Acknowledgements
Theeditorswishtothanknumerousscholarsandfriendsfortheirassistancein bringingthisvolumeintobeing.Thegenesisofthevolumelayinthreeworkshops andconferences,heldinVancouver(2012),inParis(2014),andatCumanearNaples (2014).Allthreewereinspiringeventsandweexpressourdeepgratitudetoallthe participants,manyofwhosepapersappearinthisbook.Ourco-organizers,Craig KallendorfatNaplesandSiobhánMcElduffatParis,werecrucialcollaboratorsand interlocutorstowhomweoweaspecialdebtofgratitude.
TwokeyscholarsattheVancouvereventwhoarenotpresentinthevolumewere StuartGillespieandStephenHarrison:wethankthemprofoundlyfortheirinsights andencouragement.Thelevelofdiscourseatallthreeeventswasexceptionaland exemplary;werecommendstronglythemodelweadopted,ofprecirculatingthe papers,andwethankallparticipantsforhonouringourdesiretomaximizeengaged discussionattheevents.
Theconferencesthatgeneratedthisvolumewouldnothavebeenpossiblewithout fundingfromseveralsources.Theaward,toSusannaBraund,ofaStandardResearch GrantbySSHRC,theSocialSciencesResearchCouncilofCanada,fundedthe Vancouverconference.ThePeterWallInstituteforAdvancedStudiesattheUniversity ofBritishColumbiasupportedtheWallColloquiumAbroadattheInstitutd’Études AvancéesinPariswithagenerousaward;weacknowledgewithgratitudethewarm hospitalityoftheInstitutanditsdirector.TheVillaVergilianaandtheVergilianSociety providedZaraTorlonewiththevenuefortheNaples/Cumaconference.The finalstages ofeditorialworkonthevolumehavebeenfundedbySusannaBraund’sCanada ResearchChairfunds,whichhappilywere finallyreleasedtoherbytheUniversityof BritishColumbia.
TranslationsfromFrenchandItalianwereundertakenbyLizaBolen,Gillian Glass,andJelenaTodorovic;wethankMarcoRomaniMistrettaforadditionalhelp withItalianidioms.WethankEinaudiforpermissiontoprintanEnglishtranslation ofpagesfromtheintroductiontoAlessandroFo’sItaliantranslationofthe Aeneid. Someadditionalacknowledgementsofpermissionstoreproduceselectedmaterial followbelow:
• JosephineBalmer’ s ‘Lost’ and ‘LetGo’ havebeenreproducedfromhercollection LettingGo:ThirtyMourningSonnetsandTwoPoems (AgendaEditions, Mayfield,2017),and ‘Creusa’ hasbeenreproducedfromhercollection Chasing Catullus:Poems,TranslationsandTransgressions (BloodaxeBooks,Newcastleupon-Tyne,2004)bykindpermissionoftheauthor.
• ExcerptsinChapter27from TheGeorgicsofVirgil byPeterFallonhavebeen reproducedwithkindpermissionoftheauthorandTheGalleryPress (www.gallerypress.com).
• ExcerptsinChapter27fromSeamusHeaney’ s Preoccupations:SelectedProse 1968–1978 (Faber&Faber,London,1980), TheCureatTroy (Faber&Faber, London,2002),and ‘Virgil:EclogueIX’ and ‘BannValleyEclogue’ from Electric Light (Faber&Faber,London,2001)havebeenreproducedwithkindpermissionofFaber&FaberLtd.
• Thelinesfrom ‘TheGreatHunger’ andthepoem ‘Epic’ byPatrickKavanaghin Chapter27arereprintedfrom CollectedPoems,editedbyAntoinetteQuinn (AllenLane,London,2004),bykindpermissionoftheTrusteesoftheEstateof thelateKatherineB.Kavanagh,throughtheJonathanWilliamsLiteraryAgency.
FortheirdedicatedhardworkwethankJakeBeardforeditorialassistance,Emma Hilliardfordevisingtheindex,andGrahamButlerforcompletingit.BrianNorth workedwonderswithachallengingsetofproofsandwearemostgrateful.We especiallythankthegeneraleditorsoftheseriesandthereadersfortheirextremely thoughtfulandconstructivecriticismsandguidanceontheshapeofthevolume.No volumeofcollectedessaysisperfect,butwebelievethat,thankstothesupportwe havereceived,wehaveproducedabalancedandpolishedbook,whichwillstimulate manyfutureconversationsontheimportanttopicofthetranslationsofVirgil.
Finally,wethankourimmediatesupportnetworks,whoprovidedcalmnessand sanitywhenthevolumewasthreateningtobecomeunruly:Susannathanksher wonderfulhusbandAdamMortonandhermanyolddogs;Zarathanksherhusband MarkTorlone,hertwodaughtersChristinaandFrancesca,andherparents, DrSergeyMartirosovandSamvelinaPogosova,fortheirloveandsupport.We havebothlovedthiscollaborationwitheachother:wearealways,itseems,onthe samepage,andthathasbeenaffirmingandencouragingthroughouttheproject.
SusannaBraundandZaraMartirosovaTorlone
Thepublisherandtheeditorsapologizeforanyerrorsoromissionsintheabovelist. Ifcontactedtheywillbepleasedtorectifytheseattheearliestopportunity.
Contents
Introduction:TheTranslationHistoryofVirgil:TheElevatorVersion1
SusannaBraundandZaraMartirosovaTorlone
Part1.VirgilTranslationasCulturalandIdeologicalCapital
1.SuccessesandFailuresinVirgilianTranslation23 CraigKallendorf
2.Dante ’sInfluenceonVirgil:Italian volgarizzamenti andEnriquede Villena’ s Eneida of142836
RichardH.Armstrong
3.EpicandtheLexiconofViolence:GregorioHernándezdeVelasco’ s Translationof Aeneid 2andCervantes ’ s Numancia 51 StephenRupp
4.LoveandWar:Translationsof Aeneid 7intoEnglish (fromCaxtonuntilToday)63 AlisonKeith
5.ThePassionofDido: Aeneid 4inEnglishTranslationto170080 GordonBraden
6.AnAmazonintheRenaissance:MariedeGournay’ s Translationof Aeneid 297 FionaCox
7.VirgilafterVietnam107
SusannaBraund
8.TranslationsofVirgilintoEsperanto124 GeoffreyGreatrex
9.TranslationsofVirgilintoAncientGreek136 MichaelPaschalis
10.SingItLikeHomer:EugeniosVoulgaris’sTranslationofthe Aeneid 151 SophiaPapaioannou
11.FarmingfortheFew:Jožef Šubic’ s Georgics andtheEarlySlovenian ReceptionofVirgil166 MarkoMarinčič
12.RevivingVirgilinTurkish183 EkinÖykenandÇiğdemDürüşken
13.FindingaPastoralIdiom:NorwegianTranslationsofVirgil’ s Eclogues andthePoliticsofLanguage195 MathildeSkoie
14.The Aeneid and ‘LesBellesLettres’:Virgil’sEpicinFrenchbetween FictionandPhilology,fromVeynebacktoPerret209 SéverineClément-Tarantino
15.VirgilinChinese224 JinyuLiu
Part2.PoetsasTranslatorsofVirgil:CulturalCompetition, Appropriation,andIdentification
16.DomesticatingAestheticEffects:VirgilianCaseStudies239 RichardF.Thomas
