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
In order that a translator may be enabled to give a complete transcript
of the ideas of the original work, it is indispensably necessary, that
he should have a perfect knowledge of the language of the original, and
a competent acquaintance with the subject of which it treats. If he is
deficient in either of these requisites, he can never be certain of
thoroughly comprehending the sense of his author. M. Folard is allowed
to have been a great master of the art of war. He undertook to translate
Polybius, and to give a commentary illustrating the ancient Tactic,
and the practice of the Greeks and Romans in the attack and defence of
fortified places. In this commentary, he endeavours to shew, from the
words of his author, and of other ancient writers, that the Greek and
Roman engineers knew and practised almost every operation known to the
moderns; and that, in particular, the mode of approach by parallels
and trenches, was perfectly familiar to them, and in continual use.
Unfortunately M. Folard had but a very slender knowledge of the Greek
language, and was obliged to study his author through the medium of a
translation, executed by a Benedictine monk,[7] who was entirely ignorant
of the art of war. M. Guischardt, a great military genius, and a thorough
master of the Greek language, has shewn, that the work of Folard contains
many capital misrepresentations of the sense of his author, in his
account of the most important battles and sieges, and has demonstrated,
that the complicated system formed by this writer of the ancient art of
war, has no support from any of the ancient authors fairly interpreted.[8]
The extreme difficulty of translating from the works of the ancients,
is most discernible to those who are best acquainted with the ancient
languages. It is but a small part of the genius and powers of a language
which is to be learnt from dictionaries and grammars. There are
innumerable niceties, not only of construction and of idiom, but even in
the signification of words, which are discovered only by much reading,
and critical attention.
A very learned author, and acute critic,[9] has, in treating “of the
causes of the differences in languages,” remarked, that a principal
difficulty in the art of translating arises from this circumstance,
“that there are certain words in every language which but imperfectly
correspond to any of the words of other languages.” Of this kind, he
observes, are most of the terms relating to morals, to the passions,
to matters of sentiment, or to the objects of the reflex and internal
senses. Thus the Greek words αρετη, σωφροσυνη, ελεος, have not their
sense precisely and perfectly conveyed by the Latin words _virtus_,
_temperantia_, _misericordia_, and still less by the English words,
_virtue_, _temperance_, _mercy_. The Latin word _virtus_ is frequently
synonymous to _valour_, a sense which it never bears in English.
_Temperantia_, in Latin, implies moderation in every desire, and is
defined by Cicero, _Moderatio cupiditatum rationi obediens_.[10] The
English word _temperance_, in its ordinary use, is limited to moderation
in eating and drinking.
Observe
The rule of not too much, by _Temperance_ taught,
In what thou eat’st and drink’st.
_Par. Lost_, b. 11.
It is true, that Spenser has used the term in its more extensive
signification.
He calm’d his wrath with goodly _temperance_.
But no modern prose-writer authorises such extension of its meaning.
The following passage is quoted by the ingenious writer above mentioned,
to shew, in the strongest manner, the extreme difficulty of apprehending
the precise import of words of this order in dead languages: “_Ægritudo
est opinio recens mali præsentis, in quo demitti contrahique animo rectum
esse videatur. Ægritudini subjiciuntur angor, mœror, dolor, luctus,
ærumna, afflictatio: angor est ægritudo premens, mœror ægritudo flebilis,
ærumna ægritudo laboriosa, dolor ægritudo crucians, afflictatio ægritudo
cum vexatione corporis, luctus ægritudo ex ejus qui carus fuerat,
interitu acerbo._”[11]—“Let any one,” says D’Alembert, “examine this
passage with attention, and say honestly, whether, if he had not known
of it, he would have had any idea of those nice shades of signification
here marked, and whether he would not have been much embarrassed, had
he been writing a dictionary, to distinguish, with accuracy, the words
_ægritudo_, _mœror_, _dolor_, _angor_, _luctus_, _ærumna_, _afflictatio_.”
The fragments of Varro, _de Lingua Latina_, the treatises of Festus and
of Nonius, the _Origines_ of Isidorus Hispalensis, the work of Ausonius
Popma, _de Differentiis Verborum_, the _Synonymes_ of the Abbé Girard,
and a short essay by Dr. Hill[12] on “the utility of defining synonymous
terms,” will furnish numberless instances of those very delicate shades
of distinction in the signification of words, which nothing but the
most intimate acquaintance with a language can teach; but without the
knowledge of which distinctions in the original, and an equal power
of discrimination of the corresponding terms of his own language, no
translator can be said to possess the primary requisites for the task he
undertakes.
