Incomplete texts illuminate the criteria, strategies,
tactics, and alternatives available for any rendering.
Quotations and papyri provide our only
sources of ancient Greek lyric poetry. The quota-
tions generally are very brief excerpts of one or
two lines isolated from their original context
within longer poems; occasionally a whole poem
is quoted. Egyptian papyri containing poetry turn
up in various stages of disintegration or in pieces.
Indeed, many recent finds of poetry are on strips
of papyrus wrapping mummies. Thus poems
found on papyrus often are missing the right or
left side; sometimes entire lines or scattered words
have been erased by time.
The poetry of Sappho (seventh centuryBCE)
demonstrates both the possibilities of translation
and the necessity for establishing consistent prin-
ciples of translation. Of the nine books of her
poetry (some five hundred poems) collected in
the Hellenistic period, only one definitely com-
plete poem remains. The rest are fragments. The
combination of the distance in time, the physical
state of the manuscripts, the lack of reliable bio-
graphical information, and the poet’s gender
have led to the constant creation of new Sapphos
by translators.
Fragments clarify strategies of reading and
translating poetry because their absences expose
our necessary interaction with the text. They also
expose where the translator distorts the text by
interacting too much, thus not allowing the read-
ers a chance to experience the potential of the
poem. Translations work best when they fully
exploit the connection and activity of the reader
with the text. Letting the absences show in the
translation leaves room for the reader to deter-
mine meaning and make connections.
Fragments implicitly remind us of their phys-
ical inscription and call into question the illusion
of self-contained, ‘‘whole’’ texts. The holes in the
text are not left empty in the reading process. As
we read, we fill in, ‘‘read between the lines.’’ While
we do this in all reading, fragments tempt us to
guess authorial intention, to imagine what the
poet originally wrote that is now missing.
Reading a translation of Greek poetry should
be as close to the experience of reading the Greek
text as possible. Yet the reader can discover the
possibilities of the Greek text only through the eyes
of the translator. Optimally, the translation recre-
ates as much of the potential meaning of the Greek
as possible—opening up rather than narrowing the
range of possible interpretations. It is a delicate
business to provide enough information without
over-determining the meaning of the poem.
To recreate the experience of reading Sap-
pho, for instance, the translation needs to show
the reader where the Greek text breaks off. Most
available translations of Greek lyric give no indi-
cation of fragmentation, where one thought does
not immediately follow the last. Translators gen-
erally opt for expanding or condensing the text by
adding or subtracting phrases. Peter Newmark’s
terms of over- and under-translation have special
meaning for fragments.
Over-translation and under-translation erase
evidence of physical gaps. ‘‘Completing’’ the poem
by filling in gaps overly privileges the translator’s
interpretation, and fragmentary lines left out
through condensing often contain vital infor-
mation. Both practices simplify the poetry and
mislead the reader. While the translator’s inter-
pretation of the text always informs the trans-
lation, she should resist the temptation to add
or subtract text itself.
Over-translation was once common because
the editors of Greek texts used to add the Greek
they guessed the author originally had written.
Some additions to fragmented texts certainly are
acceptable, and it would be a disservice not to
include them. The standard Greek editions include
generally accepted supplements based on quota-
tions in other ancient authors, probable readings
of papyri, information from ancient marginalia,
and the sense of the texts themselves. The translator
accepts or rejects these supplements on an individ-
ual basis according to probability and necessity. It
is not over-translation to accept a suggested word
that is likely paleographically and needed for an
intelligible reading.TRANSLATIONS WORK BEST WHEN THEY
FULLY EXPLOIT THE CONNECTION AND ACTIVITY OF
THE READER WITH THE TEXT. LETTING THE
ABSENCES SHOW IN THE TRANSLATION LEAVES
ROOM FOR THE READER TO DETERMINE MEANING
AND MAKE CONNECTIONS.’’Fragment 2