Happily for the “Constantine Year” 2006, Paul Dräger [D.] has produced a new German translation of Eusebius’ Life of Constantine, the first in almost a century.1 D.’s translation is a remarkable achievement, the product of scrupulous attention to the language of the original and a refined sense for the nuances of Eusebius’ prose. It is a felicitous inaugural volume for the new Utopica series, “Bibliotheca Classicorum,” and will be a valuable aid for both students and scholars of Eusebius and Constantine.
The book is arranged as follows: Greek text and facing translation stand first after a brief foreword, followed by commentary, introduction, indices, and bibliography. The text is adapted from the standard edition of Winkelmann2 with departures from it (generally, corrections or restoration of MS readings) indicated in a chart at the head of the commentary (p. 307f.).
D.’s is a demanding, but rewarding translation. D. strives to translate Eusebius’s (and Constantine’s) Greek as faithfully as possible within the rules of the German language. D. painstakingly conveys not only the sense of the original, but also reproduces its phraseology, stylistic figures, and even syntax in German. The translation is meticulously accurate; the prose entirely Eusebian.
Such fidelity to both style and sense necessarily leads to some sacrifice of clarity in the target language. The style of D.’s translation thus has much in common with that of A.J. Woodman’s recent translation of Tacitus’ Annals.3 A reader familiar with Greek, though not at home with Eusebius’ style, will find the translation an indispensable tool for understanding and appreciating the virtuosity of the original. A reader with no knowledge of Greek may find D.’s translation a bewildering journey into a foreign world.
D. briefly discusses his translation principles at the end of the Einführung (pp. 394-96) and refers the reader to his translation of Apollonios of Rhodes for fuller discussion.4 A remark in a footnote (n. 27, p. 386) perhaps captures best how D. sees his task: “… ein begnadeter Stilist wie Eusebios will zu Bewertung und Verständnis Wort für Wort gelesen, übersetzt, kommentiert und möglichst auch griechisch geschrieben sein.” An excerpt will show D.’s principles in practice. The following is D.’s translation of the famous report of the vision of the cross and the appearance of Christ to Constantine in a dream (VC 1.28.2-29.):
Um die Stunden der Mittagssonne herum, als sich der Tag schon neigte, habe er mit eigenen Augen, behauptete er, am Himmel selbst, über der Sonne befindlich, ein Wendemal eines Kreuzes, aus Licht bestehend, gesehen, und mit ihm eine Schrift verbunden, die besagte: ‘Durch dieses siege!’ Staunen über den Anblick habe sich sowohl seiner als auch des ganze[n] Heeres bemächtigt, das ihm nun, als er irgendwohin einen Marsch unternahm, folgte und Augenzeuge des Wunders wurde. Und er sagte, er sei nun mit sich ratlos gewesen, was das eigentlich für eine Erscheinung sei. Als er sich das zu Gemüte führte und viel überlegte, kam die Nacht herauf und überfiel ihn. Da nun sei von ihm im Schlafe der Christus Gottes mit dem am Himmel erschienenen Zeichen gesehen worden und habe ihn aufgefordert, eine Nachahmung des am Himmel gesehenen Zeichens zu bilden und diese gegen die Zusammenstöße mit den Kriegsgegnern als Abwehr zu gebrauchen.
D. has preserved the very order of the clauses of the first sentence and begins the next sentence with “Staunen” just as Eusebius sets
The translation abounds with such minor revelations, for instance the novelty “Wendemal” in the passage above. Etymologically, the word must mean a “turning mark” or “monument.” It is none other than
D. uses pointed brackets <> in the translation to mark supplements to the Greek, normally words that are understood in the Greek but do not appear in it, and parentheses () to aid the identification of persons, most often to indicate the antecedents of pronouns in Eusebius’ long, hypotactic sentences. D. also occasionally uses parentheses to supply additional information that requires no further commentary. For instance, at 3.6.1: “eine hervorstechende Stadt, nach dem Sieg ( nike) benannt: beim Volk der Bithynier Nikäa.” D.’s uses of italics to render the lengthy antithesis between Constantine and the “tyrants” at 3.1 also deserves note: ” Die überhäuften sie mit Ehrentzug – ” der aber machte sie geehrt und für alle nacheifernswert.”
A few other happy translations will help to convey the manner of the translation:
1.16.1.
“Allein den Konstantios nun überkam eine Weisheit frommer Überlegung, und er tut eine Tat, zwar unerwartet zu hören, zu tun aber höchst wunderbar.” (D. always retains the historical present.)
1.33.2.
