between all modern nations, there should have been so little done towards the improvement of the art itself, by investigating its laws, or unfolding its principles. Unless a very short essay, published by M. D'Alembert, in his Mélanges de Littérature, d'Histoire, &c. as introductory to his versions of some pieces of Tacitus, and some remarks on translation by the Abbé Batteux, in his Principes de la Littérature, I have met with nothing that has been written professedly upon the subject of translation considered as an art, depending on fixed principles *. The ob * When the first edition of this Essay was printed, the Author had not seen Dr Campbell's New Translation of the Gospels, then recently published, in one of the preliminary dissertations to which, that ingenious writer has treated professedly, though very briefly, "Of the chief things to be "attended to in translating" The general laws of the art as briefly laid down in the first part of that dissertation are the same with those contained in this Essay; a circumstance which, independently of that satisfaction which always arises from finding our opinions warranted by the concurring judgment of persons of distinguished ingenuity and taste, affords a strong presumption that those opinions are founded in nature and in common sense. Another work on the same subject had likewise escaped the Author's observation when he first published this Essay; a poetical Essay on translation, servations of M. D'Alembert, though extremely judicious, are too general to be considered as rules, or even elements of the A 3 by Mr Francklin, the ingenious translator of Sophocles and Lucian. It is, however, rather an apology of the art, and a vindication of its just rank in the scale of literature, than a didactic work explanatory of its principles. But above all, the Author had to regret, that when the former editions of this work were published, he had not been fortunate enough to meet with the work of a celebrated writer, professedly on the subject of translation, the treatise of M. Huet, Bishop of Avranches, De optimo genere interpretandi; of whose doctrines, however, he had some knowledge, from a pretty full extract of his work in the Dictionnaire Encyclopédique de Grammaire et Littérature, article Traduction. He has since seen and perused that small treatise, which, though accurately and methodically written, and containing many excellent observations, and much sound and judicious criticism, proposes a system of rules adapted only to that species of translation which professes to give a faithful interpretation of the text of an ancient classic; and is chiefly intended for the instruction of a tiro in the language of the original. It is of such versions that the learned Dr Pearce is treating, in distinction from that more free species of composition which is properly termed Translation, when he says; "Velim interpretem fidum esse, sed non sui ostentatorem : «sed modò dictio ejus Latina, sint verba sensum Græci "auctoris clarè breviterque exponentia, non quæro an versio " ornatum præ se ferat ; neque enim legenda, sed consulenda "est illa; ut de vi Græcorum verborum ignaris, præsenti art; and the remarks of the Abbé Batteux are employed chiefly on what may be termed the Philosophy of Grammar, and seem to have for their principal object the ascertainment of the analogy that one language bears to another, or the pointing out of those circumstances of construction and ar cr "sit auxilio: De iis hic versionibus intelligi velim quæ una cum Græco auctoris textu imprimuntur: de cæteris enim "seorsim editis, qualis est Gallica illa celeberrimi Boilavii " versio, longè aliter res se habet: in his enim et ornatum "et elegantiam quærimus: in his sensum magis quam "verba paria paribus respondentia spectamus: nec possit "ille interpres omninò placere, qui non, (prout ejus linguæ "qua utitur postulat ratio), aliqua immutat, corripit, dilatat, "ut ipsam vim spiritumque auctoris ob oculos legentium "ponat." Præfatio Zach. Pearce in D. Longini versionem. It is evident, that the rules which are proper to the former kind of interpretation, are much too rigorous to be applied to the latter, or to that more ample and liberal species of translation, which professes to supply the place of the original author, and is adapted rather to convey to the reader the sense, the spirit and manner of his composition, than the strict meaning of all his words. The present work, therefore, enlarged idea of Translation, which is relative to the more and attempts to lay down the rules only of that species of composition, can have little interference with the Treatise of the learned Huet, which every scholar will find pleasure and profit in perusing. It may be incidentally remarked, rangement in which languages either agree with, or differ from each other *. WHILE such has been our ignorance of the principles of this art, it is not at all wonderful, that amidst the numberless translations which every day appear, both of the works of the ancients and moderns, there should be so few that are possessed of real merit. The utility of translations is universally felt, and therefore there is a continual A 4 that the judgments of Huet on the merits of the older interpreters of the Greek writers, are extremely valuable; and though rather of the nature of opinions than of criticisms, evince a good taste, and great liberality of sentiment. The Abbé Batteux, founding upon this principle, which he has by no means proved, That the arrangement of the Greek and Latin languages is the order of nature, and that the modern tongues ought never to deviate from that order, but for the sake of sense, perspicuity, or harmony; proceeds to lay down such rules as the following: That the periods of the translation should accord in all their parts with those of the original-that their order, and even their length, should be the same that all conjunctions should be scrupulously preserved, as being the joints or articulations of the members -that all adverbs should be ranged next to the verb, &c. It may be confidently asserted, that the Translator who shall endeavour to conform himself to these rules, even with the But this very circum demand for them. It is a stance has thrown the practice of translation into mean and mercenary hands. profession which, it is generally believed, may be exercised with a very small portion of genius or abilities *. "It seems to licence allowed of sacrificing a little of their rigour to sense, perspicuity, and harmony, will produce, on the whole, a very poor composition, which will be far from reflecting a just picture of his original. Such is our pride, our folly, or our fate, That few, but such as cannot write, translate. Denham to Sir R. Fanshaw. hands impure dispense The sacred streams of ancient eloquence; Pedants assume the task for scholars fit, Translation by Francklin. In a review of the Works of Frederick II. King of Prussia, translated by Mr Holcroft, we find the following remarks: "Perhaps at first sight we are apt to congratulate ourselves upon finding a man of acknowledged ability employed in communicating to our unlearned countrymen the contents "of this memorable collection. But this, with us at least, " is only a first thought; and the translator must forgive us, "if we express our regret at seeing him employed in so "laborious and unanimating a drudgery. In the existence " of an incident of this sort, there must be a fault some |