Wieland's Revival of Horace JANE V. CURRAN In eighteenth-century Germany there arose a tremendous enthusiasm for translating, particularly from texts written in the Classical languages. Translation theorists in this period outline two possible methods: either the emphasis lies with the ancient source or with the modem idiom. Christoph Martin Wieland (1733-1813) translated the Epistles (1782) and Satires (1786) of Horace into lively verse in a loose iambic pentameter scheme. The translations, with their accompanying introductions and commentaries, display Wieland's expertise as a Classical scholar and his skill as a poet. By contrast, in the Horace translations of Johann Heinrich Vol~ (1751-1826), too strict an adherence to the metrical and syntactical features of the original produces an unnatural German style. Johann Christoph Gottsched (1700-1766) translated Horace's Ars Poetica as a preface to his own treatise on poetry, Versuch einer critischen Dichtkunst (1730). Gottsched's allegiance lies with contemporary literary style; he translates freely, using rhyming Alexandrines. Wieland's method, a mean between these two extremes, provides the most faithful reproduction of the Roman poet. uch has been written on the t h e o r y of translation, about the necessity of translation, the impossibility of translation, and a b o u t w h a t such r e v e r e d authorities on the subject as H o r a c e and Cicero, Tytler and Goethe, Benjamin and Broch actually sought to advocate and r e c o m m e n d . There are specific problems: h o w to translate f r o m an ancient into a m o d e r n tongue, w h e t h e r to maintain the verse f o r m w h e n translating poetry, a n d w h e r e sacrifices m u s t be m a d e , w h e t h e r the f o r m of the sourcetext or the idiom of the target-language should w e i g h m o r e heavily in the balance. Some believe that any translation is a travesty, others that w o r t h w h i l e texts cry out to be translated and retranslated at regular intervals, others still that a n y f o r m of c o m m u nication is in fact a translation. The eighteenth century in G e r m a n y was exceptionally p r e d i s p o s e d t o w a r d s the activity of translation, to a degree that cannot simply have b e e n dictated b y the req u i r e m e n t s of a reading public less than a d e q u a t e l y v e r s e d in other E u r o p e a n or, indeed, in the Classical languages. In fact it is not at all clear that such a state of affairs pertained. The benefits of this translation i n d u s t r y - - w h i c h was w h a t it almost a m o u n t e d t o - - w e n t b e y o n d the mere function of c o n v e y i n g learning. Translation c o u l d also be seen as a w a y of refining the G e r m a n language, as Wilhelm v o n H u m b o l d t p o i n t e d out in the " V o r r e d e " to his verse translation of Aeschylus' Agamemnon (1816). H e speaks there of "Erweiterung der Bedeutsamkeit und der Ausdrucksfiihigkeit der eigenen

M

This article is based on a paper given at the Third Meeting of the International Society for the Classical Tradition (ISCT), held at Boston University, March 8-12, 1995. Jane V. Curran, Department of German, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia B3H 3J5, Canada.

International Journal of the Classical Tradition, VoL 3, No. 2 Fall 1996, pp. 171-184.

172

International Journal of the Classical Tradition ~Fall 1996

Sprache. "q Also, successful translations of the Classics could become accepted as part of the domestic literary corpus, just as literary imitations and versions which take great liberties with ancient texts, such as those of Alexander Pope, succeed in establishing themselves as masterpieces in their own right. The principles of translation practised by eighteenth-century German translators are frequently to be culled from prefaces to the translations themselves, in which the translator defends the decision to make certain necessary adjustments, sometimes identifies the type of reader for whom this work will be appropriate and sometimes provides a brief introduction to the merits of the original work and its relevance for contemporary readers. The policies stated in the preface to a translation may aspire to universal applicability but they remain, to a greater or lesser extent, bound up with the individual author and with the specific text being presented. However, this period of extraordinary practical engagement with the art of translation can also boast clearsighted theoretical contributions to the topic. For the first half of the century, Georg Venzky provides the most cogent theory, which condenses the translator's obligations into two: the necessity for clarity and accuracy and the importance of upholding the grammatical rules of the translator's language. 2 At the other end of the period, we encounter Goethe and Schleiermacher, in the same year, 1813, formulating their respective theories which, despite very different contexts, transmit remarkably similar messages to the translator. Schleiermacher's views are the subject matter of a lecture on translation, "Uber die verschiedenen Methoden des Ubersetzens." Schleiermacher differentiates here between the "Dolmetscher," whose sphere of activity is circumscribed by legal and commercial guidelines, and the "eigentliche Clbersetzer," whose task demands much more skill because here the texts are taken from the realm of the arts and sciences. In between these two activities are "Paraphrase" and "Nachbildung." Of these, the former has more the character of commentary than of strict translation and the latter corresponds to the original text only in overall impression; its constituent parts make no attempt to resemble those of the original. The true translator, in Schleiermacher's view, is faced with a dilemma: "Entweder der fflbersetzer Ififlt den Schriftsteller m6glichst in Ruhe, und bewegt den Leser ihm entgegen oder er last den Leser m6glichst in Ruhe und bewegt den Schriftsteller ihm entgegen. "3 Coincidentally, the same two methods of translating appear in Goethe's " Z u m Briiderlichen Andenken Wielands," occasioned by C. M. Wieland's death in 1813. Goethe writes: Es gibt zwei fflbersetzungsmaximen: die eine verlangt, daJJ der Autor einer fremden Nation zu uns heriiber gebracht werde, dergestalt, daft wir ihn als den Unsrigen

1.

2. 3.

