in point of style and composition not unworthy of it, he must be sure to preserve all needful accuracy in regard to the sense and meaning. The term itself implies that he must do this. A translation is different from an imitation.

He must adhere to the original. He must be accurate. But, how closely must he adhere? what degree of accuracy must he observe? are questions that naturally occur, and cannot well be answered except practically, by examples. I will give just now some examples to illustrate my views; but will first endeavour, as far as am able, to express my opinion in general words.

It is the business of the translator to express the full sense briefly, simply, forcibly; to add nothing, omit nothing; never to amplify or exaggerate. He should not servilely imitate constructions, or follow the order of words, yet not depart even from them unnecessarily. The production of good English he will regard as essential; to this everything must give way but the sense of the author. Within the limits of these two conditions, faithful interpretation and good writing, he may turn and twist his sentences with a considerable degree of latitude and freedom. But these limits will always preserve him from unreasonable vagaries. While he does not affect to teach grammatical rules, they must be the guide to his own version, or he cannot translate faithfully, so that he will always afford a clue to the construction, and will never mislead.

To accomplish all this, not only must you be thoroughly familiar with the language which you translate, but you should have deeply studied your own, and even know several besides.

It is an essential condition of producing a good translation, that you should be able to produce a literal one. Only this is far from being all, There are hundreds of good scholars who are able to do this, but who are not competent to write well. And on the other hand, clever men and practised writers have failed in translation because they never took due pains to study the original language. Hence we have had so many

bad translations from opposite causes. The literal translators necessarily fail, for want of a sufficiently high aim, a proper conception of their duty. The readable have been men who neglected or despised the niceties of scholastic learning. There are others also, from whose acquirements more might have been expected, who, carried away by the fervour of their imagination, or not liking the trouble of attending to words, have considered it sufficient to give the general meaning of an author, clothing it often in language which is purely their

own.

To the class of loose translators belongs Leland. His version of Demosthenes is the best of the English, and has considerable merit. He appears also to have been a pretty good scholar, so that his faults are generally attributable rather to negligence than ignorance. I shall now proceed to show, by a few examples, what my views of proper translation are.

I

The following is from the Oration on the Crown; and agree with Lord Brougham, that there is an unnecessary departure from the simplicity of the original :

Τοῦτο τὸ ψήφισμα τὸν τότε τῇ πόλει περιστάντα κίνδυνο παρελθεῖν ἐποίησεν ὥσπερ νέφος.

Leland: By this decree that danger, which hung lowerin over our state, was in an instant dissipated like a cloud.

So also this: Ovd' ầv eis tauta pnoɛɛv. Leland: No! L not the presumptuous assertion once be heard.

In the Oration on the Chersonese, Demosthenes says tha Philip has beaten the Athenians, τῷ πρότερος πρὸς τοῖς πράγ μaoi yiyvɛolai, that is, by being before us in his operation first at his work, first in the field; the last of which tran lations, though it might serve, as being a smart idiomatic phrase, wants comprehensiveness. Leland has his superi vigilance in improving all opportunities; which is too vagu But here let me observe, I don't complain because his ve sion does not show that the dative case is governed by th preposition, or on any ground of that kind. It was not h business to deal with a point of grammar, but to give a go translation. You might have it thus: by commencing 1

operations earlier. I object to Leland's version, because the meaning is too vaguely expressed.

In the same oration we have: Δύο ἐν Εὐβοίᾳ κατέστησε τυράννους, τὸν μὲν ἀπαντικρὺ τῆς ̓Αττικῆς ἐπιτειχίσας, τὸν δ ̓ ἐπὶ Σκιάθῳ, ὑμεὶς δ ̓ οὐδὲ ταῦτ ̓ ἀπελύσασθε, εἰ μηδὲν ἄλλο ἐβούλεσθε, ἀλλ ̓ εἰάκατε· ἀφέστατε δῆλον ὅτι αὐτῷ.

Leland: Euboea is commanded by his two tyrants; the one, just opposite to Attica, to keep you perpetually in awe; the other to Sciathus. Yet you have not attempted to oppose even this. No, you have submitted: you have been insensible to your wrongs.

In this passage there are six instances in which the translator has needlessly departed from the original :

First, the word his does not sufficiently express that Philip placed the tyrants in Euboea. Observe, I don't complain of the change of construction. He was perfectly at liberty to invert it, and say, two tyrants were placed by him in Euboea, had such inversion been required to make a neater sentence. The objection is, that the point of the matter is expressed too loosely.

