The 1992 English retranslation of Brevísima relación de la destrucción de las Indias

Abstract

Since the sixteenth century the Brevísima relación de la destrucción de las Indias (1552) by Bartolomé de las Casas (1484–1566) has been translated into English several times. This article analyses the 1992 retranslation by Nigel Griffin. My working hypothesis is that contemporary translations of the text find it hard to resist the anti-Spanish narrative present in earlier translations. To this end the article will assess (1) whether Griffin's retranslation is closer to the source text than earlier versions, especially John Phillips's 1656 Tears of the Indians; (2) how and to what extent the paratexts have an impact on the potential reception of the translation; and (3) to what extent we can trace in Griffin's translation the survival of other elements used in previous editions, notably the engravings that have become closely associated with the text itself. It is found that whereas some features of the earlier translation have been toned down, the inclusion of the engravings, Griffin's footnotes and some of his translation choices continue to echo earlier versions, even though the motivations for publication (ideological or otherwise) may differ.

Keywords:

• Bartolomé de las Casas
• Brevísima relación de la destrucción de las Indias
• retranslation
• paratext
• John Phillips
• intersemiotic translation
• postcolonialism

Note on contributor

Roberto A. Valdeón was awarded a master's degree in English literature and translation studies by the University of Glasgow, and obtained his PhD in English studies from the University of Oviedo. He has published extensively on translation, including contributions to Across Languages and Cultures, Meta, Target, International Journal of Applied Linguistics, Babel and The Translator. He is a member of the international advisory board of Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics and John Benjamins's Handbook of Translation Studies. He is the editor of Translating Information (2010). In July 2011 he became editor-in-chief of Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. He is currently a visiting professor at the University of Leuven.

Notes

1. I would like to express my debt to the Spanish Ministry of Education for supporting this project through the programme “Estancias de profesores e investigadores séniores en centros extranjeros de enseñanza superior e investigación” (PR2010-511), and to Edwin Gentzler for his kind invitation to join the University of Massachusetts as visiting scholar in 2011–12.

2. Inside the text the translator appears as James Aliggrodo. The name is reminiscent of the French translator Jacques de Miggrode, whose text was used to produce the first English version (Delahaye 2010). However, scholars tend to refer to the author of this version by using the initials indicated.

3. According to Delahaye, the French manuscript version of 1582 contained the 17 illustrations by Theodore De Bry. Apparently these drawings were published for the first time in 1597. I thank Marieke Delahaye for making available a copy of her 2010 presentation on the historiography of the Brevísima.

4. Although earlier English versions, including the M.M.S. text, had been translated from the French, Phillips was not unfamiliar with Spanish, having also translated Don Quijote. Cunchillos considers it the worst translation of Cervantes's novel into English (1985, 20).

5. I have used this edition of the Brevísima, which is part of the prestigious series Clásicos Castalia, for practical reasons. Those interested in a facsimile edition could turn to Brevísima relación de las destrucción de las Indias, published by Fundación Universitaria Española (Madrid, 1977). The Castilia text is convenient in that it uses modern spelling and can be used to locate quotations from the text easily, since the facsimile edition does not have pages. The only difference between the two editions is the fact that the spelling has been modernized in the Castalia edition to avoid the confusion of early modern Spanish. Lexis and grammar remain the same. I have also used this 1999 Castalia edition as a suitable contemporary Spanish version of the text with which to compare the text and paratexts of the Griffin translation.