Imagini ale paginilor

not allow the use of theologians to be perfectly good, it is surely on those subjects sufficient for removing the objection of obscurity. I do not see any thing in his work which has so much the appearance of self-conceit as this: in other respects I find him modest and unassuming. It has also been observed, that his idioms are not always pure. Dominus ad cujus normam is not in the Latin idiom: Norma legis is proper, not norma Dei, or norma hominis. But this I consider as an oversight, the other as affectation.

14. I shall add a few words on the subject of Hebraisms, which Castalio is accused of rejecting altogether. This charge he is so far from denying, that he endeavours to justify his conduct in this particular. Herein, I think, if his adversaries went too far on one side, in preferring the mere form of the expression to the perspicuous enunciation of the sense, this interpreter went too far on the opposite side, as he made no account of giving to his version the strong signatures which the original bears of the antiquity, the manners, and the character of the age and nation of the writers. Yet both the credibility of the narrative, and the impression which the sentiments are adapted to make on the readers, are not a little affected by that circumstance. That those are in the worst extreme of the two, who would sacrifice perspicuity and propriety (in other words, the sense itself) to that circumstance, is not indeed to be doubted. The patrons of the literal method do not advert, that, by carrying the point too far, the very exhibition of the style and manner of the author is, with both the other ends of translating, totally annihilated. "Quo pertinent," says Houbigant," istiusmodi interpretationes, quæ nihil quidquam resonant, nisi adhibes interpretis alterum interpretem ?" Again, "Num proprietas hæc censenda est, quæ mihi exprimat obscure ac inhumane, id quod sacri scriptores, dilucide ac liberaliter expresserunt?" The sentiments of this author, in regard to the proper mean between both extremes, as they seem entirely reasonable, and equally applicable to any language, (though expressed in reference to Latin versions only,) I shall subjoin to the foregoing observations on Castalio: "Utroque in genere tam metrico quam soluto, retinendas esse veteres loquendi formas, nec ab ista linea unquam discedendum, nisi gravibus de causis, quæ quidem nobis esse tres videntur: primo, si Hebraismi veteres, cum retinentur, fiunt Latino in sermone, vel obscuri vel ambigui; secundo, si eorum significantia minuitur, nisi circuitione quadam uteris; tertio, si vergant ad aliam, quam Hebraica verba, sententiam."+

15. I shall finish my critique on this translator with some remarks on a charge brought against him by Beausobre and Lenfant, who affirm, that, abstracting from the false elegance of his style, he takes greater liberty (they must certainly mean with the sense) than a faithful interpreter ought to take. Of this his ver* • Proleg. Preface Generale, P. ii. des Versions du N. T.

+ Ibidem.

sion of the following passage, (Acts xxvi. 18,) is given as an example. Του επιστρεψαι απο σκοτους εις φως, και της εξουσιας του Σατανα επι τον Θεόν, του λαβειν αυτους αφεσιν ἁμαρτιων, και κληρον εν τοις ἡγιασμένοις, πιστει τη εις εμε: which is thus translated by Castalio-"Ut ex tenebris in lucem, et ex Satanæ potestate ad Deum se convertant, et ita peccatorum veniam, et eandem cum iis sortem consequantur, qui fide mihi habenda sancti facti fuerint:" and by Beza, whom they here oppose to him, "Et convertas eos a tenebris ad lucem, et a potestate Satanæ ad Deum, ut remissionem peccatorum et sortem inter sanctificatos accipiant per fidem quæ est in me." In my opinion there is a real ambiguity in the original, which, if Castalio be blamable for fixing in one way, Beza is not less blamable for fixing it in another. The words πιστει τη εις εμε may be construed with the verb λαβειν at some distance, or with the participle yaoμevois immediately preceding. In the common way of reckoning, if one of these methods were to be styled a stretch or a liberty, it would be Beza's, and not Castalio's, both because the latter keeps closer to the arrangement of the original, and because the apostle, not having used the adjective ἁγιοις, but the participle ἡγιασμένοις, gives some ground to regard the following words as its regimen. Accordingly, Beza has considered the version of Erasmus, which is to the same purpose with Castalio's, and with which the Tigurine version also agrees, "ut accipiant remissionem peccatorum, et sortem inter eos qui sanctificati sunt, per fidem quæ est erga me," as exhibiting a sense quite different from his own; at the same time he freely acknowledges, that the original is susceptible of either meaning. “ Τη πιστει. Potest quidem hoc referri ad participium ἡγιασμένοις, quemadmodum retulit Erasmus." In this instance Beza, though not remarkable for moderation, has judged more equitably than the French translators above-mentioned, who had no reason to affirm dogmatically that the words ought to be joined in the one way and not in the other, or to conclude that Castalio affected to give the words this turn in order to exclude the idea of absolute election. Did the English translators, for this purpose, render the passage after Erasmus and Castalio, not after Beza, "That they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me?" Nobody, I dare say, will suspect it.


