Translating Texts: Contrasting Roman and Jewish Depictions of Literary Translations

S. Adams
{"title":"Translating Texts: Contrasting Roman and Jewish Depictions of Literary Translations","authors":"S. Adams","doi":"10.1515/9783110660982-010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Greek and Roman worlds were polyglot, and although Greek and Latin were dominant in particular regions (East and West, respectively), this impression of linguist uniformity hardly hid a complex linguistic terrain. Indeed, across the Hellenistic and Roman Empires local languages continued to interact and shape the way that the dominant language users engaged with their conquered others. This political and cultural conquest resulted in the need to develop new methods of engagement and communication, both oral and written. Setting aside the act of oral translation, for which we have very little surviving evidence (although we know that it took place frequently),1 we find that discussion of text translation was not prominent. This is not to claim that translation was not a recognised element of ancient culture, but that it was so common that it did not warrant comment.2 Literary texts, however, were translated far less frequently and undertaken with a particular purpose(s) in mind. In this chapter I will evaluate and contrast the ways that Roman and Jewish writers articulated their understanding of literary translation. This comparison is valuable as translators from both cultures engage with Greek literature, but do so from very different perspectives and positions. Accordingly, in order to have a fuller understanding of literary translation in antiquity, one must compare the different ways and purposes for translation that stem from both dominant and non-dominant peoples. It is this comparison that provides substantial insights into the nature of literary translation and highlights specific elements that are distinctive to particular groups. This chapter does not only look at specific literary translations and how the rendered text aligns with the original, although many of such texts will be consulted. Rather, the purpose of this investigation is also to evaluate how literary translation is discussed and presented by authors with the intentionality and purpose being of primary importance. We will begin by briefly looking at some school texts that give insight into the training a student received with regard to translating texts. Following this we will assess the expressed purposes and functions of translation in the Hellenistic and Roman eras with a particular eye towards how Roman and Jewish authors engaged","PeriodicalId":283195,"journal":{"name":"Scholastic Culture in the Hellenistic and Roman Eras","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scholastic Culture in the Hellenistic and Roman Eras","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110660982-010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Greek and Roman worlds were polyglot, and although Greek and Latin were dominant in particular regions (East and West, respectively), this impression of linguist uniformity hardly hid a complex linguistic terrain. Indeed, across the Hellenistic and Roman Empires local languages continued to interact and shape the way that the dominant language users engaged with their conquered others. This political and cultural conquest resulted in the need to develop new methods of engagement and communication, both oral and written. Setting aside the act of oral translation, for which we have very little surviving evidence (although we know that it took place frequently),1 we find that discussion of text translation was not prominent. This is not to claim that translation was not a recognised element of ancient culture, but that it was so common that it did not warrant comment.2 Literary texts, however, were translated far less frequently and undertaken with a particular purpose(s) in mind. In this chapter I will evaluate and contrast the ways that Roman and Jewish writers articulated their understanding of literary translation. This comparison is valuable as translators from both cultures engage with Greek literature, but do so from very different perspectives and positions. Accordingly, in order to have a fuller understanding of literary translation in antiquity, one must compare the different ways and purposes for translation that stem from both dominant and non-dominant peoples. It is this comparison that provides substantial insights into the nature of literary translation and highlights specific elements that are distinctive to particular groups. This chapter does not only look at specific literary translations and how the rendered text aligns with the original, although many of such texts will be consulted. Rather, the purpose of this investigation is also to evaluate how literary translation is discussed and presented by authors with the intentionality and purpose being of primary importance. We will begin by briefly looking at some school texts that give insight into the training a student received with regard to translating texts. Following this we will assess the expressed purposes and functions of translation in the Hellenistic and Roman eras with a particular eye towards how Roman and Jewish authors engaged
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
翻译文本:对比罗马和犹太人对文学翻译的描述
希腊和罗马世界是多语言的,尽管希腊语和拉丁语在特定地区(分别是东方和西方)占主导地位,但这种语言学一致性的印象很难掩盖复杂的语言地形。事实上,在希腊化和罗马帝国时期,当地语言继续相互作用,并形成了主导语言使用者与被征服的其他语言交流的方式。这种政治和文化的征服导致需要发展新的接触和交流方法,包括口头和书面。撇开口头翻译的行为不谈(尽管我们知道它经常发生),我们发现关于文本翻译的讨论并不突出。这并不是说翻译不是古代文化的一个公认因素,而是说翻译太普遍了,不值得评论然而,文学文本的翻译频率要低得多,并且是为了特定的目的而进行的。在本章中,我将评估和对比罗马和犹太作家表达他们对文学翻译的理解的方式。这种比较对于来自两种文化的译者来说是有价值的,因为他们从不同的角度和立场来理解希腊文学。因此,为了更全面地了解古代文学翻译,我们必须比较优势民族和非优势民族的不同翻译方式和目的。正是这种比较提供了对文学翻译本质的实质性见解,并突出了特定群体特有的特定元素。本章不只是看具体的文学翻译和翻译文本如何与原文对齐,尽管许多这样的文本将被参考。相反,本研究的目的还在于评估作者是如何讨论和呈现文学翻译的,其中意向性和目的是最重要的。我们将首先简要地看看一些学校的课文,这些课文可以深入了解学生在翻译课文方面所接受的训练。接下来,我们将评估希腊化和罗马时代翻译的表达目的和功能,特别关注罗马和犹太作者是如何参与的
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
New Readings in the Text of Herodian Introduction: Themes in Ancient Scholarship ‘Bookish Places’ in Imperial Rome: Bookshops and the Urban Landscape of Learning Rabbis as Intellectuals in the Context of Graeco-Roman and Byzantine Christian Scholasticism Translating Texts: Contrasting Roman and Jewish Depictions of Literary Translations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1