum Ladislaus, Poloniae princeps, fuso Osmano, Turcarum imperatore, victorem exercitum in hiberna reduceret. It shows both the historical context within which the original poem was written in 1621 as one of the so-called “turcyki”, i.e. poems exhorting Christian knights in their fight against the Turks, and the context within which the paraphrase was written and published immediately after the battle of Vienna (1683). It opens with a comment on the original poem and specifically deals with Sarbiewski’s departures from the description of the actual battle which were later skillfully employed by the English translator. Next, the volume in which the English poem appeared in 1685, Miscellany Poems and Translations by Oxford Hands is presented. A tentative attempt is made to establish the identity of the anonymous translator based on the available data concerning the place of publication and the editor of the volume, Anthony Stephens. Next, a detailed analysis shows how the anonymous translator transformed the poem originally celebrating the Polish victory at Chocim (1621) and Crown Prince Vladislaus IV Vasa into a poem celebrating the battle of Vienna (1683) and king John III Sobieski. The analysis concentrates quite exclusively on the differences between the original and the translation which resulted from the translator’s attempts to adapt the primary text to a new function in a different political situation. The translator exhibits great skill in introducing only minor changes to the original text, such changes, however, which without giving his game away (the text mentions neither Vienna nor Sobieski) clearly reveal his intentions. He also adroitly introduces new elements such as the standard of Muhammad sent by the Polish king to the pope, or the relief of Vienna Comet, which further bring the text taken from Sarbiewski to the translator’s current purpose and situation. The article ends with a presentation of the translation practices in Great Britain in the 17th and the 18th century and their influence upon the discussed poem. The question which the final paragraphs attempt to resolve is whether the text should be treated as a translation, or it is rather an adaptation or, to use a more contemporary word, a parody of Sarbiewski’s ode

The paper deals with six poems of three 18th-century English women poets—Lady Mary Chudleigh, Mary Masters, and Anne Steele “Theodosia”—inspired by the works of the greatest Polish Neo-Latin poet Maciej Kazimierz Sarbiewski. The aim of the study is to present the three authors, their biographies and literary oeuvres, and to attempt an analysis of the poems in question within this context.

The biographies, social position—Chudleigh was the wife a baronet, the two others belonged to the middle class—and education of the three authoresses differ and yet they all shared the limitations resulting from the fact that they were women in 18th-century England, and were therefore denied access to academic education. The analysis of the texts and biographies has proven that it is highly improbable that either of the three women poets could translate the poems from Latin originals. All of their translations are based on earlier renditions; in the case of Chudleigh it is possible to identify the source text, that is the translation by John Norris.

Inasmuch as it can be ascertained from the available biographical and critical sources and the results, the attitudes of the three poetesses towards their work varied. Only Masters acknowledged the source material in her publications. Although the current concepts of translation are different, her two poems: On a Fountain. Casimir, Lib. Epod. Ode 2 and Casimir, Lib. I. Ode 2—qualify as translations by the standards of her times. They are analysed here in detail. Neither Chudleigh nor Steele mentioned Sarbiewski in their publications. Their decision can be justified by the fact that their poems, even if clearly (though most likely indirectly) inspired by his lyrics, must be classified as free adaptations or even original poetry influenced by Sarbiewski or earlier translations and adaptations of his works.

The review of Stuart Gillespie and David Hopkins’ The Oxford History of Literary
Translation in English. Volume 3. 1660–1790 (prepared in a series edited by Peter
France and Stuart Gillespie) published by Oxford University Press in 2005 concentrates
on the crucial issues of this hefty volume. Special attention is paid to the basic
assumptions of the editors which resulted in a coherent volume offering a broad but
well-structured overview of literary translation in the period under discussion. Such
an approach helps to present the largely disregarded role of translation as a medium
through which new ideas and literary styles were adapted into original English literature
of the Enlightenment. The review ends in a moderately critical presentation of the
book’s treatment of translations from Maciej Kazimierz Sarbiewski, the only Polish
author included, yet the criticism does not overshadow the fact that the reviewed
volume is an extremely valuable work of scholarship.

The article presents historical, literary, religious and political context in which interest in the poetry of the Baroque Neo-Latin poet Maciej Kazimierz Sarbiewski (1595–1640) appeared in the first half of the 18th century among English dissenters and non-conformists. The article concentrates on the best known and most prolific of the six dissenting translators of Sarbiewski Isaac Watts (1674–1748) and his pupil and biographer Thomas Gibbons (1720–1785). The article includes a brief presentation of the translated poems of Sarbiewski and their translators.