Teodoro Rennó Assunção, Jacyntho Lins Brandão

Semônides de Amorgos e Mimnermo (Fragmentos)

Introduction

Semônides de amorgos e mimnermo (fragmentos). Descubra o processo e critério de tradução dos fragmentos de Semônides de Amorgos e Mimnermo, explorando a metodologia da tradução literária.

Abstract

Ao tentarmos estabelecer nosso critério de tradução, cremos dever antes de mais nada descrever minimamente o processo de sua formulação. Pois se aqui ele se mostra cristalizado em forma escrita e antecedendo a tradução mesma, é justo dizermos que não houve teorização a priori e nem mesmo escolha, a princípio, de um critério ao qual tivéssemos, durante a tradução, tentado nos conformar. Inversamente, a figura de um critério foi se delineando a medida em que a execução do trabalho o exigia, até que, tendo se tornado mais nítida, pôde iluminar retrospectivamente as dúvidas do começo que, por sua vez, são as linhas débeis que deram origem ao desenho da figura. O critério, portanto, é elemento ínsito e não separável do corpo da própria tradução e somente nesta poderemos verificar o seu maior ou menor acerto. A citação abaixo está pois presente menos como ponto de orientação do que como ilustração, à maneira das que aparecem nos livros infantis.

Review

This paper presents a curious dichotomy between its title and abstract. While the title, "Semônides de Amorgos e Mimnermo (Fragmentos)," strongly suggests an engagement with the ancient Greek poets Semonides and Mimnermus, likely involving translation, textual analysis, or literary commentary on their surviving fragments, the abstract pivots entirely to a discussion of translation methodology. It meticulously describes the inductive formulation of the authors' translation criteria, emphasizing that these criteria emerged organically during the translation process rather than being theoretically established *a priori*. This focus on the *process* of criterion development, though potentially valuable in itself, leaves the reader entirely in the dark regarding the specific content, findings, or even the ultimate purpose of the translation project concerning Semonides and Mimnermus. The abstract's core argument—that translation criteria are inherent to and inseparable from the translation itself, developing retrospectively as the work progresses—offers an interesting, albeit briefly articulated, perspective on methodological practice. However, its effectiveness is hampered by a significant lack of concrete detail. We are told *how* the criteria were formed, but not *what* these criteria actually are, *why* this particular inductive approach was deemed necessary for the chosen poets, or *how* it addresses any specific challenges posed by their fragmentary nature or linguistic nuances. Without connecting this methodological exposition to the specific texts mentioned in the title, the abstract remains overly theoretical and devoid of contextual grounding, making it difficult to assess the actual contribution of the work. For this paper to be effectively reviewed and to clearly communicate its academic contribution, a substantial revision of the abstract is imperative. It must bridge the considerable gap between the title's promise and the abstract's current content. The revised abstract should clearly state the paper's main argument, its specific focus on Semonides and Mimnermus (e.g., what aspects of their fragments are being translated or analyzed), and how the described inductive methodology specifically informs or benefits the engagement with these particular texts. Furthermore, it should articulate the study's objectives, its primary findings, and its broader implications for translation studies or classical scholarship. The cryptic final sentence regarding the illustrative quote also requires clarification or rephrasing to align with standard academic abstract conventions.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.