按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
language the character of another。 In some cases； where the order is
confused； the expression feeble； the emphasis misplaced； or the sense
somewhat faulty； he will not strive in his rendering to reproduce these
characteristics； but will re…write the passage as his author would have
written it at first； had he not been 'nodding'； and he will not hesitate to
supply anything which； owing to the genius of the language or some accident
of composition； is omitted in the Greek； but is necessary to make the
English clear and consecutive。
It is difficult to harmonize all these conflicting elements。 In a
translation of Plato what may be termed the interests of the Greek and
English are often at war with one another。 In framing the English sentence
we are insensibly diverted from the exact meaning of the Greek； when we
return to the Greek we are apt to cramp and overlay the English。 We
substitute； we compromise； we give and take； we add a little here and leave
out a little there。 The translator may sometimes be allowed to sacrifice
minute accuracy for the sake of clearness and sense。 But he is not
therefore at liberty to omit words and turns of expression which the
English language is quite capable of supplying。 He must be patient and
self…controlled； he must not be easily run away with。 Let him never allow
the attraction of a favourite expression； or a sonorous cadence； to
overpower his better judgment； or think much of an ornament which is out of
keeping with the general character of his work。 He must ever be casting
his eyes upwards from the copy to the original； and down again from the
original to the copy （Rep。）。 His calling is not held in much honour by the
world of scholars； yet he himself may be excused for thinking it a kind of
glory to have lived so many years in the companionship of one of the
greatest of human intelligences； and in some degree； more perhaps than
others； to have had the privilege of understanding him （Sir Joshua
Reynolds' Lectures： Disc。 xv。）。
There are fundamental differences in Greek and English； of which some may
be managed while others remain intractable。 （1）。 The structure of the
Greek language is partly adversative and alternative； and partly
inferential； that is to say； the members of a sentence are either opposed
to one another； or one of them expresses the cause or effect or condition
or reason of another。 The two tendencies may be called the horizontal and
perpendicular lines of the language； and the opposition or inference is
often much more one of words than of ideas。 But modern languages have
rubbed off this adversative and inferential form： they have fewer links of
connection； there is less mortar in the interstices； and they are content
to place sentences side by side； leaving their relation to one another to
be gathered from their position or from the context。 The difficulty of
preserving the effect of the Greek is increased by the want of adversative
and inferential particles in English； and by the nice sense of tautology
which characterizes all modern languages。 We cannot have two 'buts' or two
'fors' in the same sentence where the Greek repeats （Greek）。 There is a
similar want of particles expressing the various gradations of objective
and subjective thought（Greek） and the like； which are so thickly
scattered over the Greek page。 Further； we can only realize to a very
imperfect degree the common distinction between （Greek）； and the
combination of the two suggests a subtle shade of negation which cannot be
expressed in English。 And while English is more dependent than Greek upon
the apposition of clauses and sentences； yet there is a difficulty in using
this form of construction owing to the want of case endings。 For the same
reason there cannot be an equal variety in the order of words or an equal
nicety of emphasis in English as in Greek。
（2） The formation of the sentence and of the paragraph greatly differs in
Greek and English。 The lines by which they are divided are generally much
more marked in modern languages than in ancient。 Both sentences and
paragraphs are more precise and definitethey do not run into one another。
They are also more regularly developed from within。 The sentence marks
another step in an argument or a narrative or a statement； in reading a
paragraph we silently turn over the page and arrive at some new view or
aspect of the subject。 Whereas in Plato we are not always certain where a
sentence begins and ends； and paragraphs are few and far between。 The
language is distributed in a different way； and less articulated than in
English。 For it was long before the true use of the period was attained by
the classical writers both in poetry or prose； it was （Greek）。 The balance
of sentences and the introduction of paragraphs at suitable intervals must
not be neglected if the harmony of the English language is to be preserved。
And still a caution has to be added on the other side； that we must avoid
giving it a numerical or mechanical character。
（3） This； however； is not one of the greatest difficulties of the
translator； much greater is that which arises from the restriction of the
use of the genders。 Men and women in English are masculine and feminine；
and there is a similar distinction of sex in the words denoting animals；
but all things else； whether outward objects or abstract ideas； are
relegated to the class of neuters。 Hardly in some flight of poetry do we
ever endue any of them with the characteristics of a sentient being； and
then only by speaking of them in the feminine gender。 The virtues may be
pictured in female forms； but they are not so described in language； a ship
is humorously supposed to be the sailor's bride； more doubtful are the
personifications of church and country as females。 Now the genius of the
Greek language is the opposite of this。 The same tendency to
personification which is seen in the Greek mythology is common also in the
language； and genders are attributed to things as well as persons according
to their various degrees of strength and weakness； or from fanciful
resemblances to the male or female form； or some analogy too subtle to be
discovered。 When the gender of any object was once fixed； a similar gender
was naturally assigned to similar objects； or to words of similar
formation。 This use of genders in the denotation of objects or ideas not
only affects the words to which genders are attributed； but the words with
which they are construed or connected； and passes into the general
character of the style。 Hence arises a difficulty in tran