Greek epigram. At first sight, it seems as if nothing could be easier; the elegiac measure, by far the most common in the Anthology, is as natural to one language as to the other; and the two, however much they may differ in other respects, are tolerably on a par with regard to closeness and compression, the peculiar advantages and disadvantages of each being pretty nearly compensated. But a little experience will show, that the Latin elegiac is unlike the Greek in structure-much in the same way that Pope's couplets are unlike Dryden's. The Ovidian measure is more artificial, a more complete piece of mechanism, with a regular rise and fall, a systematic antithesis of sense and sound. Thus it has not the freedom and variety of its predecessor, having voluntarily surrendered them in order to produce an effect which was supposed to be more pleasing. Consequently, it does not often happen that any metrical excellence in the one can be exactly represented in the other; we are driven back on the principle of analogy, and forced to content ourselves with requiring that each shall be good of its kind, occupying the same relative position with respect to its own language-an intelligible ground indeed, and one which those who have studied the subject of translation will be prepared to acquiesce in, but not quite all that the prima facie resemblance of the two measures led us to expect. Further, the dissimilarity in structure not unfrequently leads, as we shall see, to a real difference in compass; Latin may in itself be as compressible as Greek, but the law of the Latin elegiac will not allow the sense to extend beyond the couplet, as a general rule; so that what a Greek would say in three lines, a Roman must put into four. These remarks premised, we turn at once to our specimens. The two first are singled out for especial praise. FROM CRINAGORAS.-Εἴαρος ἤνθει μέν, κ. τ. λ. 'Vere rosæ quondam solitæ florere, rubentes Natalis tua lux nobis lætissima venit Scilicet et prope nunc ipse Hymenæus adest. 'Huc age quæ poto canis ebria rore, Cicada, Sic ab amore vacans somnum resupinus inibo, Dum platani nimium distinet umbra jubar.'-P. 152. Successful as both these versions are, the first of them supplies an instance of the dissimilarity which we have just been pointing out, though not so as to interfere with the general fidelity of the copy. The two concluding lines are exactly what a Latin elegiac couplet should be; indeed, the propriety of the antithesis is too obvious to need remark. Turning to the Greek, we find the same thought expressed, but without any attempt at a verbal balance. Καλλίστης ὀφθῆναι ἐπὶ κροτάφοισι γυναικὸς The next instance which we give, is one in which the disparity amounts to a serious evil, compelling the translator to expand six lines into eight. The failure is the more provoking, as the original happens to be eminently beautiful. FROM CALLIMACHUS.—Εἶπέ τις, Ηράκλειτε, τεὸν μόρον, κ. τ. λ. Jampridem tamen, hospitii mihi fœdere quondam We do not see how this could have been otherwise broken up; yet the weakness occasioned by the change is at once apparent. It was necessary to make two lines out of the Greek, Εἶπέ τις, Ηράκλειτε, τεὸν μόρον, ἐς δέ με δάκρυ ἤγαγεν, and the result is, that instead of the touching simplicity of the second clause, we have a whole pentameter, which might have been taken bodily from the Gradus. In the fourth line, 'gratâ fatus uterque vice,' is better and more scholarlike in itself, but it is a mere fill-up,-the only excuse being the word ȧupóтepoi in the Greek. The next couplet is worse than ever; six words are taken to express ξείν Αλικαρνησεν, an address the naturalness of which is utterly ruined by periphrasis. While, however, we admit the epigram to be impracticable, we feel that something of the failure is owing to the translator, who here, as elsewhere, has shown that fluency and superior skill do not always go together. In the last distich there was no peculiar difficulty to contend with; he had only to give two lines of Latin for two of Greek; and the result is a couplet which is wholly destitute of the plaintive melody of the original, at the same time that it has no charm of its own. The following example we would instance in illustration of our complaint of the sin of mediocrity : FROM EUENUS.