>Old English translators of the Bible were trying to retain >the chiasmus structures and word counts of their sources. >They were trying to preserve the formal features of their >originals. See David Howlett, BRITISH BOOKS IN BIBLICAL >STYLE, Four Courts Press, 1997. Howlett is editor of the >Dictionary of Medieval Latin at Oxford. > >Tim Romano There's certainly much of interest in Howlett's book, but I'm not sure I'd want to buy into all his theories about chiasmus and word count. I'd have thought the explanation for the OE translators' literalness was more basic (and the same as for the Septuagint or the Latin versions). When one is translating the word of God, one changes as little as possible, however stilted or even unintelligible the result. Compare St. Jerome (epist. 57): "Ego ... profiteor, me in interpretatione Graecorum, absque Scripturis sanctis, ubi et verborum ordo mysterium est, non verbum e verbo, sed sensum exprimere de sensu." ("It is my boast that in translating from the Greek--EXCEPT from holy scripture, where even the order of the words is sacred--I do not translate word-for-word, but render the sense"). In that sense, of course, it's certainly true to say that they were trying to preserve the formal features of their original. And I'm sure they'd have been mystified to be rebuked for not "translating like free men"! ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Gregory Hays Dept. of Classics, University of Illinois 4072 Foreign Languages Building 707 S. Mathews, Urbana, IL 61801 USA