Η μετάφραση της χρονικής διηγήσεως του Νικήτα Χωνιάτη

Abstract

The subject of this dissertation is the 14th-century Metaphrase, or translation, of Niketas Choniates' Chronike Diegesis ("MCD"). Approximately 140 years after the composition of Choniates' monumental historical work, an anonymous individual, or individuals, carried out the somewhat daunting task of translating Choniates' elaborately wrought "high-style" history into a distinctly simpler idiom, sometimes indeed approaching the vernacular of the time. Besides discussing the manuscripts that preserve the MCD, analyzing the varied linguistic and translation features of the text, and considering the possible circumstances that led to its composition (Part One), the dissertation presents about half of the surviving text in a critical edition (Part Two). The need for a critical edition of the text of the MCD was expressed some two decades ago by Jan-Luis van Dieten, the modern editor of Choniates" original, when he stated that it needed to be treated as an independent philological creation worthy of its own modern edition. The first, introductory chapter refers to previous discussions of the MCD, pointing out that it was van Dieten himself who first presented a serious analysis of the language of the Metaphrase in an article published in 1979 (see Bibliography). His conclusion, however, as regards the Metaphrase was categorical: its language, he said, does not belong to "vulgärgriechischen Literatur". Two important editions of Palaeologan metaphrases came out shortly afterwards: the anonymous Metaphrase of Anna Komnene's Alexiad (Hunger 1981) and the translation of Nikephoros Blemmydes’ Speculum prinicipis by two known church figures, George Oinaiotes and George Galesiotes (Hunger-Sevcenko 1986). These two thorough analyses of apparently similarly pitched translation projects provide a firm foundation on which to proceed in the case of the MCD. In the absence of any statement that enlightens us as to the specific reasons why these translations were made, it seems logical to assume that the Byzantines were engaged in this "accessibility" project due a desire to "not allow any linguistic barrier to stand between them and their own historical self-awareness" (Beck 1971. p. 6). This thesis accepts this reasoning as possible in the case of the translations, although, in Chapter Four ("The Origins of the Translation") dealing with the background of the MCD and possible explanations for its composition, it is suggested that there may also perhaps be more specific circumstances that led to their appearance. The second chapter deals with the four manuscripts containing the text of the Metaphrase. Unfortunately all of these manuscripts are mutilated and as a result we are left with no scribal or authorial notes enlightening us as to the background or origin of the translation. A close comparison of the four - always with the original text of Niketas as a measure - suggests that two slightly different versions of the Metaphrase are preserved. Curiously, there is evidence that one of the manuscripts, which represents one of the two branches of the manuscript tradition of the text, may in fact be the direct predecessor of the three manuscripts representing the other branch of the tradition, though the latter contain differences that indicate the re-inclusion of elements of Niketas' original. The evidence for this, though somewhat technical, is compelling, and I therefore advance the view that this revision may reasonably be assumed to have taken place close to the date of the original production of the Metaphrase rather than a long time afterwards. This date, I suggest, ranges from the 1330s to the mid 1340s, which also corresponds to the dates of the watermarks in the oldest of the manuscripts preserving the Metaphrase (Monacensis gr. 450). As for the text of the Chronike Diegesis from which the translator was working, it seems that the MCD is probably related to an archetype which no longer survives, possibly a descendent