No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Translation in Aulus Gellius
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Extract
In the last twenty years, the study of translation has emerged as a discipline in its own right.1 Scholars in various fields have turned their attention to the linguistic, philosophical, and ideological issues involved in the ‘carrying over’ of ideas from one language into another. This new discipline has a natural affinity with Latin philology, since the Romans may be regarded as pioneers in the art of translation in the West. At present, however, we have only begun to study what they really thought about translation and how they went about doing it. In the present paper,31 will re-examine a valuable but under-appreciated witness: Aulus Gellius, author of the Attic NightsSome of Gellius′ brief essays contain translations from Greek, and a few of them were prepared specifically as exercises in the ars interpretandi.By studying them, we learn how the questions associated with translation were addressed by a Roman litterateur of the Antonine period.
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1997
References
1 Cf. Bassnett-McGuire, S., Translation Studies(Revised Edition, London and New York, 1991), xi-xix and 1–11.Google Scholar
2 Cf. Bassnett-McGuire (n. 1), 43, and Wilss, W. Ubersetzungwissenschaft. Probleme und Methoden(Stuttgart, 1977), 29–32.Google Scholar
3 This paper includes material presented at the annual meetings of the American Philological Association (1991) and the Classical Association of the Middle West and South (1995). I owe particular thanks to the referee, Dr. Leofranc Holford-Strevens, for several corrections and suggestions.
4 It is hoped that these observations will supplement the work of Gamberale, L. Traduzione in Gellio(Rome, 1969), and Steinmetz, P. ‘Gellius als Ubersetzer’, in Zum Umgang mit fremden Sprachen in der griechisch-romischen Antike,edd. C. Miiller et al.(Stuttgart, 1992 = Palingenesia36), 201–11. For a general appreciation of Gellius′ life and work, see L. A. Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius(London, 1988); see also Beall, S. Civilis Eruditio: Style and Content in theAttic Nights of Aulus Gellius(Diss. California, Berkeley, 1988).Google Scholar
5 ‘Videsne... crebrum et coruscum et convexum brevibusque et rotundis numeris cum quadam aequabili circumactione devinctum?’ I use (with slight adjustments in punctuation) P. Marshall′s corrected OCT text (1990); I have often adapted the translation of J. C. Rolfe (Loeb, rev. edn 1946).
6 The anecdote may be partly or wholly fictitious. The lemma of a lost chapter (8.8) mentions difficulties encountered while translating ‘quosdam locos platonicos’ into Latin; the version presented in 17.20 might actually have formed part of this more comprehensive exercise. Holford-Strevens, however, argues that Gellius would not have created ex nihiloa situation in which he was made to look a fool. See his Aldus Gellius,49, and ‘Fact and Fiction in Aulus Gellius’, LCM7.5 (May 1982), 66–7.Google Scholar
7 See Richter, H. Ubersetzen und Ubersetzungen in der romischen Literatur (Diss. Erlangen-Coburg, 1938), 69–76. also Gamberale (n. 4), 59–63.Google Scholar
8 De or.1.155; De nat. deorum2.104; De off.2.87.Google Scholar
9 I follow the pagination of the Teubner edition of Van den Hout (Leipzig, 1988).
10 Cic. Deor.1.147; Quint. Inst.10.1.4.Google Scholar
11 Cf. Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius(n. 4), 12. Like many Romans, Gellius had come to Athens ‘ad capiendum ingenii cultum’ (1.2.1). Philosophy functioned as a sort of finishing course, and Taurus had good reason to suspect that Gellius had enrolled in his class ‘eloquentiae unius extundendae gratia’ (17.20.4).Google Scholar
12 ‘Et manifesta est exercitationis huiusce ratio. Nam et rerum copia Graeci auctores abundant et plurimum artis in eloquentiam intulerunt et hos transferentibus verbis uti optimis licet: omnibus enim utimur nostris. Figuras vero, quibus maxime ornatur oratio, multas ac varias excogitandi etiam necessitas quaedam est, quia plerumque a Graecis Romana dissentiunt’ (Inst.10.5.3).
