Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

the version. He ascribes no superiority to it above the original. This superiority was but too plainly implied in the indecent comparison which Cardinal Ximenes made of the Vulgate, as printed in his edition (the Complutensian) between the Hebrew and the Septuagint, to our Lord crucified between two thieves, making the Hebrew represent the hardened thief, and the Greek the penitent. Simon, on the contrary, shows no disposition to detract from the merit either of the original or of any ancient version; though not inclinable to allow more to the editions and transcripts we are at present possessed of, than the principles of sound criticism appear to warrant. He admits, that we have yet no perfect version of holy writ, and does not deny that a better may be made than any extant. In short, nothing can be more equitable than the general maxims he establishes. It is by this method that he insensibly gains upon his readers, insinuates himself into their good graces, and brings them, before they are aware, to repose an implicit confidence in his discernment, and to admit without examining, the equity of his particular decisions. Now all these decisions are made artfully to conduct them to one point, which he is the surer to carry as he never openly proposes it, namely, to consider the Vulgate as the standard, by a conformity to which the value of every other version ought to be estimated.

6. In consequence of this settled purpose, not declared in words, but without difficulty discovered by an attentive reader, he finds every other version which he examines either too literal, or too loose in rendering almost every passage which he specifies, according as it is more or less so than that which he has tacitly made to serve as the common measure for them all. And though it is manifest, that even the most literal are not more blamably literal in any place than the Vulgate is in other places; or even the most loose translations more wide of the sense than in some instances that version may be shown to be; he has always the address to bring his readers (at least on their first reading his book) to believe with him, that the excess, of whatever kind it be, is in the other versions, and not in the Vulgate. In order to this, he is often obliged to argue from contrary topics, and at one time to defend a mode of interpreting which he condemns at another. And though this inevitably involves him in contradictions, these, on a single, or even a second or third perusal, are apt to be overlooked by a reader who is not uncommonly attentive. The inconsistencies elude the reader's notice the more readily, as they are not brought under his view at once, but must be gathered from parts of the work not immediately connected; and as the individual passages in question are always different, though the manner in which they are translated, and on which the criticism turns, is the same. Add to this, that our

* Hist. Crit. du V. T. liv. iii. ch. 1.

critic's mode of arguing is the more specious and unsuspected, because it is remarkably simple and dispassionate. It will be necessary, therefore, though it may be accounted a bold and even invidious undertaking, to re-examine a few of the passages examined by Father Simon, that we may, if possible, discover whether there be reason for the charge of partiality and inconsistency which has been just now brought against him.

7. In his examination of Erasmus's version of the New Testament, he has the following observation: "Where we have in the Greek του ορισθέντος υἱου Θεου εν δυνάμει, Rom. i. 4, the ancient Latin interpreter has very well and literally rendered it, qui prædestinatus est filius Dei in virtute,' which was also the version used in the western churches before Saint Jerom, who has made no change on this place. I do not inquire whether that interpreter has read Tρооρiodevrоç as some believe: for prædestinatus signifies no more here than destinatus; and one might put in the translation prædestinatus, who read ópio Evroç, as we read at present in all the Greek copies; and there is nothing here that concerns what theologians commonly call predestination. Erasmus, however, has forsaken the ancient version, and said, ‘qui · declaratus fuit filius Dei cum potentia.' It is true, that many learned Greek fathers have explained the Greek participle ὁρισθεντος by δειχθεντος, αποφανθέντος, that is, demonstrated or declared; but an explanation is not a translation. One may remark, in a note, that that is the sense which Saint Chrysostom has given the passage, without changing the ancient version, as it very well expresses the energy of the Greek word, which signifies rather destinatus and definitus than declaratus." Thus far Simon.

Admit that the Vulgate is here literal, since this critic is pleased to call it so it is at the same time obscure, if not unmeaning. What the import of the word predestinated may be, when, as he says, it has no relation to what divines call predestination, and consequently cannot be synonymous with predetermined, foreordained, he has not been so kind as to tell us; and it will not be in every body's power to guess. For my part, I do not comprehend that curious aphorism as here applied,

"An

Oi il y a dans le Grec, του όρισθεντος υἱου Θεου εν δυνάμει, l'ancien interprète Latin a fort bien traduit à la lettre, “qui prædestinatus est filius Dei in virtute;" et c'est même la version qui étoit en usage dans les églises d'occident avant Saint Jerôme, qui n'y a rien changé en cet endroit. Je n'examine point si cet interprète a lû #googis DevroS, comme quelques-uns le croyent; car prædestinatus ne signifie en ce lieu-là que destinatus; et ainsi l'on a pû traduire prædestinatus en lisant igidεvros, comme on lit presentement dans tous les exemplaires Grecs, et il ne s'agit nullement de ce que les theologiens appellent ordinairement predestination. Erasme cependant s'est éloigné de cette ancienne version, ayant traduit " qui declaratus fuit filius Dei cum potentia." Il est vrai, que plusieurs doctes pères Grecs ont expliqué le verbe Grec ορισθέντος par δειχθέντος, aropaveros, c'est-à-dire demontré ou declaré : mais une explication n'est pas une traduction. L'on peut marquer dans une note que c'est là le sens que Saint Chrysostome a donné à ce passage, sans changer pour cela la version ancienne, qui exprime très-bien la force du mot Grec, qui signifie plutôt destinatus, definitus, que declaratus.—Hist. Crit. des Versions du N. T. ch. 22.

