« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
" with 1... the 17 always remains;" well enough as to sense, but the whole diction is changed.
P. 92, $ 36,“ aber durchgängig auch schon in Hohenliede und einigemal im Buch der Richter;" but throughoul moreover in Canticles, and sometimes in the book of Judges. C., “and even in some of the earlier, as in Canticles throughout, and occasionally in Judges.” The sentiment is probably not wrong, but the diction is changed. R. does not say that Canticles and Judges are earlier ; it is merely implied. (Ib.), “ und selbst t;" and even w; which is translated, “ the still ‘more abbreviated form R. Not erroneous in meaning, but trenching on the author's conciseness, of which I am so often reminded.
P. 93, top, “In derselben Bedeutung;" in (or with) the same meaning. C., “connected with it in meaning." Ib. par. 3,
ausser der Pausa ;” out of paust. C., “except in patise." (Ib.), “ dagegen;" on the contrary; which is either wholly omitted, or else rendered “commonly.” (Ib.), “ folgendem;" following, is wholly omitted, to the injury of perspicuity. The same in the fourth line below. Farther on,“ seltener;" more rarely; in the translation," occasionally;" which is here quite a different shade of idea.
The next section (3 38) exbibits the same tenor of translation. But inasmuch as it is very short and plain, there is not much room either for error or for investigation. The fruits of our research, on this second excursion, extend to about one page and a half of the translation; and the matter is such, that there could be very little difficulty in translating.
I have made one or two short excursions more, and with about the same results as before. But no reader would bear with me, not even my reviewer, if I should occupy any more room in such wearisome, and I might add, repulsive details.
I invite now my reviewer, or any other person who feels an interest in this subject, to compare the translation of all those passages and words, on which my remarks have been made, with the translation in my edition of Roediger. I do not say, that he will not discover a single error, when he scans the original with the minute exactness that I have applied to it in the preceding pages. But this I say with unhesitating confidence, that as a whole it is very much nearer and more faithful to the original, than the translation for which my reviewer has made bimself sponsor. I have not placed my printed version side by side with the rival one, because neither the author of the latter, nor perhaps his sponsor, would acknowledge it as
any fest. I have therefore compared Prof. C.'s version with a new, and as I believe strictly literal, translation, and prefixed the original, in order that every one who understands German, may judge of the correctness of my reniarks. To judge fully and minutely, he should also have the original Grammar itself before bim; which, as I much suspect, (although I may be mistaken), my reviewer bad not.
Ihave now a fair claim on my reviewer to make good his positive and unlimited assurances, of the fidelity and accuracy of Prof. C.'s translation. He cannot well back out. He has left no tolerable place for retreat, because of his unlimited and absolute assertions in respect to both fidelity of translation and accuracy of style. His assurance of having carefully investigated these matters, (which virtually extends to the whole book), comes now fairly before us. Of course he must either undo the criticisms that have been made ahove, or he must leave the public to suppose, that there are some others besides myself, who at least occasionally write in haste. If he can undo the criticisms, then I have read German for thirty-five years in vain, and must confess myself entirely ignorant of the language. His present predicament by the way, is none of my seeking. I did not put him in it, but he volunteered. He cannot blame me, or accuse me of want of courtesy, if I appeal to a higher court, when I believe the decision to be erroneous. I make that appeal, and call on him to make good the note which he has endorsed, and which the principal signer has failed to pay.
I have but little more to say. He may reply, and aver that many of my remarks are hypercriticisms ; that a change of style, a compression of phraseology or expansion of it, a suppression of particles or an exchange of them for others when a new turn is given to the sentence, or that small epexegetical clauses appended to another which needed to be made plainer, or a variation from a word in the original when a better word can be given, and the like; are all allowable to every translator, who does not bind himself to be servile, and that some of my remarks relate to cases of this nature. I accede. But I have to say, in order to prevent all misunderstanding of my object and motives, that I have undertaken no snch task as reviewing Prof. C.'s book. Far from it. But when my reviewer warns me of the loss of the sale of my bock, on account of the superior accuracy and fidelity of the rival translation, and puts the issue of this matter and the worth of the whole book simply on the ground of some departures from my original, without any reference to the value
of my notes, my advice to students of the Hebrew, and my Chrestomathy— 1 say when he does all this, on the mere basis of Prof. C's Critique, then it is just and equal that I should apply the saine principles of criticism to the rival translation, which the Critique on me has almost everywhere exhibited. “ With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again," was said long ago. It has now been once more verified. My reviewer, who impliedly justifies snch criticisms, (not the temper in which they are uttered), is at least bound in all generosity to allow me an appeal to the same principles which are involved in them. What is the result, then, of employing them? A detection at least of about twenty errors on each page examined. Some of them beyond all question change the sense of the original—sometimes even pervert it, and that in cases where it is not a matter of indifference. Prof. C., who so often gives us as surances of his own accuracy and fidelity, might well be addressed by me, did I but cherish his spirit, in the words of one who had some tolerable knowledge of the like assurances: “Quid dignum tanto feret hic promissor biatu ?" And after such an examination as has been made, I might add from the same writer: "Mutato nomine, de te fabula narratur.” But I will not even say this to him, lest it might wear the appearanee of some grudge.
