Post by anansi on Feb 27, 2021 4:04:02 GMT -5
ArticlePDF Available
The Global Consequences of Mistranslation: The Adoption of the “Black but …” .
Abstract
This article investigates the genesis of a linguistic model occasioned by a mistranslation that was taken up in the Renaissance, and had an enduring global impact.
[ quote] This article investigates the genesis and adoption in Renaissance Europe of a linguistic model that was to have an enduring global impact. The adoption of this model, first in Latin, and then in the major European vernacular languages, had a detrimental effect on how sub-Saharan Africans were viewed in the period 1440–1650, enshrining negative expectations about what black skin signified.1 In the article, 1 From the 1440s onwards, Europeans captured or purchased people from West Africa, and brought them to Europe as slaves [1]. For further information, see the collected volume by Earle and Lowe. My usual disclaimer applies: I am using the phrases ―black‖ and ―white,‖ and ―black Africans‖ and ―white Europeans,‖ as constructs. For a sense of the wide range of ways in which black Africans were categorised after they arrived in Europe, I examine what I am calling the ―black but…‖ formulation, which is to be found in the fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth centuries throughout written texts and reported speech, historical as well as literary works. It must have been modelled grammatically and ideologically on a statement often attributed to the Queen of Sheba in 1:5 of the Biblical book called the Song of Songs, the Song of Solomon or the Canticle of Canticles (also known by its Latin name as the Cantica Canticorum) in the Old Testament of the Bible.2 The Song of Songs is a collection of intense love lyrics between a man and a woman, resembling those found in ancient Egyptian collections. [/quote]
The propriety of including the Song of Songs in the Bible was questioned from the start (and there has been more fuss in the last century) but it has been accepted as canonical by both Jews and Christians. There have also been many different theories about how the Song of Songs should be interpreted: is it allegorical (the Lord‘s love for Israel or Christ‘s love for his Church), dramatic (the shepherd‘s courtship of the Shulammite maid), literal-historical (a celebration of human love or a repertoire for weddings), cultic or ritualistic or finally parabolic or typological in terms of certain topics of Israelite theology ([4], p. 209)? The relevant statement was translated from Hebrew into Latin as ―Nigra sum sed formosa‖ (I am black but beautiful [my italics])3 whereas,
in fact, this is a mistranslation from the Hebrew, and the translation should read: ―Nigra sum et formosa‖ (I am black and beautiful [my italics]).4 The relevant Hebrew word here is ו (vav), which has a slightly larger range than ―and,‖ but effectively in this context does just mean ―and.‖ So one word has been changed here, with the result that the whole meaning of the phrase has been utterly altered; instead of the descriptive or factual ―I am black and beautiful,‖ the Queen of Sheba is made to justify or explain her beauty, as though a black skin were in itself a barrier to beauty.
[ quote] In order to understand the context, it is necessary to investigate in a very summary fashion the critical area of biblical translation up to the advent of printing in the fifteenth century, focusing on translations of this particular verse from the Song of Songs. [/quote]
[ quote] This Latin translation survives in complete form in only one manuscript, although according to Peter Dronke ―it was also widely known through quotations and through its use in the liturgical office and mass of the Virgin Mary‖ ([9], p. 236). In this earlier translation, Jerome rendered the relevant part of Song of Songs 1:5 into Latin as ―Fusca sum et formosa‖ (―I am dark and beautiful‖ [my italics]), a far cry from his later translation, both in implicit and explicit meanings ([10], p. 19). Given that Jerome must have made a conscious decision to change the meaning of the verse in two ways—in terms of general aspect or skin colour from ―dark‖ to ―black,‖ and in terms of sense from ―and‖ to ―but‖—and given that it is certain he was aware of the choice in front of him, it may be that there is an opportunity here to hypothesise and maybe even to reconstruct why and how he moved from one translation to the other.5 However, it is notoriously difficult to translate the myriad meanings associated with the vocabulary of colour between one period and another, and Jerome may not have intended ―black‖ to indicate a black skin rather than a dark one. [/quote]
[ quote] Whatever his intention, these two changes were to be momentous in their consequences for Africans in Renaissance Europe and globally. Although this is a gross and rushed simplification of the extremely complicated and nuanced history of early biblical translation, for the purposes of this article and my argument it seems clear that it was Jerome in the fourth century who set up the opposition or contrast between blackness and beauty, and that the reasons for its existence should therefore be sought in his attitudes and surroundings. It would be difficult to overestimate the influence of the Vulgate, which in the course of the Middle Ages became the only Latin translation of the Bible to be used. In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, with the advent of printing, the Vulgate‘s canonical status, and belief in the ―truth‖ of its message.[/quote]
www.researchgate.net/publication/272659960_The_Global_Consequences_of_Mistranslation_The_Adoption_of_the_Black_but_Formulation_in_Europe_1440-1650
To be cont.
The Global Consequences of Mistranslation: The Adoption of the “Black but …” .
Abstract
This article investigates the genesis of a linguistic model occasioned by a mistranslation that was taken up in the Renaissance, and had an enduring global impact.