explanation is not a translation." Translation is undoubtedly one species, and that both the simplest and the most important species of explanation; and when a word is found in one language which exactly hits the sense of a word in another language as used in a particular passage, though it should not reach the meaning in other places, it is certainly both the proper translation, and the best explanation of the word in that passage.

And for the truth of this sentiment I am happy to have it in my power to add, that I have the concurrence of M. Simon himself, most explicitly declared. Speaking of a Spanish translation of the Old Testament by a Portuguese Jew, which is very literal, as all Jewish translations are, he says, "This grammatical rigour does not often suit the sense. We must distinguish between a dictionary and a translation. In the former, one explains the words according to their proper signification, whereas, in the latter, it is sometimes necessary to divert them from their proper and primitive signification, in order to adjust them to the other words with which they are connected." In another place, "He (Pagnin) has imagined, that, in order to make a faithful translation of Scripture, it was necessary to follow the letter exactly, and according to the rigour of grammar; a practice quite opposite to that pretended exactness, because it rarely happens that two languages agree in their idioms; and thus, so far from expressing his original in the same purity wherein it is written, he disfigures it, and spoils it of all its ornaments." In the former of these quotations, the author shows that the literal method is totally unfit for conveying an author's sense, and therefore ill suited for answering the first great end in translating; and in the latter, that it is no better adapted, either for doing justice to an author's manner or for producing a work which can be useful or agreeable, and therefore equally unfit for all the primary purposes of translating. Had it been this author's

declared intention to refute his own criticism on the passage quoted from Erasmus, he could have said nothing stronger or more pertinent.

I shall just add to his manner of reasoning on this subject a particular example, which may serve as a counterpart to the remark on Erasmus above quoted. Speaking of the translators of

Cette rigueur de grammaire ne s'accorde pas souvent avec le sens. Il faut mettre de la difference entre un dictionnaire et une traduction. Dans le premier, on explique les mots selon leur signification propre, au lieu que dans l'autre il est quelquefois necessaire de detourner les mots de leur significations propres et primitives, pour les ajuster aux autres mots avec lesquels il sont joints.-Hist. Crit. du V. T. liv. ii.

ch. 19.

Il s'est imaginé que pour faire une traduction fidelle de l'Ecriture, il étoit necessaire de suivre la lettre exactement, et selon la rigueur de la grammaire; ce qui est tout-àfait opposé à cette prétendue exactitude, parcequ'il est rare que deux langues se rencontrent dans leurs façons de parler: et ainsi, bien loin d'exprimer son original dans la même pureté qu'il est écrit, il le défigure, et le depouille de tous ses ornamens.--Hist. Crit. du V. T. Îiv. ii. ch. 20.

*

Port Royal, he says, "They have followed the grammatical sense of the Greek text in translating John xvi. 13. Il vous fera entrer dans toutes les verités,' as if this other sense, which is in the Vulgate, and which they have put into their note, 'Il vous enseignera toute verité,' did not answer exactly to the Greek. But John Bois has not thought the new translators worthy of approbation for changing docebit, which is in our Latin edition, into another word." "Vetus," says this learned Protestant, "docebit, non malè nam et ó Sidaσkwy suo modo οδηγει et ὁ ὁδηγων suo modo διδάσκει.” Yet let it be observed, that here it is the new interpreters, and not the Vulgate, who very well express the energy of the Greek word, and that without either deserting the meaning or darkening it, as the Vulgate in the former case has not scrupled to do. Here he has given, indeed, the most ample scope for retorting upon the Vulgate, in his own words, that ódnya may indeed be explained by docebit, "but an explanation is not a translation."

8. But this is not all. Our critic objects also to the freedom which Erasmus has taken in translating the Greek preposition Ev in the forecited passage by the Latin cum. "Besides," says he,† "although the Greek particle v signifies, in the style of the writers of the New Testament, which is conformable to that of the LXX, in and cum, it had been better to translate, as it is in the Vulgate, in virtute or in potentia, and to write on the margin that in signifies also cum; because there is but one single preposition which answers to them both in the Hebrew or Chaldaic language, with which the Greek of the New Testament often agrees, especially in this sort of prepositions."

