Madame Dacier
An account into the professional life – and exploration of the influence of – Madame Dacier in Classical scholarship.
Anne Le Fevre Dacier (famous as Madame Dacier) was an influential and outspoken classicist in 17th – 18th century France. Her translations (mainly from Greek or Latin to French), particularly Homer’s Iliad, became ‘a European vernacular landmark’ (Weinbrot, 2001, p.85), and along with her husband, Andre Dacier, she made their surname ‘a compelling argument on authority’ (Weinbrot, 2001, p.85).
Her preface to the Iliad reignited the famous Quarrel of the Ancients and the Moderns, and she played a significant role in her defence of the Ancients. Dacier was unique in the fact she had an intelligent male role model in her father, Tanneguy Le Fevre, a professor of Classics at the Academy of Saumur (The Encyclopaedia Britannica, p.152), who encouraged her academic pursuits. One famous anecdote regarding her early life tells of her father teaching her brother Greek. Anne, weaving her tapestry in the corner, proved herself to be much more adept at the language, and would be able to answer questions her brother could not ‘no matter how intricate or embarrassing the subject’ (Hay, 1813, p.288), and so her father chose to focus his efforts on her. This shows Dacier’s innate potential, and her pursuit of these talents in spite of her gender is part of what makes her an important figure to talk about in the history of classical scholarship.
The Term Paper on My Father 2
Step 1: Descriptive Paragraph Prewriting & Plan Directions: Complete all of the elements of the prewriting; otherwise, the content of your piece will not be accurate. Topic: My father Overall Impression/Point: As people age older they change physically and emotionally, however we can always see them as they were before. Audience: Instructor, Family and friends. Purpose: Persuade Topic ...
My aim is to give an account of the life and work of Madame Dacier, and explore her influence of the study of Classics – focusing particularly on gender and her role in the quarrel of the ancients and the moderns.
Before discussing Dacier’s influence on classical scholarship, it is important to understand the context in which she was writing. At this point in time, the literary Salons had become very fashionable in France. People would join or be invited to these Salons to talk about and critique contemporary literature, and the majority of these people would have been women (Goodman, 1989).
Although the Salons had an effect on what was being published, it was very rare for a woman to be published herself. Classics in particular was still very much a male-dominated field, which makes Dacier’s academic achievements all the more significant.
She spent most of her early life under the tutelage of her father, and after his death in 1674, due to the skill she possessed, she was patronised by Pierre Daniel Huet, tutor of the Dauphin. He encouraged her to move to Paris and devote herself to the classics (Conley, 2010).
There she thrived, and after the critical success of her first translation (Callimachus), she was invited to contribute to a series of books – ad usum Delphini (For the use of the Dauphin).
Originally, this series of books was intended for the royal court, but her translations of Publius Annius Florus, Sextus Aurelius Victor, Eutropius, and Dictys of Crete bought the series into the mainstream (Hay, 1813, p.289).
This helped to popularise the classics in France. Her opinion was now considered a valuable commodity, and she became a celebrity in the literary salons. In 1679, she became a member of Padua’s Academy of Ricovrati (Conley, 2010).
1683 was the year she married Andre Dacier, an ex-student of her father, and fellow classicist. Andre Dacier was influential in his own right, translating and commenting on authors such as Aristotle, Plutarch, and Horace. In fact his translation of Horace (1681-1689) is thought to be ‘the most influential vernacular eighteenth-century version’ (Weinbrot, 2001, p.85).
Andre and Anne Dacier worked together on translations of Plutarch and Marcus Aurelius, and this earned them praise from Nicolas Boileau, arguably France’s most influential critic, and a leading figure in La Querelle des Anciens et des Modernes (The Quarrel of the Ancients and the Moderns) (Conley, 2010)..
The Essay on Cuckolding Examined in Two Classic Works
Without a doubt, one of the most misunderstood characters in all of world literature is the cuckold. The root of such misunderstanding is often found in the revulsion the reader feels towards such a character. In all honesty, a character that exists solely to be humiliated hardly commandeers any sympathy particularly when they bring such humiliation upon themselves. When someone is cuckolded ...
