This translation is part of the newly reissued set Lancelot-Grail: The Old French Arthurian Vulgate and Post-Vulgate in Translation, first published by the now defunct Garland press between 1992 and 1996 under the general editorship of leading Arthurian scholar Norris Lacy. Initially published in five volumes of large format, the current reprint is of a much more user-friendly nature, in ten volumes, of which The Quest for the Holy Grail is the sixth. The stated aim of the initial project was to provide Malory scholars, "whose need provided the initial impetus for this translation," with the Vulgate and Post-Vulgate cycles in English translation, in order to facilitate a "more coherent understanding of the whole as well as individual parts" (Lacy, Preface, vol. 1). Given that only some of the Vulgate and Post-Vulgate romances had been translated into English prior to this project, and the great degree of variation among these translations in terms of both presentation and editorial conventions, this new set of translations greatly assists with familiarising the researcher with the various parts of the cycles. Comparison between the translation and its original source or, for example, the Quest and Sir Thomas Malory's own translation and adaptation of the story, are facilitated even further. Only this volume of the newly reprinted set was available to me as a reviewer, so comments will be restricted to it.
Overall, decisions related to all the translations in the set are reflected in the individual translations, which display both a degree of uniformity as well as independence from a mould, as expected in a project of this scale. Indeed, Lacy pointed out in the introduction to the first (5-vol.) edition that "the translators' problem [...] is thus to walk a thin line between a style and vocabulary that tend to update the texts and cast them in a pseudo-realistic mold and a style that, conversely, situates the romances clearly in a 'fairy tale' world." By and large, the translating team have, therefore, decided to avoid modern colloquialisms; however "direct, matter-of-fact translations" were preferred when they "accurately render the flavour of the original" (p. xi, vol. 1 in 5-vol. set). This statement of fact sheds light on Jane Burns's approach to the translation of the Queste, which reflects a fresh take on the story by comparison with Pauline Matarasso's 1969 translation for Penguin Classics. [1]
The new approach is immediately visible (as with other texts in the same series) in the detailed breakdown of the text into eighty-three sections, a distinguishing feature from Matarasso's, which was divided into only fifteen sections. Matarasso's explanatory notes were, in the spirit of Penguin Classic translations, kept to a minimum and placed at the back of the volume, whereas Burns's translation comes with notes at the bottom of each page containing relevant new criticism and biblical references. The notes also direct the reader to comparisons with the original text as each section flags up cross-references to both Albert Pauphilet's and H. Oskar Sommer's editions of the Vulgate La Queste del saint graal, respectively. [2] Burns's translation is thus much easier to follow and an exceptionally valuable tool in reconstituting the building blocks of the narrative, widely known to researchers interested in both the Queste and Malory's version.
Any new translation is bound to be compared with an older, classic translation, in this case Matarasso's. To those who are familiar with the latter, a very close comparison of Burns's translation with Matarasso's alongside both Pauphilet's and Sommer's editions of the original Queste reveals a series of features or distinguishing marks of the translator's style. To take one example, Burns's translation displays greater accuracy when stating the letters inscribed on the Perilous Seat, which refer to the period of time since the Passion of Christ. In the original text and in Burns's translation, the period is "four hundred and fifty four years" (Pauphilet 4; Sommer 5) versus Matarasso's only "four hundred and fifty years" (33). Thus a contradiction emerges in Matarasso's translation between the letters inscribed on the seat and Lancelot's statement which immediately follows the discovery of the inscription. Lancelot states that "this is the first Pentecost to follow the span of four hundred and fifty-four years" (in both Burns's and Matarasso's translations). A reader reliant on Matarasso's translation and not inclined to check the original may be led to conclude that Lancelot possesses more accurate information than that inscribed on the seat, whereas Burns's precise translation removes any ambiguity in the reading of the text.
There are other points of difference between Matarasso's and Burns's translations, for example in each translator's tendency to use particular words, such as "marvel," in order to render the original meaning of merveille. Burns uses "marvel" sparingly, and only where it suits the atmosphere best. Thus, Matarasso describes the floating stone on the river (from the episode at the beginning of the Queste) as "a strange adventure" (35), whereas Burns's "marvelous adventure" (6) seems more suited to the atmosphere in that episode, described as noveles...molt mervelleiuses in the original text (Pauphilet 5). In the same episode, when Arthur asks Lancelot to pull the sword out of the stone, Lancelot responds toz corouciez (Pauphilet 5), rendered by Matarasso as "abruptly" (35), while Burns's Lancelot is "distraught" (6), which seems to better reflect the spirit of the original text.
