It will now nut be difficult to ascertain In a general way what can be effected in a translation, and what ought to be attempted. rsonie people have had a notion that a translation should be literal, or near to the original, by which it is meant that every word of the original should have its equivalent in the translation, ur nearly so. There is no objection to this, so far as it can be done consistently with the proper idiorna of the translator a language ; yet such a translation is nut commendable because it Is literal, but because it is true. The Idiom of the translation must not be corrupted by an imitation of the idiom of the original. If what is called a literal version ie a sufficient version of the moaning, and if it Is also expressed in a true idiom, the translation Is good ; but its literal character is a mere accident. It will depend both un the character of the two langtveses and un the character of the original work how far the version shall in Its form correspond to the original. Simple narrative is generally easily rum -dared from one language into another without varying much from the form of the originaL Works which have more of an artistic character present greater difficulties, whether they are historical, critical, or poetical. Poetry presents the greatest ditticultiea. because, In addition to the general difficulty of transferring the meaning of one language into anotber, there is the difficulty of reproducing the rhythmical form of the original, and this is sometimes impossible. Horace suc ceeded in introducing the Greek lyric metres into the Latin language in his translations or imitations ; but Horace was a master of his art, and he had a language which was sufficiently near to his original. The translations of Vosa from the Greek and Latin poets have the advantage of being in a language which, from its copiousness, its grammatical forms, and its capacity of combining words, renders such an under taking practicable in skilful hands. The English language has copious ness and energy. but less flexibility than the German, and the imitation of the rhythmical forma of other languages is sometimes impossible in an English version; and without this imitation the translation of poetry is incomplete, for the metrical form is a part of poetry. It is indeed often as easy to express in a prose translation the ideas of poetry as those of prose composition, for the essential qualities of poetry are not destroyed by reducing it from its metrical into a prosaic form. In this form it may still fill the mind with the images of the original, but it will not equally affect the passions ; for the passions are most vehemently moved by direct sensuous impressions. and the sensuous character of poetry is its metrical form. All attempts therefore at poetical transla tion from one language into another can only be partially successful unless the character of the two languages admits of a perfect metrical imitation in the translation.
A translator should show his judgment by the choice of his subject its well as by his manner of handling it. He will not choose what is incapable of being rendered adequately. He will not attempt to fashion lila form of expression to that of the original by doing violence to his own idiom. He will neither servilely follow the division of sentences nor the forme of expression. He will labour to penetrate through the suthor'a language to his meaning, and be will then strive to express that meaning in his own language. He must rigidly acrutiniae the result of his Tabour, to see if it conveys the same meaning as the original, and neither more nor less. When this is accomplished, his translation will be sufficient, though it may not be perfect. It will be ell that a translation often can be—a sufficient copy of the original.
But there may be something wanting. Every writer has peculiari ties which constitute his style. One writer is sententious, compressed, and energetic. but perhaps obscure; another is diffuse, flowing, and redundant, but fills the ear more than the mind ; a third may be per spicuous and simple, but withal feeble. Now a translator who should so far mistake his original as to give a diffuse version of a sententious writer, or to express any original in a form which should be altogether unlike it, would show that he bad ill appreciated the writer's character, and this would not be the only blunder that we might expect from him. A version of a prose writer which should possess a general cha racter altogether unlike the original, would as little merit the name of a translation as a dull prosy version of the Iliad' would deserve the name. To fix a true medium between a close imitation of the style of the original and a wide departure from it, belongs to that department of the business of translation in which taste is concerned It is some thing wherein precise rules can never be laid down, and yet the best critics will not disagree in their judgment. It is a gross error which we see In some attempts to translate Tacitus, to reproduce the original with all its obscurity and brevity : it is a greaser blunder to weaken his sententious energy by a profusion of words, many of which, being Impertinent and idle, only form a stronger contrast with those of the original, which have been selected sod arranged with studious care.
Like portrait-painting, translation has only one rule, and that not a rule which shows us how to act, but only prescribes a certain end. Make your copy like the original : let no man mistake it. Many copies may be made, and all may be pronounced to be likenesses. Compare the likenesses with one another, and you will find one which *hall be more like than the rest. Ask the master how he made it : he will sly that he copied the original i but how he did It you cannot understand, nor can he say.