***

Curator’s Note:

John Dryden's 1680 Preface to Ovid's Epistles laid out three types of translation: metaphrase (word-for-word), paraphrase (sense-for-sense), and imitation (loose adaptation). His argument for the middle path of paraphrase, along with his practical observations on the translator's work, made this an early and clear discussion of translation in English.

This transcription begins where Dryden transitions from discussing Ovid's life and work to articulating his translation theory. I have transcribed this from a 1786 printing and retained as best I could the spelling, capitalization and punctuation of that edition. The book is available on the Internet Archive.

Ross Belot January 16, 2026

***

All Translation, I suppose, may be reduced to these three Heads:

First, That of Metaphrase, or turning an Author Word by Word, and Line by Line, from one Language into another. Thus, or near this Manner, was Horace his Art of Poetry translated by Ben Johnson. The second Way is that of Paraphrase, or Translation with Latitude, where the Author is kept in View by the Translator, so as never to be lost, but his Words are not so strictly followed as his Sense, and that too is admitted to be amplified, but not altered. Such is Mr Waller's translation of Virgil's Fourth Æneid. The third Way is that of Imitation, where the Translator (if now he has not lost that name) assumes the Liberty not only to vary from the Words and Sense, but to forsake them both as he sees Occasion; and, taking only some general Hints from the Original, to run Division on the Ground-work, as he pleases. Such is Mr Cowley's practice in turning two Odes of Pindar, and one of Horace, into English.

Concerning the first of these Methods, our Master Horace has given us this Caution,

Nec verbum verbo curabis reddere, fidus

Interpres——

Nor Word for Word too faithfully Translate,

As the Earl of Roscommon has excellently rendered it. Too faithfully is, indeed, pedantically: it is a Faith like that which proceeds from Superstition, Blind and Zealous: Take it in the Expression of Sir John Denham to Sir Richard Fanshaw, on his Version of the Pastor Fido.

That Servile Path thou nobly dost decline,

Of tracing Word by Word, and Line by Line,
A new and nobler Way thou dost pursue,
To make Translations and Translators too:
They but preserve the Ashes, thou the Flame,
True to his Sense, but truer to his Fame.

It is almost impossible to translate verbally, and well, at the same time; for the Latin (a most severe and compendious Language) often expresses that in one Word, which either the Barbarity, or the Narrowness, of Modern Tongues cannot supply in more. It is frequent, also, that the Conceit is couched in some Expression, which will be lost in English.

Atque iidem venti vela fidemque ferent.

What Poet of our Nation is so happy as to express this Thought literally in English, and to strike Wit, or almost Sense, out of it?

In short, the Verbal Copier is encumbered with so many Difficulties at once, that he can never disentangle himself from all. He is to consider, at the same time, the Thought of his Author, and his Words, and to find out the Counterpart to each in another Language: And, besides this, he is to confine himself to the Compass of Numbers, and the Slavery of Rhyme. It is much like dancing on Ropes with fettered Legs: A Man can shun a Fall by using Caution, but the Gracefulness of Motion is not to be expected: And when we have said the best of it, it is but a foolish Task; for no sober Man would put himself into a Danger for the Applause of escaping without breaking his Neck. We see Ben Jonson could not avoid Obscurity in his literal Translation of Horace, attempted in the same Compass of Lines: nay, Horace himself could scarce have done it to a Greek Poet.

Brevis esse laboro, obscurus fio.

either Perspicuity or Gracefulness will frequently be wanting. Horace has indeed avoided both these Rocks in his Translation of the three first Lines of Homer's Odyssey, which he has contracted into two.

Dic mihi, musa virum, captæ post tempora Trojæ,

Qui mores hominum multorum vidit, et urbes.

Muse speak the Man, who, since the Siege of Troy,

So many Towns, such Change of Manners saw.
~Earl of Rosc.

But then the Sufferings of Ulysses, which are a considerable Part of that Sentence, are omitted:

[ὃς μάλα πολλὰ πλάγχθη:]