—'Ατθὶ κόρα μελίθρεπτε, κ. τ. λ. Garrula multiloquam, volucris super arva volantem, Non cito dimittes? nec fas tibi ferre nec æquum est: The only part of this which can be called successful, is the concluding couplet; and the reason is, that the original there is tolerably easy to render. The real gist of the epigram is in the two middle lines, as our readers will see by referring to the Greek. τὸν λάλον ὁ λαλόεσσα, τὸν εὔπτερον ὁ πτερόεσσα, Here, of course, it is the exact expression of the fourfold parallel, aided by a double homoioteleuton, which constitutes the art of the couplet; and the business of the translator was neither more nor less than to reproduce this. It will be urged, the task was exceedingly difficult. We have no objection to going further, and conceding that it was impossible. But what then? The right thing surely was not to attempt it. Nothing whatever is gained by such a trial of skill as is exhibited in the lines we quote. We take up a collection like Dr. Wellesley's, expecting to find something felicitous, and not merely a respectable failure, such as any competent scholar might realize after a few moments' thought. The best composer will sometimes find himself writing indifferent verses; but he will not be so likely to find himself publishing them. We make no pretence to having examined these versions grammatically; one piece of incorrect Latinity has, however, struck us en passant. 'Heus! piger iste, modo in somnis sibi currere visus, Non iterum, ne iterum curreret, it cubitum.'- P. 382. If the difficulties of translating Greek epigrams into Latin are greater than they appear, those of turning them into English are great both in appearance and in reality. There is not even the advantage of a seeming correspondence of form. In other cases, the resources of English versification may be sufficient to compensate for this cardinal defect; but hardly where the thing to be translated is an epigram. The body ought there to be rendered scrupulously as well as the soul. Thus, an English writer will generally have to ask himself, whether he is to sacrifice compression to ease, or ease to com pression. Six lines of Greek can hardly be got, with any grace, into six of English; and eight of the latter, as we have seen in the case of Latin, will not have the same effect. Occasionally an attempt is made to evade the dilemma, by introducing a longer metre-that of fourteen syllables for example-but not with any very fortunate result. The following lines are good in themselves, but too stiff for an epigram: FROM POSIDIPPUS.—Λύσιππε πλάστα, κ. τ. λ. 'Lysippus, Sicyon's genius, master bold, The bronze looks very fire, thus cast by thee In Alexander's form. Persians, behold, Your flight was blameless: herds the lion flee.'-P. 128. In the next version so little room is allowed, that it is hardly possible to tell from the mere language, whether the tone is meant to be serious or comic. The style is almost that of Beppo or Don Juan. UNCERTAIN. Αἱ αἱ τοῦτο κάκιστον, κ.τ.λ. 'Alas! alas! the worst bereavement is A bridegroom, or a bride! but oh! the two- (words which, we may remark in passing, have a very different effect from the Εὔπολιν ὡς ἀγαθήν τε Λυκαίνιον of the Greek, of which they are, nevertheless, a verbal rendering,) 'Whom the first night the chamber falling slew No woe like that! Nicis, a son 'twas thus You wept, and you a daughter, Eudicus!'-P. 158. We now come to cite instances of the opposite fault—want of compression. It is, however, not our wish to be always faultfinding; so we will purposely fix on cases where a plea of justification can be set up. Diffuseness, we said just now, is fatal to an epigram, as one of these very epigrams teaches us. Πάγκαλόν ἐστ ̓ ἐπίγραμμα τὸ δίστιχον· ἦν δὲ παρέλθῃς But this only applies to the epigram proper, the epigram in its restricted English sense. In the larger acceptation in which it must be understood in order to take in all the contents of this volume, that pointed out by its etymology 'a composition on a subject,' an epigram can exist without this sharp work. 'Rhapsodizing' is not, under such circumstances, an unpardonable offence. On the contrary, the principle of analogy seems rather to require that the English translator should break up the elegiac into lyrical stanzas, as being likely more fully to realize the poetical effect. Here are two pleasing English poems, which we are willing to accept in exchange for the eight 'Sweet, all-seducing, conquering Vine, 'So shall the wild, the jovial bard, Who quaff'd thy wine-cups foaming free, The chords attuned to love and thee, • Contented in his narrow grave, Beneath thy grateful shadow rest : 'And let the soft and mellow dews The old man's dream of joy prolong, UNCERTAIN.—Οἷος ἔης φεύγων, κ.τ.λ. ''Tis Lades, as with foot of wind When o'er the course he flew, 'In Myron's bronze again he lives, For Pisa's chaplet pants and strives, Of hope each quivering muscle tells: 'Its stand no more the metal keeps, Art, thou hast won the race! '—P. 449. There are, however, cases where such an apology, sufficient as we think it, is not required-cases where the compass of the original is preserved, without any loss of ease or facility. Two of these we subjoin, as good models of this kind of translation :-~ |