“Denn schneller überließen ihm diese ihr Leben zur Tötung als ihren Körper zur Schändung.” Here the translation improves on the original.
2.71.1.
4.48. Note the wordplay in Greek and German:
“… weil er sowohl im gegenwärtigen Leben doch des unabhängig herrschenden Kaisertums über alle gewürdigt worden sei als auch im zukünftigen
While, as stated above, D. is overall a model of accuracy, there are, nonetheless, a small number of minor errors, which I list for convenience:5
Keph. 2.44:
Keph. 2.46: the position of “durch die Provinzial-Statthalter” suggests that only the building of new churches was facilitated by them, not the restoration of the old. This phrase needs to be moved after “so daß sie”: “so daß sie durch die Provinzial-Statthalter sowohl die alten wiederherstellten als auch größere bauten.”
Keph. 4.50:
1.7.2:
1.50.1: D. translates
2.2.2. D. translates
2.26.2. In describing the defeats of the persecutors, Eusebius writes
3.49.1.
4.52.3.
Greek titles of imperial officials deserve special notice. The etymological similarity among
At 2.46.3, D. translates
Eusebius’ use of
Lastly on titles, 4.36.3: D. translates
A few other literal translations of technical terms seem ill-advised, particularly where, as with titles, the meaning of a word has developed beyond its semantic roots (
It is unfortunate that the reproduction of Eusebius’ syntax sometimes leads to a tiring abundance of subordinate conjunctions and relative pronouns, as in this paragraph-length sentence at 2.22: “Den Völkern aber außerhalb
The commentary strives to illuminate, as D. himself writes, “alles Erklärungsbedürftige” (396). Within its given limits, the commentary succeeds marvelously. D. consistently provides the reader with the essential information on various historical personalities, dates and events, places and buildings, and other realia. For example, D. explains the use of wax in painting in his note ad 1.3.2 and provides the reader with cross-references to two further passages in the VC in which Eusebius uses similar terminology. The comments on both these later passages refer the reader helpfully back to the first. D.’s explanation of
Most impressive is D.’s sensitivity to Eusebius’ style. All students of Eusebius, as well as of ancient rhetoric and prose style, might benefit from D.’s careful attention to the nuances of Eusebius’ Greek. Often, D.’s comments clarify what effect he is attempting to recreate in the translation. At 1.27.3, D. translates, “…diejenigen, die auf eine Mehrzahl von Göttern gesetzt hatten, auch auf mehrere Unglücksfälle getroffen waren.” His note ad loc. brings out the etymological wordplay: “Mehrzahl (
D. also helps the reader grasp the point of literary topoi and allusions used by Eusebius. For example, in the note on 1.7.1, D. explains the traditional background of the comparison of Constantine and Cyrus; and in the note on 1.7.2, D. reveals for the reader the pointed contrast between the rival successors of Alexander and the harmonious sons of Constantine.
The notes also offer numerous corrections of previous translators, most frequently of Cameron/Hall.6 Such references are of course valuable when they serve to justify a divergent translation. For example, D. explains ad 1.39.1 that he has translated
The Einführung is divided into five sections: 1.) Eusebius’ life; 2.) Eusebius’ works; 3.) Eusebius and Constantine; 4.) the Vita Constantini; and 5.) on the text, translation, and commentary.
Section 1 (367f.), appropriately, gives a concise account of what is known of Eusebius’ life. Section 2 (368-71) gives the reader a convenient list of Eusebius’ works, arranged thematically, briefly commented and provided with references to relevant passages in the VC. In section 3 (371-74), D. takes up the question of the depth of Eusebius’ and Constantine’s acquaintance. D. covers both certain and speculative encounters between the two, rightly concluding with Barnes:8 “Von einem besonderen Nah- oder gar Beraterverhältnis kann also keine Rede sein” (373).
Section 4 of the Einführung, on the VC itself, is by far the most extensive (374-93), divided into five subsections. Of these, the first two represent important contributions to the appreciation of Eusebius’ compositional technique. Subsection 4.1 presents an “Inhaltsübersicht” of the entire VC. Much more than a mere summary of the contents of the VC, it illustrates in outline form the thematic structure of the entire work. D. sees in the whole a “wohlüberlegte Komposition” (379), which he convincingly illustrates in subsection 4.2. Additional space is devoted to specimens of ring composition in the VC. In particular, D. brilliantly analyses the striking parallelism of the passages of the VC on Constantine’s father in the first book and mother in the third (380-82). D. thereby elaborates a compelling alternative to the theory of the incomplete composition or unfinished revision of the VC proposed by Pasquali in 1910 and still common today.9 Also of note in this section, D. plausibly argues that, in contradiction with the historical record, Eusebius apparently believed that Constantius’ death and Constantine’s accession to power took place in Gaul, most likely at Trier: D. can cite a number of passages that suggest that Eusebius believed Constantine left to conquer Britain immediately after the death of Constantius (in Gaul).