17.DuBellay’ s L’Énéide:RewritingasPoeticReinvention?260 HélèneGautier
18.AestheticandPoliticalConcernsinDryden’ s Æneis 275 StephenScully
19.TranslationTheoryintoPractice:JacquesDelille’ s Géorgiques deVirgile 289 MarcoRomaniMistretta
20. ‘OnlyaPoetCanTranslateTruePoetry’:TheTranslationof Aeneid 2 byGiacomoLeopardi305 GiampieroScafoglio
21.Wordsworth’sTranslationof Aeneid 1–3andtheEarlierTradition ofEnglishTranslationsofVirgil318 PhilipHardie
22.EpicFailures:VasiliiZhukovskii’ s ‘DestructionofTroy’ andRussian Translationsofthe Aeneid 331 ZaraMartirosovaTorlone
23. VirgílioBrasileiro:ABrazilianVirgilintheNineteenthCentury345 PauloSérgiodeVasconcellos
24.BetweenVoßandSchröder:GermanTranslationsofVirgil’ s Aeneid 355 UlrichEigler
25.ReflectionsonTwoVerseTranslationsofthe Eclogues inthe TwentiethCentury:PaulValéryandMarcelPagnol368 JacquelineFabre-Serris
26. Cometradurre? PierPaoloPasoliniandtheTraditionofItalian TranslationsofVirgil’ s Aeneid
UlrichEigler
27.IrishVersionsofVirgil’ s Eclogues and Georgics
CillianO’Hogan
28.LimitingOurLosses:ATranslator’sJourneythroughthe Aeneid
AlessandroFo
Afterword:LetGoFear:FutureVirgils422 JosephineBalmer
HistoryofVirgil
TheElevatorVersion
SusannaBraundandZaraMartirosovaTorlone
Virgil’spoems,especiallythe Aeneid,havebeentranslatedmanytimessincelong beforetheadventofprinting;andtheycontinuetobetranslatedtothepresentday. Asearlyasthemid-firstcentury CE,Polybius,Seneca’sfreedman,issaidtohave translatedVirgilintoGreek.TheMiddleIrish ImtheachtaAeniasa (Wanderingsof Aeneas),writtenbetweenthetenthcenturyandthetwelfth,canlayclaimtobeingthe firstextantvernaculartranslation,yetisbestregardedasanadaptation,becauseof howitrecaststheLatinpoemintotheIrishtraditionofheroicprosenarrative. Likewise,themid-twelfthcenturyOldFrench Romand’Énéas isanimportanttext, butit,too,rejigsthematerialtoreflectcontemporaryconcerns.Italyproduced fourteenth-centuryprosetranslationsofthe Aeneid,whilethe firstversetranslation isthatofTommasoCambiatore(1430).Atthesametime,inSpain,Enriquede VillenawaswritinginCastilianprosehisownversion,dividedinto366chapters. Theearliestprinted Aeneid ‘translation’ (reallyalooseadaptationinthemedieval mode)appearedinItalianin1476¹andwassubsequentlytranslatedintoFrenchin 1483andintoEnglishin1490,byWilliamCaxton,as TheEneydosofVyrgyl.More rigoroustranslationsquicklyfollowed,asRenaissancehumanismtookoff:into Frenchin1500(OctoviendeSaint-Gelais,publishedin1509),intomid-Scotsin 1513 (GavinDouglas,published1553),intoGermanin1515(ThomasMurner),intoItalian 1534(NiccolòLiburnio),intoEnglishinthe1540s(HenryHoward,Books2and4, publishedin1554and1557)andintoSpanishin1555(GregorioHernándezde Velasco).The firstcomplete Aeneid inEnglishisthatofThomasPhaerandThomas Twyne,publishedovertheperiod1558–84.CandidatesforthemajorEuropean Aeneid translationsincludethoseofJoachimduBellay(Books4and6)in1562and1560, AnnibaleCaroin1581,andJohnDrydenin1697.Productionof Aeneid translations
¹Justeightyearsafterthe editioprinceps oftheLatintext,whichappearedin1469.
continuesapace;andsimilar(thoughnotidentical)narrativesapplytothe Eclogues andthe Georgics,which,becauseoftheirsubjectmatter,moveinandoutoffavour moredramatically.
ThehistoryofthetranslationofVirgil’ s Aeneid inparticulariscloselyboundup withtheemergingphenomenonofnationalismfromtheRenaissanceonwards, whetherornotitis avantlalettre tocallitthat.Asnationssoughttoestablishand developtheirownnationalliteraturesandtoarticulatetheirsovereignorimperialist agendas,theyturnedtotranslatingthepoemthatwasattheapexofEuropeanculture andthathadbeenatthecentreoftheschoolcurriculumsinceitwas firstpublished, in19 BCE.Theydidthisdeliberately,seekingtoyokethelanguageandtheheroic patrioticstorytotheirownhistories,helpedinnosmalldegreebyclaimsmadebythe aristocraticfamiliesofdescentfromAeneas ’sTrojans.²Theprocesscontinuedin countriesandculturesfurtherfromtheseatofRenaissancehumanism,likeripples expandingfromapebbledroppedintoapond.ThusRussia’ s first Aeneid translation doesnotemergeuntilthereignofCatherinetheGreat,whilethe firstattemptin Hebrewdatesfromthenineteenthcentury.Theprocesscontinuesintothetwentieth century,asdemonstratedbythecaseofEsperanto,whichboaststhree Aeneid translationssincethelanguagewasinventedin1887.
Translations,justlikeotherinterpretations,arealwaysframedandfreightedideologically.TheodoreZiolkowski’s(1993)book VirgilandtheModerns didanexemplary jobofidentifyingthemalleabilityofVirgil’spoemsduringtheyears1914to1945,when AmericanandEuropeaninterpretersfoundinVirgilmirrorsoftheirownverydifferent concerns,whethertodowithpopulismorelitism,fascismordemocracy,commitment orescapism.Thisideologicalhermeneuticsis readilyextrapolatedandappliedtotranslationsjustasmuchastoadaptationsandtotheotherformsofreceptiondiscussedby Ziolkowski.Thatiswhatmakesourvolumeimportant.
ThereareliterallythousandsoftranslationsoftheworksofVirgil,completeor selective,indozensoflanguages.³Andyetthereisnobookdedicatedtothestudy oftranslationsofVirgilasanationalandtransnationalculturalphenomenon. Thereareofcoursebooks,instigatedespeciallybyCharlesMartindale,⁴ thatinvestigate thereceptionofVirgil;andtherearestudiesofspecificaspectsofthatreception, whetherbytimeperiod,⁵ bylocation,⁶ bygenre,⁷ byinterpretation,⁸ orbycombinations
²SeeWaswo1995,Federico2003,someoftheessaysinShepardandPowell2004,andHardie2014. ³Kallendorf2012isanabsolutelyessentialresourceforanyoneinterestedinthistopic.
⁴ InMartindale1984andMartindale1997,thelatterofwhichdeliberatelystartswithreception.Three notablerecentcontributionsareZiolkowskiandPutnam2008,FarrellandPutnam2010,andHardie2014.
⁵ Forexample,Wilson-Okamura2010,Ziolkowski1993,andAtherton2006.
⁶ Forexample,Kallendorf1989,1999,andTorlone2014.
⁷ Forexample,Patterson1987a.
