Iv - University of Salford Institutional Repository

should have a perfect knowledge of the language from which he is
translating; (3) the translator should avoid the tendency to translate
word for word, for to do so is to destroy the meaning of the original
and to ruin the beauty of the expression; (4) the translator should
employ the forms of speech in common usage; (5) through his choice and
order of words the translator should produce a total overall effect
with appropriate 'tone'." (Edmond Cary: 'Etienne Dolet'; Babel 1 pp17-
20) Luther's guidelines and Dolet's principles are identical in many
respects. Both highlight intelligibility and discredit verbal
accuracy. They equally emphasize the translator's bilingual competence
and his careful analysis of the author's intentions. But while Luther
stresses exegetical accuracy through structural equivalence, Dolet
emphasizes functional or pragmatic equivalence.
The seventeenth century witnessed no translator probably higher in
stature than Dryden who was the first to admit that translation is an
art underlying a theory to which a translator is to be committed.
Dryden classified translation into three types; (1) metaphrase (word
for word); (2) paraphrase (sense for sense), and (3) imitation
(creative). For him 'paraphrase' seems to be the only proper form of
translating. In a 'paraphrase' translation, the translator projects
the overall meaning of the source text in another language without
losing sight of the author's intention, whereas 'metaphrase' and
'imitation' translation distorts or departs from the meaning of the
original and thus renders the translation either inaccurate or
unfaithful. In defence of his approach to translation, Dryden
explicitly states that, "It is impossible to translate verbally and
7