The Vernacular Aristotle: Translation as Reception in Medieval and Renaissance Italy

IF 0.2 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Italian Culture Pub Date : 2021-01-02 DOI:10.1080/01614622.2021.1909914
Alessandro Vettori
{"title":"The Vernacular Aristotle: Translation as Reception in Medieval and Renaissance Italy","authors":"Alessandro Vettori","doi":"10.1080/01614622.2021.1909914","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Starting from the early twelfth century, Aristotle becomes the uncontested authority in philosophical matters throughout Europe and his name is synonymous with philosophical investigation. The core of the matter is how his texts were disseminated and read and the first issue to consider is language, since Greek was no longer known and Aristotle is handed down, not so much in Latin, but thanks to vernacular translations. As the historical and cultural distancing from his texts increases, it becomes more and more important to understand the culture of reference in which they were received. In this book, Refini deals with the complexity of these elements and comes to the conclusion that, if translating means interpreting, it also takes into account the cultural milieu in which the translation is received. In the late Middle Ages and early Renaissance, translation is not simply—and no longer—the transferring of texts from one language to another; it becomes synonymous with readers’ reception, with the texts’ admission into and appropriation by a different cultural ambience. The book is comprised of an Introduction, five chapters, and a Conclusion. Chapter One discusses the debasement of Aristotle in the culture of the late Middle Ages and early Renaissance as an image (which is not simply a metaphor) for Aristotle’s appropriation in the vernacular, with the complexity of making his philosophical thinking adequate to the new age through new languages. The “space of difference” articulates the dynamic interaction between academic Latin and the increasing importance attributed to the more “natural” mother tongue, by referring to both written texts as well as visual artifacts and representations. This discussion transitions seamlessly into Dante Alighieri’s revolutionary arguments in favor of the vernacular as academic language in Chapter Two, where the sommo poeta’s criticism of Taddeo Alderotti’s Italian translation of Summa Alexandrinorum invites a reconsideration of Dante’s ideas on the relationship between his two languages, Latin and the vernacular, as he articulated them in Convivio. The reception of the Nicomachean Ethics occupies the largest portion of the book and, in Chapters Three and Four, the discussion veers towards couching translation even more in the milieu in which it took place. The Venetian mercantile ambience sought legitimation through commissioning the vernacular translation of Aristotle’s well-known book and, in this context, it is clear how “vernacularization” also means “vulgarization,” an adaptation to the tastes and needs of vernacular readers. The scene moves to reading practices in Florence in Chapter Four, where the emphasis is placed more on the common ground occupied by readers from very different backgrounds than on the contrasts between opposite perspectives on Aristotle’s moral philosophy, which inevitably also becomes a political issue. Cultural hybridism is at the center of Chapter Five, where the intricate reception of Aristotle’s ethical thought is designed by retracing the creation and dissemination of some of its compendia and anthologies, which display reading tastes and practices, but also an intentional project of adaptation for specific purposes. The two contrasting images of Aristotle enthroned as uncontested cultural and philosophical authority, the most illuminated intellect of all time, and his degradation at the hands of Phyllis, the dominatrix who subjugates and rides him, are the polar opposites in","PeriodicalId":41506,"journal":{"name":"Italian Culture","volume":"39 1","pages":"93 - 94"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Italian Culture","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01614622.2021.1909914","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Starting from the early twelfth century, Aristotle becomes the uncontested authority in philosophical matters throughout Europe and his name is synonymous with philosophical investigation. The core of the matter is how his texts were disseminated and read and the first issue to consider is language, since Greek was no longer known and Aristotle is handed down, not so much in Latin, but thanks to