The Modalities of Roman Translation: Source-representative, Allusive, and Independent

264 Pages·2017·1.63 MB·English

WWeesstteerrnn UUnniivveerrssiittyy
SScchhoollaarrsshhiipp@@WWeesstteerrnn
Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository
7-11-2014 12:00 AM
TThhee MMooddaalliittiieess ooff RRoommaann TTrraannssllaattiioonn:: SSoouurrccee--rreepprreesseennttaattiivvee,,
AAlllluussiivvee,, aanndd IInnddeeppeennddeenntt
James Kruck, The University of Western Ontario
Supervisor: Dr. Debra Nousek, The University of Western Ontario
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree
in Classics
© James Kruck 2014
Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd
Part of the Classical Literature and Philology Commons
RReeccoommmmeennddeedd CCiittaattiioonn
Kruck, James, "The Modalities of Roman Translation: Source-representative, Allusive, and Independent"
(2014). Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository. 2167.
https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/2167
This Dissertation/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Western. It has been accepted
for inclusion in Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository by an authorized administrator of
Scholarship@Western. For more information, please contact [email protected].
i

The Modalities of Roman Translation: Source-representative, Allusive, and Independent.

A monograph

by

James Kruck

Graduate Program in Classical Studies

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy

The School of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies
The University of Western Ontario
London, Ontario, Canada

© James Kruck 2014
ii

Abstract
In my dissertation I argue that Roman translators promote themselves and their work by
programmatic statements that indicate a relationship with a source author. Whereas the
traditional understanding of translations has focused on ad uerbum and ad sensum translations, I
deemphasize the binary division between ad uerbum and ad sensum translations since these
terms are insufficient for appreciating the roles that translation can play in a literary system. By
focusing on the statements of translators rather than the form of the translations, I elevate the
translator as an agent who evaluates his socio-literary conditions and develops a response that
capitalizes on those conditions.
I argue that there are three different styles of promotion that the Roman translator uses: the
source-representative, the allusive, and the independent. The source-representative translator
associates himself closely with the source, establishing his translation as the primary avenue to
an accurate representation of a foreign author. The allusive translator strengthens his own
position as an artist and asserts his own creative ability by encouraging comparison with
established writers before distinctively embedding his own original material into the translation.
Finally, the independent translator rejects the authority of the source author and endorses himself
as more knowledgeable than the source.
My first chapter contextualizes the statements of Roman translators by examining similar
statements from post-Classical translators who promote their own form of translation as the
superior way in which to access the source author. In my second chapter I analyze source-
representative translation in Livius Andronicus’ Odusia and Ennius’ Annales. Chapter 3 reviews
source-representative translation in Roman comedy with a focus on how Terence uses his
translations to displace the drama of Plautus. In my fourth chapter I address allusive translation
by showing how Catullus symbolically rejects translation and how Horace advertises his poetry
as Roman songs played on a Greek instrument. In my final chapter, which concentrates on
independent translation, I discuss how Cicero advertises his role as a judicious translator whose
translation enhances and even replaces the source work. In each chapter I identify the
programmatic statements that the translator uses to encourage the acceptance of his translation.
iii

Keywords:
Translation theory, Roman translation, Latin literature, Livius Andronicus, Ennius, Plautus,
Terence, Catullus, Horace, Cicero
iv

Table of Contents

Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... iv
List of Abbreviations ........................................................................................................ vii
Acknowledgments............................................................................................................ viii
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1
2 Translation as Promotion ............................................................................................. 16
2.1 Ad uerbum Translation in the Church ................................................................... 17
2.2 Ad sensum translation in the Church ..................................................................... 22
2.3 The judgment of the translator .............................................................................. 25
2.4 Imitation as a close relationship with the source .................................................. 28
2.5 Criticism of imitation and Service to the Source .................................................. 34
3 Source-representative, Epic.......................................................................................... 44
3.1 Situating source-representative translation ........................................................... 46
3.2 The socio-literary conditions of 3rd century Rome .............................................. 48
3.3 Livius Andronicus ................................................................................................. 52
3.4 Gnaeus Naevius .................................................................................................... 61
3.5 Quintus Ennius ...................................................................................................... 65
4 Source-Representative, Comedy .................................................................................. 76
4.1 Plautus’ prologues: uortit barbare ........................................................................ 79
4.2 The Greek scene .................................................................................................... 84
4.3 Language ............................................................................................................... 87
v

