THE WORLD OF BOOKS.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18343, 28 March 1925, Page 11

THE WORLD OF BOOKS.

HALF-HOURS IN A LIBRARY.

(mcuLur ■wxrrrmr »o» "id *»'«»»•">

By A. H. Gbinung

CVL—ON TRANSLATIONS AND TRANSLATORS (?.). This question of what is a true translation has had emergence' recently in tho issue by Dr. James Moffatt of "a new translation" of the Old Testament, which, following upon his translation of the New Testament published a few years ago, constitutes a new version of the English Bible. This has started a controversy concerning tho respective merits of what is known as the Authorised Version and the subsequent versions. From the point of view of exact scholarship there can be little doubt that the modern translations are the more accurate; but considered as Literature the Authorised Version more than holds its own against all comers. The reason of this supcr-excellenee is to be found in the genius of the successive translators, who possessed a quality greater than mere scholarship, that extraordinary something which, for want of a more expressive word, is known as inspiration. Professor Albert Cook, of Yale, says:—

Among the qualifications of a good translator, tha first undoubtedly is tint ho shall be penetrated by a senße of the surpassing value of his original, and by a oor-reß-poudiLg sense of the importance of his task. This will preserve him from flippancy and moannees by imbuing him with earnestness and humility. It wilt ™ a * e him ready to follow wherever he is led by the tost and will prevent him from pluming himself upon prettiness | of phrase, >r any farcies of his own. Such a translator will strive with all his might after fidelity to word and sense, and after the utmost clearness and simplicity of rendering, avoiding on the one hand the trivial, and on the other the ornate and pompous. He will conform to the genius of his own tongue; while endeavouring to transfer to it .the treasures of another; and, besides possessing naturally, he will cultivate in every proper way a sensitiveness to that musio of the phrase which in the case of the Bible is but another name for the musio of the heart. Only a few translators have ui.ited these endowments in a juet proportion, but among them must be counted Jerome, the first of the great translators whom we know by name, the author—though, he called himself rather the reviser-of the Latin Vulgate.

In his book on "The Bible as English Literature," Professor J. H. Gardiner, of Harvard, says of the Authorised Version: "To understand the literary character of this great jtranslation, we must not forget that' it is a translation, and that at the Bame time it has, what one hardly looks for in a translation made to-day, unequalled vitality and freshness of expression. It is one of the few examples in English of a translation which is complete on both, sides; for it renders not only the meaning of the single words and sentences, for the most part with great accuracy, but it communicates to us also the spirit and vigour of the original. In other words, it not only gives us the denotation of the books which it translates, but it clothes its own language with the rich connotation of the original and with the less definable, but no less potent expression of sound." The reason for the place and the power of the Bible in English literature must bo sought for in two directions: first in the amazing snecession of its translators, and, secondly, in the series of influences which moulded the English language into a vehicle, ready to the translator's hands and proper for so stupendous a task.

Tfcir history of the English Bible, so far as translations are concerned, begins with the Septuagint, a translation into Greek made for the use of the Alexandrian Jews during the last three centuries of the old era. This was in large part the basis of the Latin Bible of the Middle Ages, the Vulgate of Jerome, a work well known and closely studied by the first translators of the English Bible. John Wycliffe's Bible was a translation from the Vulgate which perpetuated the obvious errors of the original. It was the corruption and untrustworthiness of the Wycliffe version which moved the subsequent translators to their work. The first of these was William Tyndall, and it is noteworthy that the quatercentenary of the printing of Worms in 1525 of Tyndall's first edition of the New Testament is to be celebrated during this year. To Miles Coverdale belongs. the credit of the first complete translation of the Bible, but, as he frankly admits, it was a translation from secondary sources. To quote from Professor Gar* diner:

The title page of the first issue declares the book to be "faithfully and truly translated oat of Dutch and Latin into English," "Dutch," being the usage of the time for German; his dedication to the King declares that he had "-with a clear conscience purely and faithfully translated this out of five sundry interpreters, having only the manifest truth of the.Scripture before mine eyes"; and in hie preface to ''the Christian Header," he adds: "And to help me herein, I have had sundry translations, not only in Laiin, but also of the Dutch interpreters, whom,, because of their singular gifts and special diligence in the Bible, I nave, been the more glad to follow for the most part, according as I was required." These five sundry interpreters have been. {proved to be the Swiss-German, or Zurich version of 152429, the Latin translation of Pagninus, LutheVa 'German Bible, the Vulgate, and Tyndall, so far as he was available.