I call this model the "black but ... " formulation, and it is to be found in the fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth centuries throughout written texts and reported speech, in historical as well as literary works. It was modeled grammatically and ideologically on the statement. I am black but beautiful. often attributed to the Queen of Sheba in 1:5 of the. Song of Songs., and had a detrimental effect on how members of the early African forced diaspora were viewed by Renaissance Europeans.
I argue that the newly adversarial nature of the phrase was adopted as a linguistic and cultural formulation, and introduced into Western European cultures a whole way of The Adoption of the “Black but …” Formulation in Europe, 1440–1650 Kate Lowe The School of Historndon, Mile End Road, London E1 4NS, UK; E-Mail: k.j.p.lowe@qmul.ac.uk Received: 6 June 2012; in revised form: 19 June 2012 / Accepted: 25 June 2012 / Published: 26 June 2012 Abstract: This article investigates the genesis of a linguistic model occasioned by a mistranslation that was taken up in the Renaissance, and had an enduring global impact. I call this model the ―black but…‖ formulation, and it is to be found in the fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth centuries throughout written texts and reported speech, in historical as well as literary works. It was modeled grammatically and ideologically on the statement ―I am black but beautiful‖ often attributed to the Queen of Sheba in 1:5 of the ―Song of Songs‖, and had a detrimental effect on how members of the early African forced diaspora were viewed by Renaissance Europeans.
I argue that the newly adversarial nature of the phrase was adopted as a linguistic and cultural formulation, and introduced into Western European cultures a whole way of approaching and perceiving blackness or looking at black African people. Keywords: Black; linguistic formulation; Renaissance; slave; ―Song of Songs‖
I argue that the newly adversarial nature of the phrase was adopted as a linguistic and cultural formulation, and introduced into Western European cultures a whole way of approaching and perceiving blackness or looking at black African people. Keywords: Black; linguistic formulation; Renaissance; slave; ―Song of Songs‖
[ quote] This article investigates the genesis and adoption in Renaissance Europe of a linguistic model that was to have an enduring global impact. The adoption of this model, first in Latin, and then in the major European vernacular languages, had a detrimental effect on how sub-Saharan Africans were viewed in the period 1440–1650, enshrining negative expectations about what black skin signified.1 In the article, 1 From the 1440s onwards, Europeans captured or purchased people from West Africa, and brought them to Europe as slaves [1]. For further information, see the collected volume by Earle and Lowe. My usual disclaimer applies: I am using the phrases ―black‖ and ―white,‖ and ―black Africans‖ and ―white Europeans,‖ as constructs. For a sense of the wide range of ways in which black Africans were categorised after they arrived in Europe, I examine what I am calling the ―black but…‖ formulation, which is to be found in the fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth centuries throughout written texts and reported speech, historical as well as literary works. It must have been modelled grammatically and ideologically on a statement often attributed to the Queen of Sheba in 1:5 of the Biblical book called the Song of Songs, the Song of Solomon or the Canticle of Canticles (also known by its Latin name as the Cantica Canticorum) in the Old Testament of the Bible.2 The Song of Songs is a collection of intense love lyrics between a man and a woman, resembling those found in ancient Egyptian collections. [/quote]
The propriety of including the Song of Songs in the Bible was questioned from the start (and there has been more fuss in the last century) but it has been accepted as canonical by both Jews and Christians. There have also been many different theories about how the Song of Songs should be interpreted: is it allegorical (the Lord‘s love for Israel or Christ‘s love for his Church), dramatic (the shepherd‘s courtship of the Shulammite maid), literal-historical (a celebration of human love or a repertoire for weddings), cultic or ritualistic or finally parabolic or typological in terms of certain topics of Israelite theology ([4], p. 209)? The relevant statement was translated from Hebrew into Latin as ―Nigra sum sed formosa‖ (I am black but beautiful [my italics])3 whereas,
in fact, this is a mistranslation from the Hebrew, and the translation should read: ―Nigra sum et formosa‖ (I am black and beautiful [my italics]).4 The relevant Hebrew word here is ו (vav), which has a slightly larger range than ―and,‖ but effectively in this context does just mean ―and.‖ So one word has been changed here, with the result that the whole meaning of the phrase has been utterly altered; instead of the descriptive or factual ―I am black and beautiful,‖ the Queen of Sheba is made to justify or explain her beauty, as though a black skin were in itself a barrier to beauty.
What I am going to argue is that not only has the whole meaning of this phrase been changed, but that the newly adversarial nature of the phrase was adopted as a linguistic and cultural formulation.
This act of mistranslation introduced into Western Europe cultures a conveniently fixed, but pejorative way of approaching and perceiving blackness, and of looking at black people, which effectively enshrined an acceptance of low expectations in relation to the attributes and capabilities of sub-Saharan Africans.
This act of mistranslation introduced into Western Europe cultures a conveniently fixed, but pejorative way of approaching and perceiving blackness, and of looking at black people, which effectively enshrined an acceptance of low expectations in relation to the attributes and capabilities of sub-Saharan Africans.
