venuti

Canon 75The first thing, without doubt, which claims [the translator’s]attention, is to give a just representation of the sense of theoriginal. This, it must be acknowledged, is the most essential ofall. The second thing is, to convey into his version, as much aspossible, in a consistency with the genius of the language whichhe writes, the author’s spirit and manner, and, if I may soexpress myself, the very character of his style. The third and lastthing is, to take care, that the version have at least, so far thequality of an original performance, as to appear natural andeasy, such as shall give no handle to the critic to charge thetranslator with applying words improperly, or in a meaning notwarranted by use, or combining them in a way which rendersthe sense obscure, and the construction ungrammatical, or evenharsh.(Campbell 1789:445–446)To recommend transparency as the most suitable discourse for theGospels was indeed to canonize fluent translation. Tytler, whoclaimed not to know of Campbell’s work before publishing his own,made use of it in later editions of the Essay, drawing on the“Preliminary Dissertations” for additional examples and joiningCampbell in rejecting translations that were either too literal or toofree, that deviated too far from fluency and from dominantinterpretations of the sacred text. “Dr. Campbell has justly remarked,that the Hebrew is a simple tongue,” observed Tytler, agreeing withthe Bible translator’s rejection of Sebastianus Castalio’s version forits “elegant Latinity,” for “substituting the complex and floridcomposition to the simple and unadorned” (Tytler 1978:111, 112).Campbell’s description of his own discursive strategy recommendedfluency: “As to the Language, particularly of the version itself,simplicity, propriety, and perspicuity, are the principal qualities atwhich I have aimed. I have endeavoured to keep equally clear of thefrippery of Arias, and the finery of Castalio” (Campbell 1789:xx). InCampbell’s view, Arias Montanus erred because his Latin version“appears to have been servilely literal,” offering obscureetymological renderings and “preserving uniformity, rendering thesame word in the original, wherever it occurs, or however it isconnected, by the same word in the version” without “attending tothe scope of the author, as discovered by the context” (ibid.:449, 450,451). Fluency requires the translator’s lexicon to be varied enoughnot to call attention to itself as a lexicon, to the artificiality of the