13 ‘...simul quae legentem fefellissent, transferentem fugere non possunt’.Google Scholar
14 Cf. the funerary inscription of M. Pomponius Bassulus (CIL9.1164; CLE91; Courtney, E. Musa Lapidaria[Atlanta, 1995] lie 63): ‘ne more pecoris otio transfungerer, Menandri paucas vorti scitas fabulas et ipsus etiam sedulo finxi novas’. See Richter (n. 7), 91. On Gellian otium,see Beall (n. 4), 34–8. and 100–6.Google Scholar
15 It has been observed that Gellius′ commentationessometimes reproduce the exercises mentioned by Pliny, Quintilian, and the rhetorical handbooks. Translation and paraphrase are well represented; other passages invite a formal comparison with the progymnasmataof the rhetorical schools (especially the chreia),or with other forms of occasional composition. See Ren6 Marache, ‘La mise-en-scene des Nuits Attiques:Aulu-Gelle et la diatribe’, Pallas1 (1953), 84–95. and the introduction to his edition of the Nuits Attiques(Paris, 1967), xxxi-vi; see also Beall (n. 4), 119–28.
16 Sententiaeand purple passages: Plato (17.20, cf. 8.8), Aeschines (18.3). Letters: Philip to Aristotle (9.3, discussed below), Alexander to Aristotle and back again (20.5). Stories: Arion and the dolphin, from Herodotus (16.19, discussed below); Androclus and the Lion, from Apion (5.14); the death of Alexander′s horse, from Chares (5.2). Gellius also summarized and partially translated speeches of Favorinus (12.1,14.1) and Musonius (5.1). For a more exhaustive list and commentary on Gellius′ translations, see Gamberale (n. 4), 71–172.
17 For a summary of extant and lost translations, see Richter (n. 7). It is worth noting that a much-discussed text, Cicero′s Timaeus,may not have been intended for publication as a translation at all. See J. G. F. Powell ‘Cicero′s Translations from Greek’, in Cicero the Philosopher: Twelve Papers,ed. J. G. F. Powell (Oxford, 1995), 280–1.
18 E.g. Wilss (n. 2), 30; Richter (n. 7), 41–2. and Franz Blatt, ‘Remarques sur l′histoire des traductions latines’, Classica et mediaevalia1 (1938), 217–20.Google Scholar
19 Rener, F.M. Interpretatio: Language and Translation from Cicero to Tytler (Amsterdam, 1989), 298–306.Google Scholar
20 Lexical equivalence is the criterion also at 9.9.9–10. 11.4.4, 17.10.13ff.; more general issues are raised at 2.23, 2.27, 3.16.3–5. 12.1.20,13.27.Google Scholar
21 2.23.1, 3; 11.4.3; cf. 17.20.L, where (as will become clear below) a more literal and ‘scholastic’ exercise is understood. See Rener (n. 19), 309–10.
22 Other examples of conventional modesty are Praef.4, 10; 12.1.24, 14.1.32. In 10.22.3, however, Gellius actually does decline to render Plato′s Greek with the excuse that it is beyond the reach of ‘all Latinity’.Google Scholar
23 Cultural partisanship is evident in the dialogue between Antonius Julianus and graeci plusculion the merits of Greek and Latin elegists 19.9.7–9.. The sympotic setting of the dialogue is typical of Gellius′ promotion of liberal otium,in which erudite games also had their place 18.2.1–6.; cf. Beall (n. 4), 35–6. 132–5.
24 It is impossible as well as misleading to construct a ‘Roman theory’ of translation on the basis of simple formulae such as Cicero′s ‘nee tamen exprimi verbum e verbo necesse erit′ (Defin.3.15), even if the idea is echoed by Horace Ars poetica133–4. and Gellius himself (9.9.1). Cf. Powell (n. 17), 278.
25 So Steinmetz (n. 4), 210: ‘ihre Bandbreite (i.e., that of Gellius′ versions) reicht, ohne daC dies besonders vermerkt wird, von einer wortlichen Wiedergabe iiber gewisse Nuancierungen der wortlichen Wiedergabe bis zu einer recht freien Nachgestaltung der Vorlage’. Cf. Gamberale (n. 4), 66–7.