Aeschylos Agamemnon. Metrisch iibersetzt von Wilhelm von Humboldt (Leipzig: Gerhard Fleischer der Jiingere, 1816): XVII. Also in: Wilhelm von Humboldts Gesammelte Schriflen, hrsg. vonder K6niglich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. I. Abt. Werke, hrsg. von Albert Leitzmann, VIII. Llbersetzungen (Berlin: B. Behr, 1909; repr. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1968): 129 ff. = Wilhelm von Humboldt, Werke in fiinf B~nden V, hrsg. von Andreas Flitner und Klaus Giel (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1981): 137 ff. (with comments and notes on p. 649 f.). Georg Venzky, "Das Bild eines geschickten Obersetzers," in: Idem, Beytrfige zur Critischen Historie der deutschen Sprache, Poesie und Beredsamkeit III (1734): 59-114. Friedrich D. E. Schleiermacher, "Uber die verschiedenen Methoden des Ubersetzens," in: Idem, Sfimmtliche Werke III/2 (Berlin: G. Reimer, 1838): 218.

173

Curran

ansehen k6nnen; die andere hingegen macht an uns die Forderung, daft wir uns zu dem Fremden hiniiber begeben . . . 4

Goethe would later expand and alter this scheme to incorporate a third, as yet hypothetical method, in the introduction to his West-Ostlicher Divan. But for the present discussion, Goethe's eulogy for Wieland is singularly appropriate. Wieland the translator will overcome this polarity, as we shall see, and as Goethe also considered he had: Unser Freund, der auch hier den Mittelweg suchte, war beide zu verbinden bemiiht, doch zog er als M a n n yon Gefiihl und Geschmack in zweifelhaften Fa'llen die erste M a x i m e vor.

In 1781, Christoph Martin Wieland published the first of his translations of Horace's Epistles, "Versuch einer Uebersetzung der ersten Epistel des Horaz." This appeared in the journal Der Teutsche Merkur, of which Wieland himself was the editor. In succes-

sive editions of the journal, up until 1785, further samples appeared as advertisements for the forthcoming volumes of the Epistles a n d Satires translated by Wieland. Better known as a doer than as a thinker, s Wieland never formulated a theory of translation as such, but he was interested in translation as a practical enterprise throughout his life. His admiration for Horace, in particular, began in his schooldays,6 and we have a translation of the opening of Horace's Ars Poetica, preserved from Wieland's schoolbooks, which makes an interesting comparison with the version prepared by the poet in his middle age. 7 I. Wieland as critic and reviewer of translations

Wieland's interests in translation were very far-reaching and they embraced his own work on Aristophanes, Cicero, Euripides, Horace, Isocrates, Lucian, Shakespeare, and Xenophon as well as the projects of other translators. As editor of Der Teutsche Merkur, Wieland did his best to promote translations--and not only his own. Besides reviewing numerous translations, Wieland also launched translation competitions. In one announcement he challenged aspiring translators to produce a hexameter version

4. 5.

6.

7.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, "Zum brfiderlichen Andenken Wielands," in: Idem, Sa'mtliche Werke XII: Biographische Einzelschriften, (Zfirich: Artemis 1962, 2nd edn): 705. "Wieland ist nicht der grofle Theoretiker, sondern der grqfle Praktiker der Llbersetzung." Egon Dahinten, Studien zum Sprachstil der Iliasiibertragungen Biirgers, Stolbergs und Vossens unter Berf~cksichtigung der fdbersetzungstheorien des 18. Jahrhunderts (G6ttingen: Diss., 1956): 33. "Horaz ist fiir Wieland ein seit friihester Jugend vertrauter Besitz . . . "Wolfgang Monecke, Wieland und Horaz (K61n & Graz: B6hlau, 1964): 3. On the same page, Monecke reproduces this much-quoted statement from Wieland directly: "ira 13ten Jahr verstand oder divinirte ich meinen Horaz und Virgil besser als meine Lehrer." Ausgewiihlte Briefe von C. M. Wieland an verschiedene Freunde: In den ]ahren 1751 bis 1810 geschrieben, und nach der Zeitfolge geordnet III (Zfirich: Get~ner, 1816): 381. C.M. Wieland, "Klosterbergisches Schulheft" (1748) in: Idem, Gesammelte Schriften (Akademieausgabe) I/4, ed. Fritz Homeyer & Hugo Bieber (Berlin: Weidmann, 1916; repr. Hildesheim: Weidmann, 1986): 679-681.

174

International Journal of the Classical Tradition ~Fall 1996

of Lucretius, using the same n u m b e r of lines as the original. 8 The p r e p o n d e r a n c e of ancient figures is notable in the list of authors h o n o u r e d b y a translation f r o m Wieland's o w n pen; this fact is consonant b o t h with Wieland's habit of choosing an ancient setting for his works of fiction 9 and with his role as co-editor of the later journal, Attisches Museum (1805-1811), in which translations from the Classics take precedence. His o w n translation of X e n o p h o n ' s Symposion was first published there, together with the observation, of interest for today's language theorists, " . . . so lange unsre Sprache