⁸ Forexample,Thomas2001bandKallendorf2007a(on ‘pessimistic’ readings).
ofthosecategories.⁹ Inunderstandingtranslationasaspecialcaseofreception,thework ofLornaHardwickandStuartGillespiehasbeenkey,especiallythelatter’ s English TranslationandClassicalReception:TowardsaNewLiteraryTheory (Gillespie2011). ThereareafewstudiesthatspecificallydiscussVirgil’sEnglishtranslationhistory, butthesearelimitedchronologicallyorunabletodelvedeep:thetwoimportantarticles byTonyHarrison,¹⁰ ColinBurrow’sessayin TheCambridgeCompaniontoVirgil,¹¹ TanyaCaldwell’s(2008) VirgilMadeEnglish:TheDeclineofClassicalAuthority,Robin Sowerby’s(2010) EarlyAugustanVirgil:TranslationsbyDenham,Godolphin,and Waller,andSheldonBrammall’s(2015) TheEnglish Aeneid:TranslationsofVirgil, 1555–1646.Butthereisnothingyetthatattemptstoopenupthetrulybigpicture.One oftheeditors,SusannaBraund,isatworkonamajorstudy,titled ACulturalHistory ofTranslationsofVirgil:FromtheTwelfthCenturytothePresent,whichwillattempt asyntheticvision.Inthemeantime,thisvolumeisdesignedtogettheconversation moving.
Inthisintroductionwe firstdescribethebroadlandscapeofVirgiliantranslation fromboththetheoreticalandthepracticalperspectives.Wethenexplainthegenesis ofthevolumeandindicatehowtheindividualchapters,eachofwhichissummarized, illuminatethecomplextapestryofVirgiliantranslationactivitythroughthecenturies andacrosstheworld.Wethenindicatepointsofconnectionbetweenthechapters,in ordertorenderthewholegreaterthanthesumofitsparts.Weareacutelyawarethat aprojectsuchasthiscouldlooklikea(ratherlarge)collectionofcasestudies; thereforeweunderstandtheimportanceofextrapolatinglargerphenomenafrom thespecificspresentedhere.¹²Weconcludebysuggestingwaysinwhichother scholarscanbuildonthismaterial.
Thisvolume,then,isintendedasalandmarkpublicationdevotedtothecomplex rolethattranslationsofVirgil’spoetryhaveplayedinworldliteratureandculture fromtheearlymodernperioddowntothepresentday.Themajorityofthechapters collectedherefocus,perhapsinevitably,onEuropeantranslationsofthe Aeneid ‘Perhapsinevitably’,wesay,becausethe Aeneid providedaparadigmforwhatwas calledinmedievaltimes translatioimperiietstudii (‘thetransmissionofpowerand learning’).¹³ThesignificanceofVirgiltoourcollectiveliterarytraditioncanscarcely beoveremphasized:thereisnotasingleWesternpoetictraditionunaffectedby hispoetry.Hisinfluenceextendsbeyondtheliterarysphereintopublicdiscourse, education,morality,kingshiptheory,andimperialjustifications.BeyondEurope, hisworkisstillgainingground,andthereisgrowinginterestintranslatingVirgil innon-Europeantraditions includingintoAsianlanguagesand,soitissaid,into
⁹ Forexample,Cox1999.¹⁰ Harrison1967and1969.¹¹Burrow1997.
¹²Weacknowledgewithgratitudethestimulatingseminar ‘BeyondtheCaseStudy:TheorizingClassical Reception’,organizedbyRosaAndujarandKonstantinosNikoloutsosattheSocietyforClassicalStudies meetinginJanuary2016.
¹³ExploredeloquentlybyWaswoinhisessential1997book.
Arabic.Althoughmostoftheessaysinthisbookrelatetothedominantculturesof Renaissanceandmodern-dayEurope,wearedelightedtobeabletoincludestudies frommore ‘peripheral’ culturesaswellasnon-Europeantraditions,includingBrazilian Portuguese,Norwegian,Russian,Slovenian,Turkish,andChinese,alongside Esperanto.AllofthesegiveimportantglimpsesofwhatVirgiltranslationmight looklikeinitsinfancy,insteadofgroaningundertheweightofatradition five centurieslong.Ofcoursewecouldnotachievecomprehensivenessinourscope, butthisvolumedoesaddressabroadspectrumoftheoriesthatdefinedVirgilian translationsacrosstimeandspace.Ourcontributionwillbynomeansbethelast word.Rather,itwillbethe(wehope)highlysignificant firstwordinadiscussionthat islongoverdue.
The fieldoftranslationstudieshasbeengrowingnowforseveraldecadesand occupiesaprivilegedspacebetweencomparativeliterature,receptionstudies,hermeneutics,culturalstudies,bookhistory,creativewriting,and,tosomedegree,even philosophy.Becauseofthecomplicatedinterdisciplinarynatureoftranslationstudies,anytheoreticalconceptproposedinanalysisofaspecifictranslationpractice hastotakeintoaccountthedisciplinarybackgroundfromwhichthatanalysisarose. Atthesametime,thereisclearlyatensionbetweenthecasestudyapproachand overarchingtheoreticalapproaches.Top-downandbottom-up:weproposethatboth typesofapproachareessentialtounderstandingacanonicalauthorsuchasVirgil andthatideallyadialoguebetweenthemcanbeachieved.
TheinfluenceofMichelFoucaultandtheNewHistoricistsismoreorlessubiquitous inthisvolume:¹⁴ thesignificanceoftranslationsextendsbeyondtheaestheticsphere intothesocial,political,moral,andeveneconomicspheres.Collectivelytheessays heremakeamajorcontributiontoilluminatingtheculturalandideologicalwork donebytranslationsofthepoetryofthemostesteemedLatinpoet.Likewise,the influenceoftheideasofWalterBenjaminispervasive,ifunacknowledged;thefocus ofmanyofthecontributionshereisupon ‘thatelementinatranslationwhichdoes notlenditselftotranslation’.¹⁵
Thelanguageoftranslationtheorygenerallyworksinbinaries.Itdistinguishes the ‘ source ’ textfromthe ‘target ’ language.Itconstructsdichotomiesbetween ‘literal ’ and ‘ free ’ , ‘formalist ’ and ‘functionalist ’ , ‘ domesticating’ and ‘foreignizing ’ translationstrategies.¹ ⁶ Itanalysestheroleofthetranslatorintermsof ‘visibility ’ or
¹⁴ Mostobviously,Foucault1991;forfurtherbibliography,seeChapter1,n.1.
¹⁵ Benjamin1968,p.75.
¹⁶ Venuti’sbriefoverview ‘WhatIsaTranslationTheory?’ (Venuti2000,pp.4–6)isagoodstartingpoint.Hisarticulationofthedomestication/foreignizationbinaryisofcourseadevelopmentofSchleiermacher’searlynineteenth-centuryconstructofthetranslatoraseithermovingthereadertowardsthe authororviceversa.
‘invisibility’ .¹⁷ Itdistinguishesbetweenuseofthelanguageoftranslationinthe ‘instrumental’ orthe ‘hermeneutic ’ senses,¹⁸ inwhichthe ‘instrumental ’ approach privilegestheideaoflanguageascommuni cation,whilethehermeneuticapproach privilegestheideaoflanguageasinterpre tationandthussanctionsvariationsin formandeffectsfromthesourcetext.¹ ⁹ Aswewrite,these ‘simple ’ binariesare increasinglybeingproblematizedbytranslationstudiesscholars.Likewise,the commonmetaphorsdeployedasrhetoricalstrategiestodescribetranslation,such asappropriation,recovery,conversion,an dtransplantation,allemphasizethegap betweentheoriginalandthetranslation,atamomentwhentranslationstudies scholarsareexpressingunhappinesswiththeconceptof ‘ gaps ’ andwiththeideaof ‘bridging’ gaps,andareapplyingHomiBhabha ’sconceptofthe ‘thirdspace ’ to translationstudies.² ⁰ Whethersuchapostcolonialsociolinguistictheorywillbe productiveforthestudyoftheUrtextofEu ropeancolonialismremainstobeseen; however,thinkingoftranslationasanactivitythatproduceshybridsandoscillationsbetweenworldsdoesstrikeusasvaluable.²¹
Amongtheapproachesmentionedabove,themetaphorofdomestication/foreignizationisparticularlyusefulinthecaseofVirgil:thevastmajorityoftranslatorsset outto ‘domesticate’ hispoems,appropriatingthemtotheirownnationalliterary conventionsforamixtureofaesthetic,moral,ideological,andpatrioticreasonsand oftenobscuringthequintessentiallyRomanfeaturesoftheoriginal.Afewtranslators, preferringtheforeignizingapproach,havebeenbraveenoughtomaketheirtranslationsdifficultinordertoremindreadersthattheyareengagingwithliterature producedbyanalienculture;but,forthemajority,theculturalcapitalgainedfrom appropriatingVirgiloutweighsanysuchconsiderations,asthisvolumewillrepeatedlydemonstrate.
