one fort of harmony in the Latin and Greek fentences, which we can be fenfible of to a certain degree; this is that which results from the proportion between the members of one fingle fentence, and between the number of fyllables, of which each member is composed; to this I think is reducible almoft the only pleasure which we feel from the fentences of Cicero, a pleasure which does not feem altogether chimerical, efpecially when we compare the periods of that orator with thofe of others; for example, to the concife and abrupt ftile of Tacitus, and of Seneca. To this principal fource of real, or fuppofed pleasure, which the harmony of the Latin language procures us, we may add a fecond, though in truth a much more flight and imper fect one. This is the difference of long and short fyllables, which is much more fenfible in that language than in ours, or perhaps in any of the modern languages, which, however, are not quite deftitute of profody. It must be confeffed, that, in pronouncing Latin, we often maim these long and fhort fyllables, we fome times however mark the quantity, and even oftener than in our own language, though it too has its long and fhort fyllables; but they are indeed lefs frequent. For, among the ancients, every particular fyllable was decidedly long or thort; with us, the greater number are neither fhort nor long. This determined quantity must make us fenfible of a greater variety in the harmony of the Latin language, than in that of ours, and likewife of more pleafure, all other things being fuppofed equal. An air compofed all of crotchets, or all of quavers, would certainly be more monotonous, and confequently lefs agreeable than if, in the fame air, without any other alteration, the crotchets and quavers were intermixed with judgment and tafle, from which a mote animated and more varied measure would result. On these principles, or rather on the facts we have just established, it is eafy to explain why the French, the English, the Italians, the Ger. mans, and others, are fenfible of a certain degree of harmony in the Latin language, and in Latin poetry; but it must be allowed, at the fame time, and for the fame reafons, that the pleafure which this harmony procures is very imperfect, greatly mutilated, if one may ufe the expreffion, and much inferior to the pleafure which the Romans must have enjoyed, in reading their orators and poets. We may add, that even this pleafure is not enjoyed in the fame manner by the different nations of modern times; that one verse of Virgil will appear more harmonious to a Frenchman, another more harmonious to a German, and fo on; but that on the whole, thefe nations will experience the fame degree of pleafure from the harmony of a page of Cicero or of Virgil. They are muficians who all equally corrupt the fame air, but who corrupt it in a different way, tho' at the fame time, they preferve nearly the fame proportions in the value of the notes. Hence they experience, nearly in an equal and fimilar degree, the pleafure which arifes from the meafure, a pleafure which is afterwards differently modified by the proportion of the notes in each particular meafure, and by the different way in which thefe notes effect them. But how great is the difference between this maimed pleasure, if I may fo fpeak, and that which the fame air would excite, if it were fung in the taite and tile that belong to it, and efpecially if executed by the compofer himself, and before an audience well verfed in the mufical art. The fame thing would happen to it that happens to Italian mufic, when fung fung by foreigners, or by Italians. Thefe think, and with juitice, that foreigners murder their mufic. A Frenchman, or Englithiman, finging their mufic before them, fet their teeth on edge; but thefe foreigners, nevertheless, while they murder the Italian mulic, have a certain degree of pleasure in it, and are even able to communicate a good deal to their countrymen, who are not deftitute either of ear or tafte. It is the fame body for both, appearing animated to the one, and half dead to the other, bat ftill preferving, in the opinion of thefe laft, the ftriking features of beauty and proportion. offend the greater part of our mo dern fcholars; I have known, however, fome who were ingenious enough to confefs themfelves unable to discover the difference. If we were all equally fo, with re gard to the harmony of the dead languages, we would make the fame confeffion that a Frenchman and an Ita-” lian, both of them men of genius, of tafte, and of fincerity, mutually made to each other, when converting on the harmony of their refpective tongues. The Frenchman owned to the other, that he never could perceive the harmony of Italian po etry, though he had read a great deal of it, and thought himself pretty much matter of the language. "I muft accufe myfelf, faid the Italian, of a fimilar incapacity with regard to French poetry; I think I understand your language tolerably well; I have read many of your poets; and yet the veries of Chapelain, of Brebeuf, of Racine, of Rouffeau, and of Voltaire, feem the fame to my ear; they have no other effect on it, than that of prose rhyme.” This is all that I think can, with reafon or truth, be maintained, with regard to the pleafure we experience from the harmony of the dead languages. But are we well enough acquainted with it to diffinguish thofe thades, I do not mean the trong hades, but thofe that are more or lefs broken, which mark a difference between the harmony of one author, and that of another? I know that there are authors, in whofe works we perceive fuch a difference of har-in mony, to a certain degree. Virgil, for instance, seems to us more har monious than Horace in his epiftless because the choice and connection of the words have more foftnefs, melody, and fullness in the former, than in the latter; but the difference vanishes almost entirely, in my opinion, when we compare the harmony of two authors