liable to confuse his readers, as though he had two nominatives in his sentence, or as if the subject were violently changed. Milton, indeed, makes bold to use an accusative absolute :: "At least our envious foe hath failed, who thought He trusted to have seized, and into fraud Drew many, whom their place knows here no more." PAR. LOST, B. vii. 140. But even Milton could make the difference felt only in the case of a pronoun; for in nouns we have no distinction of nominative and accusative. Every judicious master furnishes his pupils with short rules to guide them in the ordinary conversions required in translation; as that the Latin participle should, in many instances, be resolved into a conjunction and a finite verb; the relative pronoun into a conjunction with a demonstrative, and so forth. But we think that when young pupils have construed and parsed their lesson, the master would do well to dictate or read aloud to his class a good translation. The importance of translation from Greek and Latin authors may be inferred from the fact that most of the modern European languages were polished and improved by exercises of this kind. Upon the revival of learning in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, the greatest diligence was used in translating from the ancient models, as the earliest printed books testify; and the influence thus exerted upon the vernacular tongues is fully admitted by literary critics. But apart from this argument, we know that, well or ill, Latin and Greek are taught in the schools; and that Latin, at least, will continue to be taught. We have no choice in the matter. Our object, therefore, should be to derive the greatest possible benefit from the prescribed course of study, and not to forget the chief end. The first thing to learn is grammar; and the second is composition: first the science, and then the art Whether English or Latin composition be the more important, is a question upon which the common sense of the age must decide. Granting that, for grammatical purposes, a passage may be rendered in the manner of what we have called version A, we have still to discuss the merits of a good translation. Some practical observations, on this subject, were made by John Dryden in his prefaces to Ovid's "Epistles," and to the second part of the "Poetical Miscellanies ;" and although he speaks more particularly of poetical translation, his general remarks are well worthy of attention. In common, however, with many other persons, he quotes a passage of Horace as conveying a caution against too literal an interpretation— "Nec verbum verbo curabis reddere fidus "Nor word for word too faithfully translate." The frequency with which this passage has been cited will excuse us for stopping to premise that here a wrong application is given to the words of Horace. The context is "Publica materies privati juris erit, si Non circa vilem patulumque moraberis orbem: Interpres." Now, Bentley well remarks that Horace is not giving rules for translation, but warning a dramatic writer that he should not be a mere translator. The caution might apply in our day to the playwrights who "adapt " French dramas to the English stage. Horace would admonish those gentlemen that though a little borrowing is fair game, yet they must not plunder the French wholesale, or copy word for word. But an expression of opinion upon the best method of translating absolutely was foreign to his argument, and was the last thing in his mind at the time. Dryden takes it for granted that all translation may be reduced to these three heads: (1.) Metaphrase, or turning an author word by word, and line by line, from one language to another, as Ben Jonson translated Horace's "Art of Poetry:" (2.) Paraphrase, or translation with latitude, where the words are not so strictly followed as the sense, such as Waller's translation of Virgil's fourth Eneid : (3.) Imitation, where the translator assumes the liberty not only to vary from the words and sense, but to forsake them both, as he sees occasion; thus Cowley, in his Pindarics, asserted his liberty, and spread his wings so boldly, that he left his authors. In Dryden's opinion, verbal version and imitation are the two extremes, and he proposes a mean betwixt them, which shall be neither so loose as paraphrase, nor so close as metaphrase. No man, says he, is capable of translating poetry, who, besides a genius to that art, is not a master both of his author's language and of his own. Nor must we understand the language only of the poet, but his particular turn of thought and expression, which are the characteristics that distinguish, and, as it were, "individuate" him from all other writers. Thus, if the fancy of Ovid be luxuriant, it is his character to be so; but if we retrench it, he is no longer Ovid. The style of Virgil and Ovid are very different; yet some translators make them so much alike, that, to judge from the copies, and without reference to the original, it is difficult to tell which is Virgil and which is Ovid, although the hand which performed the work may be discerned in both cases. When a painter copies from life he has no privilege to alter features and lineaments, under pretence that his picture will look better; it is his business to make it resemble the original. Just so, a translator should try to be like his author, but not to excel him. When languages are formed upon different principles, the same modes of expression cannot always be elegant in both. While they run on together, the closest translation may be considered the best; but when they diverge, each must take its natural course. The delicacies of the English language are known to few, and it is impossible 192 Translation as an Exercise in English Composition. to understand or practise them without special study, long reading, and much reflection. We do not think it desirable to set out with any fixed theory of translation. On the contrary, we recommend the inductive process; that a student should undergo a daily course of careful translation, with the view of ultimately ascertaining what a good version ought to be. If this course be pursued, and if the end be steadily kept in view, there is no doubt that the exercise will prove one of the very best means of improvement in English composition. Nor should the student shrink from attempting poetical versions. For, although no man can write good poetry who has not the natural gift, yet the writing of verse compels nicety in the use of words, with careful attention to style. This may account for the fact, that many of our English poets have distinguished themselves as prose writers; Cowley, Dryden, Pope, and Cowper, are eminent examples. In conclusion, we have to compare the Greek and Latin languages, as affording models for imitation. It has been truly observed, that of the two, Latin is more easy in the beginning, and more difficult in the end. At first, the pupil perceives a resemblance between the Latin and the English vocabulary, but as he advances in his studies, he needs repeated caution not to be led astray by such resemblances, until at length he is sometimes scrupulously afraid of rendering a Latin word by its English derivative. The Greek, on the contrary, presents a host of entirely new words, and an additional company of dialectic varieties. These are mastered by patient labour. and in time cease to trouble the student, but, in return, he