. Translations into Old French from classical and late Latin texts can be divided, for the sake of descriptive taxonomy, into three large categories: translations and imitations of major classical literary models, translations of historical and political texts, translations of sentential and educational texts.
Of all literary translations from Latin sources, Boethius’s De consolatione Philosophiae and the works of Ovid have the longest and most complex histories. This is not surprising, since Boethius and Ovid were major authors of the arts curriculum and their work exerted great influence on vernacular literary culture. Though Virgil’s Aeneid was also a central curricular text, its influence was felt through the particularly medieval Romances of Antiquity rather than through direct formal imitation and translation. Boethius’s Consolatio, however, proved congenial to vernacular literary interests in poetic form; and Ovidian materials could be assimilated directly into vernacular interests in mythology and into conventions of erotic literature.
The Occitan Boeci (ca. 1000–30) is the oldest literary text preserved in the language. The earliest French version of the Consolatio is an incomplete Anglo-Norman paraphrase composed in verse by Simon de Freine ca. 1180. From the early 13th century to the late 15th, at least thirteen versions of the Consolatio were produced in French. Some of these were simply revisions of earlier versions. The five earliest of these translations are in prose, suggesting that translators were initially more interested in the philosophical content than in the literary character of Boethius’s prosimetrum text. These five prose translations, which seem to have been produced independently of each other, are by an anonymous Burgundian (early 13th c.; one manuscript), an anonymous Wallonian (late 13th c.; one manuscript), Bonaventure da Demena (late 13th or early 14th c.; one manuscript), Pierre de Paris (1305–09; one manuscript), and Jean de Meun (probably after 1285; eighteen manuscripts). Except for the Wallonian version, these prose translations can be associated with academic interests through their incorporation of medieval commentaries and glosses on the Consolatio. Jean de Meun’s version achieved considerable currency for a number of reasons: Jean’s literary reputation, which was founded not only on the Roman de la Rose but on other translations he had made (as well as on works attributed to him), including translations of Abélard’s Historia calamitatum and Vegetius’s De re militari; the clarity and rigor of his translation of the Consolatio, which also incorporated glosses by the philosopher William of Conches; and Jean’s preface to his translation, in which he dedicates the work to Philip IV, thus identifying his vernacular text with a cosmopolitan court culture and the very center of political power. Chaucer consulted Jean de Meun’s version for his own Middle English translation of the Consolatio.
Jean’s prologue became better known than his translation: his dedicatory preface was affixed to another translation of the Consolatio, made in the mid-14th century, a prosimetrum version that, though less rigorous than Jean’s prose, achieved enormous success, surviving in at least sixty-four manuscripts, mainly of the 15th century. This version, composed probably 1350–60, is actually a revision of a prosimetrum translation that had been composed ca. 1330, known in only four manuscripts. The revised prosimetrum exists in two forms, glossed and unglossed: the glossed version incorporates commentary, translated into French, from a redaction of William of Conches’s commentary. The success of the revised prosimetrum translation is probably the result of two factors: its attribution to Jean de Meun because Jean’s prologue was affixed to it in most manuscripts, and its attention to the formal properties of Boethius’s text, which identifies the translation as much with vernacular literary interests as with learned academic concerns.
The middle and late 14th century produced four verse translations of the Consolatio. One of these, by an anonymous author from Meun (date uncertain), exists complete in only one manuscript; this translation, consisting of over 12,000 lines of verse, is interesting for its encyclopedic and mythographic interests. In 1336 or 1337, the Dominican friar Renaut de Louens composed a verse translation that incorporated glosses from the commentary on the Consolatio by a 14th-century English Dominican, Nicholas Trevet. Renaut’s version, surviving in over thirty manuscripts, was twice revised in the late 14th century; one of these revisions, by an anonymous Benedictine, achieved great popularity on its own, also extant in over thirty manuscripts. Two further prosimetrum translations were composed in the 15th century: one of these was a partial revision of the Benedictine’s version of Renaut’s verse translation, and the other was printed by Colard Mansion in 1477 and again by Antoine Vérard in 1494.