Subsection 4.3 (384-86) discusses the literary genre of the VC. D. approaches the question by cataloging Eusebius’ own references to the work. D. finds it best to describe the VC not as a biography, but as a description of Constantine’s “life in accord with God,” which, as D. astutely notes, the composer of the kephalaia perceived immediately, titling his work
D. discusses the documents in the VC in subsection 4.4 (387-91), with brief comments on their formal type, their distribution throughout the VC, as well as their (undoubted) authenticity. D. rejects the hypothesis that the documents were added later to an originally document-free version; he also holds the identification of “doublets” (e.g. 2.20-21 and 2.30-42, a description of the contents of Constantine’s edict to the eastern provincials and the edict itself) as misconceived. The last subsection, 4.5, illustrates the distinguishing characteristics of the author of the kephalaia and the usefulness of the information they provide (in particular, proper names avoided by Eusebius for stylistic reasons).
Lastly, in section 5 (393-96) D. discusses his text, translation, and commentary, which have been treated above.
Two indices and a bibliography conclude the book. The first lists quotes and allusions to the Bible, ancient authors, law codes and other works by Eusebius. The second is an extremely user-friendly index of names: D. distinguishes references to the kephalaia with a K (in bold type). References to persons not named by Eusebius are given in parentheses. The bibliography is concise and practical. D. naturally gives the texts and translations he has made use of or consulted. He also provides the reader with a brief list of recent or influential scholarly works on Constantine, as well as of the dictionaries and handbooks referred to in the commentary.
D.’s translation is an outstanding philological achievement. Not only German students and scholars stand to benefit from it. For English-language scholars, D. offers an often revealing contrast to the now standard translation of Cameron and Hall. The translation will indeed be an invaluable reference for those working with the original Greek. As for the Greekless, we may hope that the translation’s uncompromising, defamiliarizing nature will bring readers directly into the world and thoughts of Eusebius. In a classroom setting, some preparatory material might smooth the transition. We may hope that the experience of what seems a so genuine expression of the original in D.’s translation will spur readers on to meet Eusebius —and Constantine— on their own terms.
Addendum by Klaus Geus, Utopica Verlag (Aug. 2, 2007)
Some of the errors mentioned by Professor Dillon have already been corrected in a second, slightly revised edition (“zweite, durchgesehene Auflage”) of this book, which was published last week (ISBN 978-3-938083-06-2).
Notes
1. The last was that by J.M. Pfättisch, Des Eusebius Pamphili vier Bücher über das Leben des Kaisers Konstantin und des Kaisers Konstantin Rede an die Versammlung der Heiligen (Kempten/Munich, 1913).
2. F. Winkelmann, Eusebius Werke 1.1: Über das Leben des Kaisers Konstantin, 2nd ed. (Berlin, 1991).
3. A.J. Woodman, Tacitus, The Annals. Translated with Introduction and Notes. (Indianapolis and Cambridge, 2004). Reviewed in BMCR 2005.07.15.
4. P. Dräger, Apollonios von Rhodos: Die Fahrt der Argonauten. Griechisch/Deutsch. Herausgegeben, übersetzt und kommentiert (Stuttgart, 2002), 587-91.
5. The text and translation each contain a number of typos: — German: 1.28.2: “des ganzes Heeres,” read: ganzen; 1.37.2: “zweite zweite und dritte,” read: zweite und dritte (so correctly in note ad loc.); 1.41.3: “… aber auch aus Gefängnissen und jeder Gefahr und Furcht diejenigen befreite, die unter der tyrannischen Grausamkeit diesem unterworfen gewesen waren.” Read “diesen,” corresponding to the plural in the Greek:
6. A. Cameron and S.G. Hall, trans., Eusebius: Life of Constantine (Oxford, 1999).
7. D. notes, on 1.7.1, “alle Stellenangaben bei Cameron/Hall 188 ad loc. sind falsch”; on 1.7.2 s.v. Liebling (
8. T.D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge and London, 1981), 265f.
9. G. Pasquali, “Die Composition der Vita Constantini des Eusebius,” Hermes 45 (1910), 369-86; further references given by D. p. 377 n. 12.