simple record of the historian.-All this is still in accordance with the supposition, (if we see fit to adopt that supposition,) that it may have enjoyed the temporary munificence of Constantine, and other christian emperors.

The loss of character and the final decay of the school, are attributed to the contests about the doctrines of Origen, Arius, Nestorius, and the Monophysites, all of which raged with peculiar violence at Alexandria; and having to bear the accumulated sins of all its teachers, it finally sunk. And so, peradventure, may one day sink some of those institutions now so thickly rising among us. Public sentiment, connected with the public exigency, alone can cause them permanently to prosper.

The second part of this article, containing some account of the doctrines taught in the Alexandrian school, may be expected in the next Number of this work.

ART. II.-ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SENSE AND THE SIGNIFICATION OF WORDS AND PHRASES.

By S. F. N. Morus, Professor of Theology in the University of Leipsic. Translated from the Latin by J. Torrey, Professor of Languages in the University of Vermont.

It is a truth well established by experience, that every passage of any writer does not admit of being rendered word for word, as the phrase is, into another language. Nor is this true of those expressions only, which are peculiar to a language or people; as, certain names of certain things, maxims, proverbs, and those phrases which usually pass under the denomination of idioms; but a great many other passages are to be found in almost every book, which contain nothing strictly peculiar to any language, and yet do not admit of being rendered word for word, so as to express any intelligible meaning. For however men may agree in their opinions, in the nature and discipline of their minds, in

1 Guer. 1. 97. 119. Schröckh, X. p. 240 sq. XVIII. p. 493 sq.

their feelings, talents, and modes of thinking generally; yet there is such a diversity in their manner of expressing their feelings and thoughts, that by comparing certain languages and writers, we might sometimes be almost tempted to doubt, whether men so widely differing in their mode of speaking were endowed with the same common faculties of thought and intelligence.

What we mean to affirm, when we say that every thing does not admit of being rendered word for word into another language, is simply this: That it is not possible, in every case, to find a word in another language of precisely the same signification with that which belongs to the word in the passage we translate; or, that the significations, all and each, in both languages, cannot so correspond, as to admit of being perfectly matched as it were, word against word, signification against signification. Such I apprehend to be our meaning when we speak on this subject, and such we find to be the case in all the examples.

The causes of this diversity are, in part, common to entire nations, as the age, manners, state of cultivation; in part, peculiar to individual writers, as their talents, pursuits, learning, ignorance; all of which have been so frequently and ably handled by others, that any further discussion of them would seem to be unnecessary. But as the result of these causes it happens, that there remain in one language many traces of a rude antiquity, which others, uniformly aiming at elegance, have entirely polished away; and others again have removed in part;—that one expresses by a large compass of words,' (particularly in connecting sentences and passing from one topic to another,) what in another is usually compressed into a narrower space; that one abounds in ellipses, another employs them more sparingly; that one glows with figures and allegories, another is distinguished for plainness and severity of diction; that one is loose and ambiguous, another definite and precise; that one is suited to all the purposes of speculation and philosophical inquiry, another either not at all adapted to such subjects, or capable of treating them only by borrowing from a foreign source; that one is rich and copious, another labours under a poverty of words. Such being the case, who can hope ever to be able to translate from one language into another, so as to fulfil the conditions expressed above, that word shall answer to word, signification to signification.

Vid. Perizonius ad Sanctii Minerva, pp. 434, 486, et passim.

Writers themselves, moreover, differ so much in their diligence, care, rhetorical skill, genius, practice, that while one, in translating, may be easily followed; in another, there is always something to be added or removed, altered or softened, something which must be understood with limitation, or expressed by a circumlocution ;-that while in interpreting one, you must compel him, as it were, into order; in the case of another you may point out clearly what he would say. Now when this diversity is added to that which arises out of the very nature and condition of languages, the possibility of a literal translation is still further diminished.

Since then, for the reasons now stated, the thing is impracticable, it only remains for the translator to express the sense of his author in such words as he can. This is necessary, sometimes in respect to single words, sometimes in respect to entire sentences and propositions. In the case of single words, of which the very signification cannot be expressed in a translation, without rendering the translation obscure and ambiguous, and incongruous to the language into which the translation is made, the course we pursue is, to give the notion, which, in this particular place and connexion, may be substituted for the notion of the word employed by the writer himself. Thus the sense is given in place of the signification. For instance, since лoooéqɛiv rivi, adhibere rem alicui, (which is the signification,) by no means admits, when youny or vouv is not expressed, of being every where rendered, to attend to a thing, turn the attention, employ the mind upon it; this signification is exchanged for another, such as the condition of the passage (the subject and object expressed by the words in that passage) may suggest and allow, and noooézεiv raïs tipuis is, to be studious, or ambitious of honours, to be devoted to them, to be delighted and governed by them ; προσέχειν τοῖς λαλουμένοις υπό τινος, το αςsent to, and approve of, what is said by another, пooбεεw to Καίσαρι, το follow the party of Caesar; and προσοχή νόμων is attributed to one who endeavours to express the precepts of wisdom in his conduct. In as many ways, then, and from as many causes and motives as it is possible or usu

