allowed its own sentence structure and word order? In addition, in this
translation, long sentences, readily followed in an inflected language
like Latin, have been broken up into short ones. English also uses fewer
particles of logical relation than are at home in Latin. There is more
paragraphing, aiding the eye, which both British and American translators
have been doing for some years. Latin has neither a definite article nor
an indefinite article, and a translator into English must decide when to
use either or neither. The definite article, the present translator
thinks, has been overused, perhaps in a dogmatic tendency to be as
precise as can be. When, for instance, one is admitted into "truths of
faith" he is certainly not admitted into "the truths of faith," as though
he could comprehend them all. The very title of the book changes the
impression which it makes as the definite article is inserted or omitted
in it. "The divine providence" seems to single out a theological concept;
"divine providence" seems more likely to lead the thought to God's actual
care.

Swedenborg has his carefully chosen terms, of course, like "proprium,"
which are best kept, although in the present translation that term is
sometimes rendered by an explanatory word and one which, in the
particular context, is an equivalent. The verb "appropriate" presents a
difficulty, but has been kept, partly because of the noun "proprium." One
could translate rather wordily "make"--something good or evil--"one's own."
The English word now means "take exclusive possession of," which one can
hardly do of good or evil. Assimilation is the thought and the act, and
with that in mind the verb "appropriate" and the noun "appropriation" can
be retained. The unusual locution "affection of truth" or "of good,"
which Mr. Ager abandoned, translating "for truth" and "for good," has
been returned to. Much is implied in that phrase which is not to be found
in the other wording, namely, that we are affected by truth and by good,