ture to say, it would be impossible to assign a good reason why in some instances they depart from that method, whilst in others they tenaciously adhere to it. 9. It ought withal to be observed, that several interpreters, who, in translating single words, have not confined themselves to the absurd method above-mentioned, could not be persuaded to take the same liberty with idioms and phrases. Thus Arias has but copied the Vulgate, Luke i. 37, in translating 'Orɩ ouк advvaτησει παρα τῳ Θεῳ παν ρημα, Quia non erit impossibile apud Deum omne verbum. In this short sentence there are no fewer than three improprieties; one arising from the mistranslation of a noun, and the other two from mistranslated idioms. 'Pnua, in Hellenistic usage, is equivalent to the Hebrew 7 daber, which, as has been observed, signifies not only verbum, a word, but res or negotium, a thing; which last is the manifest sense of it in the passage quoted: the second is the rendering of ov wav, non omne, and not, as it ought to have been, nullum: the third arises from using the future in Latin, in the enunciation of an universal truth. It ought to have been remembered, that the Hebrew has no present tense; one who writes it is, consequently, obliged often to use the other tenses, and especially the future, in enunciating general truths, for which, in all modern languages as well as in Greek and Latin, we employ the present. In consequence of these blunders, the version, as it lies, is perfectly unmeaning; whereas, no person that is even but a smatterer in Hebrew will hesitate to declare, that the sense is completely expressed in English in these words, For nothing is impossible with God. 10. There are few of the old versions which have kept entirely clear of this fault. In the ancient Latin translation called the Italic, whereof we have not now a complete copy remaining, there were many more barbarisms than in the present Vulgate. And even Jerom himself acquaints us, that, when he set about making a new version, he left several things which he knew to be not properly expressed, for fear of giving offence to the weak by his numerous and bold alterations. This idiom of non omne for nihil or nullum, seems to have been one which, in many places, though not in all, he has corrected. Thus, what in the old Italic, after the Septuagint, was "Non est omne recens sub sole." Eccles. i. 9, he has rendered perspicuously and properly, "Nihil sub sole novum." A slavish attachment to the letter in translating, without any regard to the meaning, is originally the offspring of the superstition, not of the church, but of the synagogue-where it would have been more suitable in Christian interpreters, the ministers not of the letter but of the spirit, to have allowed it to remain. 11. That this is not the way to answer the first and principal end of translating, has, I think, been sufficiently demonstrated. Instead of the sense of the original, it sometimes gives us down right nonsense; frequently a meaning quite different; and not seldom it makes the author say in another language, the reverse of what he said in his own. Can it then be doubted, that this is not the way to attain the second end in translating? Is this a method whereby a translator can convey into his version, as much as possible in a consistency with the genius of a different language, the author's spirit and manner, and (so to speak) the very character of his style? It is evident that the first end may be attained where this is not attained. An author's meaning may be given, but in a different manner; a concise writer may be made to express himself diffusely, or a diffuse writer concisely; the sense of an elegant work may be justly given, though in a homely dress. But it does not hold conversely, that the second end may be attained without the first; for when an author's sense is not given, he is not fairly represented. Can we do justice to his manner, if, when he reasons consequentially, he be exhibited as talking incoherently; if what he writes perspicuously, be rendered ambiguously or obscurely; if what flows from his pen naturally and easily, in the true idiom and construction of his language, be rendered ruggedly and unnaturally, by the violence perpetually done to the construction of the language into which it is transmuted rather than translated? The manner of a tall man, who walks with dignity, would be wretchedly represented by a dwarf who had no other mode of imitation but to number and trace his footsteps. The immoderate strides and distortions which this ridiculous attempt would oblige the imitator to employ, could never convey to the spectators an idea of easy and graceful motion. * 12. The third end of translating, that of preserving purity and perspicuity in the language into which the version is made, is not so much as aimed at by any of the literal tribe. Upon the whole, I cannot express my sentiments more justly, both of Arias and of Pagnin, than in the words of Houbigant, who, in assigning his reasons for not adopting the version of either, says, "Non facerem meam illam versionem, Ariæ Montani horridam, inficetam, obscuram, talem denique qualem composuisset, si quis homines deterrere ab sacris codicibus legendis