2

1 Semler (App. ad Interp. N. T. p. 99.) perceived the difference between the sense and the signification.

2 Acts 8: 6, comp. v. 12, where this very лooσzov τois halovμsvois is exchanged for note. Comp. Acts 16: 14.

3 Wisd. 6: 18.

al for the mind to be applied to any thing, in so many ways the notion may be given in a translation or exposition, expressing the cause, manner, or motive, in accordance with which the mind is applied in the present case, by the present individual, to this particular thing. In the case of entire sentences, which cannot be rendered word for word in a translation, our course is, to express the thing, which the writer has expressed in his own words, in such words of another language, as will present before the mind of readers the same thing, generally conceived. Thus again the sense is given instead of the signification. If λóyov λόγον Sons iniyev, for instance, cannot be rendered to present or exhibit the doctrine of salvation, nor συντρέχειν εἰς τὴν αὐτὴν τῆς doorías ávázvor, to run into the same excess of riot, the sense and thing may be given in some other words. Thus the former would be, to shew forth (prae se ferre) the doctrine of salvation ;3 the latter, to rush forward in the same career, into the same gulf of wickedness.4 The words of the poet, ἀρχαὶ ἐπληροῦντο,

5

3 That is, so to exhibit it in one's life and conduct, as to convince others of its power and excellence, and lead them to the love of it. See Beza and Erasm. Schmid. a. h. 1. Both the genius of the language, and the connexion of the passage, seem to me to admit of this sense; and it is confirmed by the analogy of the Latin, when the phrase præ se ferre is sufficiently understood. The other versions, habere, tenere, tueri, continere, attendere, (respecting which see Theodoret ad h. l. though he confounds ἐπέχειν τι and επέχειν τινί,) I have no wish to examine separately; but I cannot approve those who endeavour to find here the Greek form of expression τοῦτο ἐπέχει λόγον Tivós, this stands in the place, serves the purpose, of something; as when the stars are said by night to serve for light, ἐπέχειν λόγον φωτός· a phraseology to which Chrysostom ad h. 1. seems to refer, (though I do not sufficiently understand his explanation,) and which Wetstein has illustrated. I cannot approve these, because óyos cons in sacred Scripture, undoubtedly always means the doctrine of salvation; and, whatever may be said in favour of employing that merely Greek phrase to explain the present passage, it would after all, in my opinion, be a very forced interpretation.

4 See L. Bos, in Observat. ad N. T. Wetstein ad h. 1. and Alberti ad Hesychium, who defines άvázvor, qvquóv. Likewise the definition of ἀνάχυσιν by σύγχυσιν, found in Catena Oecumenii, (p. 160. edit. Veron. 1532,) amounts to the same thing. This explains the origin and sense of the Vulgate rendering: confusionem, i. e. collu

5 Eurip. Androm. v. 1100. [1097.]

cannot be rendered, the magistracies were filled, but the fact reported, and the sense, are, the magistrates assembled in crowds, the council was full. So who would attempt to translate verbally the following passage from Dionysius of Halicarnassus,1 ἡ πόλις ἐν καλλίστῃ κεῖται συνόδῳ ταῖς ἄλλαις πόλεσι ? the sense of which is, 'the city is conveniently situated for a general assembly of the nation.'

If the foregoing remarks are correct, it follows, that the sense of a passage differs from the signification of the single words; and that the sense is very often expressed in translations in the manner which has just before been described.

The same distinction between the sense and the signification, which it is necessary to observe in translating, should also be kept in view when the object is simply to explain a writer without any design of translating him. No one supposes that an interpreter fully discharges his duty by illustrating single words and phrases; but he is expected to furnish a clear exposition of the matter, the sense, which lies concealed under those words. In order to do this, it is not enough to explain the subject of which a writer has been treating, as for instance, the history, the ceremonies, the philosophical doctrines, and so forth; it should be the endeavour of the interpreter to lead his reader to consider words in every possible light, and to teach him to think in different ways; so that, if he is a European, he may compare the style of the people of the East with that of his own, until he can substitute the one for the other, conceive the subject in his own way, and express it in his own words; so that he may compare the ancient with the more recent, and discriminate the difference; so that he may distinguish the poetic diction from that of prose, and substitute the latter for the former; so that he may define with accuracy what does not admit of being pressed too close to the letter of the author, so as to leave nothing which requires further limitation, exception, doubt, or modification; so that he may reduce figures of speech and the language of

1 Archaeol. lib. 8. p. 484, edit. Sylb. Comp. Xenoph. Hist. Gr 6. 2. 6, ἡ νήσος ἐν καλῷ κεῖται τοῦ βλάπτειν, is conveniently situated for annoying.