We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 July 2014
Michael Cronin once described translation as ‘what saves us from having to read the original’. To cite this statement at the start of any discussion of Terence is a little ironic given that critics have not infrequently used his comedies as an opaque glass through which, if only one squints hard enough, one can read the original Greek New Comedy. Noticeably, these lost originals usually live their imagined existences free from the dramatic flaws of Terence's adaptations. For example, Grant writes on the seeming abruptness of Micio's challenge to Demea at Adelphoe 829-31, that in the Greek original ‘the challenge would not have been as abrupt as it is in the Terentian adaptation. The probable reason for the abruptness is that Terence did not realize the difference between Attic and Roman law [on inheritance] in this respect.’ It is certainly possible that he is right, and that Terence omitted something in Menander which caused problems for the flow of his play. It is, however, also entirely possible that the original was similarly abrupt or that there was some other reason for the scene's choppiness than Terence's lamentable ignorance of the inheritance laws of Athens or his poor skills in translation.
Many thanks to A. Boyle, G. Nisbet, and D. Spencer for their help and suggestions with this article; any errors that remain are my own.
1. Cronin(2000), 40.
2. Grant (1975), 53.
3. Cf. Gellius’ comparison of Caecilius’ Plocium with Menander’s original at Nodes Atticae 2.23.
4. Cf. Cicero, De Opt. Gen. 14 where he says he translated non uerbum pro uerbo (‘not word from word’) sed genus omne uerborum uimque seruaui (‘but I kept the type and force of the words’). It is a little ironic then that Terence was accused of lacking this quality in his writing (cf. Suet. Vita Ter. 5).
5. This according to Cicero was what distinguished the ‘translator’ from an interpres, a literal translator (cf. De Off. 1.6; De Leg. 2.17).
6. Brock (1979), 69–88.
7. Cf. Pliny the Younger’s comment to Fuscus Salinator in Ep. 7.9.3–5 to feel ashamed if his translation was never better than the original. For further discussion of this issue in Rome see in particular Robinson 1992a and 1992b.
8. nec illas corrumpere conor sed uincere (Sen. Cont. 9.1.13). Cf. also Pliny Ep. 7.9.2–5; even an author as late as Jerome comments approvingly on Hilary the Confessor that he led as captives the words he translated (Ep 57.6).
9. Contra Hose (1999); Gentili (1970), 98f.
10. For similar uses of the verb cf. Epid. 179; Most. 639; Poen. 886; Rud. 999. For more on uortit as referring to transformation see Fraenkel (1960), 26ff.
11. Act 2 scene 1.
12. Siméoni (1998), 32.
13. On the connection between ideology and translation in generàl see Calzada Perez (2003) and Alvarez and Carmen-Africa Vidal (1999); on translation as part of the literary systems of a society see Lefevere (1992).
14. Traina (1970), 62. If one opens any standard edition of Terence’s comedies this is the suggested translation; cf., for example, Martin (1976), 102.
15. Pseud. 56.
16. In this it resembles effingere, another verb taken from this sphere used in discussions of imitation; cf. Pliny Ep. 7.9 for example (for further citations see Fantham [1978], 5).
17. Robinson (1992a), 26.
18. Eun. 68.
19. Robinson (1992a), 27.
20. And possibly also that the original is then wiped smooth and clean for repressing.
21. Additional uses of this phrase in Cicero are: expressa ad uerbum (Tusc. 3.44); uerbum e uerbo exprimentes (Acad. 2.31); expressa ad uerbum (De Fin. 1.4).
22. Gellius is trying to come up with a literal translation for the title of a work by Plutarch; at first he tries to do so literally (aliud institui aput me exquirere, quod, ut dicitur, uerbum de uerbo expressum esset, ‘I set about searching my mind for something else, something that would express it, as they say, word for word’, NA 11.16.3). He later gives this up as bad idea before deciding that translation is in this case impossible.
23. Though I should point out that there is little evidence that any poet ever produced a literal translation of a literary text though some, like the unfortunate Accius Labeo, were accused of doing so (cf. Schol. Pers. 1.50).
24. So he describes earlier writers as literal translators at De Fin 1.7, but then argues that Ennius and Afranius freely borrowed from their Greek originals. At Academica 1.10 he describes Ennius, Pacuvius, Accius and others as writers who freely translate non uerba sed uim (‘not the words but the force’) of the Greek original.
25. Cicu (1978), 75. Plautus, as noted above, had used uortit (e.g. Asin. 11); it is possible that Terence at Eun. 7 plays these terms off against each other not only to attack Luscius but also to ‘correct’ Plautus’ terminology.
26. Goldberg (1986), 135.
27. Konstan (1986), 369. Cf. Donatus ad And. 301.
28. This dismemberment of the original is reflected later in pedagogical practice: cf. Quintilian’s advice to break up Aesop into bits and reassemble them at IO 1.9.2–3.
29. Slater (1992), 88.
30. This omnivorous approach is reflected by other translators such as Cicero, who freely plundered Greek poetry, drama and philosophy to supply material for his dialogues.
31. Brothers (1988), 6.
32. NA 2.23.
33. Cf. Gamberale (1969), 80.
34. Not only did one have to compete with fellow-poets for attention but also (as Terence bemoans in the prologue to the Hecyra) with tightrope walkers, boxers, gladiators and a whole host of other forms of drama like farce and mime.
35. Terence argues at Phorm. 18 that Luscius’ ultimate intent was to drive him into starvation by taking away his livelihood.
36. Though Parker (1996) makes a spirited defence for Terence’s popularity, pointing out that his Eunuch was the single most successful Roman comedy we know of, receiving not only a huge cash payment but also being immediately repeated due to popular demand (cf. Donatus ad Eun. 6).
37. Goldberg (1986), 32.
38. Goldberg (1986), 59.
39. On the possible role of economics in this argument see Garton (1972), 59f.
40. Cf. Leigh (2000), 25.
41. Cf. Habinek(1998), 55.
42. id ita esse uos iam iudicare poteritis (Eun. 29).
43. Before Terence, Plautus had similarly flattered his audience in his prologues by asking them to act to approve of his new Latin titles; in the Asinaria (12) he assures them that he will give the comedy its new Roman name only if they consent.
44. Cf. Wright (1974), 127–51. The differences are so comically obvious that it is hard not to think that is Terence’s idea of a joke here: who could seriously think he had plagiarised these authors?
45. Anderson (1995), 177.
46. Beare (1966), 96.
47. Cf. Ars Poet. 131–34, where Horace claimed that by translating well one transferred public property into private (your) ownership.
48. Henderson (1998), 42f.
49. 30.22.1–12
50. The language that Polybius uses here is telling: Anicius sends word to the flute-players to direct them to be more agonistic; they, having no idea what he means, have to be instructed by his lictors how they should engage in battle (μάχηv, 30.22.6). It is when one of the dancers gets into a fist-fight with one of the flautists that the Roman audience begins really to enjoy the spectacle.
51. Gruen(1992), 218.
52. For Terence’s use of Greek see Hough (1947) and Maltby (1985); for Plautus’ see Hough (1934).
53. Cf. Henderson (1998), 42f.
