This excellent monograph, a revision of the author’s D.Phil. thesis, consists of five detailed case studies, examining the development of Latin philosophical terminology in Lucretius, Cicero, Apuleius, Calcidius and Boethius. There is a brief treatment of Seneca the Younger (p. 6), but he is largely excluded due to his more limited lexical innovation. The authors selected are suitable for meaningful comparison, yet also of interest as part of a diachronic narrative treating the changing concerns of Latin philosophical translation from the pioneering Lucretius and Cicero to later figures concerned with placing their own stamp on Latin philosophical vocabulary. Detailed appendices of the “collected lexical innovations” round out the volume.
The monograph examines “the methods by which philosophical expressions were transferred, translated or applied in new contexts” (p. 1) from ancient Greek sources by Latin language innovators. The introduction, “Scope and Method”, concentrates on the varied techniques Latin writers employed in order to express Greek concepts. Dowson addresses the strategies of “sense for sense” or “word for word” translation, as well as the creation of new terms by calquing Greek ones, adding Latin to a Greek base, or the use of semantic augmentation (providing a specialised meaning to an existing Latin term). The appendices flag which lexemes are the result of which strategy.
While the systematic study of philosophical vocabulary’s development is of significant interest in its own right, several broader themes are investigated, tying the five case studies together into a coherent framework. This concerns the impact of the translated terms upon Latin philosophical vocabulary and the differences in specific authors’ approaches, as well as the tendencies of imitatio and aemulatio in relation both to Latin predecessors and the writers of the Greek source texts (pp. 22-23). Two important criteria are employed by Dowson to classify a term as a lexical innovation: (1) the use of “signals” to indicate the novelty of the term and (2) the ability to trace the Latin term from a Greek one (p. 27). As Dowson notes, it can be difficult to apply these criteria strictly.
The first chapter analyses the intersection of poetry and philosophical vocabulary in Lucretius, addressing issues which are thematised throughout the volume, such as the egestas, or “poverty”, of the Latin language. Lucretius’ project is more difficult than simple translation since it involves reorganising Epicurean material into Latin hexameters, yet through employment of “metaphorical language” he is able to extend the technical applications of Latin vocabulary. Is the egestas trope intended sincerely or simply employed as a rhetorical device? In Lucretius’ case, Dowson argues, he combats this poverty less by the novelty of the terms he coins and more by the application of Latin words to a new context (e.g. his use of solida to refer to atomic solids, p. 50).
Dowson considers not just the extent of Lucretius’ lexical innovations, but also their limitations. Lucretius often relies on strategies other than glosses and calques, such as analogy and multiple translations; a result of expressing philosophical ideas in poetic form. Dowson’s case study here provides a good example of the analytical method applied across the entire volume: if we turn to Lucretius’ most noted achievement (translation of atomism into Latin), instead of using a loanword (e.g. atomus), Lucretius favours semantic extensions (p. 55) such as primordia, “beginning”, the occasional use of corpuscula and terms such as materies and materia (although this evokes Aristotle’s hylē). Attention is paid to the extent to which Lucretius favoured one term over the other, with a brief comparison of Cicero’s approach.
The second chapter, on Cicero, forms a useful point of comparison to Lucretius. Unlike Lucretius, Cicero does not operate under the constraints imposed by poetry. Since he too is a pioneering figure, it can be difficult to ascertain whether certain lexical innovations should be attributed to him or to Lucretius. Dowson contextualises his analysis by considering the absence of major philosophical works surviving from before the first century BC, problematising the evaluation of Cicero’s contribution to Latin philosophical vocabulary (pp. 71-79). The case study consists of an overview of Cicero’s practice of philosophical translation (pp. 79-88), followed by a selective commentary on his Timaeus translation.
Just as in the subsequent study on Calcidius, analysis of Cicero’s contribution as a translator allows for a more accurate assessment of his originality as a thinker (p. 72). This underlines the role of the translator, not only as an interpreter but, more significantly in Cicero’s case, as a synthesiser of the Greek tradition (a role which presupposes the act of selecting which Greek materials to adapt into the Latin tradition, p. 75). This synthesising element is present in Cicero’s attempts to translate sōphrosynē which, instead of simply seeking semantic equivalents, explain the concept itself (e.g. at Tusculanae Disputationes 3.16; pp. 83-84).
The extent of Cicero’s corpus provides an invaluable insight into his modus operandi. For example, he employs frugalitas as a translation of sōphrosynē, expanding it beyond its normal semantic range, but glossing it with moderatio and temperantia, which serve to convey the Greek term’s full range of meaning. Yet Cicero was prepared to abandon his own lexical experiments, illustrated by his preference for moderatio in De Officiis. Dowson raises the issue of whether this lack of consistency should be considered as a failed experiment or as “a deliberate device” (p. 86). A particular strength of the volume is the attention which Dowson pays to Roman authors’ own self-awareness of their translation activity. Cicero draws a sharp distinction between a translator (interpres) and an author who exercises judgement in moulding his source material to suit his own purpose (e.g. Off. 1.6). This aspect is treated in Dowson’s example of officium within the complex of Roman and Stoic concepts of duty (pp. 89-92).
