inspired penmen, that there never appears in them any solicitude about their words: No pursuit of variety, or indeed of any thing in point of diction out of the common road. Very different is the manner of this interpreter. I had occasion to remark before, that there were no fewer than seven or eight phrases employed by Castalio, in different places of the New Testament, for expressing the import of the single verb μɛravoɛw, though used always in the same acceptation. And as another specimen of this inordinate passion I shall add, that, to express duyuos, he uses, beside the word persecutio, the far too general terms, vexatio, afflictio, insectatio, adversa, res adversa. Nay, in some instances, his love of variety has carried him so far as to sacrifice, not barely the style of his author, but his sense. What can be a stronger example of it, than his denominating God Deus obtrectator, Josh. xxiv. 19, rather than recur, with his author, to any term he had employed before. For the Hebrew & kone, rendered jealous in the English translation, he had used, in one place, æmulus, in another, socii impatiens, and in a third, rivalis impatiens. Though some exception may be made to the two last, the first was as good as the language afforded. Another translator would not have thought there was any occasion for a fourth; but so differently thought our classical interpreter in matters of this kind, that he preferred a most improper word, which might contribute to give his style the graces of novelty and variety, to an apposite, but more common term, which he had employed before. The word obtrectator is never used, as far as I remember, but in a bad sense. It is acknowledged, that when jealousy is ascribed to God, the expression is not strictly proper: he is spoken of after the manner of men. But then the term by itself does not imply any thing immoral. We may say of a man properly, in certain cases, that he had reason to be jealous; but with no propriety can we say, in any case, that a man had reason to be envious, that he had reason to be calumnious. These epithets are better suited to the diabolical nature than to the divine; yet both are included in the word obtrectator. In short, his affectation of the manner of some of the poets and orators has metamorphosed the authors he interpreted, and stripped them of the venerable signatures of antiquity which so admirably befit them; and which, serving as intrinsic evidence of their authenticity, recommend their writings to the serious and judicious. Whereas, when accoutred in this new fashion, nobody would imagine them to have been Hebrews; and yet (as some critics have justly remarked) it has not been within the compass of Castalio's art to make them look like Romans. 6. I am far from thinking that Castalio merited, on this account, the bitter invectives vented against him by Beza and others, as a wilful corrupter of the word of God. His intention * Diss. VI. Part iii. sect. 11. was good: it was to entice all ranks as much as possible to the study of the divine oracles. The expedient he used appeared at least harmless. It was, in his judgment, at the worst, but like that which Horace observes was often practised by good-natured teachers: -Ut pueris olim dant crustula blandi He regarded the thoughts solely as the result of inspiration, the words and idiom as merely circumstantial. "Erant apostoli," says he, (Defens.,) "natu Hebræi: et peregrina, hoc est Græca lingua scribentes hebraizabant; non quod id juberet spiritus: neque enim pluris facit spiritus Hebraismos quam Græcismos." Indeed, if the liberty Castalio has taken with the diction had extended no further than to reject those Hebraisms which, how perspicuous soever they are in the original, occasion either obscurity or ambiguity when verbally translated, and to supply their place by simple expressions in the Latin idiom, clearly conveying the same sense, no person who is not tinctured with the cabalistical superstition of the rabbinists could have censured his conduct. Very often the freedoms he used with the style of the sacred penmen aimed no higher. Thus, the expression of the prophet, which is literally, in English, My beloved had a vineyard in a horn of the son of oil; and which is rendered in the Vulgate, "Vinea facta est dilecto meo in cornu filii olei;" Castalio has translated much better, because intelligibly, "Habebat amicus meus vineam in quodam pingui dorso." Had he used the more familiar term collis, instead of dorsum, it would have been still better. The English translation expresses the sense very properly, "My well-beloved hath a vineyard in a very fruitful hill," Isa. v. 1. But, as I have shown, the freedoms taken by Castalio went sometimes a great deal further than this, and tended to lessen the respect due to the sacred oracles, by putting them too much on a footing with compositions merely human, and by changing their serious manner for one comparatively light and trifling, nay, even playful and childish. 