This paper looks at two accounts of scholars’ views on the bard as the custodian of Homeric Society (Odyssea III 263-272). The first traditional, defended by Stephen P. Scully, sees a singer, an unnamed singer, as a moral guard of Clytaemnestra. The second, defended by Stephanie West, suggests that it is worth an alternative explanation, rejected in the scholia but perhaps reflected (or corroborated?) in Hesychius’ Lexicon where ¢oidÒj is glossed with eÙnoàcoj, sp£dwn. She says that the word e„rÚsqai (Odyssea III 268) suggests rather physical protection though a bard sufficiently able-bodied is an effective guardian might himself be tempted to rape or seduction. The Author of the article defends traditional understanding of the role of bard with many other arguments. He is convinced that the singer was removed from the palace because his presence reminded Aegisthus and Clytaemnestra of their wrong to society.
We all know that in the ancient tragedies there are no written stage directions. But it does not mean that there areno stage instructions. Without no doubts the fifth century BC tragedies were theatre productions. Of course theywere influencedby the Athenian theater of the day, but in every age the drama is influenced by the theatre of itsdays. And translation of a drama requires to be imagined by the translator who is never free from any influencesor references to the stages and theatres of authors’ time. That is why in this paper I would like to examine whatkind of staging the translators suggest in their translations and stage directions they insert in the texts.
We all know that in the ancient tragedies there are no written stage directions. But it does not mean that there areno stage instructions. Without no doubts the fifth century BC tragedies were theatre productions. Of course theywere influencedby the Athenian theater of the day, but in every age the drama is influenced by the theatre of itsdays. And translation of a drama requires to be imagined by the translator who is never free from any influencesor references to the stages and theatres of authors’ time. That is why in this paper I would like to examine whatkind of staging the translators suggest in their translations and stage directions they insert in the texts.
The study deals with the first Czech translation of Seneca's tragedy - it is an unknown and so far unpublished translation of the tragedy Agamemnon by Václav Renč, which was written in 1965. The author gradually introduces the reader to Renč's translation activities for the theatre, then focuses on his translations of ancient dramas, and after a digression on the Czech reception of Seneca's tragedies, she devotes herself to a detailed analysis of the translation of Agamemnon itself and Renč's translation approach. Finally, she attempts to explain the circumstances of the translation's creation and the context of its planned publication in a collection of ancient dramas published by Orbis publishing house.
CS
Studie se zabývá prvním českým překladem Senekovy tragédie - je to neznámý a dosud nepublikovaný překlad tragédie Agamemnon od Václava Renče, který vznikl roku 1965. Autorka postupně čtenáře seznamuje s Renčovou překladatelskou činností pro divadlo, poté se soustřeďuje na jeho překlady antických dramat a po odbočce o české recepci Senekových tragédií se věnuje podrobné analýze samotného překladu Agamemnona a Renčova překladatelského přístupu. Nakonec se pokouší objasnit okolnosti vzniku tohoto překladu a přibližuje kontext jeho plánovaného vydání ve výboru antických dramat v nakladatelství Orbis.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.