EVERYMAN’S LIBRARY
EDITED BY ERNEST RHYS
ESSAYS
ESSAY ON THE PRINCIPLES
OF TRANSLATION
THE PUBLISHERS OF _EVERYMAN’S LIBRARY_ WILL BE PLEASED TO SEND FREELY
TO ALL APPLICANTS A LIST OF THE PUBLISHED AND PROJECTED VOLUMES TO BE
COMPRISED UNDER THE FOLLOWING TWELVE HEADINGS:
TRAVEL ❦ SCIENCE ❦ FICTION
THEOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY
HISTORY ❦ CLASSICAL
FOR YOUNG PEOPLE
ESSAYS ❦ ORATORY
POETRY & DRAMA
BIOGRAPHY
ROMANCE
[Illustration]
IN TWO STYLES OF BINDING, CLOTH, FLAT BACK, COLOURED TOP, AND LEATHER,
ROUND CORNERS, GILT TOP.
LONDON: J. M. DENT & CO.
NEW YORK: E. P. DUTTON & CO.
[Illustration: MOST CURRENT FOR THAT THEY COME HOME TO MEN’S BUSINESS &
BOSOMS
LORD BACON]
[Illustration:
ESSAY on the
PRINCIPLES _of_
TRANSLATION
_by_ ALEXANDER
FRASER·TYTLER
LORD WOODHOUSELEE
LONDON: PUBLISHED
by J·M·DENT·&·CO
AND IN NEW YORK
BY E·P·DUTTON & CO]
RICHARD CLAY & SONS, LIMITED,
BREAD STREET HILL, E.C., AND
BUNGAY SUFFOLK.
INTRODUCTION
Alexander Fraser Tytler, Lord Woodhouselee, author of the present essay
on Translation, and of various works on Universal and on Local History,
was one of that Edinburgh circle which was revolving when Sir Walter
Scott was a young probationer. Tytler was born at Edinburgh, October 15,
1747, went to the High School there, and after two years at Kensington,
under Elphinston—Dr. Johnson’s Elphinston—entered Edinburgh University
(where he afterwards became Professor of Universal History). He seems
to have been Elphinston’s favourite pupil, and to have particularly
gratified his master, “the celebrated Dr. Jortin” too, by his Latin verse.
In 1770 he was called to the bar; in 1776 married a wife; in 1790 was
appointed Judge-Advocate of Scotland; in 1792 became the master of
Woodhouselee on the death of his father. Ten years later he was raised
to the bench of the court of session, with his father’s title—Lord
Woodhouselee. But the law was only the professional background to his
other avocation—of literature. Like his father, something of a personage
at the Royal Society of Edinburgh, it was before its members that he
read the papers which were afterwards cast into the present work. In
them we have all that is still valid of his very considerable literary
labours. Before it appeared, his effect on his younger contemporaries in
Edinburgh had already been very marked—if we may judge by Lockhart. His
encouragement undoubtedly helped to speed Scott on his way, especially
into that German romantic region out of which a new Gothic breath was
breathed on the Scottish thistle.
It was in 1790 that Tytler read in the Royal Society his papers on
Translation, and they were soon after published, without his name. Hardly
had the work seen the light, than it led to a critical correspondence
with Dr. Campbell, then Principal of Marischal College, Aberdeen. Dr.
Campbell had at some time previous to this published his Translations
of the Gospels, to which he had prefixed some observations upon the
principles of translation. When Tytler’s anonymous work appeared he was
led to express some suspicion that the author might have borrowed from
his Dissertation, without acknowledging the obligation. Thereupon Tytler
instantly wrote to Dr. Campbell, acknowledging himself to be the author,
and assuring him that the coincidence, such as it was, “was purely
accidental, and that the name of Dr. Campbell’s work had never reached
him until his own had been composed.... There seems to me no wonder,”
he continued, “that two persons, moderately conversant in critical
occupations, sitting down professedly to investigate the principles of
this art, should hit upon the same principles, when in fact there are
none other to hit upon, and the truth of these is acknowledged at their
first enunciation. But in truth, the merit of this little essay (if it
has any) does not, in my opinion, lie in these particulars. It lies in
the establishment of those various subordinate rules and precepts which
apply to the nicer parts and difficulties of the art of translation; in
deducing those rules and precepts which carry not their own authority _in
gremio_, from the general principles which are of acknowledged truth, and
in proving and illustrating them by examples.”