eine der lebenden bleibt, wird eine neue LIbersetzung wenigstens alle dre~ig oder vierzig Jahre sogar n6tig sein. "1~ Wieland's occasional hermeneutical insights u n f o r t u n a t e l y r e m a i n just as isolated statements w i t h o u t forming a coherent theory of translation. The nearest Wieland ever came to formulating his translation principles in a systematic w a y was in 1795 w h e n he w r o t e a critical review, in the Neuer Teutscher Merkur, of Johann Heinrich VoW" H o m e r translation in its reVised form. n Vot~ h a d originally created a celebrated G e r m a n h e x a m e t e r version of H o m e r ' s Odyssey in 1781, of w h i c h Wieland a p p r o v e d . Drawing u p o n the plastic arts for his m e t a p h o r i c a l language, he writes in the Teutsche Merkur of 1782 that the reader of this translation will find "e/nen AbguJJ, der dem Urbild so i~hnlich sieht, daft der Unterschied--selbst fiir den kalten Kunstrichter--von keiner Erheblichkeit ist!" A n d in a letter to Vol~ in 1788, W i e l a n d expresses a similar admiration for Vol~' Iliad: Wenn die Ilias so ins Deutsche iibersetzt werden soil, daJJ so wenig als m6glich vom Original verloren gehe, (und wer wiinscht nicht eine solche Uebersetzung der Ilias?) so muJJ sie so iibersetzt werden, wie Sie, mein lieber VoJJ, mir durch die That bewiesen haben, daft es m6glich ist . . . 12 But w h e n it came to the revised version, W i e l a n d - - a n d o t h e r s - - p u b l i s h e d strongly a d v e r s e reactions. Wieland objects to the w a y Vol~ attempts to translate all G r e e k particles and idioms into German. A stilted insistence on the genitive case and an excessive f r e q u e n c y of p r o n o u n s like "~ener" and "solcher," as well as the use of "Flickw6rter" such as "fiirwahr" are the lamentable result. Alterations to the natural G e r m a n w o r d o r d e r are also m e n t i o n e d d i s a p p r o v i n g l y b y Wieland. H e speaks of "etwas fremdes und unteutsches in Sprache und Wortstellung. 'q3 In addition, he questions w h e t h e r absolute a d h e r e n c e to the h e x a m e t e r of the Greek can ever be a p p r e c i a t e d b y the average G e r m a n reader's ear. H e calls on Horace's a u t h o r i t y to back h i m up:

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

Der Neue Teutsche Merkur, March 1793: 234. H. B. Nisbet refers to this in his article, "Karl Ludwig von Knebel's Hexameter Translation of Lucretius," German Life and Letters, 41/4 (July 1988): 418 f. These include Geschichte der Abderiten, Geschichte des Agathon, Musarion, and the more parodistic works such as the G6ttergesprfiche and Comische Erz~hlungen. Attisches Museum W / 1 (1802/03): 57. C. M. Wieland, "Briefe iiber die Vossische Ubersetzung des Homers," Der Neue Teutsche Merkur, May, 1795:422 f. Ausgewfihlte Briefe IV (1816): 4. "Briefe tiber die Vossische Ubersetzung des Homers": 402. Vot~' revised Odyssee translation met with almost universal disapproval. See Franz Schwarzbauer, Die Xenien. Studien zur Vorgeschichte der Weimarer Klassik, Germanistische Abhandlungen 72 (Stuttgart & Weimar: Verlag J. B. Metzler, 1993): 233-239.

Curran

175

"Horaz wenigstens wiirde sich . . . kein Gewissen daraus gemacht haben, um mit dem griechischen Dichter gleichen Schritt zu halten, ein Beywort aufzuopfern . . . ,,14

It should be noted that there was much heated dispute in the second half of the eighteenth century as to how Homer should best be translated. This most ancient of poets, whose works had come to be regarded as constituting a compendium of wisdom, an authority to be consulted and quoted on all moral and theological questions, needed, it seems, special treatment in translation. The disputes centred for the most part on the question of prosody. Gottsched was in favour of translating Homer into German hexameters; Biirger experimented with iambic pentameter; Stolberg reverted to hexameter for his submission to the Deutsches Museum. And a prose version by Christian Tobias Datum prompted the following witty announcement in the Bibliothek der sch6nen Wissenschaften: "Homer, ein griechischer Dichter, in Berlin get6dtet! "q5 Wieland was not alone in his reservations about the 1795 revisions to Vof~"Homer. A. W. Schlegel, whose credentials as a translator can hardly be doubted, also reviewed the revised version very unfavourably in the Jenaische Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung. He formulated a dictum which sweeps Vol~ the translator off the map. Vol~, according to Schlegel, has blessed the German nation "mit einem steinernen Homer, einem ledernen Aristophanes und einem h61zernen Shakspere. "16 Schlegel's words suggest that Vote' Homer is like a stone statue; it is painstakingly sculpted and chiseled, and it does present a likeness, but one that is cold and heavy and inert. His Homer does nothing to detract from the view of the ancient poet as a revered stone monument, immobile and incapable of sight or speech. Years later, in 1806, Vol] was still translating, and he presented the reading public with a two-volume edition of the complete works of Horace. The u n n a m e d reviewer in the Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung set up the, by then, customary contrast between Wieland and Vot~ as translators. 17 Particular praise is reserved for Wieland's commentaries, and VoW' translation is also initially looked upon with favour. One of its merits is that it brings together contrasting tendencies: the style is noble, intended for noblemen, and yet it does not sacrifice popularity in the content. It also feels German, but it is foreign at the same time, inasmuch as Vot~ is at pains to preserve the Roman "Colorit." The Roman spirit, according to the reviewer, appears as Roman, despite being expressed in German ("Wir sehen den r6mischen Geist, der sich in deutscher Sprache r6misch gestaltet'18). But then it is argued that the translation is too Roman for all but a small, 14. "Briefe tiber die Vossische Ubersetzung des Homers": 404. Wieland refers implicitly to Horace's Ars Poetica 1.133f.,which, in Wieland's own translation, contains the phrase: "noch, als ein getreuer demiit'ger Clbersetzer, Wort fiir Wort / dem Griechen nachtrittst . . . " 15. Quoted from Reinhard Tgahrt, ed. Weltliteratur. Die Lust am fflbersetzen im ]ahrhundert Goethes (Mtinchen: K6sel,1982): 301. Homer's central importance is mentioned by Manfred Fuhrmann, "Von Wieland bis Voss: wie verdeutscht man antike Autoren?', Jahrbuch des Freien Deutschen Hochstifts 29 (1987): 14: "Homers Genie und Homers Schlichtheit wurden zum Pritfstein einer neuen Epoche: ihn bewunderte man ohne Grenzen, ihn suchte man im Original zu verstehen, ihn angemessen ins Deutsche zu iibertragen." 16. Cf. Adalbert Schroeter, Geschichte der deutschen Homer-fflbersetzung im 18. Jahrhundert (Jena: H. Costenoble, 1882; repr. Hildesheim: Weidmann, 1978): 331. 17. Jenaische Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung 135 (10-12 June, 1807): 466-488. Borrowing a phrase from a reviewer in the Neue allgemeine deutsche Bibliothek 84 (1803): 525, the editor of Weltliteratur adopts the chapter heading "Wielandische oder Vossische Manier" (Chapter 14). 18. JenaischeAllgemeine Literatur-Zeitung 135: 468.