of Choniates" private copy that bore the author's own changes and revisions that have been passed on, in varying degrees, to other manuscripts of the tradition. The third and most extensive chapter deals with the linguistic data furnished by the Metaphrase. This data is analyzed in comparison with Choniates' original, both with regard to assessing the stylistic and linguistic level that it represents, as well as to the method by which the translator worked. To a great extent, the renderings of words and phrases and even longer units of discourse are analyzed and presented in the fashion established by Hunger and Ševčenko in their studies of the other translations (see above). Here an attempt is also made to explain what is happening in the case of many of the changes. For instance, the translator's treatment of the dative case and its many functions in the original is particularly interesting, both as regards the evidence it provides regarding the demise of the dative as a living syntactical player, alongside its survival in fossilized or sometimes garbled use. Another interesting feature of the metaphrast’s approach is his frequent use of double renderings of single lexical items in the original. This is an old technique, of course, famously expounded by Cicero. However, its frequency and sometimes superfluous use suggests that we are dealing with a translation that, at least in its draft form, may have existed as interlinear or marginal notes (perhaps in the form of annotations familiar from Byzantine and later mathemataria), where diverse renderings were proposed and subsequently incorporated wholesale into the "final" MCD. Lists are supplied illustrating the way in which the Atticizing vocabulary of the original is systematically simplified into - most often - a leveled, written Koine ("Schriftskoine", as Eideneier has termed it [Eideneier 1982]), and, less often, into vocabulary and structures that are far more reminiscent of the ordinary spoken language of the period. On pp. 101 -104 of Part One various characteristic verbs of the translator are presented, which serve to render a host of different, more or less archaizing, verbs and constructions of Choniates. Very often the simplification serves to annihilate the subtlety and nuance of the original, which in translation terms may be considered a failing. However, the MCD rarely presents us with outright mistranslations, and it can be shown that on occasions the mistranslations are the result of the ambiguous or erroneous text (this requires reference to the critical apparatus of van Dieten's edition) that he may well have been working from. In addition, the often clumsy rendering or phrasing suggests that the MCD has been produced in some haste, and certainly does not look like the labor of an earnest admirer of the original who is intent on reproducing the breadth and quality of the original. However, it should be pointed out that the translator was not in the business of creating a humbler chronicle-style narrative of his own: at several points where Choniates speaks of himself in the first person this is preserved, and on two occasions chapter headings refer to the account "of Niketas Choniates". In other words, it does not intend to replace the author's original. Sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph, page by page, the translator plods dutifully through the great historical narrative. The overriding characteristic of the MCD is simplification. However, while the literary and rhetorical features are reduced very substantially, the core of the narrative as well as authorial comments and judgments regarding the events described are for the most part preserved. Drawing on approaches formulated by modern linguistic science and translation theory, it is possible to further elucidate certain ways in which the translation appears to be functioning, as well as ways in which it does not function: according to K. Buhler's (Die Sprachtheorie, 1965) schema of linguistic functions, the translation