I nomi dell’amore: Un’indagine sulla traduzione latina del Commento al Cantico dei Cantici di Origene

2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Vito Limone
Keyword(s):  
Song Of Songs ◽  
Latin Translation ◽  
Greek Text ◽  
Original Text ◽  
Latin Text ◽  
Greek Language ◽  
Latin Language

AbstractThe aim of this paper is to compare the Greek fragments of Origen’s Commentary on the Song of Songs and the Latin translation by Rufinus. In particular, in Commentarius in Canticum Canticorum, prol. 2,20 the Latin text lists four names of the love: amor and cupido with regard to the physical love, and dilectio and caritas with regard to the spiritual love. In Greek fragments there are only “agape” with regard to the spiritual love and “eros” with regard to the physical love. Then, this paper aims to compare the Greek language through which Origen expresses the love in the fragments with the Latin language in which Rufinus translates Origen’s original text, so Rufinus seems to have complicated the original Greek text of Origen. Moreover, the paper lists also other important words through which Origen expresses the love in the fragments, i.e. “philia” and “philanthropia.”

A Note on the Status of Origen's De Principiis in English

2007 ◽  
Vol 61 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronnie Rombs
Keyword(s):  
English Translation ◽  
Critical Edition ◽  
Latin Translation ◽  
Greek Text ◽  
Original Text ◽  
Latin Text ◽  
English Edition ◽  
Critical Editions ◽  
English Translations ◽  
The Status

AbstractThe standard English translation of Origen's De principiis, translated by G.W. Butterworth and published in 1936, is based upon the earlier critical edition of Paul Koetschau. Origen's text survives through the Latin translation of Rufinus, a version that Koetschau fundamentally distrusted: Rufinus had admittedly expurgated Origen's text and could not, accordingly, be trusted. Hence the job of the editor and translator was judged to be the reestablishment—as far as was possible—of Origen's original text. Such suspicion of the text led to, among other problems, the awkward printing of parallel Greek and Latin passages in columns in Butterworth's English edition. Greek fragments and Origenistic material—that is to say, passages that were not direct quotations of De principiis, nor even directly Origen's—were inserted into Koetschau's text based upon presumed doctrinal parallels between those fragments and Origen's 'authentic' thought.We cannot reconstruct the Greek text; what we have inherited for better or worse is Rufinus's Latin translation of Peri archôn, a text that the more recent scholarship of G. Bardy and others have significantly rehabilitated confidence in. With the notable exception of English, translations of De principiis have been made in French, Italian and German, based upon more recent and more balanced critical editions. The author proposes a new English translation of Rufinus's Latin text based upon the critical edition of Henri Crouzel and Manlio Simonetti, published in the Sources Chrétiennes series.

The Latin Translations of Josephus on Jesus, John the Baptist, and James: Critical Texts of the Latin Translation of the Antiquities and Rufinus’ Translation of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History Based on Manuscripts and Early Printed Editions

2014 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
David B. Levenson ◽  
Thomas R. Martin
Keyword(s):  
Critical Edition ◽  
Complete List ◽  
Latin Translation ◽  
Greek Text ◽  
Latin Text ◽  
Ecclesiastical History ◽  
John The Baptist ◽  
Historia Ecclesiastica ◽  
Editio Princeps

Abstract This article presents the first critical texts of the passages on Jesus, John the Baptist, and James in the Latin translation of Josephus’ Antiquitates Iudaicae and the sections of the Latin Table of Contents for AJ 18 where the references to Jesus and John the Baptist appear. A commentary on these Latin texts is also provided. Since no critical edition of the Latin text of Antiquities 6-20 exists, these are also the first critical texts of any passages from these books. The critical apparatus includes a complete list of variant readings from thirty-seven manuscripts (9th-15th c.e.) and all the printed editions from the 1470 editio princeps to the 1524 Basel edition. Because the passages in the Latin AJ on Jesus and John the Baptist were based on Rufinus’ translation of Eusebius’ Historia Ecclesiastica, a new text of these passages in Rufinus is provided that reports more variant readings than are included in Mommsen’s GCS edition. A Greek text for these passages with revised apparatus correcting and expanding the apparatuses in Niese’s editio maior of Josephus and Schwartz’s GCS edition of Eusebius is also provided. In addition to presenting a text and commentary for the passages in the Latin Antiquities and Rufinus’ translation of Eusebius, there is catalogue of collated manuscripts and all the early printed editions through 1524, providing a new scholarly resource for further work on the Latin text of the Antiquities.

