The cultur'd foreground, that the sight might trace Thus sooth'd they every care, with musick, thus, Warmest inspir'd them: then lascivious sport Taught round their heads, their shoulders, taught to twine And beat, with sturdy foot, maternal earth; Told all was new, and wond'rous much esteem'd. This is highly picturesque, and leaves no mean impression of Mr. Good's talents of a certain kind. Indeed, the delincation of the scenery is remarkably true to the original; and in no instance has the imagination of the translator, or an impotent effort to heighten the beauties, which he appears to have aspired only to reach, led him to forget the limits within which, from the very nature of his task, he should be confined. It will be observed that, notwithstanding the liberal extracts taken from Mr. Good's translation, none of the examples are drawn from the abstruse parts of Lucretius; nothing is offered to show the translator's success or failure in exhibiting the deluded reasoning of the atomist, the presumptuous defence of idleness in the gods, and the profane sophistry of a believer in a self-created, self-growing, animal and material world. Fidelity, the first virtue in the character of a translator, is conspicuous through the whole version in an uncommon degree. But the philosophical parts are sometimes tarnished by an affected phraseology, and diluted with a superfluity of epithets. A few of these, such as dulcet and frolick among others, appear to be particular favourites with the author. Thus we have dulcet precepts, dulcet drops, dulcet doctrines, dulcet kiss, dulcet apples, and dulcet a great many other things. "Spring opes her frolick eye," is an instance in the first passage here selected, where the epithet is wholly unprovoked; and others might be added, in which it is no less ill applied. Mr. Good's preference for blank verse may pass without censure; but it is not obviously well founded. We have learned by experience, that even the majesty of the ancient epick can be more than tolerated in English rhyme; and one of our modern English poets, though under the restraint of rhyme, has so tricked out his philosophy in the garb of the muses, as to gain many admirers. But from whatever cause it happens, it is too true, that the Lucretius of Good, no less than the Homer of the immortal Cowper, moves heavily, and leaves us much to wish. But it is far from the truth that literature has gained no valuable accession by this new version of Lucretius. Mr. Good has many qualities for the task that he undertook, and, if a sufficient degree of vivacity could be infused into his Lucretius, we might rest satisfied with it, as long as the English language shall retain its present character. I cannot close my remarks upon this author, without making a few observations upon his "notes philological and explanatory." Here his learning is displayed in all its glory; and parallel passages or imitations are found in all languages. Sometimes the imitations are real; and we are forced to acknowledge that many of the sons of Apollo, notwithstanding their inspiration, have, like Mercury, pilfered with wonder * Darwin. ful adroitness the ornaments and badges of kindred spirits. Sometimes again a common thought, with which every body must have been conversant who has a spark of sentiment, is obliged to travel to Palestine, to Persia, to Italy, to England, and indeed all over the globe; yet after all it remains nothing more than common, varying a little in its dress in different parts of the world. At times Mr. Good becomes a most expert and persevering etymologist; one of that class of "Learn'd philologists, who chase A panting syllable through time and space, Start it at home, and hunt it in the dark, To Gaul, to Greece, and into Noah's ark." It would be difficult to name any species of learning that is left without something in the way of dissertation in these notes. The author seems to have collected his observations and authorities from a large extent of reading and study in a great variety of languages, and then to have been left in " a mighty maze, and quite without a plan." All the notes from which I should wish to select a speci men to do the author justice, are too long to subjoin in this place. The following sketch of one, not the longest or most curious, is sufficient for my purpose. In the account of the plague at Athens, these words are part of the description of the disease: Pellis super ossibus una— o'er the bones skin only, nought but skin. This reminds Mr. G. of a passage in the Odyssey, and this again (so powerful are his associations) of a more spirited description in Juvenal; but he conjectures both Lucretius and Juvenal might have had their eye directed to Plautus; and all these passages are severally quoted. The same thing he finds in the Hebrew poets. Then comes a passage from Job xix. 20. in fair Hebrew type, with the translation, My bone cleaveth to my skin, &c. Now he turns critick and commentator, and finding that one of the words in the passage divides the learned, he assaults Schultens and Reiske, and brings his own Arabick learning in support of his cause. He next adduces from David and Jeremiah, imitations of Job, and gives the passage from Jeremiah elegantly rendered into Spanish, by Count Bernadino de Rebbolledo." So much for the pellis super ossibus una of Lucretius; for a poor emaciated subject, sinking under discase. (Continued from page 236.) 