Excerpt of Doctoral Thesis

LITERARY TRANSLATION IN ANTIQUITY: TRENDS AND PROGRESS O LATIN LITERARY TRANSLATION S!O"ING IN AN#IENT TRANSLATIONS O !O$ER

Rita %OPE#&%Y

ELTE, Faculty of Arts Doctoral School of Linguistics Doctoral Program of Ancient Studies

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

!uda&est, '(().

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 .oman literature a out +hich /although only from fragments0 +e can ha1e some gras& ha&&ens to e a translation of ,omer, it can e stated that ,omeric e&ics +ere of foundational im&ortance for the .omans almost in the same +ay as they +ere for the Gree2s. .ethin2ing and creati1e re3use of ,omeric te4ts is &resent all along Gree2 and .oman literature as +ell. ,o+e1er, the main to&ic of my thesis is not the ine4hausti le set of -uestions around imitatio and aemulatio ut those te4ts that define themsel1es as 5translations6: the translatorial methods and o&erations used in these te4ts come to e e4amined, in the first &lace, from a linguistical &oint of 1ie+, ut attention is &aid to the literary &oint of 1ie+ as +ell, as eing inse&ara le from the linguistical one. #e1ertheless % found it necessary, too, to touch u&on authors that cannot e called translators of ,omer, ut it is a characteristic of the allusi1e techni-ue used y them that in their +or2s there can e some imitations of ,omeric te4ts so close that they are +orth eing e4amined 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 measure that their literary greatness +ould deser1e9 +hat8s more, % ha1en8t had a &ossi ility e1en of a thorough e4&osition of the relation et+een their +or2s and ,omer. "nly some of their &assages are e4amined in order to shed some light on a fe+ as&ects of their ri1alry +ith ,omer or his earlier Latin aemulatores. Authors +hose life3+or2 has een of definiti1e im&ortance as to the formation of .oman 1ie+ of translation are also included in my e4amination, although they don8t elong to the translators of ,omer, either. That8s +hy % had to handle riefly .oman drama, +hich had een esteemed y :icero and ,ieronymus as the e4am&le par excellence of literary translation, and also the #eoteric &oets, +ho had introduced ne+ methods in translation. ;ithout them, an e4amination of the history of translating ,omer cannot e imagined. The thesis consists of fi1e cha&ters. The first cha&ter deals +ith some -uestions of translation theory, then it deals +ith the role of literary translation in ancient Gree2 and .oman culture. The other cha&ters follo+ the chronological articulation of .oman literature. The '

second cha&ter concerns the Archaic Age. %ts first &art is a out the Odusia of Li1ius Andronicus, follo+ed y #ae1ius and Ennius9 finally, some +ords are said a out .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, !ae ius %talicus, Attius La eo, Statius, 7alerius Flaccus, and also the didactic &oem on metrics y Terentianus *aurus <, then &assages of ,omer turning u& in the Ale4ander no1el translated y %ulius 7alerius9 finally, Gellius8 &rinci&les of translation criticism, +hich aren8t connected closely +ith ,omer, ut foreshado+ the change in the 1ie+ of literal translation coming +ith :hristianity. The latter is dealt +ith in the last cha&ter: there is a rief o1er1ie+ of the tradition of !i le translation, +hich forms another ranch that falls into the history of .oman literary translation9 then a fe+ +ords are said a out &assages translated from ,omer +hich come u& in the te4ts of some :hristian authors /,ieronymus, Lactantius, :halcidius0. I* I'tro()ctio': O' Tra'slatio' % didn8t aim at gi1ing a full historical o1er1ie+ of e1ery -uestion of translation studies: this +ould not ha1e een &ossi le +ithin this setting. !ut % found it im&ortant is to resume the main ty&es of translation /and &articularly literary translation0 according to .E%SS and P"LG=., since the as&ects of e4amination of a translation is determined y its collocation in one of these categories. These ty&es are the follo+ing: interlinear translation, +ord3for3+ord translation, documentary /or &hilological0 translation, communicati1e translation, ada&ti1e translation. %n the history of .oman literary translation all fi1e ty&es ha1e their o+n influence, ut the last t+o ha1e the greatest im&ortance, ecause the dri1e of aemulatio has een ali1e in e1ery .oman literary translator from the 1ery eginning. After this general introduction % summari>ed the role of translation in the Gree2, ,ellenistic and .oman +orld. ;hile in the Gree2 +orld translation comes to ha1e a greater role only in the age of the Em&erors, for the .omans it is of definiti1e im&ortance from the ?