scholarly journals La primera traducción del llatín al asturianu: el Fueru de Lleón / The first Latin translation into Asturian: the Fueru de Lleón (the Code of Law of León)

2020 ◽  
pp. 41-62
Author(s):  
Olga Álvarez Huerta
Keyword(s):  
Target Language ◽  
Latin Translation ◽  
Original Text ◽  
Latin Text ◽  
13Th Century ◽  
Translation Process ◽  
Romance Language ◽  
12Th Century ◽  
Original Target ◽  
The One

L’oxetivu principal d’esti trabayu ye analizar tolos aspeutos relativos al procesu de traducción a llingua romance d’un fueru llatinu del que la primer copia caltenida remonta al primer cuartu del sieglu XII y atópase na Catedral d’Uviéu. Del testu romance llegaron a nós tres versiones llixeramente distintes, toes elles del sieglu XIII. La comparanza d’eses tres versiones col testu llatinu dexa concluyir que son resultáu d’un únicu procesu de traducción en que’l traductor caltúvose escrupulosamente fiel al testu orixinal, pero esforzóse tamién n’afaer la sintaxis llatina al romance. Como hai ciertes diferencies ente los tres testos romances foi necesaria la revisión rigurosa de los mesmos, pa pescudar cuál de les versiones ye o representa más fielmente’l testu orixinal. De resultes d’ello concluyóse que nenguna d’elles ye la traducción orixinal, sinón que les tres copies unvien a un orixinal perdíu y propónse tamién que, de les tres versiones romances llegaes hasta nós, la del monesteriu de Benevívere ye la más cercana al que sedría’l testu de la traducción orixinal. El testu de Benevívere déxanos añadir dellos datos de tipu llingüísticu non consideraos en trabayos anteriores que taben basaos nos otros dos manuscritos (el d’El Escorial y el de la Real Academia de la Hestoria). Estos datos, fundamentalmente de tipu léxicu, abonden na caracterización como asturianu de la llingua de la traducción orixinal.Pallabres clave: asturianu, llatín, traducción, documentación medieval, Fueru de Lleón.The main goal of this paper is to analyse the translation process of a Latin code of law, the so-called Fueru de Lleón, into a Romance language. The first known copy of this code, or ‘fuero’, dates back to the first quarter of the 12th century and can be found in the Cathedral of Uviéu. Three slightly different versions from the 13th century Romance language text have been preserved and their comparison with the Latin source text reveals that they result from the same translation process in which the translator was completely faithful to the Latin text, while at the same time he made efforts to adjust the Latin syntax to the Romance language form. As there are several differences between the three Romance texts, a rigorous revision was necessary to explore which one represented the source Latin text more faithfully. The analysis concluded that none of them was the original target text, and that the three of them point at a lost original text. It is also suggested that, from the three versions preserved to present times, the text from the Monastery of Benevívere is the closest one to the original translation. The Benevívere text introduces new linguistic data which were not considered in previous work and which are based on two other manuscripts (the text from the Monastery of the Escorial and the one from the Royal Academy of History). These data, mainly lexical, reinforce the idea that Asturian was the target language of the original translation.Key words: Asturian, Latin, translation, medieval documentation, Fueru de Lleón.

