Scholarlink

<p>This article discusses the translation of the Sanskrit <i>Gīta Goviṇda</i> by Jayadeva into English by William Jones (1792) and a lesser-known set of translations of Caturbhuja Miśra’s Brajbhāṣa text <i>Śrī Premasāgar</i> into Hindi by Lallu Lal (1810) and English by Frederic Pincott (1805) and William Charles Hollings (1848). Among these translations, Jones and Hollings make specific decisions at the level of content that alter the larger narrative of Kṛṣṇa worship. Jones, for instance, omits parts of the text he considers sexually explicit and thus too “bold” and “luxuriant” for European readers. The translators of Miśra’s text, on the other hand, work primarily to educate Englishmen about what they consider to be Hinduism and also make changes. They expand the text by adding sections that directly address the colonial context of the text’s production and use. Whether by contracting or expanding the texts, this article demonstrates how these translators’ textual decisions became cultural interventions in the present and future practices of Hinduism.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Legacies of Colonial Translation in Contemporary Hinduism: Desexualizing and Recontextualizing Kṛṣṇa

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年2月5日

查看全文
  • Sucheta Kanjilal

摘要

This article discusses the translation of the Sanskrit Gīta Goviṇda by Jayadeva into English by William Jones (1792) and a lesser-known set of translations of Caturbhuja Miśra’s Brajbhāṣa text Śrī Premasāgar into Hindi by Lallu Lal (1810) and English by Frederic Pincott (1805) and William Charles Hollings (1848). Among these translations, Jones and Hollings make specific decisions at the level of content that alter the larger narrative of Kṛṣṇa worship. Jones, for instance, omits parts of the text he considers sexually explicit and thus too “bold” and “luxuriant” for European readers. The translators of Miśra’s text, on the other hand, work primarily to educate Englishmen about what they consider to be Hinduism and also make changes. They expand the text by adding sections that directly address the colonial context of the text’s production and use. Whether by contracting or expanding the texts, this article demonstrates how these translators’ textual decisions became cultural interventions in the present and future practices of Hinduism.