The case study on Cicero’s Latin translation of the Timaeus presents an examination of his technique, as well as a selective (lexical) commentary. This is a vital component methodologically, not only due to the significance of the Timaeus in the western philosophical tradition, but also because it is the only example of an independent philosophical translation to survive from Cicero. (It also prepares for the comparison with Calcidius’ Timaeus translation which comprises Chapter 5).
The fourth chapter, a survey of Apuleius’ translation technique in De Mundo, De Platone et Eius Dogmate and the Peri Hermeneias extends the scope beyond Rome to consider the development of Latin as a global language. Apuleius displays many of the features exhibited by Lucretius and Cicero: he is conscious of his pioneering role—“There are words unusual to Romans and as far as I know, up to now, non-existent” (Apologia 38.5, p. 187) which dovetails with the trope of the Latin language’s poverty. Dowson discusses the issue of whether De Mundo is actually by Apuleius (p. 191; a similar question mark over the Peri Hermeneias is treated subsequently, pp. 224-225). As a translation of a text from the Aristotelian tradition, its inclusion enriches the study, given the predominant—though not exclusive—concentration on Platonic source material.
It could be claimed that Apuleius’ translation displays a deficient knowledge of the Greek original (p. 191), although his modifications (e.g. at Mun. 393a1-b6; p. 209) change the Latin version into a Middle Platonic text by providing a Stoic cosmological interpretation, while moving away from Stoic monism towards Platonic dualism. The significance of the topic extends therefore beyond purely semantic concerns to encompass the interaction between different philosophical traditions. Although not central to the work, it is a testament to the thoroughness of Dowson’s study that he also pays attention to the translation of mathematical vocabulary in Cicero and Apuleius. While this can be regarded as “self-contained technical vocabulary” (p. 219), rather than “philosophical”, it did play a significant role in the transmission of Platonism (e.g. in both Cicero’s Timaeus translation and Apuleius’ De Platone).
Apuleius’ translation reflects elements of the Ciceronian approach by offering a range of terms within the context of an entire philosophical system (p. 227). This is reflective also of Lucretius’ aims in expounding the Epicurean philosophical system within a Roman context, rather than simply translating from Greek to Latin.
As is well-known, Calcidius is a figure of major significance for the European philosophical tradition, since his Timaeus translation and commentary was the main conduit for the transmission of Plato in the Latin West during the Middle Ages. Dowson’s case study reinforces the insights of Reydams-Schils’ recent monograph on Calcidius, which presents a persuasive case for revaluating his degree of originality in relation to his source material.[1] Dowson’s study of Calcidius concentrates on the translation and philosophical elements of his Timaeus, although he briefly addresses the problematic questions of the overarching context (i.e. the extent of Christian influence). In contrast to Cicero, Dowson regards Calcidius as more didactic, illustrated by his additions to the text. Like Cicero, Calcidius reinterprets Platonic terminology. More significant than a comparison between both authors is the question of whether Calcidius had access to Cicero’s translation. If he did, this raises the question of why his use of it is so limited; Dowson does not claim that Cicero is Calcidius’ “master source” (p. 233). While Calcidius displays lexical innovation and can be regarded as a pioneer, he does not hesitate to appeal to the authority of Cicero (although the term which both he and Seneca attribute to Cicero, essentia, is not found in the surviving evidence so that Calcidius’ ascription at §27 raises more questions than it answers; p. 234). Dowson supplies data outlining differences in lexical innovation between the translation and the commentary, with the commentary incorporating Greek loan-words more freely. This is probably as a result of the didactic context, although, like Cicero, he exhibits the use of multiple Latin translations for individual Greek terms.
The final case study, in Chapter six, concentrates on Boethius, examined here, in part, because of Dowson’s view that there is an unbroken tradition of Latin philosophical translation from Cicero to Boethius (p. 255). Boethius is, in any case, something of a Janus-like figure, looking backwards to antiquity and forwards towards the Middle Ages. His translations form only one didactic tool since they were accompanied by commentaries. While we might naturally compare Boethius with Calcidius due to the significance of both for the Middle Ages, Dowson’s analysis also considers Cicero, focusing on the different readerships for which both of them catered (p. 258). The range of Boethius’ corpus renders its evaluation difficult—Dowson sketches out the extent of his activities while treating the notion of “originality”. This does not mean that Boethius was an unfaithful translator: his version of Porphyry’s Isagoge can be regarded as an attempt to suppress the Christian nuances of Marius Victorinus’ translation, although Dowson suggests practical, rather than ideological reasons for the divergences.
The concluding chapter returns to the trope of egestas, while also comparing the data from the translations examined (i.e. the statistics for different types of lexical innovations, such as semantic augmentations, sense translations and morphological calques). Dowson’s monograph is a treasure-trove of material, tracing the development of specific technical vocabulary (such as silva) and morphological tools (such as Boethius’ reliance on the -ivus suffix), yet still able to present the broader narrative involving the translation and didactic strategies of major intellectual figures against the background of the formulation of technical vocabulary in related areas.
Notes
[1] G. Reydams-Schils, Calcidius on Plato’s Timaeus. Greek Philosophy, Latin Reception and Christian Contexts, Cambridge 2020.