176

International Journal of the Classical Tradition /Fall 1996

elite group of readers. It appears that, even for this small group, w ho know Horace well and have read and reread him and have taken him to their hearts, this translation will p r o v e less than satisfactory in the end. The reason is that each individual reader builds up a very personal view of Horace, and the recognition of him in VoS' lines is not likely to take place automatically. Each reader will have different reservations about the translation. The reviewer then thinks up examples of what these reservations might be: "Dem wird sie zu kalt diinken, jenem zu trfige in der Form haften& ein

anderer wird die beliebte und sehr gelobte Natiirlichkeit, und was er anmuthige Nachlfissigkeit nennt, vermissen. "19 In effect, the reviewer, using hypothetical readers as spokesmen, has voiced much the same criticism here as A.W. Schlegel expressed in the same journal on the subject of Vol~' revised Homer. Cold, inert, imprisoned in its formal restraints, lacking in all that is natural and gracefully relaxed--all of these epithets apply most appropriately to a stone figure. Vocabulary relating to sculpture is also used by Wieland w hen he is assessing a translator's technique. But, although in his 1782 review of the Iliad Wieland uses the image of the "Abgufl" to praise Voi]' version, he calls u p o n images from the plastic arts much more frequently when he wants to express loss of vitality in a translation. An "Abgufl" is the cast, often in plaster, which can reproduce for m o d e r n observers the exact contours of a bronze or marble statue carved in Ancient Greece. Wieland employs the term in order to commend Vote' accuracy. But he speaks apologetically in the Neue Teutsche Merkur of his own translation of Aristophanes' Clouds, saying that it will only provide a "Holzschnitt" of the original. 2~ And in a letter to Z i m m e r m a n n he says apropos of Xenophon that what is lost in a translation is the same as the loss incurred by the statue Venus de Medici when sketched. 21 In Wieland's vocabulary, images deriving from sculpture and painting or portraiture draw attention to the translator's twin goals of formal accuracy and natural beauty. H. Wieland as translator of Horace

The expressions used by Wieland as editor or reviewer will not, however, replace the evidence which can be gleaned from an examination of the translations which he himself produced. In the Horace translations, Wieland makes a n u m b e r of conscious decisions which reflect his own view that literal, formal accuracy is less important than a natural German style. Thus we find him taking liberties on several fronts. Horace's concision could not be reproduced in German, as we find Wieland regretting in his introduction to Epistle 1.19: "Nur schade, daft die kOrnichte Kidrze, die eine

Hauptsch6nheit des Originals ist, in der Llbersetzung der Deutlichkeit aufgeopfert werden muflte. "22 Although here it applies to one poem in particular, the belief that a text which can be clearly understood is worth more than one which insists on formal fidelity colours the whole Horace translation project and results in versions which are, on average, a third as long again as the original. 19. JenaischeAllgemeine Literatur-Zeitung 135: 468. The pitfalls of Vol~' translation technique are further outlined in Giinther H/intzschel, Johann Heinrich VoJL Seine Homer-Clbersetzung als sprachsch6pferische Leistung, Zetemata 68 (M~inich: Beck, 1977): 64-149. 20. Der Neue Teutsche Merkur (Oct. 1798): 152. 21. Ausgew~hlte Briefe II (1815): 1. 22. Christoph Martin Wieland, Werke IX. Llbersetzung des Horaz, ed. Manfred Fuhrmann (Frankfurt am Main: Deutscher Klassiker Verlag 1986): 302.