vernacular translations. As the historical and cultural distancing from his texts increases, it becomes more and more important to understand the culture of reference in which they were received. In this book, Refini deals with the complexity of these elements and comes to the conclusion that, if translating means interpreting, it also takes into account the cultural milieu in which the translation is received. In the late Middle Ages and early Renaissance, translation is not simply—and no longer—the transferring of texts from one language to another; it becomes synonymous with readers’ reception, with the texts’ admission into and appropriation by a different cultural ambience. The book is comprised of an Introduction, five chapters, and a Conclusion. Chapter One discusses the debasement of Aristotle in the culture of the late Middle Ages and early Renaissance as an image (which is not simply a metaphor) for Aristotle’s appropriation in the vernacular, with the complexity of making his philosophical thinking adequate to the new age through new languages. The “space of difference” articulates the dynamic interaction between academic Latin and the increasing importance attributed to the more “natural” mother tongue, by referring to both written texts as well as visual artifacts and representations. This discussion transitions seamlessly into Dante Alighieri’s revolutionary arguments in favor of the vernacular as academic language in Chapter Two, where the sommo poeta’s criticism of Taddeo Alderotti’s Italian translation of Summa Alexandrinorum invites a reconsideration of Dante’s ideas on the relationship between his two languages, Latin and the vernacular, as he articulated them in Convivio. The reception of the Nicomachean Ethics occupies the largest portion of the book and, in Chapters Three and Four, the discussion veers towards couching translation even more in the milieu in which it took place. The Venetian mercantile ambience sought legitimation through commissioning the vernacular translation of Aristotle’s well-known book and, in this context, it is clear how “vernacularization” also means “vulgarization,” an adaptation to the tastes and needs of vernacular readers. The scene moves to reading practices in Florence in Chapter Four, where the emphasis is placed more on the common ground occupied by readers from very different backgrounds than on the contrasts between opposite perspectives on Aristotle’s moral philosophy, which inevitably also becomes a political issue. Cultural hybridism is at the center of Chapter Five, where the intricate reception of Aristotle’s ethical thought is designed by retracing the creation and dissemination of some of its compendia and anthologies, which display reading tastes and practices, but also an intentional project of adaptation for specific purposes. The two contrasting images of Aristotle enthroned as uncontested cultural and philosophical authority, the most illuminated intellect of all time, and his degradation at the hands of Phyllis, the dominatrix who subjugates and rides him, are the polar opposites in
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
亚里士多德的白话:中世纪和文艺复兴时期意大利的接受翻译
从12世纪早期开始,亚里士多德成为整个欧洲哲学事务中无可争议的权威,他的名字是哲学研究的代名词。问题的核心是他的作品是如何传播和阅读的,首先要考虑的是语言,因为希腊语已经不为人所知,亚里士多德是用拉丁语传下来的,但多亏了方言翻译。随着与他的文本的历史和文化距离的增加,理解他们接受的参考文化变得越来越重要。在这本书中,Refini处理了这些因素的复杂性,并得出结论,如果翻译意味着解释,它还考虑到翻译所处的文化环境。在中世纪晚期和文艺复兴早期,翻译不仅仅是——也不再是——将文本从一种语言转移到另一种语言;它成为读者接受的代名词,是文本对不同文化氛围的接纳和挪用。这本书由导言、五章和结语组成。第一章讨论亚里士多德在中世纪晚期和文艺复兴早期文化中的贬低,作为亚里士多德在白话中挪用的形象(这不仅仅是一个隐喻),以及通过新语言使他的哲学思想适应新时代的复杂性。“差异空间”阐明了学术拉丁语与更“自然”的母语之间的动态互动,涉及书面文本以及视觉文物和表征。这个讨论无缝地过渡到但丁·阿利吉耶里在第二章中支持白话作为学术语言的革命性论点,在第二章中,sommo poeta对Taddeo Alderotti的意大利语翻译《亚历山大总论》的批评让我们重新思考但丁关于他的两种语言,拉丁语和白话之间关系的观点,正如他在《Convivio》中所阐述的那样。对《尼各马可伦理学》的接受占据了全书的大部分,在第三章和第四章中,讨论更倾向于在其发生的环境中进行辅导翻译。威尼斯的商业氛围通过委托将亚里士多德的名著翻译成白话文来寻求合法化,在这种背景下,很明显“白话文化”也意味着“庸俗化”,这是对白话文读者的品味和需求的适应。在第四章中,场景转移到佛罗伦萨的阅读实践,重点更多地放在来自不同背景的读者所占据的共同点上,而不是亚里士多德道德哲学的对立观点之间的对比,这也不可避免地成为一个政治问题。文化杂糅是第五章的中心,在那里,亚里士多德伦理思想的复杂接受是通过追溯其一些纲要和选集的创作和传播来设计的,这些选集和选集展示了阅读品味和实践,但也是为了特定目的而有意改编的项目。亚里士多德作为无可争议的文化和哲学权威的两个截然不同的形象,以及他在菲利斯手中的堕落,菲利斯是征服和驾驭他的女统治者,这是两个截然相反的形象
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
Italian Culture
Italian Culture HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
期刊最新文献
Women and Migration in Contemporary Italian Cinema: Screening Hospitality La misura dell’inatteso: Ebraismo e cultura italiana (1815–1988) The Collected Poems A regola d’arte. Storia e geografia del campo letterario italiano (1902–1936) A Sudden Frenzy: Improvisation, Orality, and Power in Renaissance Italy
×
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