Karel (1896) NUK, Ms 1465, III. Korrespondenz, Mappe 7, Brief vom 20. Oktober 1896.
Štrekelj, Karel (1898a) NUK, Ms 1834, IV. Korrespondenz, Mappe 28, Brief 1 vom 30. Januar 1898.
Štrekelj, Karel (1898b) NUK, Ms 1834, IV. Korrespondenz, Mappe 28, Brief 2 vom 1. Februar 1898.
Vidic, Fran (1913) NUK, Ms 1409, VI. Korrespondenz, Mappe 47, Brief 5 vom 7. Februar 1913.
Vredništvo (1849a) „Nekaj zastran deržavniga zakonika“, in: https://www.dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-HEB6HR6H/?query=%27srel%3dKmetijske+in+rokodelske+novice%40AND%40date%3d1849%27&pageSize=25&sortDir=ASC&sort=date&page=25, 223–224 [19.11.2019].
Vredništvo (1849b) „Nekaj zastran deržavniga zakonika“, in: https://www.dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-4NMDBN19/?query=%27srel%3dKmetijske+in+rokodelske+novice%40AND%40date%3d1849%27&pageSize=25&sortDir=ASC&sort=date&page=25, 227–228 [19.11.2019].
Vredništvo (1851) „Slovensko berilo za 1 gimnazijalni razred, po naukazu visociga c.k. ministerstva bogočastja in úka za vse c.k. gimnazije poterjeno, kjer slovenski jezik ali za materni ali za drugi deželni jezik velja, se dobi pri meni terdovezano po 22 krajc“, in: https://www.dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-HEV32WQQ /?query=%27srel%3dKmetijske+in+rokodelske+novice%40AND%40date%3d1851%27&pageSize=25&sortDir=ASC&sort=date&page=4, 45 [19.11.2019].
Wolf, Michaela (2005) „Der habsburgische Translator als Beamter und Leiharbeiter. Das Redaktionsbureau des Reichsgesetzblattes von 1848–1918“, in: Kocijančič Pokorn, Nike/Prunč, Erich/Riccardi, Alessandra (eds.) Beyond Equivalence. Jenseits der Äquivalenz. Oltre l'equivalenza. Onkraj ekvivalence. Graz: Institut für Translationswissenschaft, 39–56.
Wolf, Michaela (2010) „Translationskultur versus Translationsfeld? Zu den ‚Spielregeln‘ translatorischer Funktionsweisen“, in: Grbić, Nadja/Hebenstreit, Gernot/Vorderobermeier, Gisella/Wolf, Michaela (eds.) Translationskultur revisited. Festschrift für Erich Prunč. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, 21–32.
Wolf, Michaela (2012) Die vielsprachige Seele Kakaniens: Übersetzen und Dolmetschen in der Habsburger Monarchie 1848 bis 1918. Wien: Böhlau.
Žigon, Tanja/Almasy, Karin/Lovšin, Andrej (eds.) (2017) Vloga in pomen prevajanja učbenikov v 19. stoletju: Kulturnozgodovinski in jezikovni vidiki. Ljubljana: Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani.
Abb. 2: Gruppenfoto vom keltischen Kongress 1904 (Fotograf: John Wickens; Gwynedd Archives)
The role of translation in the Celtic Revival:
Analysing Celtic translation cultures
Fiona Begley, Hanna Blum
1 Introduction
Translation has always been an integral part of the history of the British Isles and Lower Brittany, a geographic region that has experienced many invasions and periods of colonization over the course of history. The emerging variety of languages spoken in the British Isles made translation a necessary tool for communication and for enforcing political agendas. England as a colonial power used language and thus translation as a means of suppressing their colonies all over the world, including their neighbours in the British Isles. For this paper, Ireland, Scotland and Wales are seen as the first colonies of what later came to be known as the (British/English) Empire.1 The colonies, on the other hand, utilised translation to free themselves from colonial rule and reclaim their own independent identity, to some extent by translating English texts into the respective Celtic tongues but also by transferring their own cultural heritage from Celtic languages into English, which enabled more people from these regions who were not proficient in the Celtic languages to grasp the cultural background of their nation. Especially during the Celtic Revival of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, there was an increasing eagerness to revive Celtic languages, which was largely only possible through translation. Once dominant languages had almost become extinct by then partly as a result of English being used as a means of colonial oppression in the form of linguistic purity. In Ireland, for example, in addition to the Plantations and the Great Famine, which had drastically reduced the Gaelic-speaking population, the use of Gaelic was forbidden under the Penal Laws. For this reason, Irish children were forced to speak English in order to get access to education (Hickey 2008; Ó Cuív 1966). English became associated with social advancement in many of the regions, for example in Wales, where the Blue Books Report led to the Welsh language being formally removed from the school system. May sees this as “merely a reflection of the wider, long-established hierarchising of English over Welsh, along with the accompanying belief that in the English language lay the route to social and economic mobility” (May 2000: 104). Reviving Celtic culture through translation was a way of overcoming the cultural rule of the British Empire and tracing back one’s own identity for many people in the Celtic regions.
The role of language and especially of translation for the British Isles has not yet been researched thoroughly within Translation Studies and beyond. Scholars have only examined certain aspects of translation of languages spoken in the British Isles and the role it played in certain historical periods, e.g. the history of translation into Scots (Corbett 1999) or the history of translation in Wales (Miguélez-Carballeira et al. 2016a). Several publications have also looked at the mutual influence of language policy and translation policy in order to learn more about recent official endeavours to promote the Celtic languages (see e.g. Kaufmann 2012; González Núñez 2016). Ireland, in this respect, is a special case as the role of translation between Irish Gaelic and English throughout the different periods of Irish history has been researched exhaustively (see e.g. Cronin 1996; Tymoczko 1999; Tymoczko/Ireland 2003). However, this kind of research in Translation Studies but also beyond has almost only used national or imperial borders to narrow its field of research. In encyclopaedic articles, the translation tradition of all languages and cultures in the British Isles has often been subsumed under British translation tradition (see e.g. Ellis/Oakley-Brown 2009; Kittel et al. 2011). Referring to a British translation space does not only ignore the vast diversity of languages in the British Isles (e.g. Irish, Scottish Gaelic, Scots, Manx, Welsh, Breton, Cornish, English) but using the term British for all languages and cultures involved supports the (post-)colonial domination of the English colonial power. Moreover, the languages of the British Isles inevitably influenced each other, leaving us with a map of blurred language zones, even within what we know as a country or nation.
Although it is still rather common in historiography to investigate the history of the British Empire as a whole (e.g. Cannon/Crowcroft 2015; Vernon 2017), while focussing mostly on the history of England, there have been attempts to move away from the largely England-centred approach towards a more complex understanding of the history of that geographic region. The Four-Nations-Approach looks at England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales as separate nations with their own independent history and allows for a polycentric perception of the history of the British Isles (e.g. Lloyd-Jones/Scull 2018; MacKenzie 2008). Despite this effort to create a more differentiated image of the British Isles, this approach still concentrates on national borders. This might be due to the strong connections between borders and nationalist
