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 GREATER
INVERSIONS THAN THE ENGLISH,—AND ADMIT MORE FREELY OF ELLIPSIS
The rule which enjoins to a translator the imitation of the style of the
original author, demands several limitations.
1. This imitation must always be regulated by the nature or genius of the
languages of the original and of the translation.
The Latin language admits of a brevity, which cannot be successfully
imitated in the English.
Cicero thus writes to Trebatius (lib. 7, ep. 17):
_In Britanniam te profectum non esse gaudeo, quod et tu labore caruisti,
et ego te de rebus illis non audiam._
It is impossible to translate this into English with equal brevity,
and at the same time do complete justice to the sentiment. Melmoth,
therefore, has shewn great judgement in sacrificing the imitation of
style to the perfect transfusion of the sense. “I am glad, for my sake
as well as yours, that you did not attend Cæsar into Britain; as it has
not only saved you the fatigue of a very disagreeable journey, but me
likewise that of being the perpetual auditor of your wonderful exploits.”
_Melm. Cic. Lett._ b. 2, l. 12.
Pliny to Minutianus, lib. 3, ep. 9, says, towards the end of his letter:
_Temerè dixi—Succurrit quod præterieram, et quidem serò: sed quanquam
preposterè reddetur. Facit hoc Homerus, multique illius exemplo. Est
alioqui perdecorum: a me tamen non ideo fiet._ It is no doubt possible
to translate this passage into English with a conciseness almost equal
to the original; but in this experiment we must sacrifice all its ease
and spirit. “I have said this rashly—I recollect an omission—somewhat too
late indeed. It shall now be supplied, though a little preposterously.
Homer does this: and many after his example. Besides, it is not
unbecoming; but this is not my reason.” Let us mark how Mr. Melmoth,
by a happy amplification, has preserved the spirit and ease, though
sacrificing the brevity of the original. “But upon recollection, I find
that I must recall that last word; for I perceive, a little too late
indeed, that I have omitted a material circumstance. However, I will
mention it here, though something out of its place. In this, I have
the authority of Homer, and several other great names, to keep me in
countenance; and the critics will tell you this irregular manner has its
beauties: but, upon my word, it is a beauty I had not at all in my view.”
An example of a similar brevity of expression, which admits of no
imitation in English, occurs in another letter of Cicero to Trebatius,
_Ep._ l. 7, 14.
_Chrysippus Vettius, Cyri architecti libertus, fecit, ut te non immemorem
putarem mei. Valde jam lautus es qui gravere literas ad me dare, homini
præsertim domestico. Quod si scribere oblitus es, minus multi jam te
advocato causâ cadent. Sin nostri oblitus es, dabo operam ut isthuc
veniam antequam planè ex animo tuo effluo._
In translating this passage, Mr. Melmoth has shewn equal judgement.
Without attempting to imitate the brevity of the original, which he knew
to be impossible, he saw that the characterising features of the passage
were ease and vivacity; and these he has very happily transfused into his
translation.
“If it were not for the compliments you sent me by Chrysippus, the
freedman of Cyrus the architect, I should have imagined I no longer
possessed a place in your thoughts. But surely you are become a most
intolerable fine gentleman, that you could not bear the fatigue of
writing to me, when you had the opportunity of doing so by a man, whom,
you know, I look upon as one almost of my own family. Perhaps, however,
you may have forgotten the use of your pen: and so much the better, let
me tell you, for your clients, as they will lose no more causes by its
blunders. But if it is myself only that has escaped your remembrance, I
must endeavour to refresh it by a visit, before I am worn out of your
memory, beyond all power of recollection.”
Numberless instances of a similar exercise of judgement and of good
taste are to be found in Mr. Murphy’s excellent translation of Tacitus.
After the death of Germanicus, poisoned, as was suspected, by Piso, with
the tacit approbation of Tiberius, the public loudly demanded justice
against the supposed murderer, and the cause was solemnly tried in
the Roman Senate. Piso, foreseeing a judgement against him, chose to
anticipate his fate by a voluntary death. The senate decreed that his
family name should be abolished for ever, and that his brother Marcus
should be banished from his country for ten years; but in deference to
the solicitations of the Empress, they granted a free pardon to Plancina,
his widow. Tacitus proceeds to relate, that this sentence of the senate
was altered by Tiberius: _Multa ex ea sententia mitigata sunt a principe;
“ne nomen Pisonis fastis eximeretur, quando M. Antonii, qui bellum patriæ
fecisset, Juli Antonii, qui domum Augusti violasset, manerent;” et M.
