The declaration of adherence to an ad uerbum style allows for a counter-proposal to be
made in which translators position themselves as providing the ad sensum version. Jerome, John
Scotus, and Aelfric submitted themselves to the authority of the source author while preparing
translations aimed not at a general audience, but at a church official who would already be
familiar with the source message. The use of ad uerbum translation aimed at the expositor means
that source material is accessible only to an elite few. Translations can dismantle the language
barrier between a source text and a target audience, but literal translation as described by Jerome,
John Scotus, and Aelfric do little to remove that barrier. Ad sensum translators portray
themselves as writing for a more general audience as they promote readability in the target
himself later translated the work into French, and proclaims in the dedication that he privileged reporting the sense of the original over following the words.
Chapter 2: Translation as Promotion 23
language. John of Trevisa (1387), for example, claims to make a translation that was available to
the general populace. To show how his position benefits his audience, he presents a conversation
between a lord and a clerk,22 in which the lord requests that the Polychronicon23be translated
from Latin into English. This fictional scenario presents the two camps of scripture translation:
the clerk represents the traditional viewpoint and believes that translations should remain out of
the hands of the layman. Conversely, the lord argues that it is important to create a barrier-free
version of Church writings so that the general populace can study them and not rely on a
mediating agent.
Martin Luther similarily appeals to a broader audience in his translation of the Bible. He
claims (Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen, 1530)24 that he wants to speak German, not Latin or Greek,
in his translation, a goal that led to his creation of a translation that sounds as if it had been
originally composed in German (Störig 1969: 20–21). He provides an example of his
methodology when he complains of how his critics25 would have him translate ex abundantia
cordis os loquitur as “aus dem Überfluß des Herzens redet der Mund.”26 Luther argues that nobody would speak this way in Germany; the translation is meaningless to the audience.
Similarily, Miles Smith27 identifies the importance of the Bible being the message, not the
words: “for is the kingdom of God become words or syllables?”.28 Smith joined fifty-three other
22 Dialogue between a Lord and a Clerk upon translation (excerpted from Pollard 1903: 203-208).
23 The Ranulphi Castrensis, cognomine Higden, Polychronicon (sive Historia Polycratica) ab initio mundi usque ad mortem regis Edwardi III in septem libros dispositum, a universal history written by Ranulf Higden in 1342. 24 Excerpted in Störig 1969: 14-37.
25 Luther’s letter of defence seems to have been inspired by the papists’ criticism that he added the word allein (“alone”) to his translation of: Arbitramur hominem iustificari ex fide absqueoperibus (Romans 3:28). He claims to have added allein to reflect normal German speech.
26 Störig 1969: 21. Robinson (1997b: 87) translates the phrase into suitably awkward English as “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh” and points out (n.11) that this is how the translators of the King James Bible translated the phrase.
27 A bishop of Gloucester who was appointed by King James I to produce a new version of the Bible. He joined the First Oxford Company, which worked on the Book of Isaiah to Malachi.
Chapter 2: Translation as Promotion 24
scholars who followed a list of rules set by King James that would ensure that the new version
would be of higher quality than previous English versions. In the preface to the Bible (1611),
Smith writes that “translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; that breaketh the shell, that we may eat the kernel; that putteth aside the curtain, that we may look into the most
holy place.” Smith proposes a direct relationship between the reader and the source in which the translator is the mediator through which the target audience views the source. The translator is a
bridge between two cultures, but his presence is undetected.
Support for ad sensum translation existed outside of the sphere of the Church as well. The
French poet Jean de Meun (Li Livres de Confort de Philosophie, c.1285–1305)29 claims to
translate Boethius in an ad sensum fashion; the humanist Etienne Dolet (La manière de bien
traduire d’une langue en aultre, 1540)30 advocates translation that uses common language; the translator of Homer George Chapman (preface to the Iliad, 1611)31 defends himself against
critics who attack his periphrase in translation by indicating how many prior translators of
Homer availed themselves of the same tactic. Ad sensum translators privilege the experience of
an audience broader than that which the ad uerbum translators target. They argue that their
versions of the text bring the reader closer to the source text and author as they conceal their own
personas and domesticate a text to a target culture. Ad sensum translators in the Church do not
rely on the expositor to reach the general audience, but instead position themselves as able
judges of the message of God. Luther responds to his critics by affirming that he is a learned
theologian who can interpret the psalms (Störig 1969: 18), insisting that he is capable of
translating for the general audience. Ad sensum translators displace ad uerbum translators by
29 Excerpted in Copeland 1991: 133-134.
30 Excerpted in Robinson 1991: 95-97. Trans. David G. Ross. 31 Nicoll 1956: 14-18.
Chapter 2: Translation as Promotion 25
speaking directly to the target audience and bypassing other offices of the Church such as the
expositor.32 By promoting their ability to bring the message of God to the audience, ad sensum
translators assert their own knowledge and expertise in understanding the message and in
knowing how to deliver the message to a general audience.