The history of Ovid translations is also complicated, because the Ovidian tradition was deeply enmeshed in vernacular literature. The Ars amatoria was readily assimilated into courtly convention, where it had a contemporary analogue in Andreas Capellanus’s De amore. From the early 13th to the late 14th century, there were no less than five independent translations or adaptations of the Ars amatoria, four in verse and one in prose. Chrétien de Troyes claimed (Cligés, ll. 1–3) to have translated the Ars amatoria, as well as a work called the Commandemenz Ovide, perhaps the Remedia amoris. Chrétien’s translations are not extant. Four of the surviving translations, which are in verse, date from the 13th century. The earliest, the “Maistre Elie” version, was composed probably early in the 13th century; its unique 14th-century manuscript covers only the first two books of the Ars amatoria, and its method is both to amplify and to abbreviate its source. It also substitutes contemporary French cultural and geographical references for Ovid’s Roman culture and locales, medievalizing the text in a way that was conventional in vernacular literary imitations of ancient sources, especially the Romances of Antiquity. The Art d’amors of Jakes d’Amiens, also of the early 13th century, extant in five manuscripts and an incunabulum, uses Andreas Capellanus’s De amore as a literary model for the translation of Ovid’s text. The other two verse translations, the Clef d’amors (written possibly 1280; one manuscript) and the version by Guiart (one manuscript), similarly medievalize Ovid’s text: the Clef d’amors presents a framework of a dream narrative in which the God of Love appears to the poet; and the adaptation by Guiart combines Ovid’s Ars amatoria with elements from the Remedia amoris and medieval religious motifs.
A prose translation of the Ars amatoria from the late 14th century (conserved in four 15th-c. manuscripts) offers a fairly literal translation of Ovid’s text, with extensive glosses and a prologue to the text based on Latin academic models (accessus ad auctores). Some of the glosses contain proverbs and quotations from French lyrics. In three of the manuscripts, the translation covers only Books 1 and 2 of the Ars amatoria; Book 3 appears only in one manuscript and seems to have been a later addition to the French text. This translation is interesting for its synthesis of vernacular literary materials and academic exegetical conventions.
There are also French translations of the Remedia amoris, Metamorphoses, and Heroides. Three translations of the Remedia amoris are extant: one from the 13th century, attributed to Jakes d’Amiens in two manuscripts that also contain his version of the Ars amatoria, and two from the 14th century. The tradition of the Metamorphoses is best considered with reference to the Ovide moralisé, which translates the entire Metamorphoses, incorporating earlier translations of individual tales and which also formed the basis of at least two 15th-century prose redactions (1466 and the Colard Mansion edition of 1484). Finally, a number of versions of the Heroides have come down to us. Two of these date from the 15th century: one is by Octavien de Saint-Gelays (1496), extant in fifteen manuscripts and an incunabulum; the other, anonymous, is extant in only one manuscript. But there is also a prose adaptation of the Heroides, probably from the 13th century, of which only parts are now extant: some parts of this translation survive embedded in the second redaction of the Histoire ancienne jusqu’à César (1364–80), and other parts survive separately under the title Epistles que les dames de Grece envoierent a leur maris qui estoient devant Troies et les responses d’icelles.
Although Virgil and Terence were standard curricular authors, their works were not translated into French until the 15th century. Terence’s comedies were translated twice: a prose translation of 1466 by Guillaume Rippe (two manuscripts) and a verse translation by Gilles Cybille, which survives only in an incunabulum (ca. 1500). For the tradition of Virgil’s Aeneid, we must preserve a distinction betwen the popular courtly imitation of Virgil’s epic, the Roman d’ Énéas (ca. 1160), and actual translation of the work. Of the latter, we have only one version, a translation by Octavien de Saint-Gelays, composed ca. 1500 (three manuscripts and two early printed editions).
Some translations of historical and political texts had wide circulation, and some ancient works were of sufficient interest to undergo more than one translation. One influential text, found in over sixty manuscripts, was a compilation known as the Fet des Romains (1213–14), which combined materials from Sallust’s De coniuratione Catilinae, Suetonius’s De vita Caesarum, Lucan’s Pharsalia, and Caesar’s Bellum Gallicum. But these historical sources were also translated individually in the later Middle Ages. Of the two 15th-century translations of Caesar’s Bellum Gallicum, one is by Jean Duchesne (ca. 1473; nine manuscripts) and the other by Robert Gaguin (late 15th c.; four manuscripts and three incunabula). Sallust’s De coniuratione Catilinae and Bellum Iugurthinum were translated in 1417 by Jean le Bègue (extracts in a unique manuscript). Part of Suetonius’s De vita Caesarum was also translated separately. Lucan’s Pharsalia (properly called Bellum civile) was translated in the late 14th century by Nicolas de Vérone (2 manuscripts).