Tytler has here put his finger on one of the critical good services
rendered by his book. But it has a further value now, and one that he
could not quite foresee it was going to have. The essay is an admirably
typical dissertation on the classic art of poetic translation, and of
literary style, as the eighteenth century understood it; and even where
it accepts Pope’s Homer or Melmoth’s Cicero in a way that is impossible
to us now, the test that is applied, and the difference between that test
and our own, will be found, if not convincing, extremely suggestive. In
fact, Tytler, while not a great critic, was a charming dilettante, and
a man of exceeding taste; and something of that grace which he is said
to have had personally is to be found lingering in these pages. Reading
them, one learns as much by dissenting from some of his judgments as
by subscribing to others. Woodhouselee, Lord Cockburn said, was not a
Tusculum, but it was a country-house with a fine tradition of culture,
and its quondam master was a delightful host, with whom it was a
memorable experience to spend an evening discussing the _Don Quixote_
of Motteux and of Smollett, or how to capture the aroma of Virgil in an
English medium, in the era before the Scottish prose Homer had changed
the literary perspective north of the Tweed. It is sometimes said that
the real art of poetic translation is still to seek; yet one of its most
effective demonstrators was certainly Alexander Fraser Tytler, who died
in 1814.
The following is his list of works:
Piscatory Eclogues, with other Poetical Miscellanies of
Phinehas Fletcher, illustrated with notes, critical and
explanatory, 1771; The Decisions of the Court of Sessions, from
its first Institution to the present Time, etc. (supplementary
volume to Lord Kames’s “Dictionary of Decisions”), 1778; Plan
and Outline of a Course of Lectures on Universal History,
Ancient and Modern (delivered at Edinburgh), 1782; Elements of
General History, Ancient and Modern (with table of Chronology
and a comparative view of Ancient and Modern Geography), 2
vols., 1801. A third volume was added by E. Nares, being a
continuation to death of George III., 1822; further editions
continued to be issued with continuations, and the work was
finally brought down to the present time, and edited by G.
Bell, 1875; separate editions have appeared of the ancient
and modern parts, and an abridged edition in 1809 by T. D.
Hincks. To Vols. I. and II. (1788, 1790) of the Transactions
of the Royal Society of Edinburgh Tytler contributed History
of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Life of Lord-President
Dundas, and An Account of some Extraordinary Structures on the
Tops of Hills in the Highlands, etc.; to Vol. V., Remarks on a
Mixed Species of Evidence in Matters of History, 1805; A Life
of Sir John Gregory, prefixed to an edition of the latter’s
works, 1788; Essay on the Principles of Translations, 1791,
1797; Third Edition, with additions and alterations, 1813;
Translation of Schiller’s “The Robbers,” 1792; A Critical
Examination of Mr. Whitaker’s Course of Hannibal over the
Alps, 1798; A Dissertation on Final Causes, with a Life of
Dr. Derham, in edition of the latter’s works, 1798; Ireland
Profiting by Example, or the Question Considered whether
Scotland has Gained or Lost by the Union, 1799; Essay on
Military Law and the Practice of Courts-Martial, 1800; Remarks
on the Writings and Genius of Ramsay (preface to edition of
works), 1800, 1851, 1866; Memoirs of the Life and Writings of
the Hon. Henry Horne, Lord Kames, 1807, 1814; Essay on the
Life and Character of Petrarch, with Translation of Seven
Sonnets, 1784; An Historical and Critical Essay on the Life
and Character of Petrarch, with a Translation of a few of his
Sonnets (including the above pamphlet and the dissertation
mentioned above in Vol. V. of Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin.), 1812;
Consideration of the Present Political State of India, etc.,
1815, 1816. Tytler contributed to the “Mirror,” 1779-80, and to
the “Lounger,” 1785-6.
Life of Tytler, by Rev. Archibald Alison, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin.
CONTENTS
PAGE
Introduction 1
CHAPTER I
Description of a good Translation—General Rules flowing from
that description 7
CHAPTER II
First General Rule: A Translation should give a complete
transcript of the ideas of the original work—Knowledge of
the language of the original, and acquaintance with the
subject—Examples of imperfect transfusion of the sense of the
original—What ought to be the conduct of a Translator where the
sense is ambiguous 10
CHAPTER III
Whether it is allowable for a Translator to add to or retrench
the ideas of the original—Examples of the use and abuse of this
liberty 22
CHAPTER IV
Of the freedom allowed in poetical Translation—Progress of
poetical Translation in England—B. Jonson, Holiday, May,
Sandys, Fanshaw, Dryden—Roscommon’s Essay on Translated
Verse—Pope’s Homer 35
CHAPTER V
Second general Rule: The style and manner of writing in a
Translation should be of the same character with that of the
Original—Translations of the Scriptures—Of Homer, &c.—A just
Taste requisite for the discernment of the Characters of Style
and Manner—Examples of failure in this particular; The grave
exchanged for the formal; the elevated for the bombast; the
lively for the petulant; the simple for the childish—Hobbes,
L’Estrange, Echard, &c. 63
CHAPTER VI
Examples of a good Taste in poetical Translation—Bourne’s
Translations from Mallet and from Prior—The Duke de Nivernois,
from Horace—Dr. Jortin, from Simonides—Imitation of the same by
the Archbishop of York—Mr. Webb, from the Anthologia—Hughes,
from Claudian—Fragments of the Greek Dramatists by Mr.