4. MUCH has been said, by some writers, on the impropriety of teaching the ancient languages by book, when the modern tongues are most easily acquired, without the help of grammars or dictionaries, by speaking only. Hence it has been proposed, that children (to whom the study of grammar is conceived to be a grievous hardship) should learn Latin by being obliged to speak it; for that, however barbarous their style may be at first, it will gradually improve `; till at length, though with little knowledge of rules, merely by the force of habit, they attain to such a command of that tongue, as an Englishman may of the French, by residing a few years at Paris. Upon this principle, some projectors have thought of establishing a Latin city, whither children should be sent to learn the language; Montaigne's father made Latin the common dialect of his household;* and many philosophers and tea Essais de Montaigne, liv. 2. chap. 17.-On the subject of obliging children to speak Latin before they have acquired a taste in it, I beg leave to quote the following passage from an author, whose judgment in these matters must be allowed to be of the very highest authority. "With this way of good understanding the matter, plain construing, diligent parsing, daily translating, cheerful admonishing, and heedful amending of faults, never leaving behind just praise for well doing, I would have the scholar brought up withal, till he had read and translated over the first book of (Cicero's) Epistles chosen out by Sturmius, with a good piece of a comedy of Terence also. All this while, by mine advice, the child shall use to speak no Latin. For, as Cicero saith in like matter, with like words, Loquendo, male loqui discunt. And that excellent learned man, G. Budeus, in his Greek commentaries, sore complaineth, that when he began to learn the Latin tongue, use of speaking Latin at the table, and elsewhere, unadvisedly, did bring him to such an evil choice of words, to such a crooked framing of sentences, that no one thing did hurt or hinder him more all the days of his life afterward, both for readiness in speaking, and also good judgment in writing. In very deed, if children were brought up in such a house, or such a school, where the Latin tongue were properly and perfectly spoken, as Tiberius and Caius Gracchii were brought up in their mother Cornelia's house; surely then the daily use of speaking were the best and readiest way to learn the Latin tongue. But now, commonly in the best schools in England, for words, right choice is smally regarded, true propriety wholly neglected, confusion is brought in, barbarousness is bred up so in young wits, as afterwards they be not only marred for speaking, but also corrupted in judgment, as with much ado, or never at all, they be brought chers have laid it down as a rule, that in the grammar-school nothing but Latin or Greek should ever be spoken. All this, or at least part of it, is very well, if we suppose. the sole design of teaching these languages to be, that children may speak and write them as easily and incorrectly, as persons unacquainted with grammar, and with the rules and models of good composition, do commonly speak and write their mother tongue. But such a talent, though on some rare occasions in life it might be useful, would not be attended with those certain and more immediate advantages, that one has reason to expect from a regular course of classical study.For, first, one use of classick learning is, to fill up the leisure hours of life with liberal amusement. Now those readers alone can be adequately charmed with beauty of language, who have attended to the rules of good writing, and even to the niceties of grammar. For the mere knowledge of words gives but little pleasure; and they who have gone no deeper in language cannot even conceive the delight wherewith a man of learning peruses an elegant performance. Secondly, I apprehend, that, in this way of conversation, unless you add to it the study of grammar, and of the best authors, the practice of many years will not make you a competent master in the language. One must always be something of a grammarian to be able thoroughly to understand any well written book; but before one can enter into the delicacies of expression that are to be met with in every page of a good Latin or Greek author, one must be an accurate grammarian; the complicated inflections and syntax of these elegant tongues giving rise to innumerable subtleties of connection, and mito the right frame again. Yet all men covet to have their children speak Latin, and so do I very earnestly too. We both have one purpose, we agree in desire, we wish one end; but we differ somewhat in order and way that leadeth rightly to that end. Other would have them speak at all adventures: and so they be speaking, to speak, the master careth not, the scholar knoweth not, what. This is to seem, and not to be; except it be to be bold without shame, rash without skill, full of words without wit. I wish to have them speak so, as it may well appear, that the brain doth govern the tongue, and that reason leadeth forth the talk. Good understanding must first be bred in the children ; which being nourished with skill, and use of writing, is the only way to bring them to judgment and readiness in speaking." Ascham's Scholemaster, book 1. See also Cicero de Orat. lib. 1. sect. 150. edit. Proust. |