LITERARY TRANSLATION IN ANTIQUITY

8/12/2019 LITERARY TRANSLATION IN ANTIQUITY

1/8

Excerpt of Doctoral Thesis

LITERARYTRANSLATIONINANTIQUITY: TRENDSANDPROGRESSOLATINLITERARYTRANSLATIONS!O"INGIN

AN#IENTTRANSLATIONSO!O$ER

Rita %OPE#&%Y

ELTE, Faculty of ArtsDoctoral School of LinguisticsDoctoral Program of Ancient Studies

Director of Studies: dr. Gor !"L"#$A%

!uda&est, '(().

8/12/2019 LITERARY TRANSLATION IN ANTIQUITY

2/8

Topic a'( Str)ct)re of the Thesis

*y doctoral thesis deals +ith translations of omer into Latin

during classical anti-uity. Since the first longer &iece of omanliterature aout +hich /although only from fragments0 +e can ha1esome gras& ha&&ens to e a translation of omer, it can e stated thatomeric e&ics +ere of foundational im&ortance for the omans almostin the same +ay as they +ere for the Gree2s. ethin2ing and creati1ere3use of omeric te4ts is &resent all along Gree2 and oman literatureas +ell. o+e1er, the main to&ic of my thesis is not the ine4haustileset of -uestions around imitatioand aemulatiout those te4ts that definethemsel1es as 5translations6: the translatorial methods and o&erations

used in these te4ts come to e e4amined, in the first &lace, from alinguistical &oint of 1ie+, ut attention is &aid to the literary &oint of1ie+ as +ell, as eing inse&arale from the linguistical one.

#e1ertheless % found it necessary, too, to touch u&on authors thatcannot e called translators of omer, ut it is a characteristic of theallusi1e techni-ue used y them that in their +or2s there can e someimitations of omeric te4ts so close that they are +orth einge4amined in the light of translation criticism. Such authors /e. g. 7ergil

or the Sil1er Age e&ic &oets0 don8t feature in the thesis in the measurethat their literary greatness +ould deser1e9 +hat8s more, % ha1en8t had a&ossiility e1en of a thorough e4&osition of the relation et+een their+or2s and omer. "nly some of their &assages are e4amined in orderto shed some light on a fe+ as&ects of their ri1alry +ith omer or hisearlier Latin aemulatores.

Authors +hose life3+or2 has een of definiti1e im&ortance as tothe formation of oman 1ie+ of translation are also included in mye4amination, although they don8t elong to the translators of omer,

either. That8s +hy % had to handle riefly oman drama, +hich hadeen esteemed y icero and ieronymus as the e4am&lepar excellenceof literary translation, and also the #eoteric &oets, +ho had introducedne+ methods in translation. ;ithout them, an e4amination of thehistory of translating omer cannot e imagined.

The thesis consists of fi1e cha&ters. The first cha&ter deals +ithsome -uestions of translation theory, then it deals +ith the role ofliterary translation in ancient Gree2 and oman culture. The other

cha&ters follo+ the chronological articulation of oman literature. The'

8/12/2019 LITERARY TRANSLATION IN ANTIQUITY

3/8

second cha&ter concerns the Archaic Age. %ts first &art is aout theOdusia of Li1ius Andronicus, follo+ed y #ae1ius and Ennius9 finally,some +ords are said aout oman drama. The third cha&ter is

dedicated to Golden Age literature: it egins +ith the #eoteric &oets,then follo+s icero8s translatorial +or2, then some &assages of 7ergil,orace, and "1id that can e 1ie+ed as translations of omeric&assages. The fourth cha&ter focuses on Sil1er Age literature: first,authors, translators, and e&itomators that can e classified +ith e&ic&oetry < that is, Germanicus, !aeius %talicus, Attius Laeo, Statius,7alerius Flaccus, and also the didactic &oem on metrics y Terentianus*aurus

8/12/2019 LITERARY TRANSLATION IN ANTIQUITY

4/8

eginning < so that +e can e1en +onder +hy indi1idual omanliterature +as orn. "n the other hand, the aim of translations ofomer has ne1er een an 5instructional6 one: the 2no+ledge < if not

of the te4t, at least of the content < of omeric e&ics had een &resentin %taly for many centuries efore the first translation +as made.