La Querelle des Anciens et des Modernes was a heated debate in France in the late 1600s with two distinct philosophies. The first, led by Nicolas Boileau, postulated that all literature should imitate the classics. The followers of this philosophy, named the ‘Ancients’ or the ‘Veterans’, believed that the classical texts were the pinnacle of good writing and that no one else could contend – the best they could do was imitate.
On the other side of the debate were the ‘Moderns’, led by Charles Perrault, and their view, the culture they lived in had amassed more knowledge and surpassed the classical authors in scholarship. This, they concluded, meant that the contemporary authors were able to produce better literature. The ‘Moderns’ philosophy can be summed up succinctly in a quotation by Perrault from his 1687 work, The Century of Louis the Great: ‘La docte Antiquité dans toute sa durée / A l’égal de nos jours ne fut point éclairée.’ (Learned Antiquity, through all its extent, / Was never enlightened to equal our times) (DeJean, 1997).
Both Anne and Andre Dacier were firmly on the side of the Ancients. Their key works – Anne’s 1699 Iliad and Andre’s Horace – included a thorough defence of the classics as the ideal in both literature and culture. Dacier publicly stated that Classical literature – and Homer’s epics in particular – was far superior to the literature of modern France. Anne’s Iliad and Odyssey were reprinted numerous times and used as literature textbooks in French schools (Conley, 2010).
This made her opinions extremely influential and far-reaching, and her attitude in this work helped to reignite the feud between the Ancients and the Moderns, and the debate began again.
In 1714, Antoine Houdar de la Motte published his own translation of Homer in defence of the Moderns. He changed the text dramatically to suit the sensibilities of modern readers, and he criticised the style and weak morals of Homer, claiming French literature to be better in these aspects. Dacier decided to respond to this in her work entitled Of the Causes of the Corruption of Taste. She argued that La Motte was completely wrong in his assumptions and rebutted every point that he made. She wrote that he did not understand the character of Achilles in particular. Although he is a ‘hero’, Dacier believed that Homer was actually trying to warn his audience of the destructive nature of ‘the vices of vanity, temerity, and arrogance’ of Achilles (Conley, 2010).
The Essay on Comparison Of Translations Of ''The Seafarer'' By Burton Raffel And Ezra Pound
Promt: Compare the two versions of The Seafarer by Raffel and Pound and give reasoning for why one is a better translation, in terms of preserving the Anglo-Saxon poetic tradition and the overall feel of the poem. It would not be possible to translate The Seafarer perfectly, keeping all of its patently Anglo-Saxon poetic devices intact. Because much of their poetic tradition involves the sounds of ...
Dacier published another treatise in 1716 entitled Homer Defended Against the Apology of Father Hardouin, or the Sequel to the Causes of the Corruption of Taste, after Jean Hardouin proposed a new way of interpreting Homer. Again she defends the superiority of the Ancients. She celebrates the achievements of the Greeks and judges modern society to be inferior and decadent. She challenges the argument that Classical literature is immoral as it is inspired by the Greek Pantheon, which is full of amoral and violent deities. She argues that Homer’s epics are actually very close to Christian monotheism. She sums up her thoughts nicely in this quotation:
“Homer recognizes one superior God, on which all the other gods are dependant. Everywhere he supports human freedom and the concept of a double destiny so necessary to harmonize this freedom with predestination; the immortality of the soul; and punishments and rewards after death. He recognized the great truth that human beings have nothing good which they have not received from God; that it is from God that comes all the success in what they undertake; that they must request this happy outcome by their prayers; and that the misfortune which occurs to them is called down by their folly and by the improper use they make of their freedom”
Dacier believed that reading Homer could foster Christian ideals, virtue, and morality in its reader (Conley, 2010).
However, despite her reverence for the ancient writers, Dacier seems to often make concessions in her translation in order to appeal to the contemporary reader (Grafton, Most, and Settis, 2010, p.249) – exactly what she disapproved of in La Motte’s work. The best example of this is in her translation of Aristophanes’ Clouds, and there are two passages that serve as the best examples. Here is a comparison of a modern translation (Johnston), and Dacier’s translation (her original French is placed just above a translation for a more pure comparison):
The Term Paper on Men And Women Gender Jobs Work
Running Head: WORKPLACE ROLES OF MEN AND WOMEN COMPARED IN TODAY'S SOCIETY Work Place Roles Of Men and Women Compared in Today's Society Submitted by: Steven KopacSubmitted to: PierroStudent #: 2321040 Seminar Time: Tuesday @ 11: 30-12: 30 Course: Sociology 1 F 90 Brock University Date: Thursday February 8, 2001 Work Place Roles Of Men and Women Compared in Today's Society "Rosy cheeked and bright ...