voluisset. Non illam Pagnini, quam Arias, jam malam, fecit imitando ac interpolando pejorem." In this last remark, which may in part be justified by some of the foregoing examples, he perfectly agrees with Father Simon, who says of Arias's amendments on Pagnin's translation, "Quot correctiones, tot corruptiones." For there is hardly any thing altered that is not for the worse. Such Latin versions would be quite unintelligible, if it were not for the knowledge we have of the original, and of the common English version, which is as literal as any version ought to be, and sometimes more so. The coincidence of two or three words recalls the whole passage to Proleg. p. 178. * our memory; but we may venture to pronounce, that to an ancient Roman, who knew nothing of the learning or opinions of the east, the greater part of Arias's Bible would appear no better than a jumble of words without meaning. 13. To all the other evil consequences resulting from such versions we ought to add, that they necessarily lead the unlearned reader into an opinion, that the original which is susceptible of them must be totally indefinite, equivocal, and obscure. Few, without making the experiment, can allow themselves to think, that it is equally possible, by this mode of translation, completely to disfigure, and render unintelligible, what is written with plainness and simplicity, and without any ambiguity, in their mothertongue; yet nothing is more certain, than that the most perspicuous writing, in any language, may be totally disguised by this treatment.* Were the ancient Greek or Latin classics, in prose As it is impossible, without an example, to conceive how monstrous the transformation is which it occasions, I shall here subjoin a specimen of a few English sentences, translated into Latin in the taste and manner of Arias. Ego inveni aliquod pecus in meo frumento, et posui illa in meam libram. Ego rogavi unum qui stabat per, si ille novit cujus illa erant. Sed ille vertit unam viam a me, et fecit non ita multum ut vindicare salvum ad redire mihi ullam responsionem. Super hoc ego rogavi unum alium qui dixit unam magnam tabulam abiegnam in replicatione quam ego feci non substare. Quam unquam ego volui non habere posita illa sursum, habui ego notum ad quem illa pertinebant; nam ego didici post custodias quod ille fuit unus ego fui multum aspectus ad." Were these few lines put into the hands of a learned foreigner, who does not understand English, he might sooner learn to read Chinese than to divine their meaning. Yet a little attention would bring an Englishman who knows Latin soon to discover that they were intended as a version, if we may call it so, of the following words, which, in the manner of Arias, I give with the version interlined. Ego my pound. I Sed ille vertit unam Ego inveni aliquod pecus in meo frumento, et posui illa in meam libram. But he turned a ad redire mihi ullam to return me any responsionem. Super hoc ego rogavi unum alium qui dixit unam magnam Upon this I asked another who said answer. deal in reply which a great tabulam abiegnam in replicatione quam ego feci non substare. Quam unquam did not understand. How ever ego volui non habere posita illa sursum, habui ego notum ad quem illa pertinebant, I would not have put them up, had I known to whom they belonged, nam ego didici post custodias quod ille fuit unus ego fui multum aspectus ad. for I learned afterwards that he was one I was much beholden to. Should one object, that the Latin words here employed do not suit the sense of the corresponding words in the passage translated, it is admitted that they do not; but they are selected in exact conformity to the fundamental rules followed by Arias. Thus una via, away, vindicare salvum, vouchsafe, quam unquam, however, tabula abiegna, deal, substare, understand, post custodias, afterwards, aspectus, beholden, are all agreeable to the primary rule of etymology, and in no respect worse than reptifico, where both sense and use require produco; or assumptio for doctrina, to the utter destruction of all meaning; or non omnis for nullus, which gives a meaning quite different. But by what rule, it may be asked, is pound rendered libra, in a case wherein it manifestly means septum? By the same rule, it is answered, whereby iashab is rendered sedere, in a case wherein both the sense and the construction required inhabitare, and daber rendered verbum, where it manifestly means res-the golden rule of uniformity, by which every term ought always to be rendered the same or verse, to be thus rendered into any modern tongue, nobody could bear to read them. Strange, indeed, that a treatment should ever have been accounted respectful to the sacred penmen, which, if given to any other writer, would be universally condemned as no better than dressing him in a fool's coat. I am not at all surprised that certain great men of the church of Rome, like Cardinal Cajetan, who (though with foreign assistance he translated the Psalms) did not understand a word of Hebrew, show themselves great admirers of this method. The more unintelligible the Scriptures are made, the greater is the need of an infallible interpreter, an article of which they never lose sight. But that