To judge from manuscript circulation or multiple translations, the historical and political works that commanded greatest interest were Livy’s history of Rome, Ab urbe condita, and Vegetius’s De re militari, a manual of Roman military institutions composed in the late 4th century A.D. Ab urbe condita was translated by the Benedictine monk Pierre Bersuire between 1352 and 1356; this translation survives, either complete or in part, in at least eighty manuscripts and an incunabulum. It was received as a preeminent example of the transformation of French into a learned language: Bersuire equipped it with a prefatory dictionary of all the French terms he had coined out of Latin in order to render Livy’s text, and he also made use of a commentary on Livy by Nicholas Trevet. Bersuire undertook the translation at the request of King John II the Good, and indeed this text became a kind of “mirror of princes,” a treatise on politics, warfare, and morality. Many aristocratic libraries possessed copies, notably those of Charles V, John of Berry, and the dukes of Burgundy. It circulated widely through the 15th century, and later in printed editions. Part of Livy’s history, the third decade, was retranslated by Robert Gaguin ca. 1493 (one printed edition, 1508). Vegetius’s De re militari was translated six times in the 13th and 14th centuries. Jean de Meun’s version, made for Jean de Brienne, count of Eu, in 1284, is extant in over twenty manuscripts and was revised twice: once in verse by Jean Priorat between 1284 and 1290 for Jean de Châlon-Harlay, an influential noble, and again in the 15th century, with some substantive changes to preserve its relevance for later audiences. Jean de Vignay, a prolific translator, produced a version of Vegetius ca. 1320 for Philip VI (nine manuscripts). An anonymous translation was made in 1380 (two manuscripts), and an Anglo-French translation ca. 1272, attributed in one of the four extant manuscripts to a “Maistre Richard”; this translation seems to have been directed to the future Edward I of England.
Translations of several minor historical and tactical writings may be mentioned here. Vasque de Lucène translated in 1468 Quintus Curtius Rufus’s De rebus gestis Alexandri, written in the 1st century A.D.; his version survives in at least thirty-six manuscripts and an incunabu-lum. The Breviarium ab urbe condita by Eutropius, a 4th-century historian, was translated twice in the 13th century, once by an unknown author (one manuscript), and once by Jofroi de Watreford and Servais Copale (one manuscript). The Strategemata of Frontinus (1st c. A.D.), a manual of historical examples of Greek and Roman military strategy composed for officers, was translated for Charles VII by Jean de Rouroy ca. 1439 (nine manuscripts).
Translations of sentential and theoretical or educational texts, though representing the smallest category in terms of the authors translated, circulated widely. These translations, like those of historical and military sources, are often associated with royal patronage. This is the case with the translation of the Facta et dicta memorabilia of Valerius Maximus (1st c. A.D.), a collection of rhetorical exempla grouped under moral and philosophical topics, which Simon de Hesdin undertook ca. 1375 for Charles V, the great royal patron of learned culture and vernacular translation. Simon de Hesdin died in 1384, leaving the translation unfinished; it was completed in 1404 by Nicolas de Gonesse at the request of John of Berry, the brother of Charles V. This translation greatly amplifies the source with commentary, new divisions and subdivisions, and borrowings from a host of other sources, classical and medieval, pagan and Christian. In partial or complete form, the translation survives in at least seventy-five manuscripts and five incunabula.
Two of Cicero’s works, De senectute and De amicitia, were translated in 1405 and 1416, respectively, by Laurent de Premierfait, a clerc from Champagne associated with the intellectual circles of the papal court of Avignon. Laurent’s literary activity was extensive: among other works, he translated Boccaccio’s Decameron and De casibus illustrium virorum. He undertook the translation of De senectute (extant in twenty-five manuscripts) at the request of Duke Louis of Bourbon; the De amicitia (fifteen manuscripts) was presented to John of Berry. A number of other translations of Cicero’s works also survive, among them an anonymous translation of the Pro Marcello (uncertain date; one manuscript), a translation of the Epistola ad Quintum by Jean Miélot (1468; two manuscripts); and three 15th-century translations of the De officiis (two manuscripts and one incunabulum, one incunabulum, and one manuscript, respectively). There is also a translation of the Ciceronian rhetorica (Cicero’s De inventione and the pseudo-Ciceronian Ad Herennium), completed in 1282 by Jean d’Antioche (known also as Jean de Hareng), which survives in one manuscript. The translation of the Ciceronian rhetorics is interesting for a number of reasons: its stylistic aim at technical precision; its prologue, which offers a classification of the sciences; and two appendices, which offer a theoretical discussion of logic, translation, and linguistic difference. The translation is directed to Guillaume de Saint-Étienne, who in 1296 was in charge of the order of St. John of Jerusalem on Cyprus; Jean d’Antioche’s work seems to have emerged from an Italian rather than a French literary milieu (cf. Brunetto Latini’s Rettorica, an Italian version of the De inventione, written ca. 1260).
