« AnteriorContinuar »
lose their lives in the cause. Now, several later writers, in interpreting the ancients, have been misled by the usage of their own time ; and have understood them as speaking of those who died for the name of Jesus, when they spoke only of those who openly attested his miracles and mission, agreeably to the primitive and simple meaning of the word Maptup. Of this Mosheim has justly taken notice in the work above quoted. I have here only observed it, by the way, for the sake of illustration for, as to the sense wherein the word is used in the New Testament, no doubt seems ever to have arisen 109
10967 Ipsa vocabuli martyr ambiguitas apud homines impe6 ritos voluntatem gignere potuit fabulas de tragico eorum “ [apostolorum] exitu cogitandi. Martyr Græcorum ser.
mone quemlibet testem significat. Sacro verò Christiano
rum sermone idem nomen eminentiore sensu testem CHRISTI “sive hominem designat, qui moriendo testari voluit, spem
omnem suam in Christo positam esse. Priori sensu apostoli “ ab ipso Christo uæprupes nominantur, et ipsi eodem vocabulo 6 muneris sui naturam explicant. Fieri vero facile potuit, ut 66 indocti homines ad hæc sacri codicis dicta posteriorem voca. 6 buli Martyr significationem transferrent, et temere sibi
propterea persuaderent, Apostolos inter eos poni debere, quos excellentiori sensu Christiani Martyres appellare sole
Sæc. prim. $ xvi. No. Our historian is here, from the ambiguity of the word, accounting only for the alleged martyrdom of all the Apostles except John.
But every body who reflects will be sensible, that the same mistake must have contributed to the increase of the number in other instances. For even in apostolical times, others than
§ 15. I SHALL conclude, with adding to the observations on the words schism and heresy, that how much soever of a schismatical or heretical spirit, in the apostolic sense of the terms, may have contributed to the formation of the different sects into which the Christian world is at present divided; no person who, in the spirit of candour and charity, · adheres to that which, to the best of his judgment, is right, though, in this opinion, he should be mistaken, is, in the scriptural sense, either schismatic or heretic ; and that he, on the contrary, whatever sect he belong to, is more entitled to these odious appellations, who is most apt to throw the imputation upon others. Both terms, for they denote only different degrees of the same bad quality, always indicate a disposition and practice unfriendly to peace, harmony, and love.
the Apostles, though more rarely, were called witnesses. Stephen and Antipas are so denominated in sacred writ. And as both these were put to death for their testimony, this has pro. bably given rise in after-times to the appropriation of the name witness or martyr, to those who suffered death in the cause.
DISSERTATION THE TENTH.
THE CHIEF THINGS TO BE ATTENDED TO IN TRANSLATING....A COMPARATIVE VIEW OF THE OPPOSITE METHODS TAKEN BY TRANSLATORS OF HOLY WRIT.
THE THINGS TO BE ATTENDED TO IN TRANSLATING,
To translate has been thought, by some, a very easy matter to one who understands tolerably the language from which, and has made some proficiency in the language into which, the translation is to be made. To translate well is, however, in my opinion, a task of more difficulty than is commonly imagined. That we may be the better able to judge in this question, let us consider what a translator, who would do justice to his author, and his subject, has to perform. The first thing, without doubt, which claims his attention, is to give a just representation of the sense of the original. This, it must be acknowledged, is the most essential of all. The second thing is, to convey into his version, as much as possible, in a consistency with the genius of the language which
he writes, the author's spirit and manner, and, if I may so express myself, the very character of his style. The third and last thing is, to take care, that the version have, at least, so far the quality of an original performance, as to appear natural and easy, such as shall give no handle to the critic to charge the translator with applying words improperly, or in a meaning not warranted by use, or combining them in a way which renders the sense obscure, and the construction ungrammatical, or even harsh.
§ 2. Now, to adjust matters so as, in a considera.. ble degree, to attain all these objects, will be found, upon inquiry, not a little arduous, even to men who are well acquainted with the two languages, and have great command of words. In pursuit of one of the ends above mentioned, we are often in danger of losing sight totally of another : nay, on some occa- :: sions, it will appear impossible to attain one, without sacrificing both the others. It may happen, that I cannot do justice to the sense, without frequent recourse to circumlocutions; for the words of no language whatever will, at all times, exactly correspond with those of another. Yet, by this method, a writer whose manner is concise, simple, and energetic, is exhibited, in the translation, as employing a style which is at once diffuse, complex, and languid. Again, in endeavouring to exhibit the author's manner, and to confine myself, as nearly as possible, to the same number of words, and the like turn of expression, I may very imperfectly render his sense,
relating obscurely, ambiguously, and even improperly, what is expressed with great propriety and perspicuity in the original. And, in regard to the third object mentioned, it is evident, that when the two languages differ very much in their genius and structure, it must be exceedingly difficult for a translator to render this end perfectly compatible with the other two. It will perhaps be said, that this is of less importance, as it seems solely to regard the quality of the work, as a performance in the translator's language, whereas the other two regard the work only as an exhibition of the original. I admit that this is an object inferior to the other two; I meant it should be understood so, by mentioning it last. Yet even this is by no means so unimportant as some would imagine. That a writing be perspicuous in any language, much depends on the observance of propriety; and the beauty of the work (at least as far as purity is concerned) contributes not a little to its utility. What is well written, or well said, is always more attended to, better understood, and longer remembered, than what is improperly, weakly, or awkwardly, expressed.
3. Now, if translation is in general attended with so much difficulty, what must we think of the chance of success which a translator has, when the subject is of so great importance, that an uncommon degree of attention to all the above mentioned objects, will be exacted of him ; and when the difference, in point of idiom, of the language from