4.4 Characters ............................................................................................................. 92
4.5 Deconstruction ...................................................................................................... 95
4.6 Prologues of Terence: uerbum de uerbo expressum ........................................... 100
4.7 Language ............................................................................................................. 111
4.8 Characters ........................................................................................................... 114
4.9 Adelphoe ............................................................................................................. 115
4.10 The Eunuchus .................................................................................................... 123
4.11 Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 129
5 Allusive Translation ................................................................................................... 133
5.1 Catullus ............................................................................................................... 133
5.2 Catullus, Poem 51 ............................................................................................... 134
5.3 Poem 66 .............................................................................................................. 142
5.4 Poem 68 .............................................................................................................. 144
5.5 Conclusion on Catullus ....................................................................................... 146
5.6 Horace ................................................................................................................. 148
5.7 Horace and his source: the Epodes ..................................................................... 152
5.8 Epode 11 ............................................................................................................. 153
5.9 Epode 12 ............................................................................................................. 157
5.10 Epode 15 ............................................................................................................ 160
5.11 The Odes ........................................................................................................... 163
5.12 Odes 1.9 ............................................................................................................. 166
5.13 Odes 1.37 ........................................................................................................... 169
5.14 Odes 1.12 ........................................................................................................... 173
5.15 Horace Conclusions........................................................................................... 176
5.16 Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 177
vi

6 Cicero and Independent Translation .......................................................................... 179
6.1 Critical Remarks ................................................................................................. 181
6.1.1 Philosophical Study ................................................................................ 184
6.1.2 Newfound freedom ................................................................................. 190
6.1.3 Defence of philosophy ............................................................................ 194
6.1.4 Critics of translation ................................................................................ 196
6.1.5 The language advantage .......................................................................... 200
6.1.6 Cicero’s qualifications ............................................................................ 205
6.2 Translating the Source ........................................................................................ 212
6.2.1 Greek words in Latin text ....................................................................... 218
6.2.2 Distinguishing Translator from Author .................................................. 222
6.3 Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 226
7 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 229
Bibliography ................................................................................................................... 236
Curriculum Vitae ............................................................................................................ 254
vii

List of Abbreviations

ANRW Aufsteig und Niedergang der Römischen Welt. Berlin.
Blänsdorf Blänsdorf, J. 2011. Fragmenta Poetarum Latinorum Epicorum et
Lyricorum. Berlin.
CAH Cambridge Ancient History.
FGrHist Jacoby, F. Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Berlin.
PCG5 Kassel, R. and C. Austin, eds. 1986. Poeta Comici Graeci: Damoxenus –
Magnes. Berlin.
PCG6.2 ____ 1998 Poeta Comici Graeci:Menander.Berlin.
Sandbach Sandbach, F.H. 1990 [1972]. Menandri reliquiae selectae. Oxford.
SB Bailey, D.R.S. 1987. M. Tulli Ciceronis Epistulae ad Atticum Stuttgart.
Sk. Skutsch, O. 1985. The Annals of Q. Ennius. Oxford.
SVF Armin, H. 1903–1924. Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta. Stuttgart.
R1 Ribbeck, O. 1962 [1871]. Scaenicae Romanorum Poesis Fragmenta:
Tragicorum Romanorum Fragmenta. Hildesheim.
R2 ____ 1962 [1873]. Scaenicae Romanorum Poesis Fragmenta. Comicorum
Romanorum Fragmenta. Hildesheim.
Voigt Voigt, E. 1971. Sappho et Alcaeus. Amsterdam.
West West, M.L. 1989–1992 [1971–1972]. Iambi et elegi Graeci. Oxford.
viii

Acknowledgments
I would like to offer my sincere thanks to my advisor Dr. Debra Nousek for all of the advice and
encouragement she has provided during my time at Western, particularly during the writing of
this thesis. Her supervision and ability to calm my concerns proved invaluable. I would also like
to thank the other members of my thesis committee, Dr.Randall Pogorzelski and Dr. Christopher
Brown, both of whom have given me a significant amount of guidance in the writing of the thesis
and in other areas of my academic pursuits. I offer my gratitude to my board of examiners: Dr.
Kelly Olson, Dr. Laurence de Looze, and Dr. Elaine Fantham. My thanks as well to Dr. Alex
Meyer and Dr. Elizabeth Greene for offering me a position as a Research Assistant in the final
year of my studies. In addition, I wish to thank all of the faculty and staff of the Department of
Classical Studies for welcoming me to Western five years ago and for always showing kindness
and an eagerness to help. Finally, I must thank my fellow graduate students for their unending
support and friendship.
I have presented portions of my research at the University of Western Ontario Research Seminar
Series (March 2013) and the Annual Meeting of the Classical Association of Canada (May 2013,
Winnipeg; May 2012, London). I was able to complete my research through funding from the
Department of Classical Studies, the Faculty of Arts and Humanities, and the School of Graduate
and Postdoctoral Studies. Additional support was received from Ontario Graduate Scholarship
program.
I am deeply indebted to my parents, Arnold and Carol Kruck, who have always supported and
encouraged me in my academic pursuits. Sincere gratitude is owed to my wife, Lindsay Ferrier,
ix

whose patience, understanding, and inspiration has made this and every other achievement
possible. Finally, I dedicate this work to my two sons, Parker and Finley, who constantly remind
me to smile when any task seems difficult.