In some quarters Coverdale has been credited with originating the tendency to translate the same word in different ways at different times; but this same tendency has been, observed as going right back to the old English period. A nice distinction is made by Professor Cook between the respective styles and characteristics as translators of Tyndale and Coverdale. After pointing out that Coverdale's nature may be inferred from the fact that he introduced into the English language the expressions '' loving kindness'' and '' tender mercy'' Professor Cook goes on to say:—

Trndale'g nature ma masculine, Corerdale'a more of * feminine cast. His translations—of which the Prayer-book version of the Psalter is the most generally knows—possess a more flexible and musical rhythim than Tyndale'a. Tyndale wrote (Luke 2-12): "And take this for a sign; ye shall find the child swaddled and laid in a manger." When this had passed under Coverdale's revising hand, it stands: "And take this for a sign; ye shall find the child wrapped in swaddling clothes and laid in a manger." "Westoott has truly said of Coverdale that "he allowed himself considerable freedom in dealing with the shape of the original sentences. . . . There is in every part an endeavour to transfuse the spirit as well as the letter into the English rendering.

Between the Coverdale-Tyndale version and the Authorised Version came several minor versions, which, however, made no radical alteration in the text. Taken in chronological order, these are Matthew's Bible, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Bishop's Bible, the Rheimsi and Douay Versions. When in 1607 the revisers met, at the suggestion

or* King James, to begin the new version, it was presented that the basis of the version should be the Bishop's Bible, but that use should also be made of Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's (the Great Bible), and the Genevan "when they agTee better with the text than the Bishop's Bible." As a matter of fact, use was made also of the Ehemish New Testament. The quaint wording of the Translators' address to the Header merits quotation:—

Neither did we run over the work with that postering haste that the Septuagint did, if that be true which is reported of them, that they finished it in _ seventytwo days; neither were we barred or hindered from going over it again, having once done it, like St. Ilierome, if that be true which himself reporteth, that he could no sooner write anything, but presently it was caught from him and published, and he could not- have leave to mend it: neither, to be short, were we the first that fell in hand with the translating the Scripture into English, and consequently destitute of former helps, is written of Origen. that he was first in a manner, that put his hand to write commentaries upon the Scriptures, and therefore no marvel if he overshot himself many times. None of these things: the work hath not been huddled up in seventy-two days, but hath cost the "workmen, as light as it seeineth, the pains of twice seventy-two days and more. Matters of such weight and consequence are to be speeded with maturity; for in a business of moment a man feareth not the blame of convenient slackness. Neither did- we think much to consult the translators or commentators, Chnldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin; no, nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch: neither did wo disdain to revise that- which we had done, and to bring back io the anvil that which we had hammered; hut having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at the length, through the pood hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see.

The English language in the Sixteenth Century was marked by a figurativeness which is largely lacking to-day. The common vocabulary has increased to so great an extent that there is little search for the right word, there are too many alternatives. Consequence there is a loss of that colour which is seen to the full in the Authorised Version; in addition, the revisers of 1611 were men to whom religious belief was a matter of the utmost moment. This bred an intensity reflected in their work. "The weakness of all modern translations," says Professor Gardiner, "is that they lack this intensity of feeling which is the life of the Authorised Version. Men in our piping times of peace cannot have, and therefore cannot impart, the same burning earnestness which belonged to all matters of religion in the sixteenth century." Exactly a hundred years later than the date of the.Authorised Version Swift wrote: —

"The translators of our Bible were masters of an English style much fitter for that work than any which we see in our present writings, which I take to be owing to tho simplicity that runs through the whole."

Speaking of the changes which the passage of a century had introduced into the English language. Swift adds: "Tfcsy have taken off a great deal from that simplicity which is one of the greatest perfections in a-Dy language."