Thechaptersinthisvolumeweremostlyproducedforthreecolloquiaontranslations ofVirgilheldduringtheyears2012and2014;afewmorewerecommissionedfor thevolume,toachievebalanceandbreadth.The firsteventtookplaceinVancouver, inSeptember2012;thesecondinParis,attheInstitutd’ÉtudesAvancées,inJune 2014;andthethirdattheSymposiumCumanumattheVillaVergiliana,nearNaples, alsoinJune2014,withfundingprimarilyfromtheUniversityofBritishColumbia (UBC),theSocialSciencesandHumanitiesResearchCouncilofCanada,andMiami University,Ohio.FundingfromtheCanadaCounciltosupportSusannaBraund’ s CanadaResearchChair,formerlywithheldbyUBCbut finallypassedalong,has
¹⁷ SeeVenuti1995.¹⁸ SeeKelly1979,ch.1.
¹⁹ Thetheoryof ‘compensation’ developedbyduBellayinhis1549 Deffenceetillustrationdelalangue Françoyse isaprimeexampleofthisapproach,wherebyliteralistictranslationiseschewedinfavourof techniquesthatreproducetheeffectsoftheoriginal,butnotnecessarilyinthesamesequenceorform.
²⁰ Bhabha2004.²¹SeeEtte2016.ThankstoPatriciaMilewskiforthisreference.
madeitpossibletobringtheeditorialworktocompletion.Thetwoco-editorswere theco-organizersofthesethreecolloquia,alongsideSiobhánMcElduff(Paris)and CraigKallendorf(Naples),towhomweextendourdeepthanksfortheirvision andcollaboration.Thecontributorsincludescholarsatallstagesoftheircareers retiredandveteranfullprofessors,mid-careerscholars,postdoctoralandgraduate students fromAthens,Boston,Brazil,Cambridge,Crete,Exeter,Harvard,Houston, Istanbul,Lille,Ljubljana,Nice,Ohio,Oslo,Ottawa,ParisSorbonne,Shanghai,Siena, TexasA&M,Toronto,Virginia,Zurich,andUBC;onecontribution thatofFo (Chapter28) isbyarecenttranslatorofthe Aeneid.Theircombinedexpertise embracesCastilian,Chinese,English,Esperanto,French,German,(Homeric)Greek, Hiberno-English,Italian,Norwegian,(Brazilian)Portuguese,Russian,Slovenian,and Turkishtranslationtraditions.WewereluckyenoughtopersuadethepoetJosephine Balmer,whohasrecentlyturnedherhandtotranslatingVirgil,towriteanAfterword thatlooksforwardtofuturetranslationsofVirgil.
Intermsofhistoricalscope,thevolumeextendsfromtheperiodoftransitionbetween theMiddleAgesandtheRenaissanceinfourteenth-centuryItalyand fifteenth-century Spainallthewaydowntotwenty-first-centurytranslationsinEnglish,French,and Italian.Someofthetranslationtraditionsdiscussedstretchacrossmanycenturies,for exampletheEnglish,theFrench,andtheItalianones,whileothertraditions,suchasthe Norwegian,Slovenian,Esperanto,Turkish,andChinese,arerelativelyyoungandallow usaglimpseintothesometimeshighlycontingentfactorsthataffectthedevelopmentof atranslationtradition.
Inorganizingthesetwenty-eightessayswecouldhaveadoptedageographical formulaorastrictlychronologicalsequence.Werejectedthoseapproachesinfavour ofcreatingtwobroadcategories:oneusestherubricofVirgiliantranslationas culturalcapital,whichpermitssomeusefuljuxtapositions,andtheothergroups togetherthenumeroustranslationswrittenbypoets,sometimespreeminentones intheirowncultures.Thatsaid,thetwopartsofthevolumearecloselyinterwoven andcontainnumerousoverlaps,bothculturalandtheoretical.Weusethisintroductiontoindicatevaluablecross-fertilizationswithinthevolume;andwehaveinserted footnotesinthechaptersthemselves,todirectreaderstocomparableordialogic materialelsewhereinthevolume.Afteroursummariesofthechapterswewillmake specificconnectionsbetweenindividualpapers,sothatreaderscanpursuetheir particularinterestsmosteasily.
Wealsowanttoexplainthatwehavedevelopedanovelformofinterlinear translationforthisprojectthatwehaveappliedasconsistentlyaspossiblethroughout thevolume.WeinsertthisinterlineartranslationinthetranslationsfromEsperanto, French,Germanandsooninordertoindicatethewordorderandsyntaxusedbyeach translator.Weusehyphenstoreflectwhereasinglewordinthereceivinglanguage shouldbetranslatedbymorethanonewordinEnglish;forexample,werepresent
French du andSpanish del by ‘of-the’.WehavefollowedOUPconventionsinusing []toindicatematteraddedand<>toindicatematterexcluded.Theseinterlinear translationsoftenlookveryclunkyinEnglish,butwehopethattheywillfacilitate greaterunderstandingofthetranslationsdiscussedinthevolume.
Thevolumeisaccordinglydividedintotwoparts—‘VirgilTranslationasCultural andIdeologicalCapital’,comprisingChapters1–15,and ‘PoetsasTranslatorsof Virgil:CulturalCompetition,Appropriation,andIdentification’,comprisingthe remainingthirteenchapters(16–28) followedbyanAfterword.Part1explicitly examinestheroleofVirgiliantranslationsinarangeofdifferentnationalcultures. Inorganizingtheessaysforthissectionwetookintoaccountthebroadertheoretical issuesthatoftendrivethetranslationofclassicaltextswithcanonicalstatus;andwe havejuxtaposedessaysthatraisespeci ficquestions.Theresultingsequencefollows broadly,butnotexactly,achronologicalprogression.SeveralchaptersofferdiachronicperspectivesonnumerousVirgiltranslationswithinoneparticularculture, forexampleChapter1onFrenchtranslations,Chapters4and5onEnglishtranslations,andChapter7onAmericantranslations.Othersmakefruitfulcross-cultural connections,forexamplethestudyoftheinfluenceofItalianvernacularliteratureon Spanishtranslation(Chapter2),orthatoftheeighteenth-centuryHomericGreek translationofthe Aeneid initsRussiancontext(Chapter10).Chapters3and6each spotlightoneparticulartranslatorandhis/hercontext,whileChapter8throwslight ontherecentphenomenonofVirgil’stranslationinEsperantoandChapter9tracks themucholderphenomenonofGreektranslationsofVirgil.Otherchaptersexplore territorythatislessfamiliartoanglophonereaders:theyanalysethetheoryand practiceofVirgiltranslationatorbeyondtheperipheryofourconventionalEuropeanscope.ThusChapter11isdevotedtoSloveniantranslations,Chapter12to Turkish,Chapter13toNorwegian,andChapter15totherelativelyrecentChinese translations.Chapters1and14takepairsoftranslationsfromFrenchculture tooffercontrastiveinsightsintotherangeoftheoryandpracticethatcaninform translationactivity.Theseveryvariedessaysraiseissuescentraltoandfamiliar fromwidertranslationtheory forexampleclaimstoauthorityandlegitimacywithin andbeyondEurope,theprocessofdevelopingaliteraryvernacularbymeansof translation,andthesignificanceofunderstandingthepolitical,social,andlinguistic discoursesofthemoment.Alloftheseessaystosomedegreechallengeanyliterary complacencywhenitcomestotranslationpracticeingeneral;specificallyinthecase ofVirgil,theyofferakaleidoscopeofpatterns,someofwhichrecurwhileothers areunique.
