Difficulties in Translating Xenophon’s Fictional Correspondence into Polish — an Analysis of Selected Issues
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18778/1733-0319.28.14Keywords:
Pseudo-Ksenophon, fictional letters, translation, Attic Greek, dualisAbstract
The fictional correspondence of Xenophon has survived to our times in a fragmentary form, thanks to Stobaeus, whose Anthology contains excerpts from the Socratic letters. This correspondence is also part of the collection Socratis et Socraticorum Epistolae. Translating these texts poses significant challenges due to the peculiarities of the epistolary language, particularly its Atticization, as well as the presence of allusions and quotations that reflect the authors’ intellectual processes. The translator’s task, therefore, is to unveil the implicit knowledge embedded in the original text for the reader. This raises the question of what translation techniques should be employed to achieve this. Is a footnote always the only solution? How can one create a comprehensible and faithful translation for the modern reader of texts rooted in the Second Sophistic movement, which reference the realities of the classical era and Socratic thought – texts marked by a third culture?
The article pays special attention to the Greek particle δέ, seen as a characteristic element of Attic speech, particularly in Xenophon’s language, as well as the dualis form.
References
Baümlein, W. (1861). Untersuchungen über griechische Partikeln. Stuttgart: Verlag der J.B. Metzlerschen Buchhandlung.
Google Scholar
Bentley, R. (1857). Abhandlungen über die Briefe des Phalaris, Themistocles, Socrates, Eurypides und über die Fabeln des Aesops. Deutsch von W. Ribbeck. Leipzig: B.G. Teubner.
Google Scholar
Denniston, J.D. (1954). The Greek Particles. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Google Scholar
Goodell, D. (1902). A School Grammar of Attic Greek. New York: Appleton.
Google Scholar
Hejwowski, K. (2006). Kognitywno-komunikacyjna teoria przekładu. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Google Scholar
Hercher, R. (ed.). (1873). Epistolographi Graeci. Parisiis: Editore Ambrosio Firmin Didot.
Google Scholar
Kielar, B.Z. (2013). Zarys translatoryki. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Instytutu Kulturologii i Lingwistyki Antropocentrycznej Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.
Google Scholar
Kognitywne podstawy języka i językoznawstwa. (2001). E. Tabakowska (red.). Kraków: Universitas.
Google Scholar
Köhler, L. (ed.) (1928). Die Briefe des Sokrates und der Sokratiker. Leipzig: Dieterich’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.
Google Scholar
Lipiński, K. (2000). Vademecum tłumacza. Kraków: Wydawnictwo. Idea.
Google Scholar
Obens, G. (1912). Qua aetate „Socratis et Socraticorum epistolae”, quae dicuntur, scriptae sint. Monasterium Guestfalorum: Typografeus Aschendorffianus.
Google Scholar
Schwyzer, E. (1950). Griechische Grammatik. Bd. 1. A. Debrunner (ed.). München: C.H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.
Google Scholar
Sobotka, P. (2014). Partykuły greckie – pochodzenie, klasyfikacja i wybrane problemy opisu. W: K. Kleszczowa, A. Szczepanek (red.). Wyrażenia funkcjonalne w perspektywie diachronicznej, synchronicznej i porównawczej. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego. 133–167.
Google Scholar
Socratis quae feruntur epistolae. (1997). J.-F. Borkowski (red.). Stuttgart–Leipzig: B.G. Teubner.
Google Scholar
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.


