50 



E. J. SEWELL, ESQ., ON THE 



On the one hand, all translators from the days of Jerome 

 have agreed with him in rejecting the rule expressed in the 

 phrase, verbum verbo reclclcre. Even as regards words, it is 

 impossible to find in any language single words exactly equiva- 

 lent to single words in another language ; and, beside this, 

 the idioms of one language differ altogether from those of 

 another. We are told that the Hebrew words in Genesis ii, 17, 

 are, if literally translated, " dying, thou shalt die." But this is 

 not a translation of the phrase. The Hebrew idiom makes the 

 phrase convey to anyone who knows Hebrew what is repre- 

 sented in English and other languages by the phrase " thou 

 shalt surely die," because this is what the phrase means. 



Can we then adopt as a sufficient statement of the rule to be 

 followed in such cases, that the thought must be translated and 

 not the words, that is to say that if a translation of the words 

 does not convey the real meaning of the phrase, we should 

 depart from the words in order to keep to the thought which 

 those who used them intended them to convey. All translators, 

 or at all events all modern translators, have, in many instances, 

 followed this rule, but it is not difficult to show that if it is 

 proposed to lay it down as a fundamental rule of translation, it 

 requires, on the one hand, some further limitation and, on the 

 other, a distinction to be drawn dependent upon the particular 

 cause which prevents the actual words from conveying the 

 thought. 



The maxim requires some limitation: take, for instance, the 

 magnificent description of the Deity in the 46th Psalm : — " He 

 breaketh the bow, and cutteth the spear in sunder ; He burnetii 

 the chariot in the fire." 



To those to whom these words were addressed, the bow, the 

 spear, the chariot, were the chief representatives of the weapons 

 and instruments of war, and the destruction of each one of 

 them in a way appropriate to each one, conveyed in a very 

 forcible manner the idea of a complete stoppage of war by 

 the destruction of the instruments of war. 



But many millions of men (say, in Europe, now) have never 

 seen a chariot, and bows and spears are only known as warlike 

 weapons to those who have read about them or seen pictures of 

 them as such. So far from forcibly conveying the meaning, the 

 use of the names of these weapons, etc., has itself to be explained 

 before the meaning is grasped. Would it then be permissible 

 to translate : " He bursteth the rifle and bendeth back the 

 bayonet, He bloweth up the battle cruiser with dynamite'"? 

 The question answers itself ; no one would propose or accept 