[ quote] In order to understand the context, it is necessary to investigate in a very summary fashion the critical area of biblical translation up to the advent of printing in the fifteenth century, focusing on translations of this particular verse from the Song of Songs. [/quote]
The Hebrew Bible has the neutral word ו which is best translated here by ―and.‖ The Septuagint, which is often abbreviated by the Roman numerals LXX, is the Greek translation of the Old Testament; the translation of the Song of Songs is usually assumed to have been completed by 100 BC, probably in Alexandria. It is generally agreed by Old Testament scholars that the translation aimed to be as literal as possible, prioritising the sacrality of the original over fluency or clear understanding ([7], p. 20). The Septuagint has the Greek word καὶ (meaning ―and‖ in both classical and patristic Greek, with a larger range in classical Greek) in 1:5 ([8], 2 On pre-Renaissance interpretations of blackness in relation to the Song of Songs, see [3], pp. 16–22. 3 ([5], 9, p. 180): ―nigra sum sed formonsa [sic].‖ 4 For another mistranslation in the Song of Songs relating to skin colour, see [6], p. 20. Braude suggests that in the same verse the Hebrew word רוחש (shahor), meaning ―black and burnt,‖ had been incorrectly interpreted by ancient Greek, Latin and vernacular translators to be a permanent rather than a temporary black skin; he posits that this might have been ―an innocent scribal error.‖
Religions 2012, 3 546 2, p. 261). I should like to stress again that the semantic range of both ו and καὶ is larger than ―and,‖ and both could in certain cases mean other things, but they could not mean ―but.‖ So the straightforward meaning of this verse in the Hebrew Bible and the Greek Septuagint is clear: ―I am black and beautiful.
Religions 2012, 3 546 2, p. 261). I should like to stress again that the semantic range of both ו and καὶ is larger than ―and,‖ and both could in certain cases mean other things, but they could not mean ―but.‖ So the straightforward meaning of this verse in the Hebrew Bible and the Greek Septuagint is clear: ―I am black and beautiful.
‖ However, the Vulgate, that is the Latin translation of the Bible made by Jerome in the fourth century AD, instituted the use of the Latin word sed meaning ―but‖ into the Song of Songs, 1:5. Jerome translated the Song of Songs over a few days in 398 AD. There had been previous Latin translations of the Bible (known collectively as the Vetus Latina), taken from the Greek Septuagint rather than from the Hebrew original, but they had been ―piecemeal, inelegant and sometimes unreliable‖ ([9], p. 790). Jerome spent twenty years overall on his version, which was finished in 405 AD.
For his translation of the Old Testament, he went back to the original Hebrew and Aramaic, and his proclaimed purpose was to render the sense of a passage rather than to provide a literal rendition of the words. Assuming that Jerome‘s knowledge of Hebrew was sufficiently good for him not to have mistaken the range of the word ו, for him there must have been an opposition between ―black‖ and ―beautiful,‖ so he rendered the phrase: ―I am black but beautiful,‖ and the ―black but …‖ formulation entered the Western European repertoire. There is one additional point I should like to make here. Before Jerome made his new translation direct from the Hebrew, he had also revised the translation of the Song of Songs of the Vetus Latina, on the basis of the Greek text.
[ quote] This Latin translation survives in complete form in only one manuscript, although according to Peter Dronke ―it was also widely known through quotations and through its use in the liturgical office and mass of the Virgin Mary‖ ([9], p. 236). In this earlier translation, Jerome rendered the relevant part of Song of Songs 1:5 into Latin as ―Fusca sum et formosa‖ (―I am dark and beautiful‖ [my italics]), a far cry from his later translation, both in implicit and explicit meanings ([10], p. 19). Given that Jerome must have made a conscious decision to change the meaning of the verse in two ways—in terms of general aspect or skin colour from ―dark‖ to ―black,‖ and in terms of sense from ―and‖ to ―but‖—and given that it is certain he was aware of the choice in front of him, it may be that there is an opportunity here to hypothesise and maybe even to reconstruct why and how he moved from one translation to the other.5 However, it is notoriously difficult to translate the myriad meanings associated with the vocabulary of colour between one period and another, and Jerome may not have intended ―black‖ to indicate a black skin rather than a dark one. [/quote]
[ quote] Whatever his intention, these two changes were to be momentous in their consequences for Africans in Renaissance Europe and globally. Although this is a gross and rushed simplification of the extremely complicated and nuanced history of early biblical translation, for the purposes of this article and my argument it seems clear that it was Jerome in the fourth century who set up the opposition or contrast between blackness and beauty, and that the reasons for its existence should therefore be sought in his attitudes and surroundings. It would be difficult to overestimate the influence of the Vulgate, which in the course of the Middle Ages became the only Latin translation of the Bible to be used. In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, with the advent of printing, the Vulgate‘s canonical status, and belief in the ―truth‖ of its message.[/quote]
www.researchgate.net/publication/272659960_The_Global_Consequences_of_Mistranslation_The_Adoption_of_the_Black_but_Formulation_in_Europe_1440-1650
To be cont.