Modern
Student: He was studying movements of the moon—its trajectory and revolutions. One night, as he was gazing up, open mouthed, staring skyward, a lizard on the roof relieved itself on him.
Strepsiades: A lizard crapped on Socrates! That’s good!
Dacier’s
Student: Comme il observoit le cours & la circonference de la Lune, & qu’il avoit la bouche ouverte en regardant le ciel, cette méchante beste luy fit son ordure dedans du haut du toit.
Strepsiades: Ah que je suis ravy que cette Belete ait fait son ordure dans la bouche de Socrate!
Trans:
Student: When he was looking at paths and the circumference of the moon, and as he had his mouth open when he was looking at the sky, this naughty animal made his mess in it from the height of the roof.
Strepsiades: Ah! I’m delighted that this weasel made his mess in Socrates’ mouth.
Another example with similar censorship:
Modern
Socrates: Have you grasped anything?
Strepsiades: No by god I haven’t.
Socrates: Nothing at all?
Strepsiades: I haven’t grasped a thing—except my right hand’s wrapped around my cock.
Dacier’s
Socrates: N’as tu rien trouvé encore
Strepsiades: Non par bleu
Socrates: Rien du tout?
Strepsiades: Rien, vous dis-je.
Trans:
Socrates: Have you not found anything yet?
Strepsiades: No damnit.
Socrates: Nothing at all?
Strepsiades: Nothing I tell you.
By making such concessions, Dacier loses much of the humour intended by Aristophanes. This goes against her assertion that everyone ‘with good taste’ who reads Aristophanes’ Clouds (specifically saying that she is not talking about her translation) ‘will be charmed by it’, and calls it one of ‘the greatest beauties of Aristophanes’. She does say that, however, that ‘the graces of the original cannot be imitated and that they are almost impossible to conserve’. But there is a difference between translating his words with less grace, and cutting out offensive words thereby giving the text a completely different tone than was intended by its author. Her assurance that ‘I have done all that I can to make my translation palatable’ (Le Fevre, 1614, p.56. trans. Wyles, R.) could be referring to the way she has translated the text – as in, she has done all she can to make it good enough to be readable – or it could be a more truthful admission that she has cut out the words or phrases that she deems too crude, or not ‘palatable’ for the French public.
The Essay on Women In America Work Norton Clerical
"The Evolution of Women in Society" Throughout United States history oppression of people has always been prominent, whether through African American's and segregation or Asian American's during the Vietnam War. What is often ignored is our history of the oppression of women. No matter what time in history, there is always a case to be found of the discrimination over gender. Many people know of ...
Although Dacier clearly tried to appease her critics by concessions in translation and possible false modesty, when it came to translating, it appears she would not compromise on the works themselves. By translating lyrical poets such as Callimachus and Sappho, she appealed to the liberal salons, but also sparked controversy with the more conservative critics. They were not happy with a woman publishing such inappropriate material (Conley, 2010).
Dacier submits contradictory examples of her views on gender. In much of her writing she comes across as a modest woman, not wanting to overstep her bounds. Her father talks of her in a letter to Huet and describes her as ‘very modest [she] doesn’t want anyone to know that she knows either Greek or Latin’ (Levine, 1991, p.134).
She talks of war being ‘far above [her]’, and even goes so far as to say ‘it seemed to me that the Manuscripts were so far above a person of my sex that it was usurping the rights of male scholars just to have thought of consulting them.’
However, it appears that she may have actually thought quite differently, as on occasion her façade of modesty will slip. She seems proud of her work; ‘I can assure you that this Work [Aristophanes] is the least imperfect that could have left my hands’ (Le Fevre, 1614, p.56. Trans. Wyles, R.).