Therewasnocontestforinitialpositioninthisvolume.CraigKallendorf ’ s wide-rangingdiscussionentitled ‘SuccessesandFailuresinVirgilianTranslation’ (Chapter1)startswithessentialstatisticsthatrepresentthefruitofseveraldecades ofpainstakingresearch.Itisasoberingthoughttorealizethat ‘Virgil’spoetry... wastranslatedintoFrench732times,Italian494times,English419times,and German188times.Thereare75Spanishtranslationsand55Dutchones,
theotherEuropeanlanguagesbeingrepresented35orfewertimes’ (p.25). Kallendorf ’ s figuresrelatetoprintedtranslationsfromincunabuladownto1850; translationsthatnevermadeitintoprintandtranslationspublishedsince1850take those figuresmuchhigher,ofcourse.Againstthisbackdrop,Kallendorfproceedsto selectthreepairsofpre-1850VirgiliantranslationsintoFrench,whichrepresent the Aeneid,the Georgics,andthe Eclogues,undertherubricofsuccessesand failuresinVirgiliantranslation.Hethusbringsbackfromobscuritythetranslationsof PerrinandLePlat,DelilleandCynyngham(whosetranslationofthe Georgics wasnever published),MarotandGressetand,withoutofferinganyaestheticjudgements,considers theimmediateandsubsequentcareersuccessofthesetranslators.ExplicitlyusingaNew Historicistframework,heidenti fi espoliticalandreligiou sideologiesascrucial factorsinthesometimessurprisingoutcomesandemphasizesthattranslationscan neverberankedonlyintermsoffailureorsuccess,becauseeachonehaselementsof bothandcontributestofuturetranslationattempts.InthiswayKallendorfprovides animportanthistoricalframeworkforthedifferentdirectionsofVirgiliantranslations inEuropeandbeyond.
RichardArmstrong’ s ‘Dante ’sInfluenceonVirgil:Italian volgarizzamenti and EnriquedeVillena’ s Eneida of1428’ (Chapter2)usesasimilarapproachtoraise acomplementarysetoffundamentalquestionsabouttheroleoftranslationas receptioninvernacularliteratures.Heusesanotherlittle-knowntranslationashis focus.AccordingtoArmstrong,the Eneida ofEnriquedeVillena(1384–1434), inCastilianprose,isarguably ‘the firstfullscholarlytranslationofVirgil’ s Aeneid intoamodernlanguage’ (p.38).Itcanbeseenasatransitionalpointbetween medievalandmoderntranslationalpracticesandasmarkingthebeginningof the ‘vernacularization’ oftranslation,whichwasdesignedtomakeitmore accessibletothetargetaudience.Hearguesfor ‘Dante’sinfluenceonVirgil’ inthat the DivineComedy’ sconfigurationofVirgilasa figureofauthorityineffect ‘“authorizes” theepicgenreeveninthevernacular’ (p.50).Inhisanalysis,Armstrong contemplatesthephilologicalconscienceofthetranslatorwho ‘chosetopresent aprosaic,dissected,logocentricVirgil’ (p.50)ratherthanaDantesqueVirgilin terzarima.
WestaywithearlySpanishtranslationsofthe Aeneid inStephenRupp’ s ‘Epic andtheLexiconofViolence:GregorioHernándezdeVelasco’sTranslationof Aeneid 2 andCervantes’ s Numancia’ (Chapter3).Rupp’sdiscussionofthe EneydadeVirgilio traducidaenversocastellano (1555)providesanunderstandingoftherolethat translationsofancientepicsplayedintheRenaissance.Writingpoetryaboutwar raisedethicalquestionsaboutthejustificationofwarsofconquestandexpansion,as weighedagainstindividualemotions.Inthatcontext,thetranslationofVirgilmoves beyondliteraryrelevanceandintotherealmofphilosophicalinquiry.ForVelasco, histranslationofthe Aeneid servesasameansofmoralinstruction,becausehe castsAeneasasanexemplarofStoicvirtueandexaminestheimportanceofcontrol overintenseemotionalstates.
THETRANSLATIONHISTORYOFVIRGIL
NextcomesapairofessaysthatexaminetheEnglish Aeneid withatighterfocus onparticularbooks:themuchstudiedBook4andthemuchlessstudiedBook7. ThesetwoessaysfocusupontherepresentationsofDidoandLavinia.Alison Keith’ s ‘LoveandWar:Translationsof Aeneid 7intoEnglish(FromCaxtonuntil Today)’ (Chapter4),whichfollowsonneatlyfromRupp’sanalysisoftherepresentationofwarfareintranslation,looksatEnglishrenditionsof Aeneid 7thatappear intranslationsofthecompletepoem.SheexplorestherelationshipdrawnbyVirgil’ s Englishtranslatorsbetween ‘ arms ’ anda ‘ woman ’ andshowshowtheserepresentations helpustounderstandhowthetranslatorsshapedVirgil’sItalianwarnarrative beginningwithThomasPhaer’s1558translationandendingwithSarahRuden’ s (2008)andPatriciaA.Johnston’s(2012).
IncontrastwiththechronologicalbreadthofKeith’schapter,whichrunsfrom Caxtonin1490tothetwenty-firstcentury,GordonBraden’ s ‘ThePassionofDido: Aeneid 4inEnglishTranslationto1700’ (Chapter5)putsanintensespotlighton translationsofBook4duringthesixteenthandseventeenthcenturies,aperiodwhen EnglandandtheEnglishlanguagewerebecomingprominentontheEuropeanand globalscene.Hehighlightstheconsistentself-consciousnessofthisefforttouse Virgilbothasavehiclefor translatioimperii andasamediuminthesearchforan Englishmetreandidiomthatcouldadequatelyconveythegravityofancientepic poetry.Bradenresiststheteleologicalreadingof Aeneid translationsofthiseraas mereprecursorstotheachievementofDrydenin1697andinsteadanalysesthe handlingofthreekeypassagesfromBook4bytranslatorsacrossthetwocenturies.
Wenowturnfromwomenastheobjectoftranslationtodiscussionofoneof thefewwomentranslatorsfeaturedinthisvolumeinFionaCox ’ s ‘AnAmazonin theRenaissance:MariedeGournay ’sTranslationof Aeneid 2 ’ (Chapter6). Coxobservesthat,whiledeGournay ’s1626translationismarkedbyimprecisions, italsoconveysasenseofprideinbreachingthestrongholdofmen,assheplaces herselfinthelineageofFrenchtranslatorsofVirgil.DeGournayuseshertranslationaspartofherstruggleforsexu alequality,astruggleintensifi edbyher lonelinessandsenseofalienationfromherowntimes.
