Este tema está marcado actualmente como "inactivo"—el último mensaje es de hace más de 90 días. Puedes reactivarlo escribiendo una respuesta.
1LesMiserables
I'm working on a translation at the moment of part of Divus Julius and in the process comparing Robert Graves' (Penguin) translation and Rolfe's (LOEB).
There certainly are noticeable differences in Rolfe and Graves in their treatment of Suetonius. Here are a couple of different passages which I am looking at.
Suetonius, Divus Julius 30.1, 2
uerum neque senatu interueniente et aduersariis negantibus ullam se de re publica facturos pactionem, transiit in citeriorem Galliam, conuentibusque peractis Rauennae substitit, bello uindicaturus si quid de tribunis plebis intercedentibus pro se grauius a senatu constitutum esset. Et praetextum quidem illi ciuilium armorum hoc fuit; causas autem alias fuisse opinantur.
LOEB Translation J. C. Rolfe
But when the senate declined to interfere, and his opponents declared that they would accept no compromise in a matter affecting the public welfare, he crossed to Gallia Citerior, and after hearing all the legal cases, halted at Ravenna, intending to resort to war if the senate took any drastic action against the tribunes of the commons who interposed vetoes in his behalf. Now this was his excuse for the civil war, but it is believed that he had other motives.
Penguin Translation by Robert Graves
Since the Senate refused to intervene on his behalf in a matter of such national importance, Caesar crossed into Cisalpine Gaul, where he held his regular assizes, and halted at Ravenna. He was resolved to invade Italy if force were used against the tribunes of the people who had vetoed the Senate's decree disbanding his army by a given date. Force was, in effect, used and the tribunes fled towards Cisalpine Gaul; which became Caesar's pretext for launching the Civil War. Additional motives are suspected, however.
Suetonius Divus Julius 30.4, 5
quod probabilius facit Asinius Pollio, Pharsalica acie caesos profligatosque aduersarios prospicientem haec eum ad uerbum dixisse referens: 'hoc uoluerunt; tantis rebus gestis Gaius Caesar condemnatus essem, nisi ab exercitu auxilium petissem.' quidam putant captum imperii consuetudine pensitatisque suis et inimicorum uiribus usum occasione rapiendae dominationis, quam aetate prima concupisset.
LOEB Translation by J. C. Rolfe
The latter opinion is the more credible one in view of the assertion of Asinius Pollio, that when Caesar at the battle of Pharsalus saw his enemies slain or in flight, he said, word for word: "They would have it so. Even I, Gaius Caesar, after so many great deeds, should have been found guilty, if I had not turned to my army for help." Some think that habit had given him a love of power, and that weighing the strength of his adversaries against his own, he grasped the opportunity of usurping the despotism which had been his heart's desire from early youth.
Penguin Translation by Robert Graves
This sounds plausible enough, because Asinius Pollio records in his history that when Caesar, at the battle of Pharsalus, saw his enemies forced to choose between massacre and flight, he said, in these very words: “They brought in on themselves. They would have condemned me to death regardless of all my victories – me, Gaius Caesar – had I not appealed to my army for help.” It has also been suggested that constant exercise of power had given Caesar a love of it; and that, after weighting his enemies’ strength against his own, he took this chance of fulfilling his youthful dreams by making a bid for the monarchy.
---------------------
What a difference we can see in some of these lines. The final sentence in Divus Julius 30.4, 5: the tone is completely different. Graves says "bid for the monarchy" and Rolfe "usurping the despotism" to use one example.
Any thoughts?
There certainly are noticeable differences in Rolfe and Graves in their treatment of Suetonius. Here are a couple of different passages which I am looking at.
Suetonius, Divus Julius 30.1, 2
uerum neque senatu interueniente et aduersariis negantibus ullam se de re publica facturos pactionem, transiit in citeriorem Galliam, conuentibusque peractis Rauennae substitit, bello uindicaturus si quid de tribunis plebis intercedentibus pro se grauius a senatu constitutum esset. Et praetextum quidem illi ciuilium armorum hoc fuit; causas autem alias fuisse opinantur.
LOEB Translation J. C. Rolfe
But when the senate declined to interfere, and his opponents declared that they would accept no compromise in a matter affecting the public welfare, he crossed to Gallia Citerior, and after hearing all the legal cases, halted at Ravenna, intending to resort to war if the senate took any drastic action against the tribunes of the commons who interposed vetoes in his behalf. Now this was his excuse for the civil war, but it is believed that he had other motives.
Penguin Translation by Robert Graves
Since the Senate refused to intervene on his behalf in a matter of such national importance, Caesar crossed into Cisalpine Gaul, where he held his regular assizes, and halted at Ravenna. He was resolved to invade Italy if force were used against the tribunes of the people who had vetoed the Senate's decree disbanding his army by a given date. Force was, in effect, used and the tribunes fled towards Cisalpine Gaul; which became Caesar's pretext for launching the Civil War. Additional motives are suspected, however.
Suetonius Divus Julius 30.4, 5
quod probabilius facit Asinius Pollio, Pharsalica acie caesos profligatosque aduersarios prospicientem haec eum ad uerbum dixisse referens: 'hoc uoluerunt; tantis rebus gestis Gaius Caesar condemnatus essem, nisi ab exercitu auxilium petissem.' quidam putant captum imperii consuetudine pensitatisque suis et inimicorum uiribus usum occasione rapiendae dominationis, quam aetate prima concupisset.
LOEB Translation by J. C. Rolfe
The latter opinion is the more credible one in view of the assertion of Asinius Pollio, that when Caesar at the battle of Pharsalus saw his enemies slain or in flight, he said, word for word: "They would have it so. Even I, Gaius Caesar, after so many great deeds, should have been found guilty, if I had not turned to my army for help." Some think that habit had given him a love of power, and that weighing the strength of his adversaries against his own, he grasped the opportunity of usurping the despotism which had been his heart's desire from early youth.
Penguin Translation by Robert Graves
This sounds plausible enough, because Asinius Pollio records in his history that when Caesar, at the battle of Pharsalus, saw his enemies forced to choose between massacre and flight, he said, in these very words: “They brought in on themselves. They would have condemned me to death regardless of all my victories – me, Gaius Caesar – had I not appealed to my army for help.” It has also been suggested that constant exercise of power had given Caesar a love of it; and that, after weighting his enemies’ strength against his own, he took this chance of fulfilling his youthful dreams by making a bid for the monarchy.
---------------------
What a difference we can see in some of these lines. The final sentence in Divus Julius 30.4, 5: the tone is completely different. Graves says "bid for the monarchy" and Rolfe "usurping the despotism" to use one example.
Any thoughts?
2Feicht
This is why it's always good to learn to read the language of any primary source you need, so you can decide for yourself what was "really" being said :-)
3LesMiserables
> 3
Difficult of course :-)
However it makes a great difference over time to our narrative of history, especially when translations get lost and are translated by different scholars via different languages.
Difficult of course :-)
However it makes a great difference over time to our narrative of history, especially when translations get lost and are translated by different scholars via different languages.
4shikari
Which is why the historian, ancient or otherwise, needs to use primary sources in the original and not rely on the additional level of interpretation that must be a part of a meaningful translation. But our understanding of the original changes too, of course...
5anthonywillard
The first passage quoted above is full of technical legal terms. Just knowing Latin is not always enough. Translators of ancient history (and comedy) need to know the history as well as the language.