Curran

177

The added length of Wieland's translation can partly be explained by syntactical differences: for example, there is no definite or indefinite article in Latin; the personal pronoun is, by and large, contained in the inflection of the verb; constructions like the ablative absolute or ethic dative can convey in one or two Latin words an idea which would require a phrase of at least six in German. The first epistle in Book 1 contains the succinct Latin phrase (1.1.4), Non eadem est aetas, non mens: "not the same in age, not mind." Wieland translates, Ich bin an Jahren und an Sinnesart nicht mehr der vorige. (ed. Fuhrmann 38)

Horace's six words have become eleven in German. Horace has not found it necessary to use a personal pronoun; the context in which the phrase appears makes this clear. But Wieland has turned the whole statement into a personal one; he therefore adds "der vorige" which expresses the other side of the comparison between what went before and what is now the case. In the Latin this is all contained within non eadem, "not the same," which implies the contrast. The word "mehr," which Wieland has added in conformity with German usage, makes Horace's meaning completely explicit. The other factor to be considered in relation to the added length is Wieland's role as commentator. Again and again he inserts an explanatory phrase or word, which might have merited a footnote, into the text of his translation. In the lines quoted above, the change from an impersonal to a personal statement is of this kind. 23 It is more evident in examples like the following (1.1.13 f.), where Horace writes: Ac ne forte roges quo me duce, quo lare tuter nullius addictus iurare in verba magistri,

and Wieland translates: Fragst du, in welchen von den Weisheitsschulen Athens ich eingeschrieben sei,. . . (ed. Fuhrmann 39)

The word "Weisheitsschulen" is a gloss, and "Athens" is added merely for the purpose of informing the reader of something which cannot be assumed to be comm o n k n o w l e d g e a m o n g readers of Horace in translation. The past participle "eingeschrieben" also has no direct correspondent in the Latin (unless it is taken as an attempt at addictus), because Horace was not there talking of institutions of learning but of individual teachers. Wieland's changes make it easier for his reader to understand the cultural background which Horace and his readers could take for granted. Wieland's desire to ensure that his readers are well placed to enter into the historical context inhabited by Horace and his readers has not led to substantial lengthening in 23. Cf. Franz Haller, Wielands Horaz in seiner ersten Fassung (Vienna: Diss. 1927): 198: "Sehr zahlreich sind diejenigen Einfiigungen, welche erkl~renden Zweck haben, d.h. einer Erlf~uterung unter oder hinter der Llbersetzung gleichkommen." Also 208: "Bisweilen k6nnen wir geradezu beobachten, dass Wieland Horazische Gedanken und Situationen fortfiihrt, mithin dort weiterdichtet, wo der Rf~mer aufgehf~rt hat."

International Journal of the Classical Tradition ~Fall 1996

178

this instance, because he has sacrificed the first three Latin words and, more importantly, and regrettably, the rhythmical repetition of q u o . . , quo. In line with his endeavour to reproduce the right tone for Horace, Wieland pays particular attention to idiom. It is here that he strays furthest from a literal rendering of the original. But, in adopting lively expressions, such as "Was hab" ich dummes Ding getan?" (Epistles 1.20.6) or "Lebt aber dernur wohl, der trefflich ~t, / wohlan!" (Epistles 1.6.55), Wieland lets us hear the natural, colloquial tones of Horace's Latin. A version more formally "accurate" could not easily preserve the pleasing flavour of the original. The Roman speaks to his German readers in an engaging tone. Wieland himself was innovative in introducing a "reader-friendly" attitude in his own writings, often addressing the reader directly, and now he brings Horace into a dialogue with his own contemporaries, in a way which still does not constitute a travesty of the original poems. III. Wieland's metre

Wieland does not preserve the dactylic hexameter in which Horace composed these poems; he replaces it with a flexible iambic pentameter. This decision is justified in the preface to Wieland's translation of Horace's Satires. The reader is being addressed:

Ich hatte zwei Ursachen, wovon jede fiir sich schon hinlfinglich wfire, das Jambische Metrum dem Hexameter vorzuziehen. Die eine ist die gerechte Besorgnis, in einer Zeit von mehr als 25 Jahren die Kunst deutsche Hexameter zu machen ziemlich verlernt zu haben . . . . Wenn aber auch dieser Umstand nicht in Betrachtung k~me, wiirde ich doch den freien Jambus blofl aus diesem Grunde vor dem Hexameter gewi~hlt haben, weil der letzte kiinstlicher ist, und, wenn er anders wohl klingen soil, fiir die musam pedestrem des Horaz einen zu prdchtigen Schritt in unsrer Sprache h a t . . . 24 The second reason provided makes it quite clear that Horace, translated into German hexameter, would not have sounded like Horace. The effect would have been artificial; fidelity to Horace's metre would, paradoxically, have destroyed Horace's tone, his pace and the immediacy of his style. It is once again out of fidelity to Horace that Wieland makes his decision: he opts to abandon Horace's metre. We now return to Vote, whose version does preserve the hexameter. The very first line of the first poem in Book 1 demonstrates what violence this can do to German word order:

Du, den zuerst mir pries, den zuletzt wird preisen die Muse. This translates the Latin:

Prima dicte mihi, summa dicenda Camena Vot] has achieved his prosodical aim and, as Horace placed the Muse at the end of the

24. Ed. Fuhrmann: 580.

Curran

179

line, in the position of emphasis, so has VoK In addition, Vot] has reproduced the dative of the second person singular. However, this use of the dative is not natural in German, neither does placing the subject of the sentence at the end of the line lend emphasis, as it does in Latin; it sounds stiff and forced. It is to his credit that Vol~ has replaced Camena with the more familiar "Muse," but it is tempting to suspect that he was primarily motivated b y the exigencies of his chosen metre. If we look up the exclamations from Epistles 1.20 and 1.6, quoted above in Wieland's vivid versions, we find, b y contrast, in Vol3: "Wehe was that ich?" and

