Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

of inspiration, as with the works of a fellow-creature. It often happens, however, on such general topics, when no particular version is referred to as an example of excess on one side or on the other, that people agree in words when their opinions differ, and differ in words when their opinions agree: for I may consider a translation as close, which another would denominate free, or as free, which another would denominate close. Indeed, I imagine, that, in the best sense of the words, a good translation, ought to have both these qualities. To avoid all ambiguity, therefore, I shall call one extreme literal, as manifesting a greater attention to the letter than to the meaning; the other loose, as implying under it, not liberty, but licentiousness. In regard even to literal translations, there may be so many differences in degree, that, without specifying it is in vain to argue, or to hope to lay down any principles that will prove entirely satisfactory.

PART II.

STRICTURES ON ARIAS MONTANUS.

AMONG the Latin translations of Scriptures, therefore, for I shall confine myself to these in this Dissertation, let us select Arias Montanus for an example of the literal. His version of both Testaments is very generally known, and commonly printed along with the original, not in separate columns, but, for the greater benefit of the learner, interlined. This work of Arias, of all that I know, goes the farthest in this way, being precisely on the model of the Jewish translations-not so much of the Septuagint, though the Septuagint certainly exceeds in this respect, as on the model of Aquila, which, from the fragments that still remain of that version, appears to have been servilely literal, a mere metaphrase. Arias, therefore, is a fit example of what may be expected in this mode of translating.

2. Now, that we may proceed more methodically in our examination, let us inquire how far every one of the three ends in translating above-mentioned is answered by this version, or can be answered by a version constructed on the same plan. The first and principal end is to give a just representation of the sense of the original. "But how," it may be asked, " can a translator fail of attaining this end, who never wanders from the path marked out to him; who does not, like others, turn aside for a moment to pluck flowers by the way, wherewith to garnish his performance; who is, on the contrary, always found in his author's track; in short, who has it as his sole object to give you, in the words of another language, exactly what his author says, and in the order and manner wherein he says it; and," I had almost added (for this, too, is his aim, though not always attain

able) "not one word more or less than he says?" However he might fail in respect of the other ends mentioned, one would be apt to think he must certainly succeed in conveying the sentiments of his author. Yet upon trial we find, that in no point whatever does the literal translator fail more remarkably than in this of exhibiting the sense. Nor will this be found so unaccountable upon reflection, as on a superficial view it may appear. Were the words of the one language exactly correspondent to those of the other, in meaning and extent; were the modes of combining the words in both entirely similar; and the grammatical or customary arrangement the same; and were the idioms and phrases resulting thence perfectly equivalent-such a conclusion might reasonably be deduced: but, when all the material circumstances are nearly the reverse, as is certainly the case of Hebrew compared with Latin; when the greater part of the words of one are far from corresponding accurately, either in meaning or in extent, to those of the other: when the construction is dissimilar, and the idioms resulting from the like combinations of corresponding words by no means equivalent-there is the greatest probability, that an interpreter of this stamp will often exhibit to his readers what has no meaning at all, and sometimes a meaning very different from, or perhaps opposite to, that of his author.

3. I shall, from the aforesaid translation briefly illustrate what I have advanced; and that first in words, next in phrases or idioms. I had occasion, in a former Dissertation,* to take notice of a pretty numerous class of words which, in no two languages whatever, are found perfectly to correspond; though, in those tongues wherein there is a greater affinity, they come nearer to suit each other than in those tongues wherein the affinity is less. In regard to such I observed, that the translator's only possible method of rendering them justly, is by attending to the scope of the author as discovered by the context, and choosing such a term in the language which he writes, as suits best the original term in the particular situation in which he finds it.

tor.

