|
19. But since we do not clearly see what the actual thought is which
the several translators endeavor to express, each according to his own
ability and judgment, unless we examine it in the language which they
translate; and since the translator, if he be not a very learned man,
often departs from the meaning of his author, we must either endeavor
to get a knowledge of those languages from which the Scriptures are
translated into Latin, or we must get hold of the translations of
those who keep rather close to the letter of the original, not because
these are sufficient, but because we may use them to correct the
freedom or the error of others, who in their translations have chosen
to follow the sense quite as much as the words. For not only single
words, but often whole phrases are translated, which could not be
translated at all into the Latin idiom by any one who wished to hold by
the usage of the ancients who spoke Latin. And though these sometimes
do not interfere with the understanding of the passage, yet they are
offensive to those who feel greater delight in things when even the
signs of those things are kept in their own purity. For what is called
a solecism is nothing else than the putting of words together according
to a different rule from that which those of our predecessors who spoke
with any authority followed. For whether we say inter homines (among
men or inter hominibus, is of no consequence to a man who only wishes
to know the facts. And in the same way, what is a barbarism but the
pronouncing of a word in a different way from that in which those who
spoke Latin before us pronounced it? For whether the word ignoscere
(to pardon) should be pronounced with the third syllable long or
short, is not a matter of much concern to the man who is beseeching
God, in any way at all that he can get the words out, to pardon his
sins. What then is purity of speech, except the preserving of the
custom of language established by the authority of former speakers?
20. And men are easily offended in a matter of this kind, just in
proportion as they are weak; and they are weak just in proportion as
they wish to seem learned, not in the knowledge of things which tend to
edification, but in that of signs, by which it is hard not to be
puffed up, seeing that the knowledge of things even would often set up
our neck, if it were not held down by the yoke of our Master. For
how does it prevent our understanding it to have the following passage
thus expressed: "Qae est terra in qua isti insidunt super eam, si
bona est an nequam; el quae sunt civitates, in quibus ipsi inhabitant
in ipsis?" And I am more disposed to think that this is simply the
idiom of another language than that any deeper meaning is intended.
Again, that phrase, which we cannot now take away from the lips of
the people who sing it: "Super ipsum autem floriet sanctificatio
mea," surely takes away nothing from the meaning. Yet a more learned
man would prefer that this should be corrected, and that we should
say, not floriet, but florebit. Nor does anything stand in the way
of the correction being made, except the usage of the singers.
Mistakes of this kind, then, if a man do not choose to avoid them
altogether, it is easy to treat with indifference, as not interfering
with a right understanding. But take, on the other hand, the saying
of the apostle: "Quod stultum est Dei, sapientius est hominibus,
et quod infirmum est Dei, fortius est hominibus." If any one should
retain in this passage the Greek idiom, and say," Quod stultum est
Dei, sapientius est hominum et quod infirmum est Dei fortius est
hominum," a quick and careful reader would indeed by an effort attain
to the true meaning, but still a man of slower intelligence either
would not understand it at all, or would put an utterly false
construction upon it. For not only is such a form of speech faulty in
the Latin tongue, but it is ambiguous too, as if the meaning might
be, that the folly of men or the weakness of men is wiser or stronger
than that of God. But indeed even the expression sapientius est
hominibus (stronger than men) is not free from ambiguity, even though
it be free from solecism. For whether hominibus is put as the plural
of the dative or as the plural of the ablative, does not appear,
unless by reference to the meaning. It would be better then to say,
sapientius est guam homines, and fortius est quam homines.
|
|