can be seen to focus on the "informative" and "vocative" functions of the original (i.e. historical narrative and authorial opinion), and far less on the "expressive" (the art behind the presentation). The fact also that the translation bears many signs of having been prepared somewhat hurriedly (it is generally intelligible, but often slipshod in expression) suggests that someone was keen to read about, or acquire a working knowledge of. Choniates' history and judgment of events in a relatively short space of time, without worrying too much about elegance of expression or rhetorical niceties. The text, therefore, does not seem to answer to philological but only to historical and political curiosity. The fourth chapter explores in more detail the possible background to the MCD. As already explained, the mutilated manuscripts that preserve the text do not furnish the modern enquirer with notes or information concerning the reasons for its composition, the people involved in translating it, or the person or persons for whom it was intended. It is therefore necessary to look elsewhere. An important chronological coincidence, which it would be hazardous to ignore, is the fact that the oldest surviving manuscript of the MCD, which is assumed to date closely to the original translation (see above), falls close to the dates provided by the period in which George Galesiotes (one of the translators of the Basilikos andrias) held the office of ho sakelliou of the Great Church (much of the 1330s and probably up to at least 1346). Furthermore, there are extremely close lexical and phrasal parallels, as well as more general translation approaches, to be found with the anonymous translation of the Alexiad. If therefore these works do indeed share a common background, it is suggested that a speculum principis and two histories covering the Comnenian dynasty and the sack of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusaders may have served as basic teaching material for a prospective ruler, the obvious candidate being the young John V Palaiologos, whose father died suddenly in 1341 and who had to prepare himself for the throne in the face of opposition from John Cantacuzene. It is suggested that his mother, Anne of Savoy, a foreigner who was perhaps also interested in acquiring a nodding acquaintance with the background to Byzantium's history, may also have encouraged such a project, perhaps aided by church figures such as Galesiotes and even the patriarch John Kalekas (deposed 1347). Appended to the chapters introducing the edition of the Metaphrase are 1) a bibliography. 2) a Glossary of words that diverge substantially from the stylistic level of Choniates and that may be classed, loosely, as vernacular, and 3) 9 plates illustrating characteristic folia from the four manuscripts preserving the Metaphrase. Of the latter, attention is drawn to Plate 2, which preserves a marginal note, not commented on elsewhere, that hints at the provenance of the manuscript (or at least of the person reading it), i.e. Constantinople, and the negative reaction of the reader to Choniates' caustic criticism of the behavior of the city's inhabitants (at N233.71 [van Dieten's edition]). It appears to be written in 15-syllable verse, and also contains a barely legible reference to Thessalonica, causing one to wonder if the reader had in mind the Zealot polity of the same period ( 1342-1349). Part Two of the dissertation consists of the text of the first half of the Metaphrase (up to p. 274 of van Dieten's edition), as well as part of a later chapter of the history (corresponding to pp. 535-548 of van Dieten's edition). The text of the MCD in this edition seeks to reflect, on the whole, that preserved in ms. Monacensis gr. 450, for a variety of reasons, not least of which is the fact that this manuscript is the most complete of the four. While the edition of the text does not aim to be diplomatic, it does not strive to whitewash its imperfections, adopting readings from the other three manuscripts only when these are necessary, not when they are merely preferable. The imperfections, indeed, should not be ignored, for, as is supported in Chapter Four ('The Origins of the Metaphrase"), the reasons for their presence perhaps need to be sought in the possible circumstances surrounding the genesis of the Metaphrase.