who have written nearly in the fame manner, fuch as Virgil and Lucan. I fpeak here only of the harmony, I am not talking of the tafte which diftinguishes thofe authors, which, proceeding from the energy of the mind alone, may be more easily appretiated than the sentiment which refults from the cadence of their lines. I very much doubt, if we can perceive the flades that difcriminate the harmony of each. Such a doubt will probably This confeffion brings to my remembrance another pretty fimilar, which I have often heard made by a foreigner, a man of genius, who had been long fettled in France; he feveral times owned to me, that he was unable to apprehend the merit of Fontaine. I could easily believe him, but how can I, after that, credit the fincerity of a Frenchman, who pretends to be in an extacy at the reading of Anacreon. Don't let me be accufed, however, on this account, of an intention to detract from the me rits of that poet; I have no doubt, that the Greeks actually thought him a charming author, but I have far lefs any doubt that a great part of his merit is loft to us, because that merit furely confifted, almost entirely, on the happy ufe he made of his language, the delicacies of which cannot eannot now be perceived by modern ears. Do the greater part of foreign ers who understand the French, feel all the merit of our fongs? It appears to me, that many of the difputes, with regard to the merit of the ancients, may in this manner be fettled. They are certainly our models in many things; they have beau ties which we can perfectly enjoy.; but they had many which now efcape us, which their contemporaries could fufficiently judge of, and which cur modern fcholars cry up, they know not why. The philofopher and man of tafte, will often smile at these enthufiafts, without leffening his re fpect for the object of their admiration; either an account of the beau, ties which he actually perceives in it, or of those he supposes to have been in it, from the unanimous testimony of contemporary judges. I Obfervations on the Art of Tranflation. From the fame. AM not here about to lay down rules this I leave to our writers who have fuccefsfully employed themselves in the art of tranflation, who are beft entitled to do fo; but they have done better, they have given us-examples. Let us ftudy the art in their works, and not in disputed dogmas; for what precepts are preferable to the study of good, models? This always diffufes light, while thefe often darken the subject; in all kinds of literature, reafon has laid down a certain number of rules whichcaprice has extended; pedantry, has clogged these with fetters, which prejudice refpects, and which merit dares not shake off. On whatever fide we view the fine arts, we fee mediocrity dictating laws, and genius fubmitting to them, like a monarch imprisoned by flaves. However, if it ought not to allow itself to be subdued, neither ought it to have unlimited freedom. This rule, fo neceffary to the progrefs of literature, should, I think, be extended not only to original works, but to works of imitation, fuch as tranflations. Let me here endeavour to avoid the two extremes, severity on the one hand, and indulgence on the other, both of them equally dangerous. I fhall frit examine the laws of tranflation as they refpect the genius of authors, and then as they relate to the prin ciples which may be laid down in this kind of writing. It is generally believed, that the art of tranflating would be most eafy, were languages exactly formed on one another; but Limagine in this cafe, we would have many indiffer-ent tranflator, and few good ones. The firit would content themfelves with a verfion fervilely literal, and would never attempt any thing farther; the others would with, befides, for harmony and smoothness of flyle,. two qualities which good writers havs: never neglected, and which, even form the character of fome. Thus, the tranflator would have occafiou for an extreme acuteness, in order to diftinguish in what cafes the exact perfection of refemblance ought to yield to the graces of diction, without being too much enfeebled. One of the great difficulties in the art of writing, and particularly of trawila ting, is to know how far energy is to be facrificed to dignity, correctness to elegance, and propriety to the mechanifm of file. Reafon is a fevere cenfor, which must be feared, and the ear is a faftidious judge, which must be humoured. We must not, therefore, allow ourselves to translate literally, even in places where the geni us of the language feems to permit it, when the tranflation becomes by that means dry, harih, and unharmo nious. But however this may be, the difference in the genius of languages, not always allowing literal verfions, delivers the tranflator from that difficulty we have juft mentioned, from the neceffity in which he would fometimes find himself, of facrificing elegance to precifion, or precifion to elegance. But the impoffibility of rendering his author word for word, leaves him a dangerous liberty; not being able to give the portrait a perfect resemblance, he ought to be on his guard to give it all it is capable of. Befides, if the nicer beauties of our own language require fo much ftudy in order to be well known, how much more will it require to attain those of a foreign language: and what is a tranflator without this twofold knowledge? There are fome whom we might fuppofe to be lefs constrained on this head than the reft, I mean the tranflators of the ancients; if the peculiar beauties of the originals efcape them, they likewife efcape their judges; and yet, by a ftrange prejudice, thefe tranflators are more feverely handled than any others. A fuperftitious reverence for antiquity makes us imagine, that the ancients always expreffed themfelves in the happieft manner; our ignorance turns every thing to the advantage of the original, and to the difadvantage of the copy. The tranflator always appears to