Supposing now that the rest of Prof. C.'s book abounds as much in mistakes as the specimens examined, the amount (abating the Paradigms) would be equal to 5280 mistakes, very many of which would change the sense. Supposing then I should confidently say, that the book in all probability would yield a harvest of tares at least as ample as this, and then speak contemptuously of a Professor of Hebrew, who could undertake to publish such a book as that. Why then I should do virtually the same thing which he has done, in saying again and again, that he passes over errors and blanders without number, which kre has neither time nor patience to mention. It wonld be a fair retribution, in this ease, to reason from analogy; and it would be at least as near the truth, as those assertions of his are, in respeet to errors and blunders without number iu my translation.
I repeat (that I may not be misunderstood) the declaration, that all the eriticisms above are designed solely for the illustration of the same principles of examining and deciding, which are applied in the Critique to me. I would not in sober earnest, if called to review my “rival's” book, priblish such criticisnis as my own, and attempt to vindicate them, although, according to the principles of the Critique, they are well founded. I should deem it very degrading in me, to descend to such a carping and captious method of criticism; for I deem it beneath a gentlemen, a scholar, and a Christian, even when apart from any bitter and malignant spirit, which, I do hope and trust, I have not exercised or exhibited. My reviewer I recognize as a gentlemen and a friend; but (cum pace) I must beg leave to say, that besides rebuking the bitter spirit of the Critique, it was due to me that he should further have examined the merits of the whole book, and also have considered the question, which is best fitted to guide the beginner to the radical study of the Hebrew. He should also have well considered the principles, which are, at the basis of a large proportion of the Critique, before he ventured on such a decision as he has given. If he, after all
, really should believe, that the book for which he has given his warranty is accurately translated, even in respect to the very portions of it that I have invited him to re-examine, and should say that he believes this after having a carefully” examined the matterwhy then I am willing to take my chance against such a judgment. Something of his own character for accuracy and knowledge of the German, at all events, would be seriously compromised by such a judgment; and I could bear the penalty of it with quite a meek and quiet spirit. I wholly mistake him, if he is such a man. I have no means of knowing who he is, and so he cannot think me to be personal in my remarks. But I take it for granted, that the Editor of the North American would not open his pages to him, if he did not regard him as competent to decide such matters.
Of the accuracy or inaccuracy of the rest of Prof. C.'s translation, with the exception of some half dozen pages which I have examined, I do not say anything, for I have no knowledge respecting this matter. The assurances of my reviewer would hardly render it criminal in me, however, to doubt the accuracy, after the examinations above made. But I do not even go so far, because I think it more honorable and safe, to examine before I pronounce judgment of Prof. C.'s motives, object, ability, or knowledge of the Hebrew, I have not said a word, and shall not, in the way of designed disparagement. It would be a degradation of my character, and a violation of all the laws of gentlemanly courtesy to do it. If he thinks it the right way to get into public notice, or to sell his book, to assail me with vituperative language or inuendos on all these points, he has my full consent to use his liberty. There are different
important dipl State. There for not having have defeated erous answer
It is time th these things. some more arr of the injustic on the part of have this who affected on ac
I cannot co I disclaim an have not enga ever, of Mr. make it. WI sibility attach
Mr. W. no of Massachus there is a ger He asks for 1 naturally che: even ask for 1 our country is W. are not to them that we
ways of seeking notice among men. The temple-burner of old made himself immortal ; and through Pope, Dennis is immortalized. Theirs was a singular way of wooing fame ; but—de gustibus non disputandum. It showed at least their independence in respect to the opinion of others. If Prof. C. thinks there is anything attractive in their example, I shall not object. III should tell him, as a veteran in the service of the Hebrew, that there is a more excellent way of winning the respect of scholars and gentlemen, viz. by writing something either grammatical or exegetical, which would put his Hebrew knowledge to a fair test, and exbibit it to the public, he would in all probability reply: ti ooi xai tuoi ; and if I should say, that the translation of a German work of something less than 300 pages, which occupied from two to three years, was no great evidence of facility in that language, or that his Chrestomathy and Exercises afford very moderate evidence of his skill in Hebrew, he would probably berate me still harder than he has now done. And yet, (I should not say it did I not feel compelled to do it), I say calmly and deliberately, that when I was almost on the point of giving up my Hebrew Grammar and Chrestomathy, because I had other things to do which seemed more urgent, the reading of Roediger, and a review of Prof. C.'s Chrestomathic labours, brought me back to a resolution that it was my duty to go on-, conclusion backed by friends who understand these matters. After spending near forty years in the study and teaching of the Hebrew, I did not deem it just to the interests of this study in our country, to leave it in the hands of such a defender as Prof. C. This was the turning point and the leading motive, when I engaged in the undertaking which has now been under discussion. It is not for me to decide, whether I have been able to execute my design of providing better helps than he had furnished. The work is before the world, and it is for those who understand these matters to decide—not for those who do not. To them I commit it without reserve; and I will consent to abide by their judgment
One word as to the “ generosity” of the American publishers, lauded in the Preface of Prof. C. and referred to by my reviewer. My publishers advertised their edition of Roediger as ready for the press, a month before the New York publishers advertised Prof. Davies' translation. When these last did advertise, the legal right was acknowledged by the Andover publishers, but the law of booksellers' courlesy, was kindly suggested to them. They declined to withdraw, without a pecuniary compensation.