on scholarly airs and means resisting the temptation to write lengthy knit-browed treatises on the subject. In the preface to his translation of Ovid?s Epistles in 1680, he reduced all translation to three categories:
Metaphrase, “turning an author word by word, and line by line, from one language into another”, which corresponds to literal translation;（词译 或逐词翻译）
Paraphrase, “turning 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,” which corresponds to his sense-for-sense translation;（释译）
Imitation, “where the translator assumes the liberty, not only to vary from the words and sense, but to forsake them both occasions; and taking only some general hints from the original, to run division on the groundwork, as he pleases” (Munday, 2001:25) , which corresponds to Cowley?s very free translation and is more or less adaptation.（拟译）
Dryden criticizes translators who adopt metaphrase as being a “verbal copier”, ( Robinson, 1997:172 )Similarly, he rejects imitation, for “the imitation of an author is the most advantageous way for a translator to show himself, but the greatest wrong which can be done to the memory and reputation of the dead.”(ibid.) “Imitation and
verbal (literal) version are, in my opinion, the two extremes which ought to be avoided” (ibid.) and therefore, he proposes “the mean betwixt them”, i.e. paraphrase. The triadic model proposed by Dryden exerts considerable influence on later writings on translation. (Munday, 2001: 25 ) Although his three “new” terms for translation are from new, he remains an attractive and accessible popularizer of this long tradition.
An important work relating to translation studies in the 18th century was Alexander Fraser Tytler?s The Essay on the Principles of Translation (1791). Rather than Dryden?s author-oriented terms to be that “in which the merit of the original work is so completely transfused into another language as to be as distinctly apprehended, as strongly felt, by a native of the country to which that language belongs as it is by those who speak the language of the original work.
According to Tytler, there are three general principles: 1)
the translation should give a complete transcript of the ideas of the original work;
2)
the style and manner of writing should be of the same character with that of the original;
3)
the translation should have all the ease of the original composition.
Tytler?s first principle refers to the translator having a
perfect knowledge of the original, being competent in the subject and giving a faithful translation of the sense and meaning of the author. His second principle deals with the style of the author and involves the translator both identifying the true character of this style and having the ability and correct taste to recreate it in the TL. The third principle talks of having all the ease of composition of the ST. Tytler regards this as the most difficult task and likens it to an artist producing a copy of a painting. He himself recognizes that the first 2 principles represent the 2 widely different opinions about translation. They can be seen as the poles of faithfulness of content and faithfulness of form, or even reformulations of the sense-for-sense and word-for-word diad of Cicero and St. Jerome. (Munday, 2001: 26-7) 3. Romanticism in translation Studies
While the 17th century had been about imitation and the 18 the century about the translator?s duty to recreate the spirit of the ST for the reader of the time, the Romanticism of the early 19th century discussed the issues of translatability and untranslatability. (Munday, 2001: 27). At the beginning of the 19th century, a second, more philosophical and less empirical, tradition began to open within translation studies. This tradition is connected, on the one hand, with the rise of philology as a university discipline, and on the other hand,
with the literary movement of Romanticism. It exalts the translator “as a creative genius in his own right, in touch with the genius of his original and enriching the literature and the language into which he is translating.”（Bassnett-McGuire, 1980:65）
Novalis provides a significant twist to Dryden?s triadic division when he speaks of grammatical translation (“translations in the ordinary sense of the word”), transformative translations (“authentic body forth the sublimest poetic spirit), and mythic translations (“translations in the noblest style”, which “reveal the pure and perfect character of the individual work of art”) (Robinson, 1997:213)
Similarly, Schlegel writes that, in translating Homer, it is necessary “to get away from the notion of literal precision so commonly associated with fidelity”, because “truth must be the translator?s highest, indeed virtually his only, mandate. ” (ibid.: 217) And Goethe comments on Wieland?s translation of Shakespeare: “I honor meter and rhyme, for that is what makes poetry, but the part that is really, deeply, and basically effective, the part that is truly formative and beneficial, is the part of the poet that remains when he is translated into prose. This residue is the pure, complete substance, which a dazzling external form can simulate, when it is lacking, or conceal, when it is present.” (ibid. : 222)
These statements seem to be reworking of the classical Latin theories of rhetorical freedom. In fact, they represent a major challenge to them because the re-working they seek privileges the reproduction of the foreignness of the ST and not its domestication. The fullest expression of the strategy may be found in Freidrich Schleiermacher?s “On Different Methods of Translating” (1813), which is described as “the major document of romantic translation theory, and one of the major documents of Western translation theory in general” (ibid.:225)
Friedrich Schleiermacher is recognized as the founder of modern Protestant theology and of modern hermeneutics (诠释学). He begins with a reflection on generalized translation: there is translation everywhere where we have to interpret a discourse, whether it be a foreigner speaking to us in a language which is not our own, a peasant calling out to us in a dialect, an unknown person speaking words we can barely understand, or whether we examine words we uttered previously. In all these cases, we are lead to an act of translation—and the most difficult one is not necessarily the one concerning a foreign language. Schleiermacher distinguishes this generalized translation from restricted translation, i.e. translation between languages. Nevertheless, not every act of translation between languages is necessarily translation. A second distinction