7. As to the other two qualities of the historical style of Scripture, perspicuity and purity, he seems in general to have been observant of them. To the latter he is censured chiefly for having sacrificed too much. Yet his attention to this quality has proved a principal means of securing his perspicuity; as it is certain that the excessive attempts of others to preserve in their version the oriental idiom, have both rendered the plainest passages unintelligible, and given bad Latin for what was good Hebrew or Chaldee. The example last quoted is an evidence of this; and surely none can doubt that it has more perspicuity, as well as propriety, to say in Latin, "ut nemo usque evaderet" with Castalio, than to say, "ut not fieret salva omnis caro" with the Vulgate; and, "Nulla res est quam Deus facere non possit" with the former, than "non erit impossibile apud Deum omne verbum" with the latter. Nevertheless, in a few instances, an immoderate passion for classical phraseology has, as we have seen, betrayed him into obscurities, and even blunders, of which inferior interpreters were in no danger. 8. To illustrate the different effects on the appearance of the sacred penmen, produced by the opposite modes of translating which Arias and Castalio have adopted, I shall employ a similitude of which Castalio himself has given me the hint. In his epistle dedicatory to King Edward, he has these words: "Quod ad Latinitatem attinet, est oratio nihil aliud quam rei quædam quasi vestis, et nos sartores sumus." In conformity to this idea I should say, that those venerable writers, the apostles and evangelists, appear in their own country in a garb plain indeed, and even homely, but grave withal, decent, and well fitted to the wearers: Arias, intending to introduce them to the Latins, has, to make them look as little as possible like other men, and, one would think, to frighten every body from desiring their acquaintance, clothed them in filthy rags, which are indeed of Roman manufacture, but have no other relation to any thing worn in the country, being alike unfit for every purpose of decency and use. For surely that style is most aptly compared to tattered garments, in which the words can by no rule of syntax in the language be rendered coherent or expressive of any sense. Castalio, on the contrary, not satisfied that when abroad they should be gravely and properly habited as they were at home, will have them tricked up in finery and lace, that they may appear like men of fashion, and even make some figure in what the world calls good company. But though I consider both these interpreters as in extremes, I am far from thinking their performances are to be deemed in any respect equivalent. It is not in my power to discover a good use that can be made of Arias's version, unless to give some assistance to a school-boy in acquiring the elements of the language. Castalio's, with one great fault, has many excellent qualities. 9. In regard to the third object of translating, which is, to write so far properly and agreeably in the language into which the translation is made, as may, independently of its exactness, serve to recommend it as a valuable work in that tongue; if Castalio failed here, he has been particularly unlucky, since the Latinity and elegance of the work must, by his own acknowledgment, have been more an object to him than to other translators, this being the great means by which he wanted to draw the attention of the youth of that age to the study of the holy Scriptures. But however much his taste may, in this respect, have been adapted to the times wherein he lived, we cannot consider it as perfectly chaste and faultless. Sufficient grounds for this censure may be collected from the remarks already made. The super ficial and the shining qualities of style seem often to have had more attractions with him than the solid and the useful. 10. In other respects he appears to have been well qualified for the task of translating. Conversant in the learned languages, possessed of a good understanding, and no inconsiderable share of critical acuteness, candid in his disposition, and not over-confident of his own abilities, or excessively tenacious of his own opinion, he was ever ready to hearken, and, when convinced, to submit to reason, whether presented by a friend or by a foe, whether in terms of amity and love or of reproach and hatred. Of this he gave very ample evidence in the corrections which he made on some of the later editions of his Bible. He was far from pretending, like some interpreters and commentators, to understand every-thing. When he was uncertain about the sense, he could do no other than follow the words in translating. This expression of the apostle Peter, (1 Pet. iv. 6,) E TOUTO γαρ και νεκροίς ευηγγελίσθη, ἵνα κρίνωσι μεν κατα ανθρωπους σαρκι, ζωσι δε κατα Θεον πνευματι, he translates in this manner, "Nam ideo mortuis quoque nunciatus est, ut et secundum homines carne judicentur, et secundum Deum spiritu vivant;" adding this note on the margin, "Hunc locum non intelligo, ideoque ad verbum transtuli." There are several other such instances. In one place he has on the margin, " Hos duos versus non intelligo, ideoque de mea translatione dubito," Isa. xxvii. 