Pisonem ignominiæ exemit, concessitque ei paterna bona; satis firmus,
ut sæpe memoravi, adversus pecuniam; et tum pudore absolutæ Plancinæ
placabilior. Atque idem cum Valerius Messalinus signum aureum in æde
Martis Ultoris, Cæcina Severus aram ultioni statuendam censuissent,
prohibuit: ob externas ea victorias sacrari dictitans, domestica mala
tristitia operienda._ An. l. 3, c. 18.
Thus necessarily amplified, and translated with the ease of original
composition, by Mr. Murphy:
“This sentence, in many particulars, was mitigated by Tiberius. The
family name, he said, ought not to be abolished, while that of Mark
Antony, who appeared in arms against his country, as well as that of
Julius Antonius, who by his intrigues dishonoured the house of Augustus,
subsisted still, and figured in the Roman annals. Marcus Piso was left
in possession of his civil dignities, and his father’s fortune. Avarice,
as has been already observed, was not the passion of Tiberius. On this
occasion, the disgrace incurred by the partiality shewn to Plancina,
softened his temper, and made him the more willing to extend his mercy to
the son. Valerius Messalinus moved, that a golden statue might be erected
in the temple of Mars the Avenger. An altar to Vengeance was proposed by
Cæcina Severus. Both these motions were over-ruled by the Emperor. The
principle on which he argued was, that public monuments, however proper
in cases of foreign conquest, were not suited to the present juncture.
Domestic calamity should be lamented, and as soon as possible consigned
to oblivion.”
The conclusion of the same chapter affords an example yet more striking
of the same necessary and happy amplification by the translator.
_Addiderat Messalinus, Tiberio et Augustæ, et Antoniæ, et Agrippinæ,
Drusoque, ob vindictam Germanici grates agendas, omiseratque Claudii
mentionem; et Messalinum quidem L. Asprenas senatu coram percunctatus
est, an prudens præterîsset? Actum demum nomen Claudii adscriptum est.
Mihi quanto plura recentium, seu veterum revolvo, tanto magis ludibria
rerum mortalium cunctis in negotiis obversantur; quippe fama, spe,
veneratione potius omnes destinabantur imperio, quam quem futurum
principem fortuna in occulto tenebat._
“Messalinus added to his motion a vote of thanks to Tiberius and Livia,
to Antonia, Agrippina, and Drusus, for their zeal in bringing to justice
the enemies of Germanicus. The name of Claudius was not mentioned.
Lucius Asprenas desired to know whether that omission was intended.
The consequence was, that Claudius was inserted in the vote. Upon an
occasion like this, it is impossible not to pause for a moment, to make a
reflection that naturally rises out of the subject. When we review what
has been doing in the world, is it not evident, that in all transactions,
whether of ancient or of modern date, some strange caprice of fortune
turns all human wisdom to a jest? In the juncture before us, Claudius
figured so little on the stage of public business, that there was scarce
a man in Rome, who did not seem, by the voice of fame and the wishes
of the people, designed for the sovereign power, rather than the very
person, whom fate, in that instant, cherished in obscurity, to make him,
at a future period, master of the Roman world.”
So likewise in the following passage, we must admire the judgement of
the translator in abandoning all attempt to rival the brevity of the
original, since he knew it could not be attained but with the sacrifice
both of ease and perspicuity:
_Is finis fuit ulciscenda Germanici morte, non modo apud illos homines
qui tum agebant, etiam secutis temporibus vario rumore jactata;
adeo maxima quæque ambigua sunt, dum alii quoquo modo audita pro
compertis habent; alii vera in contrarium vertunt; et gliscit utrumque
posteritate._ An. l. 3, c. 19.
“In this manner ended the enquiry concerning the death of Germanicus; a
subject which has been variously represented, not only by men of that
day, but by all subsequent writers. It remains, to this hour, the problem
of history. A cloud for ever hangs over the most important transactions;
while, on the one hand, credulity adopts for fact the report of the day;
and, on the other, politicians warp and disguise the truth: between
both parties two different accounts go down from age to age, and gain
strength with posterity.”
The French language admits of a brevity of expression more corresponding
to that of the Latin: and of this D’Alembert has given many happy
examples in his translations from Tacitus.