TheisolationofthefemaletranslatorisalsoaddressedbySusannaBraundin ‘Virgil afterVietnam’ (Chapter7),adiscussionofthemajorAmericanversetranslations publishedinthelast fiftyyears.ThesetranslationswereinevitablyframedbyVirgil’ s attitudetoempire,sincethatresonatedwitheachtranslator’sstanceinrelationtothe warinVietnam.BraundsituatesMandelbaum’s,Fitzgerald ’s,Lombardo’s,Fagles’ s, andRuden ’stranslationsinthelargercontextofAmericanclassicalscholarshipand previoustranslationsofVirgil’sepic.Furthermore,sheoffersaprovocativegender perspectivebyjuxtaposingthemaletranslators,whoasprofessorswereallinfluenced bythescholarlydebates,withSarahRuden,whoasawomanandasaprofessional translatorcarriesouthertaskawayfromthemarginsofacademiccontroversies andhenceprovidesthereaderwithanaltogetherdifferentandmoredistanced perspective.
Manyofthecentralissuesofculturalcapitalandoftheculturalagendasinvolved intranslatingVirgilareinstantiatedinGeoffreyGreatrex’ s ‘TranslationsofVirgil intoEsperanto’ (Chapter8).Insomerespectsthiscontributionmightseemtostand apart,sinceitdiscussesthetranslationsofVirgilintoanartificiallanguage the internationallanguageinventedin1887inPolandbyLudwigZamenhof.Yetthe translatorsofVirgilintoEsperantoreplicatethewidespreadphenomenonoftranslationofVirgilasameansofgainingculturalcapital:theyinsistontheimportance ofproducingtranslationsofgreatworksofworldliteraturetogivelegitimacyto thisnewinternationallanguage.Greatrex’sessaylooksatthreeversetranslations intoEsperanto,deployingexamplesfromBook4anddiscussingmetricalchoices. Hesuggeststhatthesetranslationsmayhavestimulatedtheproductionoforiginal Esperantoepicsinthefollowingyears,which,again,isaphenomenonparalleledin thenationallanguagesofEurope.However,thesetranslationswere andremain isolatedfromthetranslationsofVirgilintootherlanguages.
Culturalcapitalisalsoakeyconceptinthenexttwoessays,whichaddresswhat maylooklikeasurprisingphenomenon:thetranslationofVirgilintoancientGreek. First,MichaelPaschalis’ s ‘TranslationsofVirgilintoAncientGreek’ (Chapter9) suppliesapanoramicoverviewoftranslationsofVirgil’spoemsintoancientGreek downtothenineteenthcentury.Althoughhediscussesthe Georgics and Aeneid too, hismainfocusisontranslationsofthe Eclogues,wheretranslatorshavebeenmoved toattemptrenderingsintheDoricdialect,inanodtowardsTheocritus,theoriginatorofthepastoralgenre.Interestintranslatingthe Eclogues intoancientGreek manifestsintheearlyseventeenthcentury,whenScaligerandHeinsiusperformthis tasknotoncebuttwice.PaschalisdocumentsEugeniosVoulgaris’sarchaizingtranslationsofthe Georgics (in1786)and Aeneid (in1791–2)intoepicGreekwithnotesin AtticGreek.Voulgaris,whowasinvitedbyCatherinetheGreatofRussiatoserveas archbishopofChersonandSlaviansk,wrotehistranslationsaspartofCatherine’ s socialandpoliticalprogramme;andhistranslations,thoughtheyfailedintheir purposeofhelpingtoteachLatintoGreco-Russianyouth,didexerciseaninfluence onsubsequentRussiantranslators.Inthenextcenturytranslators includingChristophorosPhilitasandPhilipposIoannou,bothofthemprofessorsatAthens continuedtouseancientGreek;onlylaterondidmodernGreektakeover. ThesecondessayonancientGreektranslationsofVirgilisSophiaPapaioannou’ s ‘SingItlikeHomer:EugeniosVoulgaris’sTranslationofthe Aeneid’ (Chapter10). Papaioannou’sfocusisVoulgaris’srenditionofthe Aeneid (1791–2)atthebehestof theRussiantsarina.Thispeculiartranslationhadapronouncedpedagogicalmission foranintendedaudiencethatwasnotRussianbutbelongedtotheGreekdiaspora. Furthermore,Voulgaris’sstrangeundertakingwascloselyalignedwithCatherine’ s complexagendainherso-called ‘GreekProject’,whichaimedatcreatinganimageof RussiaasaWesternmilitarypowerandasheirtoGreekOrthodoxy.Papaioannou justifiesstudyofthisperhapsbizarrephenomenonnotingthatitbelongedtothe sameeraasthe firsttranslationsofHomerandVirgilinRussia,whichshedescribes
as ‘aprojecttightlyentwinedwithCatherine’spoliticalandculturalaspirationsto projectRussiaatonceasaWesternmilitarypowerinthefootstepsofRomeandthe heirtoGreekOrthodoxByzantium’ (p.152).Inotherwords,Papaioannoudemonstratesclearlyhowtranslationwasusedforculturalideology.Thisessayisprofitably readalongsideTorlone’sdiscussionofnineteenth-centuryRussiantranslations ofVirgil.
ThesubjectofMarkoMarinčič’ s ‘FarmingfortheFew:Jožef Šubic’ s Georgics andtheEarlySlovenianReceptionofVirgil’ (Chapter11)istheearlySlovenian translationhistoryofVirgil,which,whilestillwithintheconfinesoftheEuropean schooloftranslation,isnonethelesspoorlyexplored,eveninSlovenianscholarship. Marinčič analysesalittleknown1863translationofVirgil’ s Georgics,whichoffersan importantbackgroundtotheSlovenianschooloftranslationofGreekandLatintexts. Writteninahybridmetricalpattern, Šubic’sversionisbynomeansaliterary masterpiece;butitisagroundbreakingwork,whichstayssurprisinglyfaithfultothe original,revealingtoitsreaderhowSlovenianliteraryconsciousnessformeditselfin relationtotheancientclassics.
Theexplorationofthetwentieth-centurytranslationsstartswithacontributionby EkinÖykenandÇiğdemDürüşkenentitled ‘RevivingVirgilinTurkish’ (Chapter12), whichpresentsaninterdisciplinaryapproachinformedbyliteraryhistory,reception studies,andtranslationhistory;thelastoneofcoursehasastrongtraditionin Turkey.ÖykenandDürüşkenexaminethecomplexityoftranslatingVirgilata pointofknowledgetransmissionbetweenAsiaandEuropeandaskhowthese translationshavebeendeployedfordifferentpoliticalagendas.Theycontrastthe limitedknowledgeofVirgilintheOttomanerawiththestateoffullacquaintanceshipinmodern-dayTurkey,suggestingthattheChristianizingreadingofVirgilmay havedelayedrecognitionofhisworkinTurkeyasaresultoftheIslamicaspectofthe Ottomanliterarytradition.ÖykenandDürüşkencontrastthe1928prosetranslations ofthe Eclogues and Georgics byRuşenEşrefwiththearchaizing1935–6proseversion ofthe Aeneid byAhmedReşit.Thatsaid,bothtranslators,intheirdifferentways,can beseentodeployVirgilasafoundationaltext.
MathildeSkoie’ s ‘FindingaPastoralIdiom:NorwegianTranslationsofVirgil’ s Eclogues andthePoliticsofLanguage’ (Chapter13)introducesyetanotherEuropean ‘repossession’ ofVirgilthatgenerallyremainsoutsidethescopeofmostvolumeson translationandreception.ThisdiscussionisprofitablyreadindialoguewithCillian O’Hogan’spaperonIrishVirgils(Chapter27).SkoiefocusesonthreeNorwegian translationsofVirgil’ s Eclogues publishedin1950,1975,and2016andanalysesthe waytheyexhibittendenciesofdomesticationandforeignizationasthelanguageof translationbecomespoliticizedandengagedindebatesaboutNorwegianidentity. WithaparticularfocusonEclogue4,Skoieexploresthejuxtapositionofruraland urbanvoicesinthecontextoflanguagepolitics.
