Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-7drxs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T06:18:01.778Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Translation of Greek Philosophical Terminology in Marius Victorinus’ Opera Theologica: A Quantitative and Qualitative Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2023

Christopher J. Dowson*
Affiliation:
Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, Alexander von Humboldt Fellow

Abstract

The article collects and analyses philosophical terms formed in Latin by fourth-century rhetorician and philosopher Marius Victorinus (c. 285–360s C.E.) as a result of his translation from Greek sources. The study examines primarily his theological treatises: the Ad Candidum Arianum (De Generatione Divini Verbi) and the Adversus Arium. It undertakes a quantitative and qualitative examination of these terms by studying two linguistic mechanisms which constitute ‘term-formation’ in Latin: lexical innovation and lexical augmentation. Both functioned as important linguistic and conceptual devices in Victorinus’ translations. The article also examines the theological contexts of certain metaphysical terms to understand further their similarities and differences, not only in Victorinus’ translations, but also in earlier uses of central Latin philosophical terms, e.g., essentia and substantia. The article concludes that Victorinus was more didactic than his philosophical predecessors such as M. Tullius Cicero, Seneca the Younger or Apuleius of Madaura, preferring literal translation (particularly morphological calquing) rather than semantic extensions or metaphorical usages (lexical augmentation). By using neologisms formed using derivational word-formation processes and, on rare occasions, loan-words from Greek, Victorinus adopted an approach of adapting Greek terminology with a high degree of precision in Latin, from a range of sources including Christian, Neo-Platonist, and Gnostic authors. He thereby introduced a new Christological vocabulary in the Latin tradition, making him a significant intellectual figure of the fourth and fifth centuries. Although by no means as dominant as others, such as Augustine or Boethius, Victorinus would nonetheless come to exert influence over later Christian philosophers in the Latin West, particularly during the Scholastic period of the Middle Ages.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Australasian Society for Classical Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, J. (2003), Bilingualism and the Latin Language. Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arpe, C. (1941), ‘Substantia’, Philologus 94, 6578.Google Scholar
Bakhouche, B. (ed.) (2011), Calcidius: Commentaire au Timée de Platon. Texte Établi, Traduit et Annoté. Paris.Google Scholar
Baltes, M. (2002), Marius Victorinus: Zur Philosophie in seinen theologischen Schriften. Leipzig.Google Scholar
Baron, A. (2013), ‘Candidus, Marius Victorinus’ Fictitious Friend, and his Doctrine of the Logos’, Theological Research 1, 7994.Google Scholar
Beatrice, P. F. (1989), ‘Quosdam Platonicorum Libros: The Platonic Readings of Augustine in Milan’, VChr 43, 248–81.Google Scholar
Beierwaltes, W. (1994), ‘Substantia und Subsistentia bei Marius Victorinus’, in Romano, F. and Taormina, D. (eds.), Hyparxis e Hypostasis nel Neoplatonismo. Atti del I Colloquio Internazionale del Centro di Ricerca sul Neoplatismo. Florence, 4358.Google Scholar
Bell, D. N. (1985), ‘Essere, Vivere, Intelligere: The Noetic Triad and the Image of God’, RecTh 52, 543.Google Scholar
