Translation was one of the main issues of Romanticism, not only because the art of translation

served to extend the horizon of literature but also because it involved several points of central
polemics on the conjunction of language and imagination. The issue surrounding translation is
deeply related to the principles of translation in the 1790's which allow a great amount of
freedom in poetical translation especially. Unlike the rigour of classical aesthetic of the
eighteenth century, when translation of Classics was the only matter of importance, the general
tendency of the 1790's was toward innovation and novelty, and consequently, the demand for
translations of contemporary European literature, especially of German literature became very
keen.

In order to discuss the definition of translation in the 1790's, we had better start with Essay on
the Principles of Translation (1791) by Alexander Fraser Tytler, Lord Woodhouselee. Tytler was
one of the influential personages at the Royal Society of Edinburgh. The Essay on the Principles
of Translation is "an admirably typical dissertation on the classic art of poetic translation, and of
literary style, as the eighteenth century understood it."

In Chapter I, Tytler begins his discussion by referring to two opposite extremes in translation. At
one one extreme, "the duty of a translator " is "to attend only to the sense and spirit of his
original, to make himself perfectly master of his author's ideas, and to communicate them in
those expressions which he judges to be best suited to convey them."

The eighteenth century critics as a whole would not admit the value of literary translation,
because it is mainly based on the tacit understanding of imitation theory, the understanding that
the language is capable of making the tightly knit correspondence between the word and object
relevant. It is rather surprising to know that at the end of 17th century, in 1697, Dryden had
already proposed the idea of free translation and that he actually practised it in his version of
Aeneis

According to Dryden, in a faithful, almost slavish copying which is equivalent to a plagiarism,

no original invention by the translator could be perceived. On the basis of his perspicuous
recognition that there could be no exact translation between two different languages, Dryden
insists, "therefore I will boldly own, that this English translation has more of Virgil's spirit in it
than either the French or the Italian."

The criterion of sincerity of translation should be set between "the two extremes of paraphrase
and literal translation"[8], but at least, Dryden asserts, the relevance of translation should be
measured by how much of the "spirit of the author" and the "beauty of his words" are transmitted
into the translated work.

John Dryden

English poet, dramatist and literary critic.

He emphasized the role of author. His principles are as follows:

1. The translator must understand the language of the author.

2. The translator must be familiar with the authors thoughts.
3. The translator must know the author’s individual characteristics.
4. The translator must look into himself to conform his own genius to that of the author’s
 5. If the thoughts in the translator’s language and those of the author’s are identical, then
rendering would occur smoothly.
6. If the thoughts in the translator’s language and those of the author’s are not identical,
then redressing is required.

Dryden reduces all translations into three categories:

Metaphrase: word by word and line by line translation which correspond to literal
translation.
Paraphrase: translation with latitude (freedom), the sense of the author’s work is carefully
observed but his words are not so strictly followed. It correspond to faithful or sense for
sense translation.
Imitation: translation in which both senses and words tends to vary. It corresponds to
Cowley’s very free translation, and it is more or less adaptation.

Campbell, for example, would admit in his Essay that translators may sometimes render
only «the most essential of the original» and only «as much as possible the author's spirit
and manner, the character of his style». This inconsistency of Campbell could be
explained by the strong dominating influence during that period of unrestricted freedom
of translation.

Much more consistent in his views, and still more persistent in his intention to discard the
harmful practice of strict word-for-word translation as well as of the unrestricted freedom
of translating belles-lettres works was Johann Gottfried Herder (1744-1803).
Herder was captivated by the beauty of the national songs of the Ukrainian people, for
whom he prophesied a brilliant cultural future. Herder himself, a successful versifier of
songs, understood the inner power of these kinds of literary works and consequently
demanded that all translators of prose and poetic works render strictly, fully and
faithfully not only the richness of content, but also the stylistic peculiarities, the artistic
beauty and the spirit of the source language works.
His resolute criticism of the unrestricted freedom of translation and verbalism found
strong support among the most outstanding German poets such as Gothe and Schiller
among other prominent authors. This new approach, or rather a new principle of truly
faithful literary translation, was born during the period of Enlightenment and developed
during early Romanticism (the last decades of the eighteenth century)
As a result, the free sense-to-sense translation/unrestricted free translation as well as free
adaptation (or regular rehash) continued to be widely employed in Europe throughout the
first half of the nineteenth century and even much later

In 1813, the German theologian and translator Friedrich Schleiermacher wrote a

highly influential treatise on translation, über die verschiedenen Methoden des Ubersetzens ('On
the different methods of translating'). Schleiermacher is recognized as the founder of modern
Protestant theology and of modern hermeneutics, a Romantic approach to interpretation based
not on absolute truth but on the individual's inner feeling and understanding.
Distinct from other translation theory we have discussed so far in this lecture, Schleiermacher
first distinguishes two different types of translator working on two different types of text; these
are:

1 the 'Dolmetscher',who translates commercial texts;

2 the 'Ubersetzer',who works on scholarly and artistic texts.

He believes that there are only two paths open for the true translator: either the translator leaves
the writer alone as much as possible and moves the reader towards the writer, or he leaves the
reader alone as much as possible and moves the writer towards the reader.

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow (1807–81) added another dimension to the question of the role of
the translator, one which restricted the translator’s function even more than Arnold’s dictum.

Longfellow’s extraordinary views on translation take the literalist position to extremes. For him,
the rhyme is mere trimming, the floral border on the hedge, and is distinct from the life or truth
of the poem itself. The translator is relegated to the position of a technician, neither poet nor
commentator, with a clearly defined but severely limited task.