I cannot help thinking those critics unlucky in their choice of an example: for had there been more to say, in opposition to this version of the passage, than has yet been urged, it would still have been hard to treat that as a liberty peculiar to Castalio, in which he was evidently not the first, and in which he has had the concurrence of more translators than can be produced on the other side. For my part, as I acknowledge that such transpositions are not unfrequent in holy writ, my opinion is, that the connexion and scope of the place ought chiefly to determine us



in doubtful cases. In the present case it appears to me to yield the clearest sense, and to be every way the most eligible, to join the words πιστει τη εις εμε neither to ἡγιασμένοις nor to λαβειν, but to the foregoing verb EσTpeau; for when the regimen is thrown to the end of the sentence, it is better to join it to the first verb with which it can be suitably construed, than to an intermediate verb, explicative of the former. Nothing can give a more plain, or a more apposite meaning, than the words under examination, thus construed: "To bring them by the faith that is in me," (that is, by my doctrine, the faith, Toris, being often used by the sacred writers for the object of faith, or thing believed,) "from darkness to light," &c.

16. Thus I have endeavoured to examine, with impartiality, Castalio's character as a translator, without assuming the province of either the accuser or the apologist. I have neither exaggerated nor extenuated either his faults or his virtues, and can pronounce truly, upon the whole, that though there are none (Arias and Pagnin excepted) whose general manner of translating is more to be disapproved, I know not any by which a student may be more assisted in attaining the true sense of many places, very obscure in most translations, than by Castalio's.



BEZA, the celebrated Geneva translator of the New Testament, cannot be accused of having gone to either of the extremes in which we find Arias and Castalio. In general, he is neither servilely literal, barbarous, and unintelligible, with the former; nor does he appear ashamed of the unadorned simplicity of the original, with the latter. It was therefore, at first, my intention not to criticise his version, no more than to inquire into the manner of all the Latin translators of sacred writ, but barely to point out the most egregious faults in the plan of translating sometimes adopted, specifying, in the way of example and illustration, those versions only wherein such faults were most conspicuous. On more mature reflection, I have judged it proper to bestow a few thoughts on Beza, as his translation has, in a great measure, been made the standard of most of the translations of the reformed churches (I do not include the Lutheran) into modern tongues. He has, perhaps, had less influence on English translators than on those of other countries; but he has not been entirely without influence even on them. And though he writes with a good deal of purity and clearness, without florid and ostentatious ornaments, there are some faults which it is of great moment to avoid, and with which he is, upon the whole,

more chargeable than any other translator of the New Testament I know.

2. His version of the New Testament is nearly in the same taste with that of the Old by Junius and Tremellius, but better executed. These two translations are commonly bound together, to complete the version of holy writ. Junius and Tremellius have been accused of obtruding upon the sacred text a number of pronous, ille, hic, and iste, for which the original gives no warrant. Their excuse was, that the Latin has not articles as the Hebrew, and that there is no other way of supplying the articles but by pronouns. But it may with reason be questioned, whether it were not better, except in a few cases, to leave them unsupplied, than to substitute what may darken the expression, and even render it more indefinite, nay, what may sometimes alter the sense. At the same time, I acknowledge that there are cases in which this method is entirely proper. In the addition of an emphatic epithet, the article is fitly supplied by the pronoun. Thus the words Επεσε Βαβυλων ἡ πολις ἡ μεγάλη, Rev. xiv. 8, are justly translated by Beza, "Cecidit Babylon urbs illa magna:" and the expression used by Nathan to David, "Thou art the man," 2 Sam. xii. 7, is properly rendered by Junius, "Tu vir ille es." The necessity of recurring to the pronoun in these instances, has been perceived also by the old translator and Castalio.