Bowker, L. and Pearson, J. (2002), Working with Specialized Language: A Practical Guide to Using Corpora. London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradshaw, D. (2004), Aristotle East and West. Metaphysics and the Division of Christendom. Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, R. (1977), Deus Christianorum: Recherches sur le vocabulaire doctrinal de Tertullien. 2nd ed. Paris.Google Scholar
Breitmeyer, J. (1933), Le suffixe latin -ivus. PhD thesis. University of Geneva.Google Scholar
Bruce, F. F. (1946), ‘Marius Victorinus and his works’, The Evangelical Quarterly 18, 132–53.Google Scholar
Bussman, H. (1996), Dictionary of Language and Linguistics (Lexicon der Sprachwissenschaft). Trans. and ed. by Trauth, G. P. and Kazzazi, K.. London.Google Scholar
Campos, J. (1971), ‘El latín patrístico y la ciencia filosófica de su tiempo’, Salmant 18, 385402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, M. T. (1978), Fathers of the Church: Theological Treatises on the Trinity. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Corpus Corporum: Repositorium operum Latinorum. Online database. University of Zurich. http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLSGoogle Scholar
Dahl, N. (2019), Substance in Aristotle's Metaphysics Zeta. London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danker, F. W. (ed.) (2000), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago and London.Google Scholar
Dörrie, H. (1976), Platonica Minora. Munich.Google Scholar
Dowson, C. (2020), Lexical Innovation in Latin Philosophical Vocabulary: From Cicero to Boethius. DPhil thesis. University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Drecoll, V. H. (1996), Die Entwicklung der Trinitätslehre des Basilius von Cäsarea. Göttingen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drecoll, V. H. (2011), Trinität. Tübingen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drecoll, V. H. (2012), ‘Marius Victorinus’, in Real-lexikon für Antike und Christentum, vol. 24. Stuttgart, 122–47.Google Scholar
Durkin, P. (2009), The Oxford Guide to Etymology. Oxford.Google Scholar
Edwards, M. (2010), ‘Marius Victorinus and the Homoousion’, in J. Baun et al. (eds.), Studia Patristica, vol. 46. Leuven and Paris, 105–18.Google Scholar
Edwards, M. (2012), ‘Alexander of Alexandria and the Homoousion’, VChr 66, 482502.Google Scholar
Evans, E. (ed.) (1948), Tertullian: Adversus Praxean. London.Google Scholar
Ernout, A. (1954), Aspects du vocabulaire latin. Paris.Google Scholar
Fögen, T. (2011), ‘Latin as a Technical and Scientific Language’, in Clackson, J. (ed.), A Companion to the Latin Language. Malden, MA, 445–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forcellini, E. (ed.) (1871), Totius Latinitatis Lexicon, vol. 5. Prati.Google Scholar
Fruyt, M. (2009), ‘La creación léxica: consideraciones generales y su aplicación a la lengua latina’, EClás 136, 754.Google Scholar
Ganz, D. (1990), Corbie in the Carolingian Renaissance. Paris.Google Scholar
Glucker, J. (1994), ‘The Origin of ὑπάρχω and ὕπαρξις as Philosophical Terms’, in Romano, F. and Patrizia, T. D. (eds.), Hyparxis e Hypostasis nel neoplatonismo. Florence, 123.Google Scholar
Glucker, J. (2012), ‘Cicero's Remarks on Translating Philosophical Terms: Some General Problems’, in Glucker, J. and Burnett, C. (eds.), Greek into Latin from Antiquity until the Nineteenth Century. London and Turin, 3796.Google Scholar
Hadot, P. (1957), ‘Un vocabulaire raisonné de Marius Victorinus’, Studia Patristica 1, 194208.Google Scholar
Hadot, P (1960), Marius Victorinus. Traités théologiques sur la Trinité. Paris.Google Scholar
Hadot, P. (1968), Porphyry et Victorinus. Paris.Google Scholar
Hadot, P. (1971), Marius Victorinus. Recherches sur sa vie et ses œuvres. Paris.Google Scholar
Hagendahl, H. (1967), Augustine and the Latin Classics. Gothenburg.Google Scholar