Agustín y la Biblia griega en las 'Enarrationes in Psalmos'

Augustinus ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 66 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-20
Author(s):  
Giuseppe Caruso ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Saint Augustine ◽  
Greek Text ◽  
Latin Text ◽  
Greek Language ◽  
The Bible ◽  
Textual Interpretation ◽  
Saint Jerome ◽  
Enarrationes In Psalmos ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Point Of Departure

The article presents a summary of the ideas of different scholars concerning the real knowledge that Saint Augustine had of the Greek Language, to point out that the competence of Saint Augustine was increasing over the years. It also addresses the relationship between Saint Augustine and Saint Jerome regarding the translations of the Bible, and the value that Saint Augustine attributed to the LXX text. Subsequently, some examples taken from the 'enarrationes in Psalmos' help to stress the work of the augustinian emendatio of the Latin text, taking as point of departure the Greek text, as well as the use the Greek text in Augustine’s own textual interpretation of the psalms.

Οἱ ἰατροὶ λέγουσι … – Erläuterungen zur anatomischen Terminologie in Περὶ τῆς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου κατασκευῆς

2019 ◽  
Vol 112 (3) ◽  
pp. 843-860
Author(s):  
Isabel Grimm-Stadelmann
Keyword(s):  
The Other ◽  
16Th Century ◽  
Latin Translation ◽  
Latin Text ◽  
Poetic Language ◽  
Medical Terminology ◽  
Ongoing Process ◽  
Anatomical Terminology ◽  
Latin Language ◽  
The One

Abstract The anatomical and physiological treatise Περὶ τῆς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἀνθρώπου κατασκευῆς is characterized by a peculiarity of medical terminology which is largely unknown from comparable texts: on the one hand, anatomical terms are put into relation with corresponding terms from poetic language, on the other hand they are precisely defined by descriptions of objects of everyday use. The considerable discrepancy between the Greek original and its Latin translation is of particular interest against the background of the renaissance of Περὶ τῆς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου κατασκευῆς in the 16th century AD. The multiple versions of the Latin translation show that medical terminology in Latin language was still in an ongoing process of development, for which reason many Greek anatomical terms were inserted untranslated into the Latin text due to a lack of an adequate Latin equivalents. For this reason Περὶ τῆς τοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου κατασκευῆς plays a central role in the development of anatomical terminology, but also in its becoming more and more specific and precise.

scholarly journals SOME NOTES ON THE ‘NEW APULEIUS’

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Lukas J. Dorfbauer
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Latin Translation ◽  
Latin Text ◽  
The Third ◽  
Editio Princeps

In 2016 Justin Stover published an important editio princeps of a fragmentarily preserved text that was originally discovered by Raymond Klibansky in the first half of the twentieth century: a kind of Summarium librorum Platonis which Klibansky took as a Latin translation of a lost Greek original, whereas Stover argues it was written by Apuleius, namely as the third book of his De Platone. The following notes deal primarily with details pertaining to the constitution of the text, but I will start with one remark on a detail of Stover's translation and close with a discussion concerning the alleged medieval reception of the so-called ‘New Apuleius’. Chapters, pages, Latin text, apparatus criticus entries, and translations are quoted according to Stover's edition; all bold highlights are mine, as are all translations from works other than the ‘New Apuleius’ if not indicated otherwise.

Sophocles: Ajax

1998 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. F. Garvie
Keyword(s):  
English Translation ◽  
Simple Solution ◽  
Greek Text ◽  
Original Text ◽  
Easy Answer ◽  
In The Beginning

Ajax, perhaps the earliest surviving tragedy of Sophocles, presents the downfall and disgrace of a great hero whose suicide leads to his rehabilitation through the enlightened magnanimity of one of his enemies. This edition attempts to show that Sophocles offers no easy answer to the question of why Ajax falls, and no simple solution to the problem of how we ought to live so as to avoid tragedy in our own lives. The introductory chapter focuses on Ajax, as one of the major characters in Homer's Iliadand the only hero in the story that never received direct help from a god. It looks into the Odyssey, which provides the earliest reference of Sophocles being concerned with Ajax. The next chapter provides the original text of Sophocles's play about Ajax. It talks about how the play began with the death of Achilles and Ajax's desire to be rewarded with his armor. It also mentions Ajax's shame and intention of suicide after killing Agamemnon and Menelaus when they gave Achilles's armor to Oddyseus. The chapter discusses the ending of the play in which Odysseus insisted that Ajax should be buried properly. The final chapter gives the commentary for the play. It talks about how Sophocles began his plays with dialogue in order to provide the audience with information about the story. It also mentions the introduction of Odysseus and reveal of Athena as the goddess in the beginning of the play. This chapter analyses the relationships among Ajax, Odysseus, and Athena. The book presents Greek text with facing-page English translation, introduction and extensive commentary.