Ziehe, dem Alter gemfifl, mit Artigkeit jeden zur Sippschaft. The rhetorical question does not actually do violence to German syntax, and it is a perfect dactyl-spondee combination as prescribed for the hexameter line ending. And yet it conveys a melancholy tone to a line which is not a lament, but rather an ironic self-criticism. Wieland, in his notes, refers to this epistle as one of the wittiest in the whole of antiquity, but Vot~ has made it mournful. The second example is simply ludicrous. Up to the comma it is idiomatic, b u t then "Artigkeit" and "Sippschaft" do not fit together at all and "zur Sippschaft ziehen" is not a common phrase, to put it mildly. Vote' type of fidelity--to Horace's w o r d order, grammatical constructions, and metre does an injustice to the poet, by making him speak in a completely unnatural way. There is another w a y in which Wieland enables the ancient poet to enter into conversation with the modern German readership. Wieland has had the printers lay out each page of the translation in a particular way. The top part of the page contains the German translation, in Gothic script; underneath it is the Latin text, in Classical typeface. This layout sets up the text for a lively dialogue between Horace in Latin and Wieland in German, and a dialogue which involves the reader intimately. The German reader is immediately drawn to the German text and encouraged to tackle the Latin original as well. Then, Wieland's interpretations challenge the reader's judgement and invite replies to Horace as well as to Wieland himself. By these means, Horace is transformed from a marble monument into a lively interlocutor. The modern reader encounters a friend who is amusing, ironic, selfdeprecating, sometimes teasing, and humanely wise in the advice he offers. Wieland's treatment has brought Horace, the character, to life. Vol~ had different priorities, as we have seen. The German metre, based on a system of stress rather than length of syllable, as it is in classical Greek and Latin verse, does not permit the natural rhythms of speech, which are present in Horace, to emerge. Vot~ restricted his line number to match that of the original, and this too was b o u n d to cramp his German style: Finally, his decision not to include any explanatory footnotes, and even to omit the Latin original, can be interpreted as a type of arrogance. It suggests the view that his own translation is so faithful as to be capable of replacing the original, superseding it almost. But Vot~ has replaced Horace with a cold and stiff effigy, whereas Wieland has led this admired figure into the eighteenth century for a dialogue with his own contemporaries. The stone figure, or statue, which so famously came to life at the hands of Ovid's Pygmalion, comes to life in Wieland's hands in a w a y that Vot~ does not achieve with his Homer or his Horace. Pygmalion, the sculptor, invested his work with both artistry and emotion; he earned the favour of the goddess Venus and the carving came to life

180

International Journal of the Classical Tradition ~Fall 1996

as a woman. For his part, Wieland has contributed to the project both his skill as a poet and translator and his love of Horace. In doing so, he has brought the Roman poet to life for his generation of German readers. The ancient figure, Horace, comes to epitomise his age much as Greek statuary embodied its more ancient civilisation. Wieland's translation accomplishes, in a practical way, for Roman culture what Winckelmann and Lessing achieved for Greek culture in their theoretical writings. There is something of Daedalus present in these translations as well. He was the sculptor of w h o m it is reported in Plato 25 that his carvings were so true to life that they had to be tethered to prevent them from wandering off. This type of accuracy seems at first glance to be Vof~' type of expertise. But his translations do not, for all their formal fidelity, resemble the original. Here is a couplet from Vol~' Horace translation:

Dies hier sagt' ich dem Schreiber am modernden Tempel Bacunas, Ausgenommen, daft du mir fehletest, iibrigens heiter.

It does justice neither to German style and idiom, nor to the original Latin. Horace's couplet runs:

Haec tibi dictabam post fanum putre Vacunae, excepto quod non simul esses, cetera laetus. (Sat. 1.10.49 f.)

Vot~ omits the tibi of the first of Horace's lines and the result is a curious dislocation between the two lines, with the adjective "heiter" in a position of complete isolation. It is Wieland who, in remaining true to Horace's tone, produces a version which is lifelike:

Dies' Freund, diktiert' ich, an der guten G6ttin Vacuna halbzerfallenen Kapelle ins Gras gestreckt, und, aufler daft ich dich nicht bei mir hatte, iibrigens vergniigt. Wieland's version is considerably longer than VoW, but the crucial difference is in the little word "und" in the third line reproduced here, enclosed as it is within commas. This word alone clarifies a feature of Latin syntax which, if imitated in German, can only be cryptic. VoW participle "ausgenommen" has no means of connection to the subject of the sentence. This connection, provided by Wieland through the simple insertion of the word "und," gives to his translation the Horatian limpidity which is absent from Vot~' version. This is not all that Wieland inserts. His description of the chapel is very evocative, and his extra detail which shows us Horace stretched out contentedly on the grass, are both features which add flesh to the spare style of the original. This practice does not falsify Horace, although the details are original to Wieland. 26 It ensures that we encounter a living person and not a stone effigy.

25. Daedalus is mentioned in Plato's dialogues Meno 97b and Euthyphro 11c. 26. Wieland's scholarly sensibility shows through in the kinship of these details with various other Horatian passages, e.g., Odes 2.3.6, Epodes 2.24 and Epistles 1.14.35.