Haugen, E. and Mithun, M. (2003), ‘Borrowing’, in Frawley, W. J. (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford, 242–7.Google Scholar
Hinckers, S. (2020), Lateinische Übersetzungsreflexion in der Römischen Antike: Von Terenz bis zur Historia Augusta. Berlin.Google Scholar
Hock, H. H. and Joseph, B. D. (1996), Language History, Language Change, and Language Relationship: An Introduction to Historical and Comparative Linguistics. Berlin.Google Scholar
Hoenig, C. (2018), Plato's Timaeus and the Latin Tradition. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hofmann, J. B. and Szantyr, A. (1965), Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik. Munich.Google Scholar
Kariatlis, P. (2010), ‘St Basil's Contribution to the Trinitarian Doctrine: A Synthesis of Greek Paideia and the Scriptural Worldview’, Phronema 25, 5783.Google Scholar
Kastovsky, D. (1992), ‘Semantics and Borrowing’, in Hogg, R. M. (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. 1. Cambridge, 290408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitzel, P. (2014), ‘Tertullian's Use of substantia in De carne Christi’, Hermes 142, 505–11.Google Scholar
Labriolle, P. de. (1947), Histoire de la littérature latine chrétienne. Paris.Google Scholar
Lambardi, N. (1982), Il Timaeus Ciceroniano arte e technica del vertere. Florence.Google Scholar
Lampe, G. H. W. (1961–1968), A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford.Google Scholar
Langslow, D. (2000), Medical Latin in the Roman Empire. Oxford.Google Scholar
Lashier, J. J. (2009), The Trinitarian Theology of Irenaeus of Lyons. PhD thesis. Marquette University.Google Scholar
Lévy, C. (2021), ‘Cicero and the Creation of a Latin Philosophical Vocabulary’, in Atkins, J. and Bénatouïl, T. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Cicero's Philosophy. Cambridge, 7187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mai, A. (1828), Scriptorum veterum nova collectio, pars ii, 1–146. Rome.Google Scholar
Mansfeld, J. (1992), Heresiography in Context: Hippolytus’ Elenchos as a Source for Greek Philosophy. Leiden.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minio-Paluello, L. (1966), Aristoteles Latinus I 6-7. Porphyrii Isagoge translatio Boethii et Anonymi Fragmentum vulgo vocatum Liber Sex Principiorum. Bruges and Paris.Google Scholar
Monceaux, P. (1905), Histoire littéraire de lAfrique chrétienne, vol. 3. Paris.Google Scholar
Moorhead, J. (2009), ‘Boethius’ Life and the World of Late Antique Philosophy’, in Marenbon, J. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Boethius. Cambridge, 1333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrow, G. and Dillon, J. (eds.) (1987), Proclus’ Commentary on Plato's Parmenides. Princeton.Google Scholar
Mott, B. and Laso, N. J. (2020), ‘Semantic Borrowing in Language Contact’, in Grant, A. P. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Language Contact. Oxford, 155–72.Google Scholar
Müller, H. (1964), Ciceros Prosaübersetzungen. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der ciceronischen Sprache. PhD thesis. Philipps University of Marburg.Google Scholar
Nares, G. G. (2018), ‘Trinitarian Thought and Platonist Metaphysics in Marius VictorinusDe Generatione Divini Verbi’, Tópicos 55, 388403.Google Scholar
Nautin, P. (1964), ‘Candidus l'Arien’, in L'Homme devant Dieu, Mélanges offerts au Père Henri de Lubac, II, Du moyen âge au siècle des lumières. Paris, 309–26.Google Scholar
Nicolas, C. (2000), ‘La néologie technique par traduction chez Cicéron et la notion de “verbumexverbalité”’, in Fruyt, M. and Nicolas, C. (eds.), La création lexicale en latin. Paris, 109–48.Google Scholar