In other places, Burns's translation is more nuanced in terms of a modern, more practical understanding of the medieval language. This is more striking if compared with Matarasso's translation, which, at times, contains deliberately archaic sounding words and phrases. To take one example, when Galahad's clothing is described at his presentation to King Arthur's court, Matarasso's translation reads: "he stood in a tunic of red sandal; then he handed him a red mantle to wear on his shoulder, woven of samite and lined with whitest ermine" (37). Burns translates this passage: "he stood there in a tunic of red silk. The worthy man then gave him a red brocade cloak, lined with white ermine, which he wore over his shoulders" (8). The practical air of the translation is evident when compared to both Pauphilet and Sommer:
si remest en une cote de cendal vermeil; et il li baille maintenant a afubler un mantel vermeil que il portoit sor s'espaule, tout de samit, et par dedenz estoit forrez d'un blanc dermine. (Pauphilet 8) si quil remest en cote de chendal vermeil. & il li baille a afubler .j. sorcot de samit vermeil que il portoit sor ses espaules foure dermine. (Sommer 8)
Here Burns has not only rendered the original in a more palatable way for a modern audience, but also clarified the often complicated use of pronouns in subject and object positions in the original text, typical of the French romances; instead of "he handed him" she states the subject "the worthy man then gave him," thus easing the reader's understanding of the original text.
Burns also tends to refrain from colouring the reader's interpretation of the text; she thus uses more neutral words and phrases in key contexts. In the well-known episode where Lancelot confesses his sin and is advised by the hermit, Burns translates Pauphilet's ceste semblance que vos m'avez ci mostree...me desconforte (64) as "the image that you painted for me...troubles me" (41), by contrast with Matarasso's stronger and perhaps more moving "disheartens me" (88). This does not mean, however, that Burns's translation is literal; in the same passage Lancelot refers to the gifts he had received from God (as a response to the hermit's parable of the talents) since he was a child (en m'enfance), translated by Maratasso as "since my infancy" and by Burns as "since my youth"; the latter choice makes more sense in this context as Lancelot is called upon to assess his past chivalric experience and his success in battle rather than his entire life. Whether the reader finds this relevant to an interpretation of Lancelot's character or not, when Burns translates literally the original Lancelot li commence a dire (Pauphilet 66) as "Lancelot began to speak" (42), the hermit's efforts at making Lancelot speak of his sins and past life are perhaps less evidently nuanced than in Matarasso's translation, which reads: "Lancelot's tongue was loosed at the last and he said" (89).
Turning to the end of the Quest some other word choices make evident the differences between Burns's translation and Matarasso's. Where Matarasso translates very closely li prodons qui devant l'autel estoit revestuz en semblance de evesques (Pauphilet 278; Sommer 197) as "bishop's robes" (283), Burns only mentions a "worthy man" in "priestly dress" (170). Similarly Burns is a lot more economical about the description of events. Matarasso explains the circumstances of Galahad's extraordinary experience, and thus adds to the original text, stating that "Joseph had finished speaking" and only afterwards Galahad fell on the "flagged floor" of the palace, which is "a great marvel" (283). Burns's translation does not elaborate on the original text, and just describes the event as "an extraordinary thing" (170). Matarasso colours the reader's response further, by choosing to add that "it was [Bors's] ambition to return" to Arthur's court (284), while Burns uses a more neutral "for he intended" (171) for Sommer's and Pauphilet's por ce quil baoit encore venir a la cort le roi artu (198, 279). Such isolated examples might give the impression that Burns prefers a more neutral tone throughout. This is partly the case, though there are examples which show that such a choice can only serve to emphasise unique occasions (a hard thing to achieve in the translation of a text full of "marvels" and spiritual adventures), for example when Burns employs the phrase "heavenly palace" to translate the original palés espiritel (Pauphilet 279; not in Sommer) in which the Grail adventures take place, whereas Matarasso's more literal translation, "spiritual palace," was perhaps less powerful.
A brief comparison of two accomplished translations of the Queste is not only unfair to both, but also potentially diminishes the achievements of both translators. Burns's translation, however, does emerge from this comparison as a rigorous, well-considered translation for modern scholars and readers, providing a very useful researcher's tool for generations to come.
--------
Notes:
1. The Quest for the Holy Grail, transl. and intro. Pauline M. Matarasso (London: Penguin, 1969).
2. La Queste del saint graal, ed. Albert Pauphilet (Paris: Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion, 1921); The Vulgate Version of the Arthurian Romances, ed. H. Oskar Sommer (Washington: The Carnegie Institute of Washington, 1913), VI.