Curran

181

Far from producing a reproduction in plaster, wood, leather or stone, Wieland has coaxed the revered Roman poet down from his pedestal and made it possible for the contemporary reader to converse with him. In Wieland's German version, Horace speaks in the urbane tone of the original; the liberties taken by his translator preserve Horace's cosmopolitanism as well as his wry irony and jocular self-criticism. Vote, on the other hand, applies inflexible formal restraints to his translation style, and the result is an idealised Horace, rigid and lifeless. Wieland enjoyed the fundamental feeling of a fraternity with Horace, 27 and this was crucial to the successful outcome of the enterprise when Wieland translated Shakespeare in the 1760s he was not working on a kindred spirit, and it shows. His kinship with the Roman poet negates the historical distance between them, and it is this which guides Wieland's hand and leads to a Horace translation which is both faithful and lifelike. Wieland takes liberties with the original text when he translates, but he is well aware that he is doing so and he defends himself ably. His lack of strict accuracy can be justified by the result; his translations are remarkable for their fidelity of tone. And it is in the reproduction of a natural tone, undeniably, that Vot~ fails. However, there is another eighteenth-century translator of Horace who, like Wieland, stands in a freer relation to the text. Much earlier in the century, Johann Christoph Gottsched had translated Horace's ever popular Ars Poetica and used this as a preface to the 1737 edition of his Versuch einer critischen Dichtkunst. Here are the opening lines of Horace's epistle:

Humano capiti cervicem pictor equinam iungere si velit variasque inducere plumas, undique collatis membris, ut turpiter atrum desinat in piscem mulier formosa superne, spectatum admissi risum teneatis amici? This is how Gottsched translates them:

Fiirwahr, ein artig Bild! Es steht ein Menschenkopf Auf eines Pferdes Hals. Den dicken Vogelkropf Bedeckt ein bunter Schmuck von farbigtem Gefieder: Hernach erblicket man verschiedner Thiere Glieder. Von oben zeigt ein Weib ihr sch6nes Angesicht, Von unten wirds ein Fisch. Ihr Freunde, lacht doch nicht! 2s Now let us compare Wieland's version:

Wofern ein Maler einen Venuskopf auf einen Pferdhals setzte, schmiickte drauf 27. Fuhrmann, "Von Wieland bis Vol~": 4. "So verkehrte er mit der Antike gewissermaJ3en auf gleichem Fujqe..." The idea that Wieland identified himself with Horace completely underlies the study by Hans-Heinrich Reuter, "Die Philologie der Grazien. Wielands Selbstbildnis in seinen Kommentaren der Episteln und Satiren des Horaz," in: Christoph Martin Wieland, ed. Hansj6rg Schelle (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1981): 251-306. 28. Johann Christoph Gottsched, Ausgewfihlte Werke, ed. Joachim Birke & Brigitte Birke, VI/1 (Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1973): 38

182

International Journal of the Classical Tradition /Fall 1996

den Leib mit Gliedern von verschiedenen Tieren und bunten Federn aus, und liefie (urn aus allen Elementen etwas anzubringen) das sch6ne Weib von oben--sich zuletzt in einen grausenhaften Fisch verlieren, sich schmeichelnd, nun ein wundervolles Werk euch aufgestellt zu haben: Freunde, wiirdet ihr bei diesem Anblick wohl das Lachen halten ?29 Both translators are quite open about having produced versions which are longer than the original. "Aus fiinfhundert lateinischen Versen habe ich reich gen6thiget gesehen, fast 700 deutsche zu machen... ,,,3o writes Gottsched in his "Vorbericht." He also claims that the alterations he has introduced leave the main substance intact and are attributable to the fact that he has chosen verse for his translation. Gottsched starts with an exclamation which, he freely admits in a footnote, is not in the original. He mentions that German syntax makes it necessary to break up Horace's sentence and that he saw fit to make this addition which would function as an introduction for the German reader. Gottsched's six-beat lines make a nod in the direction of fidelity to the hexameter of the original, but because Gottsched has chosen to use rhyme for his translation, several of his adjustments have had to be made simply in order to ease his rhyme scheme. The most obvious example of this in the passage quoted comes at the end of the second line. The word "Vogelkropf," although not inappropriate to the context, has no actual correspondent in the Latin. But the tone of Gottsched's translation is sometimes different from Horace's as well. Instead of using a form of direct address, Gottsched uses an impersonal construction, "es steht." In addition, Gottsched turns Horace's hypotheses into statements. He does not convey the hypothetical mood of Horace's subjunctives, si v e l i t . . , teneatis, at all. These two syntactical changes have further repercussions at the end of our passage. There Gottsched uses the imperative, "Ihr Freunde, lacht doch nicht!" to translate Horace's conditional rhetorical question. Gottsched mentions in his "Vorbericht" the view, to which he himself endeavoured to adhere throughout, that a translator should not undertake to interpret the text, "Ein fflbersetzer masse kein Paraphrast oder Ausleger werden." Yet this is precisely the business Gottsched is about when he makes these changes. Gottsched has decided that Horace's poem is not in any important sense a piece of personal correspondence. His changes all transform the tone to an impersonal one, appropriate to a set of rules for aspiring poets; Gottsched presents his readers with a practical document, in which the personal element has been greatly reduced; if it is to function as a preface to his own poetic handbook, it must appear to be unambiguously suited to this role. To this end, Horace's lively conversational style has largely been replaced by a series of prescriptions. Wieland's translation of this passage runs to ten lines, as opposed to Gottsched's seven. His metre is the one he employs throughout his translations of the Epistles and Satires, a free iambic pentameter. 31 His first line offers the translation "Venuskopf' for 29. Ed. Fuhrmann: 508. 30. Gottsched: 34. 31. Horst Thom6 sees this as a sacrifice required by the need for a natural style: "Beispielsweise sind die Horazischen Satiren und Episteln in Hexametern abgefajqt,die im Deutschen einen feierlichen Ton annehmen. Wieland verwendet statt dessertf~nf- und sechshebige ]amben, die am ehesten den