She even talks with disdain about those who have previously attempted the translations that she has done; ‘We have some translations of Plautus, but I seriously doubt that anyone with sense could read one page of them without disgust.’ (Le Fevre, 1730, ‘Preface’. Trans. Wyles, R.)This does not fit the role of the ‘modest female’ that she has been trying to convey. It is very possible that she has created this persona in order to present her work in a non-threatening way to the male scholars who dominated the field. They would be more likely to warm to a woman’s ‘amusements’ (Conley, 2010, quotation from Dacier’s preface to the Iliad), than a serious female scholar trying to force herself into their comfortably male world. We get a possible glimpse into her mindset when she recounts a story from Herodotus in her note to Iliad 6.490. She narrates the story of princess Pheretima of Cyrene who was driven out of her country and looked to the king of Cyprus, Evelthon, for help and an army. Instead of responding to her request, he gave her presents every day to keep her quiet, but this never worked. In the end he presented her with a spindle and distaff, telling her that these were the only presents to be made to a woman, and this is the only occupation she should have. Dacier ends this story by saying: ‘I am rather afraid that many people, reading this work and finding it far above my capacity, will send me also back to my distaff and spindles.’ I believe this is a rather telling quotation. On the one hand, it is clear that she does not think the work is above her capacity, as she has previously spoken highly of her own work. However on the other, as a woman daring to transgress the boundary of what is appropriate for a female and enter a traditionally male discipline, she must have been constantly aware that she could be pushed out of the field which she loved so much, and sent back to her womanly duties. There are times where she gets frustrated with this, and it shows when she says:
The Homework on Should Women Work Outside Home
Recently, many women are engaged in various kinds of job, and they have been advancing in society. Moreover, it is quite ubiquitous among typical families that a mother works outside the home. In the article Should a Woman Work Outside the Home?, the author Mohammed Akade Osman Sudan argues that a womans rightful place in society is in the home. I disagree with the authors view that women should ...
It remains for me to respond to certain old men, who, as I have heard, cannot have their fill of wondering why the famous Tanneguy Le Fèvre advised his daughter to engage in scholarship, and did not rather raise her to card the wool of the house. Indeed they could easily see that he has acted with such judgement that there finally appears a lady to charge them with stupidity and sloth.
This has a surprisingly impudent tone for a woman trying to become a respected colleague to these ‘old men’. However, I think that we are seeing Dacier’s true thoughts here. By saying this and showing how proud she is of her accomplishments, she has nothing to gain and very much to lose. However, by appearing a demure and modest woman she has only to gain. Therefore, when we see statements such as the one above, it is sensible to conclude that these are Dacier’s true feelings on the matter.
In an essay entitled New Reflections on Women in 1727, Marie de Lambert praised Dacier, saying that she had contradicted the stereotype of women being anti-intellectual. She said: ‘I esteem Madame Dacier infinitely. Our sex owes her a great deal. She has protested against the common error which condemns us to ignorance. As much as from contempt as from an alleged superiority, men have denied us all learning. Madame Dacier is an example proving that we are capable of learning. She has associated erudition with good manners.’ (Conley, 2010).
It could be argued that rather than hinder Dacier’s reputation, her gender actually enhanced it. Critics were surprised at her intelligence despite being a woman, and so she was widely discussed. Voltaire wrote in his Philosophical Dictionary (1764) that “Madame Dacier was no doubt a woman superior to her sex and she has done a great service to letters.” (Conley, 2010).
This is clearly a fairly misogynistic quote, and in other words, he is saying that Dacier is a great female scholar, but that she is an exception. Gilles Ménage wrote a History of Women Philosophers in 1690 and dedicated it to Dacier. He named her as “the most erudite woman in the present or the past.” (Conley, 2010).
As well as this, Dacier receives good reviews from those who could be thought to be her critics, or at least disagree with her views on translation. For example the Journal literaire, who published a complimentary review of Alexander Pope’s Iliad. In his preface, Pope agrees with Houdar, and the Journal pointedly states its approval of this. However, despite this, it still admits that Dacier ‘qui fait tant d’honneur à son sexe et à notre siècle’ (brings great honour to her sex and her century) (Weinbrot, 2001, p.199).