_Quod si vita suppeditet, principatum divi Nervæ et imperium Trajani,
uberiorem, securioremque materiam senectuti seposui: rarâ temporum
felicitate, ubi sentire quæ velis, et quæ sentias dicere licet_, Praef.
ad Hist. “Si les dieux m’accordent des jours, je destine à l’occupation
et à la consolation de ma vieillesse, l’histoire interessante et
tranquille de Nerva et de Trajan; tems heureux et rares, où l’on est
libre de penser et de parler.”
And with equal, perhaps superior felicity, the same passage is thus
translated by Rousseau: “Que s’il me reste assez de vie, je réserve pour
ma vieillesse la riche et paisible matiere des regnes de Nerva et de
Trajan: rares et heureux tems, où l’on peut penser librement, et dire ce
que l’on pense.”
But D’Alembert, from too earnest a desire to imitate the conciseness
of his original, has sometimes left the sense imperfect. Of this an
example occurs in the passage before quoted, _An._ l. 1, c. 2. _Cum
cæteri nobilium, quanto quis servitio promptior, opibus et honoribus
extollerentur_: the translator, too studious of brevity, has not given
the complete idea of his author, “Le reste des nobles trouvoit dans les
richesses et dans les honneurs la récompense de l’esclavage.” _Omnium
consensu capax imperii nisi imperasset_, Tac. Hist. 1, 49. “Digne de
l’empire au jugement de tout le monde tant qu’il ne regna pas.” This is
not the idea of the author; for Tacitus does not mean to say that Galba
was judged worthy of the empire till he attained to it; but that all
the world would have thought him worthy of the empire if he had never
attained to it.
2. The Latin and Greek languages admit of inversions which are
inconsistent with the genius of the English.
Mr. Gordon, injudiciously aiming at an imitation of the Latin
construction, has given a barbarous air to his translation of Tacitus:
“To Pallas, who was by Claudius declared to be the deviser of this
scheme, the ornaments of the prætorship, and three hundred seventy-five
thousand crowns, were adjudged by Bareas Soranus, consul designed,”
_An._ b. 12.—“Still to be seen are the Roman standards in the German
groves, there, by me, hung up,” _An._ lib. 1. “Naturally violent was the
spirit of Arminius, and now, by the captivity of his wife, and by the
fate of his child, doomed to bondage though yet unborn, enraged even to
distraction.” _Ib._ “But he, the more ardent he found the affections of
the soldiers, and the greater the hatred of his uncle, so much the more
intent upon a decisive victory, weighed with himself all the methods,”
&c. _Ib._ lib. 2.
Thus, Mr. Macpherson, in his translation of Homer, (a work otherwise
valuable, as containing a most perfect transfusion of the sense of
his author), has generally adopted an inverted construction, which is
incompatible with the genius of the English language. “Tlepolemus, the
race of Hercules,—brave in battle and great in arms, nine ships led
to Troy, with magnanimous Rhodians filled. Those who dwelt in Rhodes,
distinguished in nations three,—who held Lindus, Ialyssus, and white
Camirus, beheld him afar.—Their leader in arms was Tlepolemus, renowned
at the spear, _Il._ l. 2.—The heroes the slaughter began.—Alexander first
a warrior slew.—Through the neck, by the helm passed the steel.—Iphinous,
the son of Dexius, through the shoulder he pierced—to the earth fell the
chief in his blood, _Ib._ l. 7. Not unjustly we Hector admire; matchless
at launching the spear; to break the line of battle, bold, _Ib._ l. 5.
Nor for vows unpaid rages Apollo; nor solemn sacrifice denied,” _Ib._ l.
1.
3. The English language is not incapable of an elliptical mode of
expression; but it does not admit of it to the same degree as the Latin.
Tacitus says, _Trepida civitas incusare Tiberium_, for _trepida civitas
incepit incusare Tiberium_. We cannot say in English, “The terrified city
to blame Tiberius:” And even as Gordon has translated these words, the
ellipsis is too violent for the English language; “hence against Tiberius
many complaints.”
Εννημαρ μεν ανα στρατὸν ωκετο κῆλα θεοῖο.
_Il._ l. 1, l. 53.
“For nine days the arrows of the god were darted through the army.” The
elliptical brevity of Mr. Macpherson’s translation of this verse, has no
parallel in the original; nor is it agreeable to the English idiom:
“Nine days rush the shafts of the God.”