But a translator, thoroughly master of the language, and competently
acquainted with the subject, may yet fail to give a complete transcript
of the ideas of his original author.
M. D’Alembert has favoured the public with some admirable translations
from Tacitus; and it must be acknowledged, that he possessed every
qualification requisite for the task he undertook. If, in the course of
the following observations, I may have occasion to criticise any part
of his writings, or those of other authors of equal celebrity, I avail
myself of the just sentiment of M. Duclos, “On peut toujours relever les
défauts des grands hommes, et peut-être sont ils les seuls qui en soient
dignes, et dont la critique soit utile” (Duclos, _Pref. de l’Hist. de
Louis XI._).
Tacitus, in describing the conduct of _Piso_ upon the death of
Germanicus, says: _Pisonem interim apud Coum insulam nuncius adsequitur,
excessisse Germanicum_ (Tacit. An. lib. 2, c. 75). This passage is thus
translated by M. D’Alembert, “Pison apprend, dans l’isle de Cos, la
mort de Germanicus.” In translating this passage, it is evident that M.
D’Alembert has not given the complete sense of the original. The sense
of Tacitus is, that Piso was overtaken on his voyage homeward, at the
Isle of Cos, by a messenger, who informed him that Germanicus was dead.
According to the French translator, we understand simply, that when Piso
arrived at the Isle of Cos, he was informed that Germanicus was dead.
We do not learn from this, that a messenger had followed him on his
voyage to bring him this intelligence. The fact was, that Piso purposely
lingered on his voyage homeward, expecting this very messenger who here
overtook him. But, by M. D’Alembert’s version it might be understood,
that Germanicus had died in the island of Cos, and that Piso was informed
of his death by the islanders immediately on his arrival. The passage
is thus translated, with perfect precision, by D’Ablancourt: “Cependant
Pison apprend la nouvelle de cette mort par un courier exprès, qui
l’atteignit en l’isle de Cos.”
After Piso had received intelligence of the death of Germanicus, he
deliberated whether to proceed on his voyage to Rome, or to return
immediately to Syria, and there put himself at the head of the legions.
His son advised the former measure; but his friend Domitius Celer argued
warmly for his return to the province, and urged, that all difficulties
would give way to him, if he had once the command of the army, and had
increased his force by new levies. _At si teneat exercitum, augeat vires,
multa quæ provideri non possunt in melius casura_ (An. l. 2, c. 77). This
M. D’Alembert has translated, “Mais que s’il savoit se rendre redoutable
à la tête des troupes, le hazard ameneroit des circonstances heureuses et
imprévues.” In the original passage, Domitius advises Piso to adopt two
distinct measures; the first, to obtain the command of the army, and the
second, to increase his force by new levies. These two distinct measures
are confounded together by the translator, nor is the sense of either of
them accurately given; for from the expression, “se rendre redoutable
à la tête des troupes,” we may understand, that Piso already had the
command of the troops, and that all that was requisite, was to render
himself formidable in that station, which he might do in various other
ways than by increasing the levies.
Tacitus, speaking of the means by which Augustus obtained an absolute
ascendency over all ranks in the state, says, _Cùm cæteri nobilium,
quanto quis servitio promptior, opibus et honoribus extollerentur_
(An. l. 1, c. 2). This D’Alembert has translated, “Le reste des nobles
trouvoit dans les richesses et dans les honneurs la récompense de
l’esclavage.” Here the translator has but half expressed the meaning
of his author, which is, that “the rest of the nobility were exalted to
riches and honours, in proportion as Augustus found in them an aptitude
and disposition to servitude:” or, as it is well translated by Mr.
Murphy, “The leading men were raised to wealth and honours, in proportion
to the alacrity with which they courted the yoke.”[13]
Cicero, in a letter to the Proconsul Philippus says, _Quod si Romæ te
vidissem, coramque gratias egissem, quod tibi L. Egnatius familiarissimus
meus absens, L. Oppius præsens curæ fuisset_. This passage is thus
translated by Mr. Melmoth: “If I were in Rome, I should have waited
upon you for this purpose in person, and in order likewise to make my
acknowledgements to you for your favours to my friends Egnatius and
Oppius.” Here the sense is not completely rendered, as there is an
omission of the meaning of the words _absens_ and _præsens_.
