Translation of homonyms, synonyms and antonyms

Lecture 2. Translation of the antique period in the West and in the East.

The plan of the lecture:

1. 
   Translation of the antique period in the West.
   
2. 
   Translation in the I-VIII centuries.
   
3. 
   Translation of the antique period in the East.
   
4. 
   Translation in the I-IX centuries.
   

Key words:

Cultural development of mankind, The Bible, cultural intercommunication translator’s ideological purposefulness, theologian, valuable works of thinkers, majority of their representatives were the thinkers, physiognomy

1. Translation of the antique period in the West.

Translation plays an important role in the cultural development of mankind. Translation acquaints with the life, mode of life, history, literature and achievements of science of other nations. The first historical stage of development of translation began from Antiquity. Greece spread great culture, which was inherited by the Romans. Romans took a lot from the Greeks. The translation of literary works a form of cultural intercommunication. Famous Roman writer Cicero translated speeches of Greek orators into Latin without breaking the norms of the language. Mostly translators of the Antiquity used exact translation. As it’s known, the history of Middle Ages, in its early stage, was tightly connected with the expansion of Christian teaching. The Bible was translated into many local languages and it was stipulated to be reformed a movement. It should be noted that the translation of the Bible into the languages of European nations played a great role in the final forming of their literary languages as well. In the epoch of feudalism translations of religious texts were rather widely spread and distinctly reflected the principle of a word translation, which was contrasted with the principle of free translation.

Such first historical stage, in particular those interrelations which by means of translation were established between ancient Greek and Roman cultures. As it is known, Greeks created a great culture, which reflected in their language and literature while Romans inherited a lot from Greeks. The translation of the literary works was such a form of cultural intercommunication which exceeded the bounds of purely linguistic relations assuming a definite ideological character. In this case the country giving cultural values-Greece-stood at a high cultural level and therefore in the works of Greek writers Romans saw the opportunity at enriching their own language and literature. From this point of view the problem of literary translation was theoretically put forward in Cicero’s, Horatius and Quintillion’s statements about the best translation. A special importance in this respect presents Cicero’s statements.

A famous Roman writer, an orator of the 1^st century BC-Cicero translated speeches of Greek orators, Eskheel and Demosthenes into latin without breaking the norms of the language. According to him, he preserved the meaning and the construction of originals, “their physiognomy”,but he followed the specificity of the latin language in choosing words. Therefore he didn’t translate the text word for word, but gave the meaning and the power of words as a whole unit. “I thought that a reader would demand from me the exactness” said Cicero and translated the works of the Greek authors in this way, in order to reproduce all their dignifies in translation.

As one of the examples of the practical usage of this principle can be considered a famous poem by Roman poet Catullus an imitation of prominent ancient Greek poets Sappho. The first three stanzas of this poem present a stanza, which was substituted by Catulus’ own poem which is the same with sapphian stanza by its character. Cicero, Quintillion and Pliney considered translation extremely useful exercise and persistently recommended all people, who wished to become writers of orators to exercise in translating. Famous Roman poet Horatius in his treatise “About poetical art” laughs at translators who slawishly try to translate word for word. Since the Romans thought that the most important thing in translation was to give the meaning and the power of the original which they easily dealt. The same can be said about the writers of the following centuries. This, of course belongs to the works of secular character. Since religious texts required from writers respect and fear from God. Despite this free dealing with the text of Bible can be observed,-e.g. the Greek translation of the old Precept done by Simmahome in the 2^nd century BC and the Latin translation, done by Hieronymus from ancient Jewish in the 4^th century AD. The latter affirmed that the thing in translating was to give the meaning of the original text for this purpose the referred to Cicero’s authority as well. Directly declaring that his task was to translate not word for word but thought for thought. Undoubtedly, the intention of putting the idea and contents of the original in the forefront was in the basis of this principle and therefore the translation primarly showed the reflection of a translator’s ideological purposefulness.

Here one should also note the circumstance, indeed interrelation of ancient Greece and Rome in the field of translation confirmed, that a “giving” country possessed a richer culture than “taking” one, but this principle is not always observed. If, historically, a translation really enriched the culture of a translator’s nation helping him to rise higher stage and from the point of view of historical development, even to follow the very “giving” country, but then in the new centuries and, especially, in our translation does not imply a spiritual poverty of “taking” country, though now it enriches its culture. Nowadays the translation is a breaking the norms of the language. According to him, he preserved the meaning and the construction of originals, “their physiognomy”,but he followed the specificity of the latin language in choosing words. Therefore he didn’t translate the text word for word, but gave the meaning and the power of words as a whole unit. “I thought that a reader would demand from me the exactness” said Cicero and translated the works of the Greek authors in this way, in order to reproduce all their dignifies in translation. As one of the examples of the practical usage of this principle can be considered a famous poem by Roman poet Catullus an imitation of prominent ancient Greek poets Sappho. The first three stanzas of this poem present a stanza, which was substituted by Catulus’ own poem which is the same with sapphian stanza by its character.

Cicero, Quintillion and Pliney considered translation extremely useful exercise and persistently recommended all people, who wished to become writers of orators to exercise in translating. Famous Roman poet Horatius in his treatise “About poetical art” laughs at translators who slawishly try to translate word for word. Since the Romans thought that the most important thing in translation was to give the meaning and the power of the original which they easily dealt. The same can be said about the writers of the following centuries. This, of course belongs to the works of secular character. Since religious texts required from writers respect and fear from God. Despite this free dealing with the text of Bible can be observed,-e.g. the Greek translation of the old Precept done by Simmahome in the 2^nd century BC and the Latin translation, done by Hieronymus from ancient Jewish in the 4^th century AD. The latter affirmed that the thing in translating was to give the meaning of the original text for this purpose the referred to Cicero’s authority as well. Directly declaring that his task was to translate not word for word but thought for thought. Undoubtedly, the intention of putting the idea and contents of the original in the forefront was in the basis of this principle and therefore the translation primarly showed the reflection of a translator’s ideological purposefulness.

Here one should also note the circumstance, indeed interrelation of ancient Greece and Rome in the field of translation confirmed, that a “giving” country possessed a richer culture than “taking” one, but this principle is not always observed. If, historically, a translation really enriched the culture of a translator’s nation helping him to rise higher stage and from the point of view of historical development, even to follow the very “giving” country, but then in the new centuries and, especially, in our translation does not imply a spiritual poverty of “taking” country, though now it enriches its culture. Nowadays the translation is a means of exchanging cultural values by means of nations’ intercourse and most of the translations at present, and the country serve as an indicator of a high level of nations’ culture. The historical serve of literary translation in the West, Russia and Georgia gives a reason for such conclusion. Roman poet Quintus Horatius Fluccus (65-8 BC) was against rendering word for word translation. He says a faithful translator should render sense for sense.