Cenzura w Biblii

2018 ◽  
pp. 166-181
Author(s):  
Marcin Majewski ◽  
Artur Sporniak ◽  
Teresa Szostek ◽  
Michał Czajkowski
Keyword(s):  
Song Of Songs ◽  
Foreign Languages ◽  
Original Text ◽  
Holy Ghost ◽  
Small Letter ◽  
Bible Translation ◽  
The Bible ◽  
Original Meaning ◽  
Correct Translation

The article focuses on the analysis of an interview regarding Bible translation and related censorship. The author comments on the statements of one of the interlocutors, adding her own insights and analyses. Bible translators make certain parts of the text more approachable, as was the case with the refrain to Song of Songs, which, in most translations, mentions “embracing” while the protestant Bible contains the correct translation, i.e. “caressing.” Similarly, translators correct the Bible, as they have a different notion of what a sacral text should look like. For example, they introduce neutral phrases instead of offensive words. In Czajkowski’s opinion, translators often censor the Bible, trying to make the text less blunt. However, sometimes discrepancies are a result of not understanding the original text. Not always are these differences a consequence of the translator’s work, though. It is clearly visible e.g. in the case of “pneuma,” a word which can be translated into ghost or soul, spelled with a small letter, or the Holy Ghost. The author does not support the so-called “inclusive” translation. The inspired text should not be changed. Such changes can be replaced with explanations or comments. In order to discover the original meaning of the Holy Scripture, one can compare one of the Polish translations with translations into other foreign languages or other translations into Polish.

Valla, Lorenzo (1407–57)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Monfasani
Keyword(s):  
Free Will ◽  
Fourteenth Century ◽  
Special Interest ◽  
Latin Translation ◽  
Francesco Petrarca ◽  
Latin Language ◽  
Classical Studies ◽  
Aristotelian Ethics ◽  
Linguistic Usage ◽  
The Trinity

Unlike most Renaissance humanists, Valla took a special interest in philosophy. However, his most influential writing was a work of grammar, Elegantiae Linguae Latinae (The Fine Points of the Latin Language); he had no comprehensive philosophy, nor did he write mainly on philosophy. Valla considered himself to be a revolutionary overturning received opinions, bragging that through his works he was ‘overturning all the wisdom of the ancients’. His preference for Quintilian over Cicero and criticism of classical authors shocked older humanists, and religious authorities were upset by his views on the Trinity and on papal authority, but Valla never sought the overthrow of classical studies – or the papacy for that matter. He sought rather to destroy the Aristotelianism then reigning in the universities. In De Vero Falsoque Bono (On the True and False Good) (1431), he argued for the superiority of Epicureanism over Stoic and Aristotelian ethics. In De Libero Arbitrio (On Free Will) (1439), he corrected Boethius’ treatment of free will and predestination. In the Dialectica (1438–9) he set out to reform logic and philosophy because he believed Aristotle had corrupted them. Asserting that Aristotle had falsified thought because he had falsified language, Valla was determined to show how logic rightly conformed to the linguistic usage of the classical literary authors; essentially Valla had aggressively revived the ancient competition between the rhetorical and philosophical traditions. The first great humanist, Francesco Petrarca (better known in English as Petrarch), had attempted something similar in the fourteenth century, but Valla’s knowledge of philosophy was greater than Petrarch’s and he had access to more sources. Furthermore, Valla knew Greek and could read texts which the medieval Aristotelians knew only in Latin translation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document