Nor are these the only cases wherein the Greek or Hebrew article may, not only in Latin, but even in English, which has articles, be rendered properly by the pronoun. For example, a particular species is distinguished from others of the same genus by some attributive conjoined with it; but when the occasion of mentioning that species soon recurs, the attributive is sufficiently supplied by the article; and in such instances it often happens, that the article is best supplied in another language by the pronoun. In the question put to our Lord, Ti ayalov Tonow, iva Exw Lwyy alwvrov, Matt. xix. 16, a species of life to which the question relates is distinguished from all others by the epithet awviov. The article would contribute nothing here to the distinction. But when, in the answer, ver. 17, the same subject is referred to, the epithet is dropped, and the article is prefixed to Sony, which ascertains the meaning with equal perspicuity: Ei de Jedeis EloeλDelv eis Tyvy Conv. I have seen no Latin translation, no, not Beza's, which renders it "Si vis in vitam illam ingredi ;" and yet it is evident, that such is in this passage the force of the article. The English idiom rarely permits us to give articles to abstract nouns. For this reason, it would not be a just expression of the sense to say, "If thou wouldst enter into the life," to wit, "eternal life," the life inquired about our only way of marking the reference to the question is by saying, "If thou wouldst enter into that life." As in French the article is, on the



contrary, added to all abstract nouns, the pronoun is equally necessary with them as with us for making the distinction. There is, besides, something like an impropriety in saying to the living, "If thou wouldst enter into life.'


But there are unquestionably cases in which the Genevese interpreters employ the pronoun unnecessarily, awkwardly, and even improperly. Isa. xxix. 18, "In that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book," say the English translators: "Audient die illa surdi isti verba literarum," say Junius and his associate. Any person who understands Latin, on hearing the verse read by itself, will suppose that there must have been mention of some deaf persons in the foregoing verses, to which the pronoun isti in this verse has a reference. But on inquiry he will find there is no such thing; and that it is deaf persons in general of whom the prophet speaks. The introduction of the pronoun, therefore, serves only to mislead. "Matthæus ille publicanus," Matt. x. 3, in Beza's version, evidently suggests that Matthew was a man famous as a publican before he became an apostle. Though our language has articles, the Geneva English interpreters have here copied Beza so servilely as to say, "Matthew that publican." This manner, in some places, not only appears awkward, but injures the simplicity of the style. Junius says, in his account of the creation," Dixit Deus, Esto lux, et fuit lux; viditque Deus lucem hanc esse bonam: et distinctionem fecit Deus inter hanc lucem et tenebras," Gen. i. 3, 4. Here I think the pronoun is not only unnecessary and affected, but suggests something ridiculous, as if that light only had been distinguished from darkness. However, as lux is first mentioned, without an attendant, the pronoun which attends it, when mentioned afterward, does not make the expression so indefinite and obscure as in the former example. But when Beza (Matt. i. 11, 12,) makes the Evangelist say, "Jonas genuit Jechoniam in transportatione illa Babylonica; post autem transportationem illam Babylonicam, Jechonias genuit Salathielem;" what more is expressed, in relation to the period, than if he had said simply, "in transportatione Babylonica, et post transportationem Babylonicam?" The addition of this epithet makes the noun sufficiently definite without any pronoun. Nay, does not the pronoun, thus superadded, suggest one of two things - either that the transportation here referred to had been mentioned in the preceding words, or that the historian meant to distinguish, out of several transportations, one more noted than the rest? Now, neither of these was the case: no mention had been made before of the Babylonian transportation; and there were not more Babylonian transportations, or more transportations any-whither, than one, which the Jewish nation had undergone. With this fault Erasmus also is chargeable, but much seldomer. Greek as well as Hebrew has an article, and so have modern languages:

« ÎnapoiContinuați »