SéverineClément-Tarantinoperformsasimilarcomparisonin ‘The Aeneid and “LesBellesLettres”:Virgil’sEpicinFrenchbetweenFictionandPhilology,from
VeynebacktoPerret’ (Chapter14).Shewalksusbackallthewaybetweentwo FrenchtranslationspublishedinthesameBellesLettresseries,fromPaulVeynein 2012toJacquesPerretin1959.SheemphasizesthatVeyne’ s fluidandvivacious translationrekindledinterestinVirgilintheFrenchreadingpublic,thenproceedsto analysetheprinciplesbehindPerret’stranslationofthe Aeneid inthecontextofhis 1947work Latinetculture.Inthiswork,elaboratingonthe ‘artoftranslation’,Perret presentedattentiontothephilologicalandprosodicintricaciesofasourcetextasthe maingoalofthe ‘idealtranslator’;yethedecidedtotranslatethe Aeneid inprose.For Perret,translationhadtoservethegoaloffacilitatingthereadingofVirgilinLatin; bycontrast,Veynedistancedhimselffromphilologicalscrutiny,offeringinsteada renewedpleasureinreadingVirgilinFrench.
WeconcludePart1withJinyuLiu’ s ‘VirgilinChinese’ (Chapter15).Thisessay takesus firmlyintotherealmof ‘other’ Virgils,arealmthatisneitherconditioned norinfluencedbytheconcernsofEuropeanrenditionsoftheRomanpoet.Liuoffers afascinatingstudyoftheperceptionofVirgilintwentieth-centuryChina:while ChineseengagementwithVirgilislimited,itnonethelessshedslightonhowanonEuropeanculturemightengagewiththistext,whichwascompletelyforeignto Chineseliterarycultureinallitsaspects,fromgenreandmetretoplotandaesthetics. LookingatthehandfulofChinesetranslationsofthe Eclogues from1957andofthe Aeneid from1930and1984(asthe Georgics isstillawaitingits firstcompleteChinese version),LiutacklestheimportantquestionofVirgil’ s ‘translatability’ andsignificanceinnon-Westerncontexts.She findsthatChinesetranslationsofthe Aeneid embracethe ‘pessimistic’ readingofthe Aeneid andeschewthethemeofimperialism infavourofsorrow,anxiety,anddisillusion.
Part2addressestheimportantphenomenonofpoetswhohaveturnedtoVirgilin searchofinspirationorlegitimizationoftheirnationalliterarycanons(orboth). Manyofthechaptersgatheredherereflectcloselythechallengesencounteredby translatorsintheirefforttoconveythemeaningofthesourcetexttotheiraudiences whileretainingtheformalfeaturesoftheVirgilianoriginal.Again,wehaveorganized thissectionbroadlyinchronologicalorder,andthepoetsdiscussedincludeDu Bellay,Dryden,Delille,Voß,Leopardi,Wordsworth,Zhukovskii,Mendes,Schröder, Valéry,Pasolini,Fallon,andHeaney.Whilethispartofthevolumeismainly concernedwithspecificcasestudies,itdrawsonbroadertheoreticalframeworks, suchasthedomesticationoftheforeignintranslation(Thomas,Torlone,Eigler, Fabre-Serris,Eigleragain,andO’Hogan).Severalchaptersaddressthematterof Bloom’ s ‘anxietyofinfluence ’,whichemergesinpoets’ feelingsofinadequacyat translatingVirgilor,bycontrast,inaconfidencethatamountstoaculturalchallenge to,andevenidentificationwith,Virgil(Gautier,Scully,RomaniMistretta,Scafoglio, Hardie,andVasconcellos).Part2concludeswithinsightsfromAlessandroFo,a contemporaryItalianpoetandtranslator,abouthowto findaplacewithinoneofthe longestcontinuoustraditionsofVirgiltranslation.ThevolumecloseswithaprovocativeoutlineoffuturepossibilitiesinVirgiltranslationbyJosephineBalmer.
WehaveplacedRichardF.Thomas’ s ‘DomesticatingAestheticEffects:Virgilian CaseStudies ’ (Chapter16)ininitialpositionbecauseitrangessowidelyacross the Eclogues,the Georgics,andthe Aeneid;becauseitdiscussespoet-translators suchasDryden,Day-Lewis,Lee,andFerry;andbecauseitidentifiessomecentral issuesintheanalysisofequivalenceagainstthebackdropofVenuti’sforeignization–domesticationframework.Thomasexploresdomesticationbyexaminingclosely aesthetic,linguistic,andmetre-specificeffects.Usingmanyexamples,heraisesthe questionofwhetherornotitispossibletotranslatelanguage-specificidiomsintothe targetlanguagewithoutlosingthepoignancyofthesourcetext.
Wemovebacktosixteenth-centuryFranceforHélèneGautier’ s ‘DuBellay’ s L’Aeneid:RewritingasPoeticReinvention?’ (Chapter17).Gautierexpandsthe discussiononVirgiliantranslationsintoFrenchbyfocusingonBooks4and6of JoachimDuBellay’stranslationsofthe Aeneid,writteninthe1550s.SheplacesDu Bellay’stranslationinthecontextofRenaissancetranslationsandoftheevolutionof Frenchlanguageandpoetics.Furthermore,shecontemplateshowDuBellay’stranslationsofVirgilmadeamarkonhisownoriginalpoetry,andviceversa:DuBellay notonlyassimilatestheimageryandrhythmofVirgilianepicbutthroughVirgil pondersuponhisownpoeticvoice.
StephenScully’ s ‘AestheticandPoliticalConcernsinDryden’ s Æneis’ (Chapter18) addressesthemostinfluentialtranslationofthe Aeneid intoEnglish.Scullyproposes thatDryden’s1697translationofVirgilreflectedDryden’sowntime,becausethe poemresonatedwiththepoliticalturmoilinEngland.Although,byDryden ’ sown admission,Virgil’srestrainedmienwasatoddswithhispoetics,hestrovetobring thevoiceofVirgilintoBritishculture,retainingatthesametimetheLatinpoet’ s lexicalrangeandmultifacetedtextualfabricandconveyingthepoem’sforcein assertingthecauseofnationhood.Scullyoffersaclosereadingofpassagesfrom the Aeneid,whicharesometimescontrastedwithDryden ’stranslationof Iliad 1.This chapterlooksbacktomanyoftheissuesraisedinPart1.
In ‘TranslationTheoryintoPractice:JacquesDelille’ s GéorgiquesdeVirgile’ (Chapter19),MarcoRomaniMistrettashowsthat,forDelille,Virgilwasmore thanapoeticinfluence:hewasratherthe fons and origo ofpoetryitself.With therisinginterestinagriculturaltreatisesduringtheEnlightenment,Delille’ s 1770translationofthe Georgics acquiredawideappeal.Hislifelongworkonhis Géorgiques displaysDelille’saspirationtoemulatetheVirgiliantextandtoappropriateVirgil’spoeticsbyintertwininginhisownpoetrythephysical,theaesthetic, andthemoralworlds.InthatquestDelille’sVirgilbecomesnotonlytheheraldof agriculturalwisdombutalsoamasterofpoeticharmony.Delilleblursthelines between ‘translation’ and ‘commentary ’ ashecontextualizesantiquitywithinthe culturalframingandculturalcravingsofhisownepoch.Thischapterraisesmanyof thesamebigpicturequestionsasdoesRichardThomas’ s.