II* Archaic A+e

The a&&reciation of Li1ius Andronicus as a translator is greatlyinfluenced y ideas aout his life < since in this field nothing can estated for certain

8/12/2019 LITERARY TRANSLATION IN ANTIQUITY

5/8

on interpretatio Romana0, the imagery /elimination of e4&ressions that+ould e aalienating to oman audience0, and sometimes the Realienas +ell. e &roaly made a full translation, not an anthology or an

e&itome, for the grammarians collecting linguistical s&ecialities ha1econser1ed se1eral -uotations of small im&ortance that should ha1e notfigured in a non3com&lete translation.

Andronicus8 translatorial o&erations sho+ a great degree ofconsciousness. e uses e1ery 2ind of le4ical o&erations listed yBLACD$, ut he a&&lies all 1arieties of grammatical o&erations as +ell.Their e4amination, ho+e1er, is made difficult y the small scale of thefragments and the fact that many of them can e connected to se1eraldifferent lines of the source te4t as their translation < so in some cases %

had to e4tend my analysis to more than one identifications. Andronicus+or2s +ith a +ide te4t segmentation: he translates greater units at atime, and he is al+ays a+are of the source te4t as a +hole. Thosecharacteristics of omeric style that could hardly e acce&tale foroman readers /e. g. epitheta ornantiaor re&etitions0 aren8t transferredinto the target te4t. !ut Andronicus many times stri1es for calling forththe source te4t +ith auditi1e means.

Among the fragments of #ae1ius cannot e found many &assages

that can e e4aminated as translations9 ut this &oet is the one +hoegins to create Latin e-ui1alents for Gree2 e&ic com&ounds. Enniusfollo+s his &ath9 in the omeric allusions of the Annals sometimes +ecan find a ri1alry +ith Andronicus himself. The choice of he4ametricform can e inter&reted +ithin the setting of formal a&&roaching ofoman e&ic to Gree2 antecedens. Ennius re&roduces se1eral featuresof omeric language in his e&ic, e. g. the use of epithetaand formulaicre&etitions, and the rece&tion of old omeric images also egins. Thehe4ameter re+or2ing of the Odusiastands under a strong influence of

Ennius. There is no o1erla&&ing et+een the he4ameter and Saturnianfragments, so the methods of these t+o translators can only ecom&ared indirectly.

;or2s elonging to the genres offabula palliata and cothurnata, sincetheir authors as +ell as their &osterity hold them to e translations, canalso e e4amined from a translatological &oint of 1ie+ < in those fe+cases +hen +e can ha1e the source and the target te4t oth in hand.The accommodation to the original is -uite @um&y: at one &oint one can

set e4act e-ui1alences, at another &oint te4tual com&arison &ro1es to

8/12/2019 LITERARY TRANSLATION IN ANTIQUITY

6/8

e im&ossile. Fidelity to the structure of the original +or2 as are-uirement is characteristic u& to the time of Terence. The standard oftranslation -uality, ho+e1er, is not e-ui1alence ut ade-uacy, that is,

a&tness to the re-uirements of the audience.III* Gol(e' A+e

The #eoteric mo1ement rought aout a ne+ 1ie+ of literarytranslation. Alongside the reinter&retation of the original through thelyrical self, +hich can e e4em&lified y the st carmen of atullus,there a&&ears a 2ind of literary translation as a ty&e of stylisticale4ercise, adhering to formal features /cf. at. 0. Gree2 &honic

-ualities come to e transferred into Latin translation9 here elong theclose follo+ing of original +ord order and metrical -ualities ation, and free handling of the

original8s +ealth of formulas. is language is conformed to the e&ictradition.%n the ne4t &art % dealt +ith icero8s translatorial acti1ity. %n the

course of this % had to touch u&on theoretical foundations and &rosetranslations in the fields of rhetoric and &hiloso&hy as +ell. Thegreatest &art of &oetical translations is emedded in the +or2s of thelatter genre. These, unli2e the literary translations e4amined until no+,are not fragments of com&lete translated +or2s, ut &roaly &oetic&assages -uoted as exempla in the Gree2 antecedents of icero8s +or2s

on &hiloso&hy, trans&lanted into Latin, in case icero couldn8t find anysuitale Latin -uotation in their &lace. That8s +hy it can e oftenoser1ed that a &oetic &assage comes to e accommodated to the &roseconte4t, or the original conte4t is gi1en erroneously. %n translations ofomer icero8s language is strongly influenced y the language ofEnnius, +hich a&&ears in the &redilection for com&ounds and in theindulgence in the &lay +ith sounds < ut the im&act of rhetorical andalso of &ersonal ac2ground can e felt at least in the same measure.

icero also +or2s +ith a +ide segmentation, at least of sentence le1el,

8/12/2019 LITERARY TRANSLATION IN ANTIQUITY

7/8

ut he stri1es to anchor his te4t to the original at some &oints.Grammatical o&erations can often e an ostacle to &ers&icuity.om&ared to the source te4t, sometimes im&ro1ement /di1isions of

meaning, additions0, sometimes sim&lification /contractions ofmeaning, omissions0 can e e4&erienced. icero also dares to introducene+ imagery in the te4t all y himself, ut he creates -uite differentmoods instead of omeric ones.