Now it is very remarkable, that there is nothing which he treats as more contemptible, and even absurd, in Arias Montanus, than this very attempt at uniformity in translating the Hebrew prepositions and other particles." Can one," says he, "give the

* Ils ont suivi le sens grammatical du texte Grec, en traduisant "il vous fera entrer," &c. comme si cet autre sens, qui est dans la Vulgate, et qu'ils ont mit dans leur note, "ils vous enseignera," &c. ne repondoit pas exactement au Grec. Mais Jean Bois n'a pû approuver les nouveaux traducteurs, qui ont changé docebit, qui est dans nôtre edition Latine, en un autre mot. Vetus, &c.-Hist. Crit. de Versions du N. T. ch. 36.

† De plus, bien que la particule Grec v signifie, dans le stile des ecrivains du Nouveau Testament, qui est conforme à celui des Septante, in et cum, il eût été mieux de traduire, comme il y a dans la Vulgate, in virtute ou in potentia, et de mettre à la marge que in signifie aussi cum; parcequ'il n'y a qu'une seule preposition qui réponde à ces deux-là dans la langue Ebraïque ou Caldaïque, à laquelle le Grec du N. T. est souvent conformé, surtout dans ces sortes de prepositions.-N. T. 1. ii. ch. 22.

Peut on donner la qualité d'interprète très-exact à un traducteur qui renverse presque partout le sens de son texte? En effet, toute son erudition consiste à traduire les mots Hebreux à la lettre, selon leur signification la plus ordinaire, sans prendre garde si elle convient, ou non, aux endroits où il l'employe. Quand les mots Hebreux sont équivoques, on doit, ce semble, avoir égard à la signification qui leur est propre, selon les lieux où ils se trouvent; et il est ridicule de mettre indifféremment toute sorte de signification, soit qu'elle convienne ou qu'elle ne convienne

title of a very exact interpreter, to a translator who almost everywhere confounds the sense of his text? In effect, all his erudition consists in translating the Hebrew words literally, according to their most ordinary signification, without minding whether it agree or not with the context where he employs it. When the Hebrew words are equivocal, one ought, methinks, to have some regard to that signification which suits them in the places where they are found; and it is ridiculous to assign them indifferently every sort of signification, suitable or unsuitable. Yet this fault abounds in every part of the version of Arias Montanus, who has herein displayed very little judgment. He has, for example, translated, in almost every passage, the Hebrew preposition al by the Latin super; whereas it is well known that this preposition signifies in Hebrew, sometimes super, sometimes juxta, sometimes cum.

He

has done the same in regard to the letter lamed, which answers to the French pour, where it is a mark of the dative. Thus the words of Genesis, which Pagnin had rendered clearly enough 'Dividat aquas ab aquis,' he has translated without any meaning, 'Dividat aquas ad aquas."

[ocr errors]

Here, in two parallel cases, for the question is the same in both, whether the sense or the letter merit most the attention of the translator, or more particularly, whether or not the prepositions of the original ought uniformly to be translated in the same way, without regard to the sense, our learned critic has pronounced two sentences perfectly opposite to each other. This opposition is the more flagrant, as Arias had actually taken the method which Simon insists that Erasmus ought to have taken. He followed the letter in the text, and gave the meaning, by way of comment, on the margin. The second decision, however, we may reasonably conclude, is the decision of his judgment, as neither of the interpreters compared, Pagnin nor Arias, is a favourite with him; whereas the first is the decision merely of his affection, as Erasmus was opposed to the Vulgate.

9. In further confirmation of the judgment I have just now given it may be observed, that in every case wherein the Vulgate is not concerned, his verdict is uniform in preferring the sense to the letter. "There is," says he,* in this last revisal of the

pas. Ce defaut est cependant repandu dans toute la version d'Arias Montanus, qui a fait paroitre en cela très-peu de jugement. Il a traduit, par example, presque en tous les endroits, la preposition Ebraïque al par la preposition Latin super; et cependant on sait, que cette preposition signifie dans l'Ebreu tantôt super, tantôt jurta, et quelquefois Il a fait la même chose à l'égard de la lettre lamed, laquelle repond au pour des François, où elle est une marque du datif. C'est ainsi qu'au chapitre premier de la Genèse, verset sixième, où Pagnin avoit traduit assez nettement "Dividat aquas ab aquis," il a traduit sans aucun sens "Dividat aquas ad aquas."—Hist. Crit. du V. T. liv. i. ch. 20.

cum.

Il y a dans cette dernière revision [de la version de Geneve] "Alors on com mença d'appeller du nom de l'Eternel." Ce qui fait un sens obscur, et même im pertinent. Il est bien vrai qu' Aquila a traduit mot pour mot de la même manière ; mais il a suivi à la lettre le sens grammatical, et pour peu qu'on ait lù d'Ebreu,

« ÎnapoiContinuă »