From: Will Wagers (hyle@gte.net)
Date: Wed Dec 02 1998 - 08:43:11 EST
Carl writes:
>Does every untranslated work in Greek or Latin deserve to be translated
>into a modern language?
I don't know who would be capable of answering this question and using
what criteria. Given the well-publicized situation with the Dead Sea Scrolls,
I would prefer that all be translated so the larger community can
contribute to the process of deciding what deserves attention. And, I think
that all should be translated for the benefit of those who do not speak the
original languages.
In any case, I would certainly prefer a new translation of a previously
untranslated work to "another little book on Homer".
>Is everything that has been written and that has
>survived of such importance that those who can't read Greek or Latin ought
>to have access to it?
I believe so, simply because those untrained in Latin or Greek will tend to
have a different perspective, and because all the data should be available
to them. There is always that the danger that the language barrier will be
used unethically by professionals, especially in the case of theological works.
> Given the fact that we know that some of the best has
>not survived (Ovid's tragedy "Medea," Varius' tragedy "Thyestes", scores of
>plays by Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides not included in the schoolbook
>anthologies of seven of each, etc.) and we have good reason to surmise that
>pure chance has preserved a vast amount of what has survived that was
>written antiquity, how are we to distinguish between what is relatively
>important and what is relatively unimportant? Is any discrimination at all
>to be exercised in this matter?
Exactly, it cannot be decided objectively, so translate the lot, after all,
it need
be done only once. (There won't be too many alternative translations of
laundry lists coming out.)
>Finally, with regard to Nonnos, about whom I confess to know all too
>little, I have visited your web site, found it very interesting, but
>nevertheless find myself wondering: is Nonnos simply interesting (he is at
>least that, I readily grant) or is he also important? If he is important,
>how or for what is he important? Does he illuminate our understanding of
>the gospel of John, or does he illuminate our understanding of how the
>gospel of John was understood in the fifth century? Perhaps one of the more
>curious questions is this: why are you relying upon an edition more than
>100 years old for your Greek text of Nonnos? If Nonnos really is important,
>it would seem to me that getting someone to work on an up-to-date critical
>text might be more urgent than translating one that old.
Your points are well taken, but I cannot see them as a justification for not
translating the work. People need to decide for themselves if a work is
important by their own criteria, which may or may not coincide with those
of a classicist.
> they were chiefly
>a suggestion that a moral imperative to translate the untranslated works of
>antiquity deserves some thought prior to its issuance.
I see no moral imperative, just the obvious point of making the entire body
of ancient literature available to the widest possible audience.
The situation reminds me of that of fossils, where only a tiny percentage of
fossil finds has been analyzed, yet theories of evolution abound. Should they
all be analyzed, or merely the "interesting" ones?
Will Wagers hyle@gte.net "Reality is the best metaphor."
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:09 EDT