26 Gamberale (n. 4), 100–4. Steinmetz (n. 4), 208.Google Scholar
27 Steinmetz (n. 4), 210.
28 Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius(n. 4), 44. Note Gellius′ somewhat more condensed way of putting it: ‘verba...numeris coagmentisque verborum scite modulateque apta’ (17.20.L).Google Scholar
29 My segmentation is based on Habinek, T.N. The Colometry of Latin Prose(Berkeley, 1985), with the understanding that colometry involves a subjective judgement about where possibleboundaries should in facthave been observed in the pronunciation of a text. I assume elision inthe Latin where possible, but only where marked in the Greek, as later Greek was more tolerant of hiatus. See West, M.L. Greek Metre(Oxford, 1982), 164, and Allen, W.S. Vox Latina,2nd edn (Cambridge, 1978), 78–82.and esp. 128.Google Scholar
30 Even the clausulae of the Greek are echoed in Latin, although not always in the same places; the most common are the clausula quartae.g. and the dispondaeuse.g. A more elaborate form of indirect imitation can be seen in the versions of 20.5, where Gellius follows the Greek in effecting a rhythmic ‘responsion’ between two letters; see Beall (n. 4), 163–7.Google Scholar
31 On ‘mimetic’ translation see Kelly, L. The True Interpreter(New York, 1979), 192. On Gellius′ use of efflngere,see Gamberale (n. 4), 99–100.Google Scholar
32 Gamberale (n. 4), 181–6. Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius(n. 4), 43; Beall (n. 4), 168–86.Google Scholar
33 On the various extant versions of this story, see Yvette Mien, ‘Fronton: Histoire d′Arion. Du mythe a l‘affaire judiciaire’, in Au miroir de la culture antique: melanges offerts au president Rene Marache par ses collegues, ses etudiants et ses amis(Rennes, 1992), 323–6.
34 See Marache, R. ‘La preface d′Aulu-Gelle: couples et series de synonymes ou de mots analogues’, in Letteratwe comparate, problemi e metodo: studi in onore de Ettore Paratore(Bologna, 1981), v. 2,785–91. cf. Hache, F. Quaestiones archaicae(Diss. Breslau, 1907), 21–5. and Gorges, O. De quibusdam sermonis Gelliani proprietatibus observations(Diss. Halle, 1883), 58–61. On the use of this figure in ancient authors, see M. von Albrecht, Masters of Roman Prose,tr. N. Adkin (Leeds, 1989), 7–8. Hendiadys in Gellius is not, however, always a purely stylistic device, but may be used to clarify the original, as in NA15.26. See Alberto Cavarzere, ‘Gellio traduttore e la definizione aristotelica di sillogismo’, MaiaNS 39 (1987), 213–5.Google Scholar
35 Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius(n. 4), 36–7. Hache (n. 34), 13–16. 38–9.Google Scholar
36 On the genesis, style, and originality of Fronto′s version, see Julien (n. 33), 326–33. On Gellius′ dependence on Fronto, see Beall (n. 4), 168–86.Google Scholar
37 Gamberale (n. 4), 155–60. Steinmetz (n. 4), 206–8.Google Scholar
38 I am inclined to accept Gamberale′s suggestion n. 4, 158–9. that was not in Gellius′ own text of Plato.Google Scholar
39 For the text of Th. Gaza′s version in the editio princepsof Gellius ad be.(Rome, 1469), I am indebted to L. A. Holford-Strevens.Google Scholar
40 Cf. Schmidt, J.H.H. Handbuch der lateinischen und griechischen Synonomik(repr. Amsterdam, 1968), 301, 305.Google Scholar
41 Ficino has ‘Actionis cuiuslibet haec est conditio...’. Gaza, standing somewhat closer to Plato′s line, has ‘omnis enim actio sic sese habet...’. Actioin this sense is frequent in Cicero and Seneca; see TLL1.439.Google Scholar
42 Marache, R. La critique litteraire de langue latine et le developpement du gout archaisant au 2e stick de notre ere(Rennes, 1952), 281–6.Google Scholar
43 On Gellian imitation of Favorinus′ style, see Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius(n. 4), 76, and Beall(n. 4), 187–93.Google Scholar
44 ‘Quae etsi laxioribus paulo et longioribusque verbis comprehensa est praequam illud.Google Scholar
46 Pace Gamberale (n. 4), 146. Another instance of the ‘felicitous’ juxtaposition of archaic Latin and Greek is 4.5.5–7. where the proverb ‘malum consilium consultori pessimum est’ is traced to Hesiod, WD166.Google Scholar
47 Cf. Hache (n. 34), 14.Google Scholar
48 Hache (n. 34), 40–1. cf. Gamberale (n. 4), 159.Google Scholar
49 Hache (n. 34), 15. 50 Cf. Albrecht (n. 34), 5–7.Google Scholar
- 5
- Cited by