The Consideration of these Difficulties, in a servile, literal Translation, not long since made two of our famous Wits, Sir John Denham, and Mr Cowley, to contrive another Way of turning Authors into our Tongue, called, by the latter of them, Imitation. As they were Friends, I suppose they communicated their Thoughts on this Subject to each other, and therefore their Reasons for it are little different: Though the Practice of one is much more Moderate. I take Imitation of an Author, in their Sense, to be an endeavour of a later Poet to write like one who has written before him, on the same Subject: That is, not to translate his Words, or to be confined to his Sense, but only to set him as a Pattern, and to write, as he supposes that Author would have done, had he lived in our Age, and in our Country. Yet I dare not say, that either of them have carried this libertine way of rendering Authors (as Mr Cowley calls it) so far as my Definition reaches. For in the Pindaric Odes, the Customs and Ceremonies of ancient Greece are still preserved: But I know not what Mischief may arise hereafter from the Example of such an Innovation, when Writers of unequal Parts to him shall imitate so bold an Undertaking. To add and to diminish what we please, which is the Way avowed by him, ought only to be granted to Mr Cowley, and that too only in his Translation of Pindar, because he alone was able to make him Amends, by giving him better of his own, whenever he refused his Author's Thoughts. Pindar is generally known to be a dark Writer, to want Connexion, (I mean as to our Understanding,) to soar out of Sight, and leave his Reader at a Gaze: So wild and ungovernable a Poet cannot be translated literally, his Genius is too strong to bear a Chain, and Sampson like, he shakes it off: A genius so elevated and unconfined as Mr Cowley's, was but necessary to make Pindar speak English, and that was to be performed by no other way than Imitation. But if Virgil, or Ovid, or any regular intelligible Authors, be thus used, it is no longer to be called their Work, when neither the Thoughts nor Words are drawn from the Original: But instead of them there is something new produced, which is almost the Creation of another Hand. By this way, it is true, somewhat that is Excellent may be invented, perhaps more excellent than the first Design, though Virgil must be still excepted, when that Perhaps takes Place: Yet he who is inquisitive to know an Author's Thoughts, will be disappointed in his Expectation. And it is not always that a Man will be Contented to have a Present made him, when he expects the Payment of a Debt. To state it fairly, Imitation of an Author is the most advantageous Way for a Translator to shew himself, but the greatest Wrong which can be done to the Memory and Reputation of the Dead. Sir John Denham (who advised more Liberty than he took himself) gives his Reason for his Innovation, in his admirable Preface before the Translation of the second Æneid. Poetry is of so subtle a Spirit, that, in pouring out of one Language into another, it will all Evaporate; and, if a new Spirit be not added in the Transfusion, there will remain nothing but a Caput Mortuum. I confess this Argument holds good against a literal Translation; but who defends it? Imitation and verbal Version are, in my Opinion, the two Extremes which ought to be avoided: And therefore, when I have proposed the Mean betwixt them, it will be seen how far his Argument will reach.

No Man is capable of translating Poetry, who, besides a Genius to that Art, is not a Master both of his Author's Language, and of his own: Nor must we understand the Language only of the Poet, but his particular Turn of Thoughts and Expression, which are the Characters that distinguish, and as it were individuate him from all other Writers: When we are come thus far, it is time to look into our selves,  to conform our Genius to his, to give his Thought either the same Turn, if our Tongue will bear it, or, if not, to vary but the Dress, not to alter or destroy the Substance. The like care must be taken of the more outward Ornaments, the Words; when they appear (which is but seldom) literally graceful, it were an Injury to the Author that they should be changed: But, since every Language is so full of its own Proprieties, that what is beautiful in one, is often barbarous, nay sometimes Nonsense, in another, it would be unreasonable to limit a Translator to the narrow Compass of his Author's Words: It is enough if he choose out some Expression which does not vitiate the Sense. I suppose he may stretch his Chain to such a Latitude, but by Innovation of Thoughts, methinks, he breaks it. By this Means the Spirit of an Author may be transfused, and yet not lost: And thus it is plain, that the Reason alledged by Sir John Denham has no farther Force than to Expression: For Thought, if it be translated truly, cannot be lost in another Language, but the Words that convey it to our Apprehension (which are the Image and Ornament of that Thought,) may be so ill chosen, as to make it appear in an unhandsome Dress, and rob it of its native Lustre. There is, therefore, a Liberty to be allowed for the Expression, neither is it necessary that Words and Lines should be confined to the Measure of their Original. The Sense of an Author, generally speaking, is to be sacred and inviolable. If the Fancy of Ovid be luxuriant, it is his Character to be so, and if I retrench it, he is no longer Ovid. It will be replied, that he receives Advantage by this lopping of his superfluous Branches; but I rejoin, that a Translator has no such Right. When a Painter copies from the Life, I suppose he has no Privilege to alter Features and Lineaments, under Pretence that his Picture will look better; perhaps the Face, which he has drawn, would be more exact, if the Eyes or Nose were altered, but it is his Business to make it resemble the Original. In two Cases only there may a seeming Difficulty arise, that is, if the Thought be notoriously trivial, or dishonest: But the same Answer will serve for both, that then they ought not to be Translated.

—Et quæ

Desperes tractata nitescere posse, relinquas.

Thus I have ventured to give my Opinion on this Subject against the Authority of two great Men, but I hope without Offence to either of their Memories, for I both loved them living, and reverence them now they are dead. But if, after what I have urged, it be thought by better judges, that the Praise of a Translation consists in adding new Beauties to the Piece, thereby to recompense the Loss which it sustains by Change of Language, I shall be willing to be taught better, and to recant. In the mean time, it seems to me, that the true Reason why we have so few Versions which are tolerable, is not from the too close pursuing of the Author's Sense; but because there are so few who have all the Talents which are requisite for Translation, and that there is so little praise, and so small encouragement, for so considerable a Part of Learning.

To apply, in short, what has been said of the present Work; the Reader will here find most of the Translations, with some little Latitude or Variation from the Author’s Sense: That of Onenone to Paris, is in Mr. Cowley’s way of Imitation only. I was desired to say that the Author, who is of the Fair Sex, understood not Latin. But if she does not, I am afraid she has given us occasion to be ashamed, who do.
For my own Part, I am ready to acknowledge, that I have transgressed the Rules which I have given; and taken more Liberty than a just Translation will allow. But so many Gentlemen, whose Wit and Learning are well known, being joined in it, I doubt not but their Excellencies will make you ample Satisfaction of my Errors.