Cumberland 80
CHAPTER VII
Limitation of the rule regarding the Imitation of Style—This
Imitation must be regulated by the Genius of Languages—The
Latin admits of a greater brevity of Expression than the
English; as does the French—The Latin and Greek allow of
greater Inversions than the English, and admit more freely of
Ellipsis 96
CHAPTER VIII
Whether a Poem can be well Translated into Prose? 107
CHAPTER IX
Third general Rule: A Translation should have all the ease of
original composition—Extreme difficulty in the observance of
this rule—Contrasted instances of success and failure—Of the
necessity of sacrificing one rule to another 112
CHAPTER X
It is less difficult to attain the ease of original composition
in poetical, than in Prose Translation—Lyric Poetry admits of
the greatest liberty of Translation—Examples distinguishing
Paraphrase from Translation, from Dryden, Lowth, Fontenelle,
Prior, Anguillara, Hughes 123
CHAPTER XI
Of the Translation of Idiomatic Phrases—Examples from Cotton,
Echard, Sterne—Injudicious use of Idioms in the Translation,
which do not correspond with the age or country of the
Original—Idiomatic Phrases sometimes incapable of Translation 135
CHAPTER XII
Difficulty of translating _Don Quixote_, from its Idiomatic
Phraseology—Of the best Translations of that Romance—Comparison
of the Translation by Motteux with that by Smollett 150
CHAPTER XIII
Other Characteristics of Composition which render
Translation difficult—Antiquated Terms—New Terms—_Verba
Ardentia_—Simplicity of Thought and Expression—In Prose—In
Poetry—_Naiveté_ in the latter—Chaulieu—Parnelle—La
Fontaine—Series of Minute Distinctions marked by characteristic
Terms—Strada—Florid Style, and vague expression—Pliny’s Natural
History 176
CHAPTER XIV
Of Burlesque Translation—Travesty and Parody—Scarron’s _Virgile
Travesti_—Another species of Ludicrous Translation 197
CHAPTER XV
The genius of the Translator should be akin to that of the
original author—The best Translators have shone in original
composition of the same species with that which they have
translated—Of Voltaire’s Translations from Shakespeare—Of the
peculiar character of the wit of Voltaire—His Translation
from _Hudibras_—Excellent anonymous French Translation of
_Hudibras_—Translation of Rabelais by Urquhart and Motteux 204
Appendix 225
Index 231
ESSAY ON THE PRINCIPLES OF TRANSLATION
INTRODUCTION
There is perhaps no department of literature which has been less the
object of cultivation, than the _Art of Translating_. Even among the
ancients, who seem to have had a very just idea of its importance,
and who have accordingly ranked it among the most useful branches of
literary education, we meet with no attempt to unfold the principles
of this art, or to reduce it to rules. In the works of Quinctilian, of
Cicero, and of the Younger Pliny, we find many passages which prove that
these authors had made translation their peculiar study; and, conscious
themselves of its utility, they have strongly recommended the practice
of it, as essential towards the formation both of a good writer and
an accomplished orator.[1] But it is much to be regretted, that they
who were so eminently well qualified to furnish instruction in the art
itself, have contributed little more to its advancement than by some
general recommendations of its importance. If indeed time had spared to
us any complete or finished specimens of translation from the hand of
those great masters, it had been some compensation for the want of actual
precepts, to have been able to have deduced them ourselves from those
exquisite models. But of ancient translations the fragments that remain
are so inconsiderable, and so much mutilated, that we can scarcely derive
from them any advantage.[2]
To the moderns the art of translation is of greater importance than
it was to the ancients, in the same proportion that the great mass of
ancient and of modern literature, accumulated up to the present times,
bears to the general stock of learning in the most enlightened periods
of antiquity. But it is a singular consideration, that under the daily
experience of the advantages of good translations, in opening to us
all the stores of ancient knowledge, and creating a free intercourse
of science and of literature between all modern nations, there should
have been so little done towards the improvement of the art itself, by
investigating its laws, or unfolding its principles. Unless a very short
essay, published by M. D’Alembert, in his _Mélanges de Litterature,
d’Histoire, &c._ as introductory to his translations of some pieces
of Tacitus, and some remarks on translation by the Abbé Batteux, in
his _Principes de la Litterature_, I have met with nothing that has
been written professedly upon the subject.[3] The observations of M.