Where the sense of an author is doubtful, and where more than one
meaning can be given to the same passage or expression, (which, by the
way, is always a defect in composition), the translator is called upon
to exercise his judgement, and to select that meaning which is most
consonant to the train of thought in the whole passage, or to the
author’s usual mode of thinking, and of expressing himself. To imitate
the obscurity or ambiguity of the original, is a fault; and it is still
a greater, to give more than one meaning, as D’Alembert has done in the
beginning of the Preface of Tacitus. The original runs thus: _Urbem
Romam a principio Reges habuere. Libertatem et consulatum L. Brutus
instituit. Dictaturæ ad tempus sumebantur: neque Decemviralis potestas
ultra biennium, neque Tribunorum militum consulare jus diu valuit._
The ambiguous sentence is, _Dictaturæ ad tempus sumebantur_; which may
signify either “Dictators were chosen for a limited time,” or “Dictators
were chosen on particular occasions or emergencies.” D’Alembert saw
this ambiguity; but how did he remove the difficulty? Not by exercising
his judgement in determining between the two different meanings, but by
giving them both in his translation. “On créoit au besoin des dictateurs
passagers.” Now, this double sense it was impossible that Tacitus should
ever have intended to convey by the words _ad tempus_: and between the
two meanings of which the words are susceptible, a very little critical
judgement was requisite to decide. I know not that _ad tempus_ is ever
used in the sense of “for the occasion, or emergency.” If this had been
the author’s meaning, he would probably have used either the words
_ad occasionem_, or _pro re nata_. But even allowing the phrase to be
susceptible of this meaning,[14] it is not the meaning which Tacitus
chose to give it in this passage. That the author meant that the Dictator
was created for a limited time, is, I think, evident from the sentence
immediately following, which is connected by the copulative _neque_
with the preceding: _Dictaturæ ad tempus sumebantur: neque Decemviralis
potestas ultra biennium valuit_: “The office of Dictator was instituted
for a limited time: nor did the power of the Decemvirs subsist beyond two
years.”
M. D’Alembert’s translation of the concluding sentence of this chapter is
censurable on the same account. Tacitus says, _Sed veteris populi Romani
prospera vel adversa, claris scriptoribus memorata sunt; temporibusque
Augusti dicendis non defuere decora ingenia, donec gliscente adulatione
deterrerentur. Tiberii, Caiique, et Claudii, ac Neronis res, florentibus
ipsis, ob metum falsæ: postquam occiderant, recentibus odiis compositæ
sunt. Inde consilium mihi pauca de Augusto, et extrema tradere: mox
Tiberii principatum, et cetera, sine ira et studio, quorum causas procul
habeo._ Thus translated by D’Alembert: “Des auteurs illustres ont fait
connoitre la gloire et les malheurs de l’ancienne république; l’histoire
même d’Auguste a été écrite par de grands génies, jusqu’aux tems ou la
necessité de flatter les condamna au silence. La crainte ménagea tant
qu’ils vécurent, Tibere, Caius, Claude, et Néron; des qu’ils ne furent
plus, la haine toute récente les déchira. J’écrirai donc en peu de mots
la fin du regne d’Auguste, puis celui de Tibere, et les suivans; sans
fiel et sans bassesse: mon caractere m’en éloigne, et les tems m’en
dispensent.” In the last part of this passage, the translator has given
_two_ different meanings to the same clause, _sine ira et studio, quorum
causas procul habeo_, to which the author certainly meant to annex
only one meaning; and that, as I think, a different _one_ from either
of those expressed by the translator. To be clearly understood, I must
give my own version of the whole passage. “The history of the ancient
republic of Rome, both in its prosperous and in its adverse days, has
been recorded by eminent authors: Even the reign of Augustus has been
happily delineated, down to those times when the prevailing spirit of
adulation put to silence every ingenuous writer. The annals of Tiberius,
of Caligula, of Claudius, and of Nero, written while they were alive,
were falsified from terror; as were those histories composed after their
death, from hatred to their recent memories. For this reason, I have
resolved to attempt a short delineation of the latter part of the reign
of Augustus; and afterwards that of Tiberius, and of the succeeding
princes; conscious of perfect impartiality, as, from the remoteness
of the events, I have no motive, either of odium or adulation.” In the
last clause of this sentence, I believe I have given the true version of
_sine ira et studio, quorum causas procul habeo_: But if this be the true
meaning of the author, M. D’Alembert has given two different meanings
to the same sentence, and neither of them the true one: “sans fiel et
sans bassesse: mon caractere m’en éloigne, et les tems m’en dispensent.”
According to the French translator, the historian pays a compliment first
to his own character, and secondly, to the character of the times; both
of which he makes the pledges of his impartiality: but it is perfectly
clear that Tacitus neither meant the one compliment nor the other;
but intended simply to say, that the remoteness of the events which
he proposed to record, precluded every motive either of unfavourable
prejudice or of adulation.