others, who have not the same motive, and possess a degree of understanding superior to that of a Jewish cabalist, should recommend an expedient which serves only for debasing and discrediting the dictates of the divine Spirit, appears perfectly unaccountable. I shall only add, that versions of this kind are very improperly called translations. The French have a convenient word, travesty, by which they denote the metamorphosis of a serious work into mere burlesque, by dressing it in such language as renders it ridiculous, making the noblest thoughts appear contemptible, the richest images beggarly, and the most judicious observations absurd. I would not say, therefore, the Bible translated, but the Bible travestied, by Arias Montanus: For that can never deserve the name of a translation, which gives you neither the matter nor the manner of the author, but, on the contrary, often exhibits both as the reverse of what they are. Malvenda, a Dominican, is another interpreter of the same tribe with his brother Pagnin, and with Arias, whom he is said greatly to have exceeded in darkness, barbarism, and nonsense. I never saw his version, but have reason to believe, from the accounts given of it by good judges, that it can answer no valuable pur pose. way, and agreeably to its most common signification, without minding whether it make sense or nonsense so rendered. [The literal translator follows implicitly the sage direction given by Cajetan, "Non sit vobis curæ, si sensus non apparet, quia non est vestri officii exponere sed interpretari: interpretamini sicut jacet, et relinquatis expositoribus curam intelligendi." Præf. Comment. in Psalm.] Now it is certain that pound occurs oftener in the sense of libra than in that of septum. But how do you admit such gross solecisms as redire responsionem? I answer, Is this more so than sedere tentorium? or do the prepositions as used here, stabat per and aspectus ad, make the construction more monstrous than inter ad in that sentence sit dividens inter aquas ad aquas? Besides, there is not a word in the above specimen, which, taken severally, is not Latin; so much cannot be said for Arias, whose work is overrun with barbarisms as well as solecisms. Witness his fructescens and reptificent, in the few examples above produced. And in regard to the total incoherence and want of construction, can any thing in this way exceed in creari ea, or in die facere Deus, or ad terram quod sumptus est inde, or major iniquitas quam parcere? PART III. STRICTURES ON THE VULGATE. I PROCEED now to consider a little the merit of some other Latin translations of holy writ. The first, doubtless, that deserves our attention, in respect both of antiquity, and I may say of universality, in the western churches, is the Vulgate. The version which is known by this name, at least the greater part of it, is justly ascribed to Jerom, and must therefore be dated from the end of the fourth, or beginning of the fifth century. As its reception in the church was gradual, voluntary, and not in consequence of the command of a superior, and as for some ages the old Latin version, called the Italic, continued, partly from the influence of custom, partly from respect to antiquity, to be regarded and used by many, there is reason to believe that a part of that version still remains in the Vulgate, and is in a manner blended with it. One thing at least is certain, that in several places of the Vulgate we find those expressions and ways of rendering which that learned father in his works strongly condemned, at the same time that, in other parts, we see his emendations regularly followed. Besides, as I hinted before, there were several corrections which, though his judgment approved them, he did not, for fear of shocking the sentiments of the people, think it prudent to adopt. From this it may naturally be inferred, that the manner and style of the Vulgate will not be found equal and uniform. And I believe no person who has examined it with a critical eye, will deny that this is the case. 2. From what remains of the old Italic, it appears to have been much in the taste of almost all the Jewish translations, extremely literal, and consequently in a great degree obscure, ambiguous, and barbarous. To give a Latin translation of the Scriptures, which might at once be more perspicuous, and more just to the original, was the great and laudable design of that eminent light of the western churches above-mentioned. The Old Testament part of the Italic version had been made entirely from the Septuagint; (for the Hebrew Scriptures were for some ages of no estimation in the church;) but Jerom being well skilled in Hebrew, undertook to translate from the original. This itself has made in some passages a considerable difference on the sense. as the version of the Seventy has generally the mark of a servile attachment to the letter, there can be no doubt that there must have been in the Hebrew manuscripts extant at the times when the several parts of that version were made, considerable differences of reading from those in common use at present. And though I think, upon the whole, that the Hebrew Scriptures are much preferable, an acquaintance with the Septuagint is of And |