thing more be requisite on the part of the translator, than fidelity and attention. But as the genius and character of languages are confessedly very different, two opinions have thence arisen, regarding the proper task of a translator. On the one hand, it has been affirmed, that it is the duty of a translator to attend only to the sense and spirit of his original, to make himself perfectly master of his author's ideas, and to communicate them in those expressions which he judges to be best suited to convey them. It has, on the other hand, been maintained, that, in order to constitute a perfect translation, it is not only requisite that the ideas and sentiments of the original author should be conveyed, but likewise his style and manner of writing, which, it is supposed, cannot be done without a strict attention to the arrangement of his sentences, and even to their order and construction *. According

* Batteux de la Construction Oratoire, Par. 2. ch.4. Such likewise appears to be the opinion of M. Huet: Optimum ergo illum esse dico interpretandi modum, quum auctoris sen"tentiæ primum, deinde ipsis etiam, si ita fert utriusque

to the former idea of translation, it is allowable to improve and to embellish; according to the latter, it is necessary to preserve even blemishes and defects; and to these must likewise be superadded the harshness that must attend every copy in which the artist scrupulously studies to imitate the minutest lines or traces of his original.

As these two opinions form opposite extremes, it is not improbable that the point of perfection should be found between the two. I would therefore describe a good translation to be, That, in which the merit of the original work is so completely transfused into another language, as to be as distinctly apprehended, and as strongly felt, by a native of the country to which that

"linguæ facultas, verbis arctissimè adhæret interpres, et na"tivum postremo auctoris characterém, quoad ejus fieri potest, "adumbrat; idque unum studet, ut nulla cum detractione im4 minutum, nullo additamento auctum, sed integrum, suique « omni ex parte, simillimum, perquam fideliter exhibeat."Universe ergo verbum de verbo exprimendum, et vocum "etiam collocationem retinendum esse pronuncio, id mode per linguæ qua utitur interpres facultatem liceat." Huet 4 de Interpretatione, lib. 1.

language belongs, as it is by those who speak the language of the original work.

Now, supposing this description to be a just one, which I think it is, let us examine what are the laws of translation which may be deduced from it.

It will follow,

I. THAT the Translation should give & complete transcript of the ideas of the original work.

II. THAT the style and manner of writing should be of the same character with that of the original.

III. THAT the Translation should have all the ease of original composition.

UNDER each of these general laws of translation, are comprehended a variety of subordinate precepts, which I shall notice in their order, and which, as well as the general laws, I shall endeavour to prove, and to illustrate by examples.

CHAP. II.

First general rule-A Translation should give a complete transcript of the ideas of the original work.-Knowledge of the language of the original, and acquaintance with the subject.-Examples of imperfect transfusion of the sense of the original.-What ought to be the conduct of a Translator where the sense is ambiguous.

In order that a translator may be enabled to give a complete transcript of the ideas of the original work, it is indispensably necessary, that he should have a perfect knowledge of the language of the original, and a competent acquaintance with the subject of which it treats. If he is de

B

ficient in either of these requisites, he can never be certain of thoroughly comprehending the sense of his author. M. Folard is allowed to have been a great master of the art of war. He undertook to translate Polybius, and to give a commentary illustrating the ancient Tactic, and the practice of the Greeks and Romans in the attack and defence of fortified places. In this commentary, he endeavours to shew, from the words of his author, and of other ancient writers, that the Greek and Roman engineers knew and practised almost every operation known to the moderns; and that, in particular, the mode of approach by parallels and trenches, was perfectly familiar to them, and in continual use. Unfortunately M. Folard had but a very slender knowledge of the Greek language, and was obliged to study his author through the medium of a translation, executed by a Benedictine monk*, who was entirely ignorant of the art of war. M. Guischardt, a great military genius, and

* Dom. Vincent Thuillier.