Curran

183

humano capiti. Gottsched was truer to the Latin formulation with his "Menschenkopf," but Wieland's choice appears very skillful in fact, if one looks ahead to the phrase, muller formosa superne, which comes three lines lower down. Wieland is making this connection for the benefit of his readers; he has decided that the "beautiful w o m a n above" must refer to the head, and therefore refers us to Venus, as a means of encapsulating the idea of feminine beauty. In addition, Wieland rearranges the order of mention of the various parts--heads, limbs, feathers--where Horace spoke of head, feathers, limbs. Wieland's order is perhaps more logical, but it detracts somewhat from the impression of disorder, which is, after all, Horace's main point. Both translators specify that the limbs belong to various animals; both are in fact adding a gloss to the text itself, and because this detail is common to both, we m a y perhaps be justified in thinking that Wieland has unconsciously borrowed from Gottsched here. Wieland intensifies the colourful contrast by inserting the adjectives "bunt," applied to the feathers (Gottsched did the same with "farbig") and "grausenhaft," applied to the fish tail. But Wieland's longest interpolation is one which reveals his o w n interpretation, in psychological terms, of the painter whose actions are being described: "sich schmeichelnd, nun ein wundervolles Werk / euch aufgestellt zu haben." He is gently poking fun at the misguided painter, but he is also helping German readers to see the intent of Horace's somewhat compact lines. The reader is subtly being encouraged to feel superior to the painter. In addition, Wieland sets up a sort of friendly conspiracy between Horace and his original readers, on one level, and between Horace and Wieland's readers on another level. On both these levels, he gives indications of a very friendly and familiar relationship. Wieland, who is not normally constrained b y the rules of formal fidelity, nevertheless abides by the hypothetical mood which Horace's verb forms convey. Where Gottsched changed a question to a command, Wieland maintains the question form and even adds an extra touch of friendly solidarity and connivance: "Freunde, wiirdet ihr / bei diesem Anblick wohl das Lachen halten?" Wieland's practice of providing additional details which contribute to an atmosphere of relaxed intimacy is a feature we meet with overwhelming frequency in his Horace translations. It stems from the fact that he felt a very strong affinity with Horace's personality, especially as this is expressed in his Satires and Epistles. In the case of this epistle, Wieland has a highly individual view of the intent of the work. The anomalies of the text--its curious structure, its emphasis on the negative can be explained, according to Wieland, by the fact that Horace's task was to dissuade Piso's son, a young man with little talent for poetry, from embarking on this profession. Impressed with the difficulties and pitfalls involved in the process of becoming a good and successful poet, the young man would think twice before running the risk of becoming .a laughing-stock like the artist described here. Attention to layout is a shared characteristic of the Gottsched and Wieland translations. As the facsimile edition of Gottsched's work shows, original and translation are consciously set out in a way which encourages a comparison between the t~,vO. 32 Where Wieland alternated translation and original on the same page, Gottsched places them face to face, on opposite pages. The original appears first, printed in a classical spezifisch Horazischen Eindruck dernur leicht versiJlzierten PIauderei erzeugen." H. T., "Die Ubersetzungen aus der antiken Literatur im Kontext der Altersromane," in: Wieland: Epoche-Werk--Wirkung, ed. Sven-Aage Jorgensen et al. (Mi/nchen: Beck, 1994): 148. 32. Johann Christoph Gottsched, Versuch einer critischen Dichtkunst (Leipzig: Breitkopf, 1751; repr. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1982).

184

International Journal of the Classical Tradition ~Fall 1996

typeface, with the translation opposite, in Gothic script. On Gottsched's page, too, the commentary, in German, has been granted a more prominent position: it appears on the lower half of each page. The balance between the German and Latin passages which is achieved on Wieland's pages gives the impression of a dialogue, and this reinforces the idea that Wieland, and his readers, are on a friendly footing with Horace. Gottsched's purpose is somewhat different, and this is reflected in his translation. After all, it serves as an introduction to his own poetic handbook, and Gottsched must concentrate on his own reformulation of the poetic prescriptions put forward by Horace; he emphasizes this aspect in particular when he translates. Accordingly, his German version of the Ars Poetica, with its accompanying commentary, must occupy more space on the page than does the Latin original. Wieland comes as close as he can to bringing Horace to life for his readers, by means of his translations and commentaries. Vol~, as we have seen, offered a very accurate translation, in formal terms, but one which made for awkward reading. Gottsched's Alexandrines flow and rhyme in a manner calculated to please the German ear, and yet, despite Gottsched's protests to the contrary, the reader can detect a certain forcing of Horace's intent and alteration of his style to fit an agenda more suited to later times. Wieland's main aim is to allow his readers to make Horace's acquaintance and to converse with him as easily as though they were contemporaries. He combines a professional knowledge of classical philology, evident both in the translation and the commentaries, with a feeling for his readers, the common touch. He produces a text which, when taken as a whole, as it must be, allows the reader to meet a real person. Wieland's Horace translation is not a stiff memorial of other times and places, nor is it simply material to be used and applied to contemporary situations without regard for the tone and aims of the original. Vot~ and Gottsched, each with his own characteristic translation method, exemplify the two branches of translation identified by Schleiermacher and by Goethe. Vote, as Horace's translator, journeys back into antiquity and uses archaic forms and stately measures to render Horace's tone, which should be familiar, interspersed with vivid snips of conversation. Gottsched, on the other hand, transports Horace into the eighteenth-century German academy by editing him and presenting a useful text to his own contemporary readers. As Goethe suggested, Wieland combines these two extremes. The result, predictably, is that his method remains flexible and avoids extremes. His translation honours the characteristic features of the original, even if he does not reproduce them with exact equivalents. It also helps German readers to enter Horace's world, by means of glosses, interpolations, introductions and commentaries. Wieland's translation emerges from the two extremes as both true and true to life.