Anne Dacier is still revered as a great scholar, and as more female classicists joined the field, she was held up as an example to aspiring women that gender did not have to hold them back. This can be seen in an 1885 letter from a woman named Felicia “Flibbertigibbet” to Fannie “Fizz-gigg” (presumably pseudonyms).
From the letter it is clear that they are both Bluestockings – the term used to refer to an educated or intellectual woman (more specifically the name given to a group of intellectual women in the 1800s).
In it she relates an anecdote about a German baron asking Dacier for an autograph. She gives it to him, quoting the phrase ‘Silence adorns a woman’ (Burra Record, 1885).
This is a quotation from Sophocles’ Ajax. It is hard to say why she chose to quote this line to the baron, but it does have significance. Ajax says this line to his wife after she tries to give him advice. In fact, her advice was correct, and Ajax’s failure to follow it results in his death. Dacier would obviously have been aware of the context, so it is doubtful that she meant the sentiment at face value. It is possible that she was trying to make a point about the attitude towards women, and that women often have pertinent and insightful things to say, and a failure to recognise this could hinder progress. Dacier died in 1720, and the fact that this anecdote was still being told over one hundred and sixty years after her death shows the huge influence she had on the female intellectual community.
As a side note her husband, Andre Dacier, was also a prolific translator of the classics and a vocal proponent of the Ancients during the querelle des anciens et des modernes (as mentioned previously).
However, although he is still a respected scholar, he seems to be less well-known or talked about in contemporary scholarship. This may, ironically, have something to do with his gender.
It would be hard to argue with the statement that Madame Dacier was a brilliant translator and scholar; she was admired by even her toughest contemporary critics. Although she could be contradictory in many of her words and actions, it was understandable considering her precarious position as a woman infiltrating a traditionally male space. She may have made concessions with some of her translations, but she did not compromise on the actual works she chose to translate. Even with the changes she made, her translation of Aristophanes was controversial. She helped to reignite, and contributed greatly, to one of the biggest debates of the French salons (the quarrel of the ancients and the moderns).
This debate had far-reaching repercussions; it forced people to, on one hand, think more critically about the classics, and on the other admire them anew. Unsurprisingly, the debates brought forth a surge in Classical scholarship during that period. Dacier also paved the way for future female classical scholars to be taken seriously in the male-dominated field.
Bibliography
Modern Books
DeJean, J. (1997) Ancients against Moderns: Culture Wars and the Making of a Fin de Siecle, Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.
Grafton, A; Most, G.W; Settis, S. (2010) The Classical Tradition. The President and Fellows of Harvard College: USA.
Levine, JM. (1991).
The Battle of the Books: History and Literature in the Augustan Age. Cornell University Press : New York.
Weinbrot, H.D. (2001), ‘“What must the world think of me?” Pope, Madame Dacier, and Homer – The Anatomy of a quarrel.’ in H.D. Weinbrot, P.J. Schakel, and S.E. Karian, “Eighteenth-century Contexts: Historical Inquiries in Honor of Phillip Harth” 183-206. University of Wisconsin Press: USA.
Journals/Encyclopaedias
Biographical Sketch of Madame Dacier (Extracted from Mary Hay’s “Female Biography.”) The Belfast Monthly Magazine, Vol. 10, No. 57 (Apr. 30, 1813), pp. 288-293.
The Encyclopaedia Britannica, Or Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, and General Literature, Volume 7, Issue 2, Black, 1842.
Websites
Conley, J.C. (2010) Madame Dacier. Loyola University U.S.A. http://www.iep.utm.edu/dacier-a/#H1 [accessed: 3/12/2012].
Ian Johnston, Aristophanes Clouds (trans).
Malaspina University-College, Nanaimo, BC, https://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/aristophanes/clouds.htm. [accessed: 20/12/2012].
Older Texts
Burra Record, The City of Big-Big (SA: 1878 -1954).
25th December 1885, p.3. http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/36016543 [accessed: 02/01/2013].
La Fevre, A. (1614) Le Plutus et les Nuées d’Aristophane: Comedies Greques, traduites en François. Avec des remarques & un examen de chaque piece selon les regles du theatre. Denys Thierry. (Google e-book)
Le Fevre, A. (1730).
Comédies de Plaute, Volume 1. Denys Thierry. (Google e-book).
———————–
13