第34章

“SuocimiterodaquestapartehannoConEpieurotuttiisuoiseguaci，Chel’animacolcorpomortafanno。“ Inferno， Andheremyeyes，revertingtotheendofCantoIX。，falluponasimilarcontrastbetweenMr。Longfellow’slines，—— “Forflamesbetweenthesepulchreswerescattered，Bywhichtheysointenselyheatedwere，Thatironmoresoasksnotanyart，“—— andthoseofDr。Parsons，—— “Forheremidsepulchresweresprinkledfires，Wherewiththeenkindledtombsall-burninggleamed； Metalmorefiercelyhotnoartrequires。“ “Chetragliavelliflammeeranosparte，Perlequalieransideltuttoaccesi，Cheferropiunonchiedeverun’arte。“ Inferno，IX DoesitnotseemthatinallthesecasesMr。Longfellow，andtoaslightlylessextentMr。Cary，bytheirstrictadherencetotheletter，transgresstheordinaryrulesofEnglishconstruction； andthatDr。Parsons，byhiscomparativefreedomofmovement，producesbetterpoetryaswellasbetterEnglish？Inthelastexampleespecially，Mr。Longfellow’sinversionsaresoviolentthattoareaderignorantoftheoriginalItalian，hissentencemightbehardlyintelligible。InItaliansuchinversionsarepermissible；inEnglishtheyarenot；andMr。Longfellow，bytransplantingthemintoEnglish，sacrificesthespirittotheletter，andcreatesanobscurityinthetranslationwhereallislucidityintheoriginal。Doesnotthisshowthatthetheoryofabsoluteliterality，inthecaseoftwolanguagessowidelydifferentasEnglishandItalian，isnotthetrueone？ Secondly，Mr。Longfellow’stheoryoftranslationleadshiminmostcasestochoosewordsofRomanicorigininpreferencetothoseofSaxondescent，andinmanycasestochooseanunfamiliarinsteadofafamiliarRomanicword，becausetheformerhappenstobeetymologicallyidenticalwiththewordintheoriginal。LetmeciteasanexampletheopeningofCantoIII。:—— “Permesivanellaeittidolente，Permesivanell’eternodolore，Permesivatralaperdutagente。“ Herearethreelineswhich，intheirmatchlesssimplicityandgrandeur，mightwellexcitedespairinthebreastofanytranslator。LetuscontrastMr。Longfellow’sversion—— “Throughmethewayistothecitydolent； Throughmethewayistoeternaldole； Throughmethewayamongthepeoplelost，“—— withthatofDr。Parsons，——，“Throughmeyoureachthecityofdespair； Throughmeeternalwretchednessyefind； Throughmeamongperdition’sraceyefare。“ IdonotthinkanyonewilldenythatDr。Parsons’sversion，whilefarmoreremotethanMr。Longfellow’sfromthedictionoftheoriginal，issomewhatneareritsspirit。Itremainstoseektheexplanationofthisphenomenon。ItremainstobeseenwhywordstheexactcounterpartofDante’sareunfittocallupinourmindsthefeelingswhichDante’sownwordscallupinthemindofanItalian。AndthisinquiryleadstosomegeneralconsiderationsrespectingtherelationofEnglishtootherEuropeanlanguages。 EveryoneisawarethatFrenchpoetry，ascomparedwithGermanpoetry，seemstotheEnglishreaderverytameandinsipid；butthecauseofthisfactisbynomeanssoapparentasthefactitself。ThatthepoetryofGermanyisactuallyandintrinsicallysuperiortothatofFrance，mayreadilybeadmitted；butthisisnotenoughtoaccountforallthecircumstancesofthecase。ItdoesnotexplainwhysomeoftheverypassagesinCorneilleandRacine，whichtousappeardullandprosaic，aretotheFrenchman’sapprehensioninstinctwithpoeticfervour。