ManyofthesameissuesariseagaininGiampieroScafoglio’ s ‘“Onlyapoet cantranslatetruepoetry”:TheTranslationof Aeneid 2byGiacomoLeopardi’
(Chapter20).HereScafogliotacklesoneofthemostdebateddilemmasintranslation practice:whetherornotonehastobeapoetinordertotranslatepoetry.Leopardi wasnotonlyagreatpoetbutalsoapassionateloverofclassicaltexts,aswellasa rigorousand finescholarofGreekandLatinlanguageandliterature.In1816,atthe ageofeighteen,hetranslatedBook2ofVirgil’ s Aeneid,inafusionofhisphilological andscholarlyinterestswithhisaestheticandcreativeambitions.Scafoglioshowsthat Leopardicameintohisownpoeticvocationashistranslationprogressedandthatthe translation,whichcombinedliteraryfaithfulnesstotheoriginalwiththeexpressive musicalityofItalian,effectivelylaidthegroundworkforLeopardi’soutstanding poeticactivitythatfollowed.
Thetitle ‘Wordsworth’sTranslationof Aeneid 1–3andtheEarlierTraditionof EnglishTranslationsofVirgil’ (Chapter21)indicatesthefocusofPhilipHardie’ s contributiontothisvolume.AsamajortranslationprojectbyamajorEnglishpoet, thisworkofWordsworth,whichengagedhimduringtheyears1823–31,canbe comparedwiththe Æneis ofDryden,withwhomhecompetes,andwithPope’ s Iliad. HardieconsidersWordsworth’sundertakingnotonlywithinthelongerhistoryof Englishtranslationsofthe Aeneid,butalsowithinthehistoryofEnglishpoetry. HeexploreshowWordsworth,inanxiouscompetitionwithDryden,choosesthe rhymingcoupletforhistranslationtoshowhowadifferentversemovementand vocabularycanproduceanotherversionoftheclassicEnglish Aeneid.
ZaraTorlone’ s ‘EpicFailures:VasiliiZhukovskii’ s “DestructionofTroy” and RussianTranslationsofthe Aeneid’ (Chapter22)addressesthelackofcanonical translationsofthe Aeneid intoRussian.WhileHomerfoundhiswidelyaccepted renditioninNikolaiGnedich’ s Iliad andVasiliiZhukovskii’ s Odyssey translations, Virgilhashadnosuchluck.TorlonearguesthatZhukovskii,amajorRussian Romanticpoet,inhis1823renditionof Aeneid 2(latertitled ‘TheDestructionof Troy’),succeededwherelatertranslatorssuchasFet(1888)andBriusov(1933),who weregreaterpoetsthanZhukovskii,failed:itachievedthegoalof ‘demystifying’ the foreigntextandofconveying ‘initsownlanguagetheforeignnessoftheforeigntext’ withoutalienatingthereader.ThechapterisusefullyreadalongsidePapaioannou’ s discussionofRussiaintheprecedingcentury;anditshareswiththoseofKallendorf andVasconcellosthethemeofsuccessandfailure.
PauloSérgiodeVasconcellos ’sdiscussionofVirgiltranslationsinBrazilinthe nineteenthcenturytakesthisvolumeoncemoreoutsideoftheEuropeancontext. Speci fi cally,in ‘VirgílioBrasileiro :ABrazilianVirgilintheNineteenthCentury ’ (Chapter23),Vasconcellosanalysestheintriguingnatureofthecompletepoetic translationofVirgil’sworkbythepoetManuelOdoricoMendes,whichexerciseda directinfluenceonmodernBrazilianliteratureandremainspopularinBrazil. Vasconcellosraisescrucialquestionsaboutpoeticidentityintranslation: ‘Isits authorVirgil?Butwhatarewetodowiththe “Brazilian” inthetitle?Ordowe needtoregisterOdoricoMendesasitsauthor?’ Hearguesthatthetitleencapsulates theprojectofanemulatorwhomaintainshimselfinadialecticalrelationwiththe
originalandwhosignalshisauthorshipinawaythatunitessourceandtargettexts inextricably.Thereisthusagreatsynergybetweenthiscontributionandthoseof RomaniMistrettaandScafoglio.
In ‘BetweenVoßandSchröder:GermanTranslationsofVirgil’ s Aeneid’ (Chapter24), UlrichEiglerdiscussestheGermantraditionoftranslationsofVirgilwithaspecific focusonthosebyJohannHeinrichVoß(1789–99)andRudolfAlexanderSchröder (1924–30).HeframeshisessaybyreferringtoSarahRuden ’srecenttranslation, whichhasbeenacclaimedas ‘agreatEnglishpoeminitself ’,andusesittoassess hischosentranslations.EiglershowshowVoß,influencedbymodernideasthat emanatedfromGöttingenandfromthecommunityofpre-Romanticpoets,juxtaposeshistranslationwiththepoeticalexperimentsofSchiller’stranslationsofBooks 2and4ofthe Aeneid.Schröder,ontheotherhand,inhistranslationofthewholeof theVirgiliancorpus,adheredtoameticulousimitationofVirgilianprosody.These twotranslationscouldnothavebeenmoredifferent,butbysettingthemagainsteach otherEiglerbuildsacomprehensivepictureofthehistoryofGermantranslations ofthe Aeneid.
Fromtwentieth-centuryGermanywemovenowtotwentieth-centuryFrance,with JacquelineFabre-Serris’ s ‘ReflectionsonTwoVerseTranslationsofthe Eclogues in theTwentiethCentury’ (Chapter25) namelybythepoetPaulValéry(1956)and bytheplaywrightandnovelistMarcelPa gnol(1958).JacquelineFabre-Serris offersacomparisonofthesetwotranslationsbecausetheydifferdrasticallyinthe choiceofpoeticformandintheirtheoreticalpositionsontheprecisepurposeof translation.FurthermoreFabre-Serriscomparesthesetwotranslationswiththat ofEugènedeSaint-Denis,whose1942prosetranslationofthe Eclogues sheconsidersmoresuccessful.
UlrichEigler’ssecondchapterinthevolume, ‘Cometradurre? PierPaoloPasolini andtheTraditionofItalianTranslationsofVirgil’ s Aeneid’ (Chapter26),takesus intothetwentyfirstcentury.EiglercontextualizesthetranslationofVirgilinItalian withinthecomplexsocial,political,andlinguistichistoryofItalyinwaysthat connectfruitfullywithAlessandroFo’sexperienceasatranslatorattheendofthis volume.Eigleraddressestwentieth-andtwenty-first-centurytranslationspaying specialattentiontothepoetanddirectorPierPaoloPasolini’s1959versionofthe openingofthe Aeneid,whichhecontrastswiththe2007traditionalmodernItalian translationofVittorioSermonti:Pasolini’stranslationrejectstheconventionallinguistic,semantic,andculturalunities,whileSermontiaimsatcontinuitybetweenthe classicalauthorandtheItalianreadersoftoday.
NextisCillianO’Hogan’ s ‘IrishVersionsofVirgil’ s Eclogues and Georgics’ (Chapter27).Theseversionsserveasanothersalientexampleofhowcultureand nationhoodde finethemselvesthroughVirgil.InhisessayO’Hoganexploreshow VirgilhasprovidedawayofnavigatingIrishidentityandlooksatthelanguage choicesinIrishtranslationsthatleadawayfromBritishclassicallyinfusedliterature andtowardsanalternativeclassicaltradition.Thischaptercomplementsclosely
