Lib. 11, Cap. 2.
In magnis siquidem corporibus, aut certe majoribus, facilis officina sequaci materia fuit. In his tam parvis atque tam nullis, quæ ratio, quanta vis, quam inextricabilis perfectio! Ubi tot sensus collocavit in culice? Et sunt alia dictu minora. Sed ubi visum in eo prætendit? Ubi gustatum applicavit? Ubi odoratum inseruit? Ubi vero truculentam illam et portione maximam vocem ingeneravit? Qua subtilitate pennas adnexuit? Prælongavit pedum crura? disposuit jejunam caveam, uti alvum? Avidam sanguinis et potissimum humani sitim accendit? Telum vero perfodiendo tergori, quo spiculavit ingenio? Atque ut in capaci, cum cerni non possit exilitas, ita reciproca geminavit arte, ut fodiendo acuminatum, pariter sorbendoque fistulosum esset. Quos teredini ad perforanda robora cum sono teste dentes affixit? Potissimumque e ligno cibatum fecit? Sed turrigeros elephantorum miramur humeros, taurorumque colla, et truces in sublime jactus, tigrium rapinas, leonum jubas; cùm rerum natura nusquam magis quam in minimis tota sit. Quapropter quæso, ne hæc legentes, quoniam ex his spernunt multa, etiam relata fastidio damnent, cùm in contemplatione naturæ, nihil possit videri supervacuum.
Although, after the perusal of the whole of this chapter, we are at no loss to understand its general meaning, yet when it is taken to pieces, we shall find it extremely difficult to give a precise interpretation, much less an elegant translation of its single sentences. The latter indeed may be accounted impossible, without the exercise of such liberties as will render the version rather a paraphrase than a translation. In magnis siquidem corporibus, aut certe majoribus, facilis officina sequaci materiæ fuit. The sense of the term magnus, which is in itself indefinite, becomes in this sentence much more so, from its opposition to major; and the reader is quite at a loss to know, whether in those two classes of animals, the magni and the majores, the largest animals are signified by the former term, or by the latter. Had the opposition been between magnus and maximus, or major and maximus, there could not have been the smallest ambiguity. Facilis officina sequaci materiæ fuit. Officina is the workhouse where an artist exercises his craft; but no author, except Pliny himself, ever employed it to signify the labour of the artist. With a similar incorrectness of expression, which, however, is justified by general use, the French employ cuisine to signify both the place where victuals are dressed, and the art of dressing them. Sequax materia signifies pliable materials, and therefore easily wrought; but the term sequax cannot be applied with any propriety to such materials as are easily wrought, on account of their magnitude or abundance. Tam parvis is easily understood, but tam nullis has either no meaning at all, or a very obscure one. Inextricabilis perfectio. It is no perfection in anything to be inextricable; for the meaning of inextricable is, embroiled, perplexed, and confounded. Ubi tot sensus collocavit in culice? What is the meaning of the question ubi? Does it mean, in what part of the body of the gnat? I conceive it can mean nothing else: And if so, the question is absurd; for all the senses of a gnat are not placed in any one part of its body, any more than the senses of a man. Dictu minora. By these words the author intended to convey the meaning of alia etiam minora possunt dici; but the meaning which he has actually conveyed is, Sunt alia minora quam quæ dici possunt, which is false and hyperbolical; for no insect is so small that words may not be found to convey an idea of its size. Portione maximam vocem ingeneravit. What is portione maximam? It is only from the context that we guess the author’s meaning to be, maximam ratione portionis, i. e. magnitudinis insecti; for neither use, nor the analogy of the language, justify such an expression as vocem maximam portione. If it is alledged, that portio is here used to signify the power or intensity of the voice, and is synonymous in this place to vis, ενεργεια, we may safely assert, that this use of the term is licentious, improper, and unwarranted by custom. Jejunam caveam uti alvum; “a hungry cavity for a belly:” but is not the stomach of all animals a hungry cavity, as well as that of the gnat? Capaci cum cernere non potest exilitas. Capax is improperly contrasted with exilis, and cannot be otherwise translated than in the sense of magnus. Reciproca geminavit arte is incapable of any translation which shall render the proper sense of the words, “doubled with reciprocal art.” The author’s meaning is, “fitted for a double function.” Cum sono teste is guessed from the context to mean, uti sonus testatur. Cum rerum natura nusquam magis quam in minimis tota sit. This is a very obscure expression of a plain sentiment, “The wisdom and power of Providence, or of Nature, is never more conspicuous than in the smallest bodies.” Ex his spernunt multa. The meaning of ex his is indefinite, and therefore obscure: we can but conjecture that it means ex rebus hujusmodi; and not ex his quæ diximus; for that sense is reserved for relata.
From this specimen, we may judge of the difficulty of giving a just translation of Pliny’s Natural History.
CHAPTER XIV
OF BURLESQUE TRANSLATION.—TRAVESTY AND PARODY.—SCARRON’S VIRGILE TRAVESTI.—ANOTHER SPECIES OF LUDICROUS TRANSLATION.
In a preceding chapter, while treating of the translation of idiomatic phrases, we censured the use of such idioms in the translation as do not correspond with the age or country of the original. There is, however, one species of translation, in which that violation of the costume is not only blameless, but seems essential to the nature of the composition: I mean burlesque translation, or Travesty. This species of writing partakes, in a great degree, of original composition; and is therefore not to be measured by the laws of serious translation. It conveys neither a just picture of the sentiments, nor a faithful representation of the style and manner of the original; but pleases itself in exhibiting a ludicrous caricatura of both. It displays an overcharged and grotesque resemblance, and excites our risible emotions by the incongruous association of dignity and meanness, wisdom and absurdity. This association forms equally the basis of Travesty and of Ludicrous Parody, from which it is no otherwise distinguished than by its assuming a different language from the original. In order that the mimickry may be understood, it is necessary that the writer choose, for the exercise of his talents, a work that is well known, and of great reputation. Whether that reputation is deserved or unjust, the work may be equally the subject of burlesque imitation. If it has been the subject of general, but undeserved praise, a Parody or a Travesty is then a fair satire on the false taste of the original author, and his admirers, and we are pleased to see both become the objects of a just castigation. The Rehearsal, Tom Thumb, and Chrononhotonthologos, which exhibit ludicrous parodies of passages from the favourite dramatic writers of the times, convey a great deal of just and useful criticism. If the original is a work of real excellence, the Travesty or Parody detracts nothing from its merit, nor robs the author of the smallest portion of his just praise.[67] We laugh at the association of dignity and meanness; but the former remains the exclusive property of the original, the latter belongs solely to the copy. We give due praise to the mimical powers of the imitator, and are delighted to see how ingeniously he can elicit subject of mirth and ridicule from what is grave, dignified, pathetic, or sublime.
In the description of the games in the 5th Æneid, Virgil everywhere supports the dignity of the Epic narration. His persons are heroes, their actions are suitable to that character, and we feel our passions seriously interested in the issue of the several contests. The same scenes travestied by Scarron are ludicrous in the extreme. His heroes have the same names, they are engaged in the same actions, they have even a grotesque resemblance in character to their prototypes; but they have all the meanness, rudeness, and vulgarity of ordinary prize-fighters, hackney coachmen, horse-jockeys, and water-men.
Medio Gyas in gurgite victor