6, 7. It is worth while to take notice of the manner in which he himself speaks of such passages: "Quod autem alicubi scribo, me aliquem locum non intelligere: id non ita accipi volo, quasi cætera plane intelligam; sed ut sciatur, me in aliis aliquid saltem obscuræ lucis habere, in illis nihil: tum autem ut meæ translationi in quibusdam hujusmodi locis non nimium confidatur. Neque tamen ubique quid non intelligam ostendo: esset enim hoc infinitum."* 11. With respect to the changes he made, in adopting classical terms instead of certain words and phrases which had been long in use amongst ecclesiastical writers, and were supposed to be universally understood, I cannot agree entirely with either his sentiments or those of his adversaries. In the first place, I do not think, as he seems once to have thought, (though in this respect he afterwards altered his conduct, and consequently we may suppose his opinion,) that no word deserved admission into his version which had not the sanction of some Pagan classic. For this reason the words baptisma, angelus, ecclesia, proselytus, synagoga, propheta, patriarcha, mediator, dæmoniacus, hypocrita, benedictus, and the words fides and fidelis, when used in the theological sense, he set aside for lotio, genius, respublica, adventitius, collegium, vates, summus pater, sequester, furiosus, simulator, collaudandus, fiducia, fidens. Some of the more usual terms, as angelus, baptisma, ecclesia, synagoga, were, in later editions, * Ad lectores admonitio. replaced. In regard to some others, considering the plan he had adopted, his choice cannot be much blamed, as they were sufficiently expressive of the sense of the original. A few, indeed, were not so. μενος. Genius is not a version of αγγελος, nor furiosus of δαιμονιζομεvoç. The notions entertained by the heathen of their genii, no more corresponded to the ideas of the Hebrews concerning angels, than the fancies which our ancestors entertained of elves and fairies corresponded to the Christian doctrine concerning the heavenly inhabitants. Ayyeλos was a literal version made by the Seventy into Greek of the Hebrew 78 malach, a name of office, which, if Castalio after them had literally rendered into Latin, calling it nuntius, it would have been as little liable to exception as his rendering the words βασιλευς and ὑπηρετης, rex and minister. Furiosus is not a just translation of daμoviloμevoç. The import of the original name, which only suggests the cause, is confined, by the translator's opinion, to the nature of the disorder: furiosus means no more than mad, whereas dauovi oμevoç is repeatedly, in Scripture, given as equivalent to daioviov exwv. Nor does the disease of those unhappy persons appear to have been always madness. And if in this we regard etymology alone, the traditionary fables about the three infernal goddesses called Furies, are no way suited to the ancient popular faith of either Jews or Pagans concerning demons. And even though adventitius corresponds exactly in etymology with poonλuros, the Latin word does not convey the idea which, in the Hellenistic idiom, is conveyed by the Greek. Simulator can hardly be objected to as a version of ὑποκριτης. In some instances it answers better than hypocrita. This name is, in Latin, confined by use to those who lead a life of dissimulation in what regards religion; whereas the Greek term is sometimes employed in the New Testament, in all the latitude in which we commonly use the word dissembler, for one who is insincere in a particular instance. But the classical word collaudandus does not suit the Greek Evλoynroç as used in holy writ, near so well as does the ecclesiastical epithet benedictus. And summus pater is too indefinite a version of warplaрxns. It is a good rule, in every language, to take the necessary terms in every branch of knowledge or business from those best acquainted with that branch; because, among them, the extent of the terms, and their respective differences, will be most accurately distinguished. In what, therefore, peculiarly concerned the undisputed tenets, or rites, either of Judaism or of Christianity, it was much more reasonable to adopt the style used by Latin Jews or Christians, in those early ages, before they were corrupted with philosophy, than, with the assistance of but a remote analogy, to transfer terms used by Pagan writers to the doctrines and ceremonies of a religion with which they were totally unacquainted. I must, therefore, consider the rejection |