H παρούσα μελέτη εξετάζει το κείμενο της Μετάφρασης της Χρονικής διηγήσεως (ΜΧΔ) του Νικήτα Χωνιάτη, και στην συνέχεια παρουσιάζει μεγάλο τμήμα της (το μισό περίπου) σε μορφή κριτικής έκδοσης. Στην εισαγωγή αναφέρεται η μέχρι τώρα βιβλιογραφία σχετικά με τη Μετάφραση, καθώς και με άλλες μεταφράσεις της παλαιολόγειας εποχής οι οποίες παρουσιάζουν ομοιότητες με τη ΜΧΔ. Αναφέρεται στην κατηγορηματική άποψη του van Dieten, ότι δηλαδή η ΜΧΔ «δεν εντάσσεται στη δημώδη βυζαντινή γραμματεία», όπως επίσης στη γνώμη του Beck ότι οι παλαιολόγειες μεταφράσεις/απλοποιήσεις βυζαντινών λογίων κειμένων αντιπροσωπεύουν την «επιθυμία των βυζαντινών να μην αφήσουν κανένα γλωσσικό εμπόδιο να τους χωρίσει από την ιστορική τους αυτοσυνείδηση». Το επόμενο κεφάλαιο («Τα χειρόγραφα και η σχέση μεταξύ τους») παρουσιάζει τη χειρόγραφη παράδοση της ΜΧΔ. Οι κώδικες που παραδίδουν το κείμενο της ΜΧΔ είναι τέσσερις. Χωρίζονται σε δύο ομάδες, οι οποίες όμως παρουσιάζουν, βάσει της αντιπαραβολής των κειμένων, μια ανεξάρτητη σχέση με το πρωτότυπο. Δυστυχώς, όλοι οι κώδικες είναι ακρωτηριασμένοι, και δεν έχει σωθεί κάποια σημείωση του συντάκτη ή του αντιγραφέα (με μια ενδιαφέρουσα αλλά ασαφή εξαίρεση) η οποία θα μπορούσε να μας διαφωτίσει ως προς τη χρονολογία του κειμένου και τα πρόσωπα που συνδέονται με τη σύνταξή του. Οι δύο ομάδες των χειρογράφων μας παραδίδουν δύο ελαφρώς διαφοροποιημένες επεξεργασίες του κειμένου, οι οποίες, σε συνδυασμό με τις χρονολογίες που μας δίνουν τα υδατόσημα των χειρογράφων, μας επιτρέπουν να υποθέσουμε ότι ο αρχαιότερος κώδικας (Monacensis gr. 450) ίσως τοποθετείται πολύ κοντά στη χρονολογία της αρχικής σύνταξης της ΜΧΔ. Στο 3° κεφάλαιο («Τα χαρακτηριστικά της ΜΧΔ») εξετάζονται αναλυτικά τα μεταφραστικά και γλωσσικά χαρακτηριστικά της ΜΧΔ. Μετά από μια σύντομη επισκόπηση της μετάφρασης στο Βυζάντιο, επικεντρώνεται η συζήτηση στο φαινόμενο των ενδογλωσσικών μεταφράσεων της παλαιολόγειας εποχής, καθώς και στις σύγχρονες προσεγγίσεις της επιστήμης της μεταφρασιολογίας οι οποίες ίσως διαφωτίζουν διάφορες πτυχές της ΜΧΔ. Σε γενικές γραμμές, αποδεικνύεται ότι το βασικό χαρακτηριστικό της ΜΧΔ είναι η διαδικασία απλοποίησης του αρχαιότροπου ύφους του πρωτοτύπου. Επίσης φαίνεται ότι το ενδιαφέρον του μεταφραστή εστιάζεται στην ιστορική αφήγηση και στην κριτική στάση του Χωνιάτη, αλλά όχι στην ρητορικότητα του πρωτοτύπου. Επομένως, η λογοτεχνική διάσταση του πρωτοτύπου έχει υποβαθμιστεί σημαντικά, γεγονός που οδηγεί στο συμπέρασμα ότι ο αποδέκτης του κειμένου δεν το διάβαζε από ενδιαφέρον να αποκτήσει περισσότερη γνώση σχετικά με τη ρητορική τέχνη που Χωνιάτη. Το 4° κεφάλαιο («Η προέλευση της ΜΧΔ») παραπέμπει συχνά στα συμπεράσματα του προηγούμενου κεφαλαίου, αλλά προχωράει επίσης σε μια σύγκριση μεταξύ της ΜΧΔ και των άλλων μεταφράσεων που χρονολογούνται από την ίδια περίπου εποχή. Προτείνεται ένα χρονολογικό πλαίσιο στο οποίο μπορούμε να τοποθετήσουμε τρεις συγκεκριμένες μεταφράσεις (τη ΜΧΔ, και τις μεταφράσεις της Αλεξιάδος της Άννας Κομνηνής και του Βασιλικού ανδριάντος του Νικηφόρου Βλεμμύδη), καθώς και συγκεκριμένα πρόσωπα και συγκεκριμένες ιστορικές συγκυρίες που ίσως συνδυάζονται με την εμφάνιση αυτών των μεταφράσεων. Το 5° κεφάλαιο («Οι αρχές της παρούσας έκδοσης») εκθέτει το γενικό σκεπτικό που διέπει την έκδοση της ΜΧΔ η οποία παρουσιάζεται στο 2° μέρος της εργασίας. Ο Monacensis gr. 450 αποτελεί τη βάση της έκδοσης, και μόνο όπου κρίνεται απαραίτητο (και όχι απλώς προτιμότερο) υιοθετούνται γραφές από τους άλλους κώδικες. Ολοκληρώνεται η μελέτη με ένα Γλωσσάριο που περιλαμβάνει λέξεις της ΜΧΔ οι οποίες παρουσιάζουν έντονη διαφοροποίηση σε σχέση με το λεξιλόγιο του Χωνιάτη. Ακολουθεί βιβλιογραφία, καθώς και πίνακες από τα τέσσερα χειρόγραφα της ΜΧΔ.