Secondly, rexioas is not expressed fully enough. Thirdly, the word perpetually is not in Demosthenes. Fourthly,-oppose is not a correct version of anελúσασÕε. Fifthly, the words εἰ μηδὲν ἄλλο ἐβούλεσθε are omitted. Sixthly,—the last clause is an entire mistranslation. Francis thus translates the passage :

Philip hath established two kings in Euboea; one at Eretria, which he hath fortified, opposite to the coast of Attica; the other at Oreum, to awe your island of Sciathos. Nor have you asserted your own dignity by opposing these injuries, (since you seem unwilling to attempt any nobler design,) but even indolently suffered them; apparently remitted to him your own proper rights.

Francis has committed the same error as Leland in the ἀπελύσασθε, and has distinctly mistranslated the ἐπιτειχίσας which Leland has only shirked. Philip did not fortify Eretria, but established in it the sway of Clitarchus, his own partisan,

and thus made him, and through him Eretria itself, a fortress against Attica; that is, a rallying point, a point d'appui, for the enemies of Athens, from which they might at any time sally forth, as the Lacedæmonians did from Decelea, to attack and ravage the country. And so Jacobs has it: als feindlichen Hort. Pabst in drohender fester Stellung.

Francis has avoided some errors of Leland; but, besides a too great verbosity, which is his constant fault, I must notice another, which is too frequently committed, viz. the insertion of explanatory words, the proper place for which is a note, and not the text. Here we have the words Eretria, Oreum, and our island, added to Demosthenes; and we might just as well have had the names of the tyrants, or any other historical fact introduced. The translation should be confined to the text. A correct literal translation is :

He established two tyrants in Euboea, one opposite Attica, fixing him like a hostile fortress, the other against Sciathus; and you have not even got rid of these nuisances, if you would do nothing else you have allowed them; you have manifestly given way to him.

Here the word nuisances is not wantonly added, for it is contained in the raura, and some such word is necessary to be introduced.

It may further be observed, that the literal translation of εἰ μηδὲν ἄλλο ἐβούλεσθε is hardly sufficient to convey to an English reader the exact meaning of the original, which, fully expressed, is these nuisances, at least, you should have got rid of, though you would do nothing else; yet you have never done so, &c. But this expansion would weaken the translation too much. Therefore, I adopt a turn of expression which in English is equivalent to the Greek form, as those who are familiar with the Greek form will understand: and I translate thus:

He established two tyrants in Euboea, one like a hostile fortress opposite Attica, one threatening Sciathus: and these nuisances you have never got rid of; not even this would you attempt: you have submitted; left the road open to him clearly.

In the four preceding examples I cannot doubt that Leland understood the text of his author. He has translated him loosely from carelessness. And, it may be observed, that, while he has mistranslated Demosthenes, he has not departed from the general sense and meaning. But this is not always so: and persons addicted to very loose translating frequently wander from the argument as well as from the words. Take the next example from the Oration on the Chersonese : Ἡμεῖς οὔτε χρήματα εἰσφέρειν βουλόμεθα, οὔτε αὐτοὶ στρατεύεσθαι . . . οὔτ ̓, ἐπειδήπερ οὕτως ἔχομεν, τὰ ἡμέτερα αὐτῶν πράττειν ἐθέλομεν. Which means :

We are unwilling to pay contributions, or to perform military service, and yet, with such disposition, we are not con

tent to mind our own business.

That is; the Athenians will neither take the proper means to carry on war, nor will they abstain from public business and Grecian politics. But Leland translates the last clause: Thus we proceed quite regardless of our interests: entirely mistaking the sense, which Auger puts clearly enough. Ainsi disposés, nous ne pouvons nous résoudre à ne nous mêler que de ce qui nous regarde.

Having thus noticed a few errors on the side of excessive freedom, let me turn to those which are equally injurious, on the side of excessive accuracy; whose tendency is, to degrade translation into a schoolboy exercise. I must again have recourse to examples.

Take the famous oath :

Μὰ τοὺς Μαραθῶνι προκινδυνεύσαντας τῶν προγόνων.

By your ancestors who met the peril at Marathon.

A person who reviewed Lord Brougham's translation in the Times, insists that it should be translated thus.

By those of your forefathers, who at Marathon were the first to encounter the brunt of danger.

And I equally insist, that the critic's translation is detestable, as emasculating all the vigour of the clause. It is true that he expresses the genitive case more fully, and I