Translations have a big impact on the developments and literal meanings of languages. The author of “Transatlantic Education; Phillis Wheatley’s Neoclassicism” provides an essay that details how cultural knowledge and literal translations intertwined with neoclassicism.
The works of Tony Morrison and other writers of the middle passage provide solid examples of the aspects that are carried by languages in the continuum of literature and linguistics.
On the other hand, Wheatley provided a method of translations that utilized a continuing aspect of linguistics. Consequently, Wheatley modeled her translations to coincide with three lingual aspects namely English, Latin, and her original African language.
This style is known as neoclassical translation and it is noted as one of the tactics that have stamped Wheatley’s status as a neoclassical poet. On the other hand, Wheatley is responsible for outlining a style of literature that introduces a ‘foreign element’ to American-literature.
Wheatley is also credited for promoting literary diversity by accommodating fragmented elements of culture in her work. This essay examines how Phillis Wheatley’s neoclassicism features in past and modern linguistics using Boggs’ essay, “Transatlantic Education; Phillis Wheatley’s Neoclassicism” as a guide.
According to the available records, Phillis Wheatley was initially educated through informal methods and without a consideration of her personal preferences. Consequently, Wheatley’s initial entry to the multi-lingual language was somehow coerced.
For instance, it is noted that Wheatley’s first poem addressed the issue of translation. The literary icon notes that she was taught how to translate from her native African language to English in a very crude manner.
Most of Wheatley’s earliest works point out the crudity of Wheatley’s process of coming to terms with the English language and mannerisms.
For instance, Wheatley’s poem “On Being Brought from Africa to America” catalogs the author’s process of translation from an African society to an American one and from her native African language to English.
The details that are outlined by Wheatley in her early poems have suspicious themes because their agendas concise with those of her slave master. Boggs notes that Wheatley was clear about which parts of her literary works were translated and which ones had English origins.
Consequently, Wheatley accentuated her views about translation by using citations and quotation marks. The quotations were used by Wheatley to outline various deviations as encountered by the author including cultural objections.
In contrast, the agendas of the white slave masters were incorporated in the translation mechanisms that were used by Wheatley and other neoclassical literary icons.
According to Boggs, the ability to translate was an early constituent of modern education. For instance, some early scholars were taught how to translate by translating Latin works into English, and then back to Latin.
The objective of this mode of translations was to master the entire process with the view of eliminating any inconsistencies. At Harvard University, the earliest students had to prove their authenticity by showcasing their ability to connect Latin literature classics such as “Cicero” with the English language.
There is debate as to whether translation is still a viable method of teaching grammar. The multilingual method of teaching the mastery of languages is subject to various alterations but it is no longer employed by modern scholars.
John Locke recognized the need for streamlining the translation process for educational purposes. Locke’s methodology was later taken up by Benjamin Franklin. The Lockean method of translation operated under the assumption that it was easier for individuals to learn, when languages are translated literally.
Locke noted that literal translations were easier to master and they provided individuals with an exciting learning method. When Benjamin Franklin was composing his memoirs, he used Locke’s methodology by writing down his thoughts in both Latin and English.
There are translational similarities between the styles that were used by Morrison, Wheatley, and Franklin. All the three authors are considerate of their lingual origins and their cultural significance.
This approach is significant because it allows the readers to understand the process of transformation that occurs when a language is translated.
Wheatley does not delude her audiences by making them think that the process of translation does not have an impact on culture. Consequently, the author takes her time to lay down the translation system through a series of literal devices.
The resulting language is considerate of the author’s ability to introduce readers into the intimate aspects of her culture. On the contrary, Alexander Pope does not see the need to contextualize translation.
Instead, the author is of the view that the reader should not be concerned with translation but it is the duty of the translator to convey translational elements.
Neoclassical translations are important to our understanding of the modern language as well as classical literature. Wheatley was subjected through various languages and cultures and she sought to capture this transition by objectifying the translation process.
This process was later improved on by other neo classic writers such as John Locke and Benjamin Franklin. Other neoclassical authors deviate from the need to include the element of translation in their literary process and they choose to leave this work to the translators.