"nly some &assages of 7ergil8s Aeneid ha1e een e4amined,mostly of the ty&e +hen +e also ha1e the re+or2ing of the omeric&assage y Ennius. %t can e oser1ed in these cases that 7ergil, insome +ay, 5returns to the source6, although in a fe+ details he leans onEnnius8 1ersion, too. "1id re+or2s icero8s translation from the 'nd

oo2 of the %liad in a similar +ay, as it is e4&ounded at the end of thecha&ter.

orace translates the eginning lines of the "dyssey t+ice, in t+odifferent +ays. %n oth cases it is characteristic that "dysseus ecomesa moral e4am&le, +hich is retraceale to &hiloso&hic literature < and+hich is etrayed y a fe+ translatorial additions. For orace, theim&ortant thing is not translation ut his o+n message, so theem&hases of the source te4t change their &laces in the target te4t.

I,* Sil-er A+e

%n Germanicus8 translation of Aratus already a&&ears an as&ect thatfollo+s through the Sil1er Age re+or2ings of omer. %n Sil1er Ageliterature the influence of 7ergil is so ine1adale that it &lays a certainrole in translations as +ell. The est e4am&le of it is !aeius %talicus,+ho +rites his +or2 as an e&itome of omer8s %liad, ut in s&ite ofthis, he lays a greater stress on the imitation of 7ergil and other Latin

&redecessors than on the source te4t itself. is first lines can yet ee4amined from the as&ect of translation techni-ue < and this is +hat %did.

Attius Laeo, a &oet 2no+n from the satires and scholia of Persius,+hose e4istence isn8t sure, either, stands alone in the history of Latinliterary translation efore hristianity: he follo+s the method of&hilological translations, so far as it can e @udged from the only one3line fragment left from him. e imitates the +ord order, the metrical

cadence, the &honic means of the original9 his target language is 1ulgar

8/12/2019 LITERARY TRANSLATION IN ANTIQUITY

8/8

Latin, +hich is &ossily also a conscious decision.As to Sil1er Age e&ic &oets, the immediate te4tual influence of

omer can e sho+n mainly in Statius and 7alerius Flaccus, ut in

macrostructural le1el it is &resent in e1ery one of them. %n Statius,es&ecially the scene of enumeration is connected to the shi& catalogueof the %liad9 in its imitation the im&act of #eoteric treatment of &ro&ernames can also e felt. %n 7alerius Flaccus slight omeric allusions cane s&otted as +ell as ones com&rehensi1e of larger te4tual units, someof +hich can e 1ie+ed as a translation /of an a&&licati1e or a closerty&e0.

;ith the archai>ing mo1ement, te4ts ecame im&ortant as te4tsand sources, +hich hel&ed translation criticism mo1e for+ard. Gellius8

1ie+, +hich sa+ the 1alue of a translation only in its com&lete fidelityto the original, leads on to the ne4t age, and sho+s that the ne+ trenda&&earing +ith hristianity has had &agan &redecessors as +ell.

,* A' O)tloo.: Tra'slatio' a'( #hristia'it/

Literal translation, a&&lied to canonical te4ts, +hich +as se&aratede1en y ieronymus from other fields of translation, finds its +ay into

literary translation. %t is es&ecially cons&icuous in the &oetic and &rosetranslations of halcidius that can, more interestingly, e com&ared toicero8s &arallel translations. halcidius rethin2s icero8s translatorialmethods in the light of the ne+ &rinci&les, and uses the ne+ facilities&ro1ided y the metamor&hosis of Latin language in the field of +ordformation as +ell as of &rosody. Later on, although not al+ays as aresult of a conscious decision, literal translation ad1ances e1en more.

$ost I0porta't Res)lts of the Thesis

The main merit of my thesis is not in the final conclusions that cane dra+n, rather in the details. !y those, % +ished to e4&ose that it is anunfortunate generali>ation to say that 5in the ancient +orld only freetranslation +as &ractised6. These 5free translations6 can e analysedfrom the as&ect of translatorial o&erations, and inter&reted in the lightof different translatorial attitudes as +ell as modern, 5faithful6translations, so it is acce&tale to e4amine them +ith the same method.

)