begins to discover many points of resemblance between Greek and English syntax. The article, the participles, and the infinitive mood, manifest similarities of usage in the two languages, and the Greek construction, being generally less artificial than the Latin, is much more like our own. Hence it is, that when the vocabulary and the dialects are mastered, there is comparatively little difficulty in construing Homer or Herodotus. Thucydides and Pindar are perhaps more difficult than any Latin author; but in those writers the construction is peculiarly involved, and may be considered as presenting an exceptional case. As a general rule, Greek writers are clear, with a tendency to diffuseness: whereas the Latins are brief and terse, but too often ambiguous "Brevis esse laboro, Obscurus fio." Unfortunately, however, in our school training, we begin with Latin, and afterwards enter upon Greek, although in point of simple construction, Greek is more suitable for boys, and Latin for men. We believe that an English style formed upon the model of Xenophon or Herodotus would be by far the most desirable in the case of young pupils. But we must take the schools as we find them, and since Latin is more generally taught, begun too at an earlier period of life, we propose a rule and a caution, to be observed in translation from that language. In the present age, it is impossible to lay too great stress upon compression, not merely in the retrenchment of superfluous words, but in the cultivation of a closer logic, and more severe habits of thinking. High-sounding words, without thoughts corresponding, are effort without effect. Now the Latin language is remarkable for brevity; the best Latin writers are short, pithy, and to the point. This then is the chief thing at which we ought to aim. It is impossible, no doubt, to rival the terseness of the original; but the exercise itself would induce a habit of sparing words, and retrenching every epithet which adds nothing to the meaning. The rule is, to be brief and clear. The caution applies to that artificial structure of sentences which is too commonly observable among the Latins. From the practice of throwing the verb to the end of the sentence, the Latins had a marked tendency to the periodic style; and their love of rhetoric led them to cultivate antithesis. In an oration, where it is necessary to "make points," this style is very suitable; but in a continuous narrative it soon becomes wearisome, and most frequently suggests the idea of artifice, in violation of the rule, ars est celare artem." We cannot help thinking that this style of writing should be especially avoided in history; for a historian who cherishes the antithetic manner, is tempted to sacrifice truth for the sake of making a point. In France, the cultivation of a good style is enjoined in all the schools, and, consequently, French writers, however worthless their matter may be, seldom offend very gravely in respect of diction. In England we have been culpably careless, and good matter has been held to compensate for utter absence of manner. Our system of classical instruction possesses numerous advantages, and those who have most fully enjoyed the benefit of such training are always the last to depreciate the study of the ancients. Still, we study antiquity, not alone for its own sake, but that we may apply our knowledge for the good of ourselves and others. The men who can address the greatest number with effect must exert the widest influence; and Roger Ascham tells us, "He that will write well in any tongue, must follow this counsel of Aristotle: to speak as the common people do, to think as wise men do; as so should every man understand him, and the judgment of wise men allow him." WM. RUSHTON, M.A. IX. EDUCATION AND MANNERS IN AMERICA.* DEEPLY interesting as is Mr. Anthony Trollope's recently published account of his tour through the Northern and Western States of America, it is in no respect more so than in the description which it contains of the general education of the people. In the Government of the country, and the manners of the people, this shrewd observer saw Chapman & Hall. * North America, 2 vols. By Anthony Trollope. VOL. II.-NO. VI. N many faults. The political system he found to be corrupt, and, as a consequence, the people infected with that peculiar form of dishonesty which is there called "smartness." There are some who would perhaps reverse the form of the proposition, by representing public corruption as the consequence rather than the cause of public immorality. That they act and react one upon the other is not to be denied. But there is one great redeeming power at work, with regard to which Mr. Trollope says, in an unusual burst of enthusiasm, that it alone will save the nation—that is, the diffusion of education. As a preliminary to this work of salvation, the present war is looked upon by our author as a providential blessing sent in the shape of a purifying storm. That the States will come out of this fierce ordeal, purified from the evils of corruption and of slavery, may at least be confidently expected, and then their institutions, in themselves admirable, will be allowed free play. Beginning with free schools, Mr. Trollope introduces us to one for females at New York. He is at once struck with the neatness and tidiness of the pupils, and his mind painfully reverts to the contrast presented by schools of the same class in England, where there is hardly any distinction between the ragged pauper and the costume of the charity girl. This decency of attire is only in accordance with simple independence of demeanour. The visitor in speaking to one of these girls cannot guess whether she is a child of rich or of poor parents. Good manners and good appearance are sustained by solidity of instruction, which, for females in England (the author making no comparison with Scotland), would be considered extraordinary. When a slight, slim creature was brought up to explain the properties of the hypothenuse, our visitor was glad to take shelter in the more familiar ground of Roman history. Free schools are in New York really free. Any boy or girl can, without reference to the means of parents, attend these schools without any payment; yet the education is of the best kind, under highly paid and competent tutors; nor is there any stint in the way of rooms, desks, books, charts, maps, or needful implements. Properly speaking, however, they are not charity schools; for they are supported by a distinct rate levied for their maintenance upon the community at large, including, of course, the very persons whose children attend them. But even as regards charity children, as for instance those of the deaf and dumb school, no distinctive costume is enforced; on the contrary, variety of dress is introduced in order that no child may have to exhibit the badge of dependence. Education is provided for not by any general law of the Federal Government, but by each State, which, as our readers know, manages its own internal affairs through its own State Legislature. Accordingly, the example which we take from New York is not to be regarded as ruling absolutely the system adopted in other states. But the same spirit, predominating as it does throughout the whole, shows itself in ample provision everywhere for the education of the people. If, in New York-the most commercial city of the North, as well as |