eginning < so that +e can e1en +onder +hy indi1idual .oman literature +as orn. "n the other hand, the aim of translations of ,omer 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 &resent in %taly for many centuries efore the first translation +as made. II* Archaic A+e The a&&reciation of Li1ius Andronicus as a translator is greatly influenced y ideas a out his life < since in this field nothing can e stated for certain <, so % egan the cha&ter dedicated to him +ith the o1er1ie+ of iogra&hical -uestions. The consensus of scholars acce&ts the chronology of 7arro /so did %0, ut almost e1ery other &oint of the iogra&hy can e -uestioned. The aim of Andronicus in &re&aring the Odusia is also su @ect to de ate. There is no sign of state commission9 on the other hand, the literary le1el of the translation ma2es it im&ossi le that it +as meant to e a te4t oo2 for students. *ay e Andronicus &assed from drama translations to e&ic translation as the ne4t artistic challenge, for +hich there could ha1e een a demand on ehalf of the .oman audience as +ell, since among .ome8s many &otential foundational narrati1es there +ere also %talian myths connected to the "dyssey. The most characteristic features of Andronicus8 translation are that, on the one hand, it is ased on ,ellenistic literature, ut on the other hand, it stri1es for the total .omani>ation of the source te4t. %n its linguistical and stylistical sha&ing and in the so3called contaminazione a distanza &rocess disco1ered y ."#:"#% can e sus&ected the influence of Antimachus, ut in a certain fragment the 2no+ledge of the scholia of ,omer can e assumed, too. ,o+e1er, it is the merit of Andronicus himself that he re&roduced in Latin the tension et+een Gree2 e&ic and s&o2en language, and also et+een e&ic and dramatic language, y using a language richly decorated +ith archaisms and &ossi ly free from Grecisms in the Odusia, +hile in his dramas he chose formulations closer to s&o2en language. ,is translatorial acti1ity co1ered not only the transformation of Gree2 te4t into Latin te4t, ut also the form of 1erse /Saturnian 1erse instead of he4ameters0, the names of the gods /freshly induced, etymologically and functionnally moti1ated no1elties alongside the identifications of long standing ased A

on interpretatio Romana0, the imagery /elimination of e4&ressions that +ould e a alienating to .oman audience0, and sometimes the Realien as +ell. ,e &ro a ly made a full translation, not an anthology or an e&itome, for the grammarians collecting linguistical s&ecialities ha1e conser1ed se1eral -uotations of small im&ortance that should ha1e not figured in a non3com&lete translation. Andronicus8 translatorial o&erations sho+ a great degree of consciousness. ,e uses e1ery 2ind of le4ical o&erations listed y BLACD$, ut he a&&lies all 1arieties of grammatical o&erations as +ell. Their e4amination, ho+e1er, is made difficult y the small scale of the fragments and the fact that many of them can e connected to se1eral different 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 a time, and he is al+ays a+are of the source te4t as a +hole. Those characteristics of ,omeric style that could hardly e acce&ta le for .oman readers /e. g. epitheta ornantia or re&etitions0 aren8t transferred into the target te4t. !ut Andronicus many times stri1es for calling forth the 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 +ho egins to create Latin e-ui1alents for Gree2 e&ic com&ounds. Ennius follo+s his &ath9 in the ,omeric allusions of the Annals sometimes +e can find a ri1alry +ith Andronicus himself. The choice of he4ametric form can e inter&reted +ithin the setting of formal a&&roaching of .oman e&ic to Gree2 antecedens. Ennius re&roduces se1eral features of ,omeric language in his e&ic, e. g. the use of epitheta and formulaic re&etitions, and the rece&tion of old ,omeric images also egins. The he4ameter re+or2ing of the Odusia stands under a strong influence of Ennius. There is no o1erla&&ing et+een the he4ameter and Saturnian fragments, so the methods of these t+o translators can only e com&ared indirectly. ;or2s elonging to the genres of fabula palliata and cothurnata, since their authors as +ell as their &osterity hold them to e translations, can also 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 D

