Conington's rule was challenged by Gladstone whose arguments I have examined in the Classical Quarterly in the article already cited, pp. 288 sq. Gladstone in his contention that 'the translator from Horace should both claim and exercise the largest possible freedom in varying his metres, so as to adapt them in each case to the original with which he has to deal' urged 'two fundamental objections' against the rule. The first, which is based on the principle of Commensurateness, was 'that the quantity of matter which the poet has given in the same forms of stanza is by no means uniform; and if uniformity is to govern the translation, the space available for conveying what has to be conveyed will sometimes be too great, and sometimes too small.' This objection cuts too deep. For the inequalities are not penned up in different odes. They are found in different parts of the same ode, and of course no one dreams that the stanzas in the same ode should be of different lengths. Gladstone again will not have it that 'any one English metre which the translator may have chosen for one Horatian ode will be equally supple, and equally effective, for conveying the spirit and effect of every other ode which Horace may have found it practicable to construct under the same metrical conditions.' But I have pointed out (1. c.) that it is hardly true to suggest that, apart from rhyme, the English metres are less supple than the Latin metres which they are employed to render, that in his emancipation from the restrictions of quantity and disregard of the concurrence of vowels (hiatus) the verse-writer in modern English has a freedom unknown to the Roman, and that it is not the case that our English metres have so marked an individuality as to unfit them for the various uses to which the Latin metres are turned. I did not question that a translator might obtain for himself some occasional ease and relief by shifting from one metre to another, and that, if his design were only to render single odes, such variation might perhaps be deemed excusable. But the translator of the whole collection can claim no such liberty. It is not the least characteristic feature of Horace's lyrical compositions that the same metre is employed for odes of a very different spirit. This sameness in diversity is of the essence of his art, and to obliterate it in translation is an infidelity of the highest order, to be condemned the more unflinchingly because it is likely to escape the reader for whom the translation is intended. Non cuiuis homini contingit adire Corinthum; and this is true above all of those whose traffic is between foreign and native speech. The ideal translator must be a master of both the languages with which he has to deal. His mastery of the foreign tongue must be critical; of his own practical. The non-coincidences of language will tax his skill and care to the utmost. If he would avoid ambiguity and misrepresentation, he must be continually on his guard against the erroneous or extraneous suggestions in 'equivalents.' These he must so hedge in and circumscribe that in all partially corresponding expressions the correspondences alone shall be brought before the reader. In a word he must be an Expert Qualifier. If he elects to render Verse by Verse, he must have a sufficiency of versifying skill and a special command of the vocabulary of poetry. Poetic feeling he must possess. But need he be a poet? Dryden indeed demanded as much. 'To be a thorough translator of poetry a man must be a thorough poet.' But there is force in what Lewis Campbell says, Preface to his translation of Sophocles: 'Mr Arnold in speaking of the drawbacks alludes to the danger of too much originality. In that respect...it may be said...that this coy Muse yields more readily to one who is not a poet; for a poet cannot step off his own shadow.' No writer can write away from himself for long; poets least of all. What havoc one poet's individuality may make of another's, Moore's version of Catullus p. 78 above is enough to show. Moore failed through lack of perception; but other poet translators through want of self-control. Linguistic knowledge and literary capacity are essential for every kind of translation; but Insight is just as indispensable. Some would construe 'insight' as 'sympathy' with the author, or they would add 'sympathy' thereto. If this sympathy means the appreciation which insight and study have produced, we may agree. But many who use the word intend something more emotional, such as admiration, love or esteem. Aversion, to be sure, is likely to mar a translator's work. But so, though more subtly, will partiality, as may be seen from a study of 'sympathetic' translations. Translating, we must add, is an exercise of the intellect; and sentiment has no place in its performance. Lastly our translator should have diligence and conscientiousness in the highest degree. He should shrink from no labour that may improve his work. An infinite capacity for taking pains must be his substitute for genius. 2 RETROSPECTIVE TRANSLATIONS I* HORACE, Odes I xxiii VITAS inuleo me similis, Chloe, aurarum et siluae metu. nam, seu mobilibus uepris inhorruit et corde et genibus tremit. tempestiua sequi uiro. HORACE, Odes II xiv EHEV, fugaces, Postume, Postume, adferet indomitaeque morti. non, si trecenis quotquot eunt dies, compescit unda, scilicet omnibus siue inopes erimus coloni. frustra cruento marte carebimus corporibus metuemus Austrum. |