and Zealous: Take it in the Expreffion of Sir John Denham, to Sir Richard Fanshaw, on his Verfion of the Paftor Fido. That fervile Path thou nobly doft decline, It is almost impoffible to tranflate verbally, and well, at the fame time; for the Latin (a moft fevere and compendious Language) often expreffes that in one Word, which either the Barbarity, or the Narrowness of Modern Tongues cannot fupply in more. It is frequent alfo that the Conceit is couched in fome Expreffion, which will be loft in English. Atque iidem Venti vela fidemque ferent. What Poet of our Nation is fo happy as to express this Thought literally in English, and to ftrike Wit or almoft Senfe out of it? In short, the Verbal Copier is incumbered with fo many Difficulties at once, that he can never difintangle himself from all. He is to confider at the fame time the Thought of his Author and his Words, and to find out the Counterpart to each in another Language: And befides this, he is to confine himself to the Compafs of Numbers, and the Slavery of Rhyme. It is much like dancing on Ropes with fettered Legs: A Man can fhun a Fall by using Caution, but the Gracefulness of Motion is not to be expected: And when we have faid the beft of it, it is but a foolifh Tafk; for no fober Man Man would put himself into a Danger for the Applaufe of escaping without breaking his Neck. We fee Ben Johnson could not avoid Obfcurity in his literal Tranflation of Horace, attempted in the fame Compafs of Lines: Nay Horace himfelf could fcarce have done it to a Greek Poet. Brevis effe laboro, obfcurus fio. either Perfpicuity or Gracefulness will frequently be wanting. Horace has indeed avoided both theie Rocks in his Tranflation of the three firft Lines of Homer's Odyfey, which he has contracted into two. Dic mihi Mufa Virum captæ poft tempora Troja But then the Sufferings of Ulyffes, which are a confiderable Part of that Sentence, are omitted. [Ὃς μάλα πολλὰ πλάγχθη:] The Confideration of thefe Difficulties, in a fervile, literal Tranflation, not long fince made two of our famous Wits, Sir John Denham, and Mr. Cowley, to contrive another Way of turning Authors into our Tongue, called by the latter of them, Imitation. As they were Friends, I fuppofe they communicated their Thoughts on this Subject to each other, and therefore their Reafons for it are little different: Though the Practice of one is much more Moderate. I take Imitation of an Author, in their Senfe, to be an endeavour of a later Poet to write like one who has written before him on the fame Subject: That is, not to translate his Words, Words, or to be confined to his Senfe, but only to fet him as a Pattern, and to write, as he fupposes that Author would have done, had he lived in our Age, and in our Country. Yet I dare not fay that either of them have carried this libertine way of rendering Authors (as Mr. Cowley calls it) fo far as my Definition reaches. For in the Pindarick Odes, the Cuftoms and Ceremonies of antient Greece are ftill preferved: But I know not what Mischief may arife hereafter from the Example of fuch an Innovation, when Writers of unequal Parts to him, fhall imitate fo bold an Undertaking. To add and to diminish what we please, which is the Way avowed by him, ought only to be granted to Mr. Cowley, and that too only in his Tranflation of Pindar, because he alone was able to make him Ainends, by giving him better of his own, whenever he refused his Author's Thoughts. Pindar is generally known to be a dark Writer, to want Connexion, (I mean as to our Understanding) to foar out of Sight, and leave his Reader at a Gaze: So wild and ungovernable a Poet cannot be tranflated literally, his Genius is too ftrong to bear a Chain, and Sampfon like he shakes it off: A Genius fo elevated and unconfined as Mr. Cowley's, was but neceffary to make Pindar fpeak English, and that was to be performed by no other way than Imitation. But if Virgil, or Ovid, or any regular intelligible Authors be thus used, it is no longer to be called their Work, when neither the Thoughts nor Words are drawn from the Original: But inftead of them there is fomething new produced, which is almoft the Creation of another Hand. By this way, it is true, fomewhat that is Excellent may be invented, perhaps more excellent than the first Defign, though Virgil must still be excepted, when that that Perhaps takes Place: Yet he who is inquifitive to know an Author's Thoughts, will be difappointed in his Expectation. And it is not always that a Man will be contented to have a Present made him, when he expects the Payment of a Debt. To ftate it fairly, Imitation of an Author is the moft advantageous Way for a Tranflator to fhew himself, but the greatest Wrong which can be done to the Memory and Reputation of the Dead. Sir John Denham (who advised more Liberty than he took himself,) gives his Reason for his Innovation, in his admirable Preface before the Translation of the fecond Æneid. Poetry is of fo fubtle a Spirit, that in pouring out of one Language into another, it will all Evaporate; and if a new Spirit be not added in the Transfufion, there will remain nothing but a Caput Mortuum. I confefs this Argument holds good against a literal Translation; but who defends it? Imitation and verbal Verfion are in my Opinion the two Extreams, which ought to be avoided: And therefore, when I have propofed the Mean betwixt them, it will be feen how far his Argument will reach. No Man is capable of tranflating Poetry, who, befides a Genius to that Art, is not a Master both of his Author's Language, and of his own: Nor must we understand the Language only of the Poet, but his particular Turn of Thoughts, and Expreffion, which are the Characters that diftinguish, and as it were individuate him from all other Writers: When we are come thus far, it is time to look into our felves, to conform our Genius to his, to give his Thought either the fame Turn, if our Tongue will bear it, or if not, to vary but the Drefs, not to alter or deftroy the Subftance. The like Care must be taken of the more outward Ornaments, naments, the Words; when they appear (which is but feldom) literally graceful, it were an Injury to the Author that they fhould be changed: But fince every Language is fo full of its own Proprieties, that what is beautiful in one, is often barbarous, nay fometimes Nonfenfe in another, it would be unreasonable to limit a Tranflator to the narrow Compafs of his Author's Words: It is enough if he choose out fome Expreffion which does not viciate the Senfe. I fuppofe he may ftretch his Chain to fuch a Latitude, but by Innovation of Thoughts methinks he breaks it. By this Means the Spirit of an Author may be transfufed, and yet not loft: And thus it is plain, that the Reason alledged by Sir John Denham, has no farther Force than to Expreffion: For Thought, if it be tranflated truly, cannot be loft in another Language, but the Words that convey it to our Apprehenfion (which are the Image and Ornament of that Thought) may be fo ill chofen as to make it appear in an unhandfome Drefs, and rob it of its native Luftre. There is therefore a Liberty to be allowed for the Expreffion, neither is it neceflary that Words and Lines fhould be confined to the Measure of their Original. The Senfe of an Author, generally fpeaking, is to be facred and inviolable. If the Fancy of Ovid be luxuriant, it is his Character to be fo, and if I retrench it, he is no longer Ovid. It will be replied, that he receives Advantage by this lopping off his fuperfluous Branches; but I rejoin, that a Tranflator has no fuch Right. When a Painter copies from the Life, I fuppofe he has no Privilege to alter Features and Lineaments, under Pretence that his Picture will look better; perhaps the Face which he has drawn would be more exact, if the Eyes or Nose were altered, but it is his Business to make it resemble |