4. But this is far from being the method of the literal translaThe defenders of this manner would, if possible, have nothing subjected to the judgment of the interpreter, but have every thing determined by general and mechanical rules. Hence they insist, above all things, on preserving uniformity, and rendering the same word in the original wherever it occurs, or however it is connected, by the same word in the version. And, as much the greater part of the words, not of one tongue only but of every tongue, are equivocal, and have more significations than one, they have adopted these two rules for determining their choice among the different meanings of which the term is susceptible:-The first is, to adopt the meaning, wherever it is dis

Diss. II. Part i. sect. 4.

coverable, to which etymology points, though in defiance of the meaning suggested both by the context and by general use. When this rule does not answer, as when the derivation is uncertain, the second is, to adopt that which of all the senses of the word appears to the translator the most common, and adhere to it inflexibly in every case, whatever absurdity or nonsense it may involve him in. I might mention also a third method, adopted sometimes, but much more rarely than either of the former, which is to combine the different meanings in the version. Thus the Hebrew word answers sometimes to Bapos, weight, sometimes to doga, glory. Hence probably has arisen the Hellenistic idiom Bapos Sons, weight of glory, 2 Cor. iv. 17. The Latin word salus means health, answering to the Greek vya; and often salvation, answering to owrnptov. The Hebrew word is equally unequivocal with the Greek, yet our translators from a respect to the Vulgate, have in one place (Psal. lxvii. 2.) combined the two meanings into saving health; a more awkward expression, because more obscure and indefinite, but which denotes no more than salvation. Perhaps not even the most literal interpreters observe inviolably these rules: But one thing is certain that in those cases wherein they assume the privilege of dispensing with them, this measure is in no respect more necessary than in many of the cases wherein they rigidly observe them. I may add another thing as equally certain, that whenever they think proper to supersede those rules, they betray a consciousness of the insufficiency of the fundamental principles of their method, as well as of the necessity there is that the translator use his best discernment and skill for directing him, first, in the discovery of the meaning of his author, and secondly, in the proper choice of words for expressing it in his version.

5. I shall exemplify the observance of the two rules abovementioned in the version I proposed to consider. And, first, for that of etymology—the passage, Genesis i. 20, which is properly rendered in the common translation, "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature," Arias renders, "Reptificent aquæ reptile." It is true, that the word which he barbarously translates reptificent (for there is no such Latin word) is in the Hebrew conjugation called hiphil, of a verb which in kal, that is, in the simple and radical form, signifies repere, to creep. Analogically, therefore, the verb in hiphil should import to cause to creep. It had been accordingly rendered by Pagninus, a critic of the same stamp, but not such an adept as Arias, repere faciant. But in Hebrew, as in all other languages, use, both in altering and in adding, exercises an uncontrollable dominion over all the parts of speech. We have just the same evidence that the original verb in hiphil commonly signifies to produce in abundance, like fishes and reptiles, as we have that in kal it signifies to creep. Now, passing the barbarism reptificent, the sense which this ver

sion conveys, if it convey any sense, is totally different from the manifest sense of the author. It is the creation, or first production of things, which Moses is relating: Arias, in this instance, (as well as Pagnin,) seems to exhibit things as already produced, and to relate only how they were set in motion. What other meaning can we give to words importing, "Let the waters cause the creeping thing to creep?" or if, by a similar barbarism in English, we may be allowed to give a more exact representation of the barbarous Latin of Arias, "Let the waters creepify the creeper ?"

Another example of etymological version, in defiance of use and of common sense, we have in the beginning of the song of Moses, Deut. xxxii. 2. The words rendered in the English translation, "My doctrine shall drop as the rain," Arias translates, "Stillabit ut pluvia assumptio mea." The word here rendered assumptio has for its etymon a verb which commonly signifies sumo, capio. That sage interpreter, it seems, thought it of more importance to acquaint his reader with this circumstance, than with the obvious meaning of the word itself. And thus a passage which in the original is neither ambiguous nor obscure, is rendered in such a manner as would defy Edipus to unriddle.