Panagl, O. (1986), ‘Die Wiedergabe griechischer Komposita in der lateinischen Übersetzungsliteratur’, in Etter, A. (ed.), O-o-pe-ro-si. Berlin and New York, 574–82.Google Scholar
Piemonte, G. A. (1987), ‘Vita in omnia pervenit. El vitalismo eriugeniano y la influencia de Mario Victorino’, Patristica et Mediaevalia 7, 81113.Google Scholar
Poncelet, R. (1957), Cicéron, traducteur de Platon: L'expression de la pensée complexe en latin classique. Paris.Google Scholar
Powell, J. G. F. (1995), ‘Cicero's Translations from Greek’, in Powell, J. G. F. (ed.), Cicero the Philosopher. Oxford, 273300.Google Scholar
Pronay, A. (1997), C. Marius Victorinus: Liber de definitionibus. Frankfurt.Google Scholar
Puelma, M. (1980), ‘Cicero als Platon-Übersetzer’, MH 37, 137–78.Google Scholar
Puelma, M. (1986), ‘Die Rezeption der Fachsprache griechischer Philosophie im Lateinischen’, FZPhTh 33, 5470.Google Scholar
Redfors, J. (1960), Echtheitskritische Üntersuchung der apuleischen Schriften De Platone und De mundo. Lund.Google Scholar
Reiley, K. C. (1909), The Philosophical Terminology of Lucretius and Cicero. New York.Google Scholar
Riesenweber, T. (2015), C. Marius Victorinus, Commenta in Ciceronis Rhetorica. Berlin and Boston.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schanz, M. (1914), Geschichte der römischen Litteratur bis zum Gesetzgebungswerk des Kaisers Justinian, IV 1. 2nd ed. Munich.Google Scholar
Schmidt, P. L. (1989), ‘C. Marius Victorinus’, in von Reinhart, H. and Schmidt, P. L (eds.), Handbuch der lateinischen Literatur der Antike, vol. 5. Munich, 342–50.Google Scholar
Seele, A. (1995), Römische Übersetzer: Nöte, Freiheiten, Absichten. Verfahren des literarischen Übersetzens in der griechisch-römischen Antike. Darmstadt.Google Scholar
Sirmond, J. (1728), Opera Varia. Venice.Google Scholar
Smith, A. (1974), Porphyry's Place in the Neoplatonic Tradition. The Hague.Google Scholar
Souter, A. (1927), The Earliest Latin Commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul. Oxford.Google Scholar
Speyer, W. (1964), ‘Zu Einem Quellenproblem bei Sidonius Apollinaris (Carmen 15, 36-125)’, Hermes 92, 225–48.Google Scholar
Somfai, A. (2002), ‘The Eleventh-Century Shift in the Reception of Plato's Timaeus and Calcidius's Commentary’, JWI 65, 121.Google Scholar
Stangl, T. (1888), Tulliana et Mario-Victoriniana. Munich.Google Scholar
Stead, G. C. (1963), ‘Divine Substance in Tertullian’, JThS 14, 4666.Google Scholar
Tardieu, M. and Hadot, P. (1996), Recherches sur la formation de l'Apocalypse de Zostrien et les sources de Marius Victorinus. Bures-sur-Yvette.Google Scholar
Tommasi, C. O. (1998), ‘L'androginia di Cristo-Logos: Mario Vittorino tra platonismo e gnosi’, Cassiodorus 4, 1146.Google Scholar
Tommasi, C. O. (2006), ‘Linguistic Coinages in Marius Victorinus’ Negative Theology’, Studia Patristica 43, 505–10.Google Scholar
Trego, K. (2012), ‘Substance, sujet, acte: la première réception latine d'Aristote: Marius Victorinus et Boèce’, EPh 2, 233–56.Google Scholar
Usener, H. (1877), Anecdoton Holderi. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte Roms in ostgothischer Zeit. Bonn.Google Scholar
Vinay, J.-P. and Darbelnet, J. (1995), Comparative Stylistics of French and English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vocabularium Iurisprudentiae Romanae (1903), vol. 5. Berlin.Google Scholar
White, G. F. (2015), Copia verborum: Cicero's Philosophical Translations. PhD thesis. Princeton University.Google Scholar
Widmann, S. (1968), Untersuchungen zur Übersetzungstechnik Ciceros in seiner philosophischen Prosa. PhD thesis. University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
Witt, C. (1989), Substance and Essence in Aristotle. An Interpretation of Metaphysics VII–IX. Ithaca, NY, and London.Google Scholar