us, not below the idea which the original itfelf affumes, but below that which we have of it; and to make the contradiction compleat, we admire, at the fame time, that crowd of modern latinifts, the greater part of whom, infipid in their own language, impofe upon us in a tongue which is dead; fo true it is, that in languages as in authors, the dead engrofs all our praise. But it will be faid, is it really true that there is a different genius in languages? I am not ignorant that fome modern literati, who picque themfelves on a philofophical turn, have fupported the contrary opinion; and this abfurd opinion has, according to custom, been very unjustly at tributed to a fpirit of philofophifing. In the hands of a man of genius, every language will conform itself to every tile; it will, according to the fubject and the writer, be grave or gay; fimple or fublime; in this fenfe languages have no particular diftinguithing character; but if all are equally proper for every fort of compofition, they are not equally fit to exprefs the fame idea, and in this the diverfity of their genius confifts. Languages, in confequence of this diversity, ought to poffels reciprocal advantages: but thefe advantages will be confiderable in proportion to their variety, brevity, conftruction, freedom, and copioufnefs. This last property does not confift in being able to exprefs a fingle idea, by an unmeaning abundance of fynonimous terms, but the different ways of reprefenting the fame idea by different terms. Of all the languages cultivated by men of letters, the Italian is the molt varied, the most pliant, the most fufceptible of the different forms which it is neceffary, at times, to make it affume; accordingly it is not lefs rich in good tranflations, than in excellent vocal, mufic, which is itself a kind of tranflation. The French language, on the contrary, is the most unaccommodating, the most uniform in its conftruction, and the most constrained in its walk. Is it surprising then, that it should be the touchstone of tranflators, as it is of poets? And fhould not its difficulties ferve to make us value our good authors the more? If languages have each their dif ferent ferent genius, fo have authors. The character of the original should therefore be conveyed into the copy. This is a most indifpenfable rule, but it is the leaft of all practifed, and even readers feem not to be very folicitous about it. How many tranflations, like beauties, with regular features, but without foul or meaning in their face, reprefent, in the fame ftyle, the most diffimilar originals? This is the worst fault of a tranflation; every other is trifling, and may be corrected, but this is lafting and irremediable. Spots which may be wiped away don't deferve the name; it is not faults, but frigid infipidity that deftroys a performance of this kind; it is generally more faulty by the things it wants, than by thofe which the author has filled it with. It is fo much the more difficult to keep up the spirit of an original in a tranflation, as it is often eafy to mif take its peculiar features, and to fee them only on one fide. A writer, for inftance, may poffefs a ftyle with a twofold character, concifenefs and animation, but if the ftyle of the tranflator is concife without being animated, he fails in the most valuable part of the resemblance. But how is a perfon to acquire a character which he is not endowed with by nature? The works of men of genius, therefore, ought only to be tranflated by men like themselves; men who, though capable of rivalling them, are content to be their imitators. It may be faid that an indifferent painter fometimes makes excellent copies true, but in this he has only to imitate closely, and fervilely, while the tranflator copies with colours which are entirely his own. The peculiar character of authors lies either in the thought, or in the ftile, or in both. The authors whofe character lies in the thought, are thofe who lofe leaft by paffing into a foreign language. Corneille will therefore be more eafily tranflated than Racine; VOL. XI. No. 61. E and, what may perhaps be thought a paradox, Tacitus than Salluft. Salluft expresses himself fully, but in few words; a merit which it is difficult to preferve in a tranflation: Tacitus leaves much to be fupplied, and makes his reader think, a merit which cannot be loft in a translation. Writers who join delicacy of ideas to smoothness of stile, afford more refources to a tranflator than those whofe beauties lie in the style alone: in the firft cafe, he may be able to make the thought pafs into the copy, and confequently one half of the author's mind; in the fecond cafe, if he does not give the diction, he gives nothing. In this laft clafs of authors, who are the most uncomplying of all to a tranflator, the least so are those whofe principal quality is the elegant ufe of their own language: the most untractable are those who have a way of writing peculiar to themselves. The Englifh have tranflated tolerably well fome tragedies of Racine, but I doubt if they could tranflate with the fame fuccefs the works of Fontaine, or, the moft original work that has ever been tranflated into the French language, I mean the Aminta, a paftoral full of thofe little expreffions of gallantry, thofe agreeable nothings which the Italian language fo eafily conveys, and which we must allow it entirely to engrofs; and lastly, the letters of Madame de Sevigne, fo frivolous in fubftance, but fo captivating even by the very negligence of the ftile; fome foreigners have treated thefe with contempt, because they found themfelves unable to tranflate them: indeed, nothing fo eafily gets rid of difficulties as contempt. If therefore we were to estimate the merit of a performance by the difficulty of its exeeution, we would own that there was lefs merit in original compofitions than in good translations. In men of genius, ideas arife without effort, and the proper expreflions |