The moral works associated with Seneca the Younger received some attention, although their circulation never compared with that of the translation of Valerius Maximus. Seneca’s Epistolae ad Lucilium were translated by an unknown author ca. 1310 (extant in six manuscripts). The pseudo-Senecan De remediis fortuitorum was translated in the 13th century by an anonymous author (two manuscripts) and again in the late 14th century by Jacques de Bauchant, who, like Simon de Hesdin, worked under the patronage of Charles V. The Jacques de Bauchant translation survives in five manuscripts. Translations of the Epistolae ad Lucilium, the De remediis fortuitorum, and Seneca’s De brevitate vitae are found, along with other pseudo-Senecan texts, in an incunabulum from ca. 1500, the colophon of which attributes the translations to Laurent de Premierfait. Though this attribution has not been verified, it is evidence that the value of a translation could depend as much on the celebrity of the translator as on the prestige of the author of the original work; we compare the enormous popularity of Jean de Meun’s translation of Boethius’s Consolatio and of the later translation associated with his name.
We may also note two other works of the sentential tradition. There is an anonymous translation (uncertain date) of the Sententiae of Publilius Syrus, a text from the 1st century B.C. that was one of Seneca’s sources for the Epistolae ad Lucilium. The Distichs of Cato (3rd or 4th c. A.D.) was a popular sentential text in the medieval schools. At least seven versions exist in French: in Anglo-Norman, by Everard of Kirkham and Elie of Winchester (12th c.); by Jean de Paris (ca. 1280); by Adam de Suel (mid-13th c.); by Jean Lefèvre (14th c.); and two anonymous versions from the 15th century.
Many aspects of the history of translation in medieval French lie beyond the scope of this survey: translations of patristic sources, the Bible, Greek authors (from Latin versions), legal documents, and medieval Latin sources. We can, however, draw some general conclusions. No correlation necessarily exists between the importance of a curricular author and translation of that author. Horace, for example, was widely read in the medieval schools as part of the basic curriculum in grammatica; yet there is no extant French translation of the Ars poetica, the best known of Horace’s texts. The reason is not difficult to see: the Ars poetica was important for instruction in reading Latin poetry, especially classical texts, but offered little that was directly relevant to vernacular poetic traditions, which generated their own arts of poetry. Similarly, it might be surprising that the Aeneid received so little attention from translators; but this suggests that vernacular writers were more interested in developing themes and narratives from the Aeneid than in imitating it as a formal entity. The same may be said of the Thebaid of Statius, the primary narrative source of the Roman de Thèbes, which was not directly translated into French. Boethius’s Consolatio, on the other hand, inspired considerable formal interest as a literary model; in fact, the most successful translations of Boethius are those that emphasize its poetic features over its difficult philosophical content. But if translation of poetry is shaped largely by the tastes of vernacular literary milieux, translation of historical and political texts seems determined by the interests of royal patrons, whose ideological purposes might be served by possession of texts that had relatively little currency in academic and literary circles. The translation of classical texts is conditioned less by the norms of classical study in the medieval schools than by the concerns of vernacular literary production and of contemporary politics.
Bossuat, Robert. “Traductions françaises des Commentaires de César a la fin du XVe siècle.” Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 3(1943):253–411.
Buridant, Claude. “Translatio medievalis: théorie et pratique de la traduction médiévale.” Travaux de linguistique et de littérature 21(1983):81–136.
Chavy, Paul. Traducteurs d’autrefois, moyen âge et Renaissance: dictionnaire des traducteurs et de la littérature traduite en ancien et moyen français (842–1600). 2 vols. Geneva: Slatkine, 1988.
Copeland, Rita. Rhetoric, Hermeneutics, and Translation in the Middle Ages: Academic Traditions and Vernacular Texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
Dwyer, Richard A. Boethian Fictions: Narratives in the Medieval French Versions of the Consolatio Philosophiae. Cambridge: Medieval Academy of America, 1976.
Kelly, F.Douglas. “Translatio Studii: Translation, Adaptation, and Allegory in Medieval French Literature.” Philological Quarterly 57(1978):287–310.
Lucas, Robert H. “Mediaeval French Translations of the Latin Classics to 1500.” Speculum 45(1970):225–53.
Lusignan, Serge. Parler vulgairement: les intellectuels et la langue française aux XIIIe et XIV siècles. Paris: Vrin, 1986, pp. 129–71.
Minnis, Alistair J., ed. The Medieval Boethius: Studies in the Vernacular Translations of De consolatione Philosophiae. Cambridge: Brewer, 1987.
Monfrin, Jacques. “Humanisme et traductions au moyen âge.” Journal des savants 148(1963):161–90.
——. “Les traducteurs et leur public en France au moyen âge.” Journal des savants 149(1964):5–20.
Palmer, Nigel F. “Latin and Vernacular in the Northern European Tradition of the De consolatione Philosophiae” In Boethius: His Life, Thought, and Influence, ed. Margaret Gibson. Oxford: Blackwell, 1981, pp. 362–409.
This is the complete article, containing 3,359 words
(approx. 11 pages at 300 words per page).