Itdoesnotexplaintheundoubtedfactthatwe，whospeakEnglish，arepronetounderrateFrenchpoetry，whileweareequallydisposedtorendertoGermanpoetryevenmorethanitsdueshareofmerit。 ThereasonistobesoughtintheverbalassociationsestablishedinourmindsbythepeculiarcompositionoftheEnglishlanguage。 OurvocabularyischieflymadeupontheonehandofindigenousSaxonwords，andontheotherhandofwordsderivedfromLatinorFrench。Itismostlywordsofthefirstclassthatwelearninchildhood，andthatareassociatedwithourhomeliestanddeepestemotions；whilewordsofthesecondclass——usuallyacquiredsomewhatlaterinlifeandemployedinsedateabstractdiscourse——haveanintellectualratherthananemotionalfunctiontofulfil。Theiroriginalsignifications，thephysicalmetaphorsinvolvedinthem，whichareperhapsstillsomewhatapparenttotheFrenchman，aretouswhollynon-existent。Nothingbutthederivativeormetaphysicalsignificationremains。Nophysicalimageofamansteppingoveraboundaryispresentedtoourmindsbythewordtransgress，norinusingthewordcomprehensiondowepicturetoourselvesanymanualactofgrasping。ItistothisdoublestructureoftheEnglishlanguagethatitowesitssuperiorityovereveryothertongue，ancientormodern，forphilosophicalandscientificpurposes。Albeittherearenumerousexceptions，itmaystillbesafelysaid，inageneralway，thatwepossessandhabituallyusetwokindsoflanguage，——onethatisphysical，forourordinarypurposes，andonethatismetaphysical，forpurposesofabstractreasoninganddiscussion。 WedonotsayliketheGermans，thatwe“begripe“(begreifen)anidea，butwesaythatwe“conceive“it。Weuseawordwhichoncehadtheverysamematerialmeaningasbegreifen，butwhichhasinourlanguageutterlylostit。Weareaccordinglyabletocarryonphilosophicalinquiriesbymeansofwordswhicharenearlyorquitefreefromthoseshadowsoforiginalconcretemeaningwhich，inGerman，toooftenobscuretheacquiredabstractsignification。 WhoeverhasdealtinEnglishandGermanmetaphysicswillnotfailtorecognizetheprodigioussuperiorityofEnglishinforceandperspicuity，arisingmainlyfromthecausesherestated。ButwhilethishomogeneityofstructureinGermaninjuresitforphilosophicalpurposes，itistheverythingwhichmakesitsoexcellentasanorganforpoeticalexpression，intheopinionofthosewhospeakEnglish。GermanbeingnearlyalliedtoAnglo-Saxon，notonlydoitssimplewordsstrikeuswithalltheforceofourownhomelySaxonterms，butitscompoundsalso，preservingtheirphysicalsignificationsalmostunimpaired，callupinourmindsconcreteimagesofthegreatestdefinitenessandliveliness。ItisthusthatGermanseemstouspre-eminentlyapoeticallanguage，anditisthusthatwearenaturallyinclinedtooverrateratherthantodepreciatethepoetrythatiswritteninit。 WithregardtoFrench，thecaseisjustthereverse。TheFrenchmanhasnoSaxonwords，buthehas，ontheotherhand，anindigenousstockofLatinwords，whichhelearnsinearlychildhood，whichgiveoutlettohismostintimatefeelings，andwhichretaintosomeextenttheirprimitiveconcretepicturesqueness。TheyaretohimjustasgoodasourSaxonwordsaretous。Thoughcoldandmerelyintellectualtous，theyaretohimwarmwithemotion；andthisisonereasonwhywecannotdojusticetohispoetry，orappreciateitasheappreciatesit。Tomakethisperfectlyclear，letustaketwoorthreelinesfromShakespeare:—— “Blow，blow，thouwinterwind！ ThouartnotsounkindAsman’singratitude，Thytoothisnotsokeen，“etc。