6. As to the second rule mentioned, of adopting that which, of all the significations of the word, appears to the translator the most common, and to adhere to it inflexibly in every case, however unsuitable it may be to the context, and however much it may mar the sense of the discourse; there is hardly a page, nay a paragraph, nay a line in Arias, which does not furnish us with an example. Nor does it take place in one only, but in all the parts of speech. First, in nouns, "Et hoc verbum quo circumcidit," Josh. v. 4. The Hebrew word rendered verbum answers both to verbum and to res; but as the more common meaning is verbum, it must by this rule be made always so, in spite of the connexion. In this manner he corrects Pagnin, who had rendered the expression, justly and intelligibly, "Hæc est causa quare circumcidit." In that expression, "Filius fructescens Joseph super fontem," Gen. xlix. 22, we have both his rules exemplified; the first in the barbarous participle fructescens, which has a derivation similar to the Hebrew word; the second in the substantive filius, which is no doubt the most common signification of the Herbewben, and in the preposition super. In this manner he corrects Pagnin, who had said, not badly, "Ramus crescens Joseph juxta fontem."

7. And, to show that he made as little account of the reproach of solecism as that of barbarism, he says, as absurdly as unmeaningly, "Pater fuit sedentis tentorium," Gen. iv. 20, giving a regimen to a neuter verb. Pagnin had said inhabitantis. That this is conformable to the signification of the Hebrew word in this passage, which the other is not, there can be no question; but it

might fairly bear a question, whether sedeo or inhabito be the more common meaning of the Hebrew word. The same strange rule he follows in the indeclinable parts of speech, the prepositions in particular, which being few in Hebrew, and consequently of more extensive signification, he has chosen always to render the same way, thereby darkening the clearest passages, and expressing in the most absurd manner the most elegant.

As I would avoid being tedious, I shall produce but two other examples of this, having given one already from Jacob's benediction to his sons, though the whole work abounds with examples. The expression used by Pagnin, in the account of the creation, "Dividat aquas ab aquis," Gen. i. 6, he has thus reformed, "Sit dividens inter aquas ad aquas." The other is in the account of the murder of Abel, ch. iv. 8, "Surrexit Cain ad Hebel," where Pagnin had used the preposition contra. As a specimen of the servile manner in which he traces the arrangement and construction of the original, to the total subversion of all rule and order in the language which he writes, I shall give the following passage in the New Testament, not selected as peculiar, for such are to be found in every page: "De quidem enim ministerio in sanctos, ex abundanti mihi est scribere vobis," 2 Cor. ix. 1.

8. To proceed now, as I proposed, to phrases or combinations of words I shall first produce some examples which convey a mere jargon of words, combined ungrammatically, and therefore, to those who do not understand the language out of which the the translation is made, unintelligibly. Such are the following: "Istæ generationes cœli et terræ, in creari ea, in die facere Deus terram et cœlum," Gen. ii. 4.-" Emisit eum Dominus ad colendam terram quod sumptus est inde," ch. iii. 23.—“ Major iniquitas mea quam parcere," ch. iv. 13. But as, in certain cases, this manner of copying a foreign idiom makes downright nonsense, in other cases, the like combinations of corresponding words in different languages, though not unmeaning, do not convey the same meaning, nay, sometimes convey meanings the very reverse of one another. Thus, two negatives in Greek and French deny strongly, in Latin and English they affirm. col la, in Hebrew is none; non omnis, in Latin, which is a literal version, and not all, in English, denote some. In like manner, oʊê, con

strued with ovdas, in Greek, is still nobody; non nemo, in Latin, which is a literal version, is somebody. The words kaι ov μɛdɛi σOL TEOI ovdevoç, rendered properly in the common version, (Mark xii. 14,) "And carest for no man," are translated by Arias, "Et non cura est tibi de nullo,”—the very opposite of the author's sentiment, which would have been more justly rendered, “Et cura est tibi de nullo ;" or, as it is in the Vulgate, "Non curas quenquam." In this, however, hardly any of the metaphrasts have judged proper to observe a strict uniformity; though, I will ven

« ÎnapoiContinuă »