{"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