e im&ossi le. Fidelity to the structure of the original +or2 as a re-uirement is characteristic u& to the time of Terence. The standard of translation -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 a out a ne+ 1ie+ of literary translation. Alongside the reinter&retation of the original through the lyrical self, +hich can e e4em&lified y the DEst carmen of :atullus, there a&&ears a 2ind of literary translation as a ty&e of stylistical e4ercise, adhering to formal features /cf. :at. FF0. Gree2 &honic -ualities come to e transferred into Latin translation9 here elong the close follo+ing of original +ord order and metrical -ualities < sometimes also at the cost of meaning <, and the retaining of source te4t &ro&er names in the same &lace of the line. !et+een the immediate &redecessors of #eoteric &oets can e mentioned :n. *atius and #innius :rassus, from +hose translations of the %liad +e ha1e some fragments. *atius8 method is characteri>ed y condensation, e4&ressi1ity, moderni>ation, and free handling of the original8s +ealth of formulas. ,is language is conformed to the e&ic tradition. %n the ne4t &art % dealt +ith :icero8s translatorial acti1ity. %n the course of this % had to touch u&on theoretical foundations and &rose translations in the fields of rhetoric and &hiloso&hy as +ell. The greatest &art of &oetical translations is em edded in the +or2s of the latter genre. These, unli2e the literary translations e4amined until no+, are not fragments of com&lete translated +or2s, ut &ro a ly &oetic &assages -uoted as exempla in the Gree2 antecedents of :icero8s +or2s on &hiloso&hy, trans&lanted into Latin, in case :icero couldn8t find any suita le Latin -uotation in their &lace. That8s +hy it can e often o ser1ed that a &oetic &assage comes to e accommodated to the &rose conte4t, or the original conte4t is gi1en erroneously. %n translations of ,omer :icero8s language is strongly influenced y the language of Ennius, +hich a&&ears in the &redilection for com&ounds and in the indulgence in the &lay +ith sounds < ut the im&act of rhetorical and also of &ersonal ac2ground can e felt at least in the same measure. :icero also +or2s +ith a +ide segmentation, at least of sentence le1el, F

ut he stri1es to anchor his te4t to the original at some &oints. Grammatical o&erations can often e an o stacle to &ers&icuity. :om&ared to the source te4t, sometimes im&ro1ement /di1isions of meaning, additions0, sometimes sim&lification /contractions of meaning, omissions0 can e e4&erienced. :icero also dares to introduce ne+ imagery in the te4t all y himself, ut he creates -uite different moods 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 o ser1ed in these cases that 7ergil, in some +ay, 5returns to the source6, although in a fe+ details he leans on Ennius8 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 the cha&ter. ,orace translates the eginning lines of the "dyssey t+ice, in t+o different +ays. %n oth cases it is characteristic that "dysseus ecomes a moral e4am&le, +hich is retracea le to &hiloso&hic literature < and +hich is etrayed y a fe+ translatorial additions. For ,orace, the im&ortant thing is not translation ut his o+n message, so the em&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 that follo+s through the Sil1er Age re+or2ings of ,omer. %n Sil1er Age literature the influence of 7ergil is so ine1ada le that it &lays a certain role in translations as +ell. The est e4am&le of it is !ae ius %talicus, +ho +rites his +or2 as an e&itome of ,omer8s %liad, ut in s&ite of this, 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 e e4amined from the as&ect of translation techni-ue < and this is +hat % did. Attius La eo, a &oet 2no+n from the satires and scholia of Persius, +hose e4istence isn8t sure, either, stands alone in the history of Latin literary translation efore :hristianity: he follo+s the method of &hilological translations, so far as it can e @udged from the only one3 line fragment left from him. ,e imitates the +ord order, the metrical cadence, the &honic means of the original9 his target language is 1ulgar G

Latin, +hich is &ossi ly 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& catalogue of the %liad9 in its imitation the im&act of #eoteric treatment of &ro&er names can also e felt. %n 7alerius Flaccus slight ,omeric allusions can e s&otted as +ell as ones com&rehensi1e of larger te4tual units, some of +hich can e 1ie+ed as a translation /of an a&&licati1e or a closer ty&e0. ;ith the archai>ing mo1ement, te4ts ecame im&ortant as te4ts and sources, +hich hel&ed translation criticism mo1e for+ard. Gellius8 1ie+, +hich sa+ the 1alue of a translation only in its com&lete fidelity to the original, leads on to the ne4t age, and sho+s that the ne+ trend a&&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&arated e1en y ,ieronymus from other fields of translation, finds its +ay into literary translation. %t is es&ecially cons&icuous in the &oetic and &rose translations of :halcidius that can, more interestingly, e com&ared to :icero8s &arallel translations. :halcidius rethin2s :icero8s translatorial methods 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 +ord formation as +ell as of &rosody. Later on, although not al+ays as a result 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 can e dra+n, rather in the details. !y those, % +ished to e4&ose that it is an unfortunate generali>ation to say that 5in the ancient +orld only free translation +as &ractised6. These 5free translations6 can e analysed from the as&ect of translatorial o&erations, and inter&reted in the light of different translatorial attitudes as +ell as modern, 5faithful6 translations, so it is acce&ta le to e4amine them +ith the same method. )