D’Alembert, though extremely judicious, are too general to be considered
as rules, or even principles of the art; and the remarks of the Abbé
Batteux are employed chiefly on what may be termed the Philosophy of
Grammar, and seem to have for their principal object the ascertainment of
the analogy that one language bears to another, or the pointing out of
those circumstances of construction and arrangement in which languages
either agree with, or differ from each other.[4]
While such has been our ignorance of the principles of this art, it is
not at all wonderful, that amidst the numberless translations which every
day appear, both of the works of the ancients and moderns, there should
be so few that are possessed of real merit. The utility of translations
is universally felt, and therefore there is a continual demand for them.
But this very circumstance has thrown the practice of translation into
mean and mercenary hands. It is a profession which, it is generally
believed, may be exercised with a very small portion of genius or
abilities.[5] “It seems to me,” says Dryden, “that the true reason why
we have so few versions that are tolerable, is, because there are so few
who have all the talents requisite for translation, and that there is
so little praise and small encouragement for so considerable a part of
learning” (_Pref. to Ovid’s Epistles_).
It must be owned, at the same time, that there _have been_, and that
there _are_ men of genius among the moderns who have vindicated the
dignity of this art so ill-appreciated, and who have furnished us
with excellent translations, both of the ancient classics, and of the
productions of foreign writers of our own and of former ages. These
works lay open a great field of useful criticism; and from them it is
certainly possible to draw the principles of that art which has never yet
been methodised, and to establish its rules and precepts. Towards this
purpose, even the worst translations would have their utility, as in such
a critical exercise, it would be equally necessary to illustrate defects
as to exemplify perfections.
An attempt of this kind forms the subject of the following Essay, in
which the Author solicits indulgence, both for the imperfections of his
treatise, and perhaps for some errors of opinion. His apology for the
first, is, that he does not pretend to exhaust the subject, or to treat
it in all its amplitude, but only to point out the general principles of
the art; and for the last, that in matters where the ultimate appeal is
to Taste, it is almost impossible to be secure of the solidity of our
opinions, when the criterion of their truth is so very uncertain.
CHAPTER I
DESCRIPTION OF A GOOD TRANSLATION—GENERAL RULES FLOWING FROM
THAT DESCRIPTION
If it were possible accurately to define, or, perhaps more properly, to
describe what is meant by a _good Translation_, it is evident that a
considerable progress would be made towards establishing the Rules of
the _Art_; for these Rules would flow naturally from that definition
or description. But there is no subject of criticism where there has
been so much difference of opinion. If the genius and character of all
languages were the same, it would be an easy task to translate from one
into another; nor would anything more be requisite on the part of the
translator, than fidelity and attention. But as the genius and character
of languages is confessedly very different, it has hence become a
common opinion, that it is the duty of a translator to attend only to
the sense and spirit of his original, to make himself perfectly master
of his author’s ideas, and to communicate them in those expressions
which he judges to be best suited to convey them. It has, on the
other hand, been maintained, that, in order to constitute a perfect
translation, it is not only requisite that the ideas and sentiments
of the original author should be conveyed, but likewise his style and
manner of writing, which, it is supposed, cannot be done without a strict
attention to the arrangement of his sentences, and even to their order
and construction.[6] According to the former idea of translation, it is
allowable to improve and to embellish; according to the latter, it is
necessary to preserve even blemishes and defects; and to these must,
likewise be superadded the harshness that must attend every copy in which
the artist scrupulously studies to imitate the minutest lines or traces
of his original.
As these two opinions form opposite extremes, it is not improbable
that the point of perfection should be found between the two. I would
therefore describe a good translation to be, _That, in which the merit of
the original work is so completely transfused into another language, as
to be as distinctly apprehended, and as strongly felt, by a native of
the country to which that language belongs, as it is by those who speak
the language of the original work_.
Now, supposing this description to be a just one, which I think it is,
let us examine what are the laws of translation which may be deduced from
it.
It will follow,
I. That the Translation should give a complete transcript of the ideas of
the original work.
II. That the style and manner of writing should be of the same character
with that of the original.
III. That the Translation should have all the ease of original
composition.
Under each of these general laws of translation, are comprehended a
variety of subordinate precepts, which I shall notice in their order, and
which, as well as the general laws, I shall endeavour to prove, and to
illustrate by examples.