，etc。； whichIhavesomewhereseenthusrenderedintoFrench: “Souffle，souffle，ventd’hiver！ Tun’espassicruelQuel’ingratitudedel’homme。 Tadentn’estpassipenetrante，“etc。，etc。 Whyareweinclinedtolaughaswereadthis？Becauseitexcitesinusanundercurrentofconsciousnesswhich，ifputintowords，mightrunsomethinglikethis:—— “Insufflate，insufflate，windhibernal！ ThouartnotsocruelAshumaningratitude。 Thydentitionisnotsopenetrating，“etc。，etc。 NosucheffectwouldbeproduceduponaFrenchman。Thetranslationwouldstrikehimasexcellent，whichitreallyis。 Thelastlineinparticularwouldseempoeticaltous，didwenothappentohaveinourlanguagewordscloselyakintodentandpenetrante，andfamiliarlyemployedinsensesthatarenotpoetical。 ApplyingtheseconsiderationstoMr。Longfellow’schoiceofwordsinhistranslationofDante，weseeatoncetheunsoundnessoftheprinciplethatItalianwordsshouldberenderedbytheirRomanicequivalentsinEnglish。Wordsthatareetymologicallyidenticalwiththoseintheoriginalareoften，forthatveryreason，theworstwordsthatcouldbeused。TheyareharshandforeigntotheEnglishear，howeverhomelikeandmusicaltheymaybetotheearofanItalian。Theirconnotationsareunlikeinthetwolanguages；andthetranslationwhichismadeliterallyexactbyusingthemisatthesametimemadeactuallyinaccurate，oratleastinadequate。Doleanddolentaredoubtlesstheexactcounterpartsofdoloreanddolente，sofarasmereetymologycango。Butwhenweconsidertheeffectthatistobeproduceduponthemindofthereader，wretchednessanddespairingarefatbetterequivalents。Theformermaycompelourintellectualassent，butthelatterawakenouremotionalsympathy。 DoubtlessbylongfamiliaritywiththeRomaniclanguages，thescholarbecomestoagreatdegreeemancipatedfromtheconditionsimposeduponhimbythepeculiarcompositionofhisnativeEnglish。TheconcretesignificanceoftheRomanicwordsbecomesapparenttohim，andtheyacquireenergyandvitality。TheexpressiondolentmaythussatisfythestudentfamiliarwithItalian，becauseitcallsupinhismind，throughthemediumofitsequivalentdolente，thesameassociationswhichthelattercallsupinthemindoftheItalianhimself。[41]Butthispowerofappreciatingthoroughlythebeautiesofaforeigntongueisinthelastdegreeanacquiredtaste，——asmuchsoasthetasteforolivesandkirschenwassertothecarnalpalate。Itisonlybylongandprofoundstudythatwecanthustemporarilyvestourselves，sotospeak，withaFrenchorItalianconsciousnessinexchangeforourEnglishone。Theliteraryepicuremaykeenlyrelishsuchepithetsasdolent；butthecommonEnglishreader，wholovesplainfare，canhardlyfailtobestartledbyit。Tohimitsavoursofthegrotesque；andifthereisanyonethingespeciallytobeavoidedintheinterpretationofDante，itisgrotesqueness。 [41]AconsummateItalianscholar，thedelicacyofwhosetasteisquestionedbynoone，andwhoseknowledgeofDante’sdictionisprobablynotinferiortoMr。Longfellow’s，hastoldmethatheregardstheexpressionasanobleandeffectiveone，fullofdignityandsolemnity。 ThosewhohavereadoverDantewithoutreadingintohim，andthosewhohavederivedtheirimpressionsofhispoemfromM。 Dore’smemorableillustrations，willhereprobablydemur。What！ Dantenotgrotesque！Thattunnel-shapedstructureoftheinfernalpit；Minospassingsentenceonthedamnedbycoilinghistail；