REMARKS ON ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS OF THE ROMAN POETS. No. 11. PERSIUS. "Perse en ses vers obscurs, mais serrez et pressans, Or that distinguished triumvirate of Roman satirists, Horace, Persius, and Juvenal, Persius, the second in the order of succession, has commonly been considered the last in eminence. He did not live in the very best days of Rome. Instead of Augustus for a patron, he had Nero for an adversary; not a rival, for, though the Emperor wrote verses, they were quoted by Persius only to be ridiculed. Nero was a mark, at which the satirist frequently aimed; but he was shielded so effectually by ignorance and vice, and the arrows were so distant, that they either missed the object, or wounded but slightly. The satires of Persius are the productions of a youth, who died in the thirtieth year of his age, A. D. 62. He is said to have acquired a relish for satire upon reading the tenth book of Lucilius.* He was educated in the philosophy of the stoicks, and was an exemplary disciple of the founder of the sect. Suetonius, Persii ivita. Op. 4th. Delph. p. 661. Lucilius appears to have been read with avidity by the satirists, who succeeded him. Horace frequently mentions him, and mentions him generally with respect. Me pedibus delectat claudere verba Lucili ritu. Ille velut fidis arcana sodalibus olim The praise, which Horace bestows on him, is not always unmixed. He sometimes uses diminutive appellations in speaking of his verse. He was "garrulus," and wrote "versiculos euntes molliùs," &c. but, though a flowing writer, the stream was not always pure. "Flueret lutulentus," says Horace; and the same writer certainly places him in a ridiculous attitude, when he relates, that this same poet often dictated in an hour two hundred verses, standing on one foot. He speaks also of his fondness for mixing Greek words with his Latin compositions. Another peculiarity, remarked by Macrobius in his saturnalia, but which does not appear in what remains of Lucilius, is the separation of two syllables of the same word by an intervening word. Unfortunately the fragments only of this author remain, and those so broken, that we can scarcely estimate the value of the entire work. If Persius were superiour to Horace and Juvenal in learning, which has been contended, he was inferiour to both, as a poet and satirist. This seems to be conceded in effect even by Casaubon, his most able advocate and commentator ;* for, though he nowhere acknowledges, that his favourite author falls below them en masse, yet he grants, that he is often obscure, and sometimes an unhappy imitator of his predecessor, Horace. It was the object of Persius to write with sententious brevity, and in lofty numbers. Aware that wit was not his province, he aimed with grave severity to recommend virtue and integrity. This he has sometimes done almost Lucilius has been called the father of satire. Ennius and Pacuvius did indeed precede him, but Quintilian decides for us, that Lucilius was the first, who arrived at any considerable excellence in that species of composition. "In satyra primus insignem laudem adeptus est Lucilius." The rhetorician is also extremely tenacious of its Roman origin. "Satyra quidem tota nostra est." Dryden has entered into a long discussion of the origin and progress of satire, in the dedication, prefixed to the translation of Juvenal and Persius It contains also an ingenious parallel between Horace, Persius, and Juvenal; and, excepting a most gross and distorted effusion of praise, bestowed on the earl of Dorset and Middlesex, which occupies about twelve pages, the whole dedication, addressed to that nobleman, must delight the classical reader. * Dryden gives Casaubon the credit of having "understood Persius particularly well, and better, than all the former commentators, and Stelluti, who succeeded him." But, says the same writer, "the best commentators can but guess his meaning in many passages, and none can be certain, that he has divined rightly." Casaubon published a very correct text of Persius from an ancient manuscript, accompanied with a copious and critical commentary; of which Scaliger remarks,—La sauce vant mieux que le poisson. The third edition, printed in 1647, is in the library of Harvard College, and contains on a blank leaf the following in manuscript: "The satires of Persius are here collated with the finest and oldest MS. of that author, now probably extant. It is in the Bodley-Library No. 2455, joined with Boetius de Consol Philos: which at the end of it has this remarkable inscription: "Hunc codice dedit Leofricus Episc: Ecclesiae B: Petri Apostoli in Exonia, ad utilitatē successorū suorū; siquis illū illinc abstulerit, eternae subjaceat maledictioni. "FIAT, FIAT, FIAT. "Leofric was Bishop of Exeter and Cornwall about the year 1050, "W. HARTE." (Probably Walter Harte, an English poet and historian, author of the history of Gustavus Adolphus, &c.) with a spirit and wisdom, which would become a christian. He attacked with a boldness approaching temerity, the writings of the emperour and nobility; the levity exhibited in prayers and vows to the gods; and the vices of idleness and luxury and ambition and voluptuousness in the great and the wealthy. The veil of obscurity, which conceals the beauty and grandeur of Persius, can be withdrawn by no ordinary hand. The whole of him can never be exhibited. If he had taken a middle course between that strained, majestick diction, by which he is distinguished, and the "sermo pedestris" of Horace's satires, it would have deducted nothing from his excellence, and would have added many to the list of his admi rers. I know of but one attempt to render Persius literally into English poetry: Barton Holyday was the author of the undertaking. But Holyday was by no means a poet; and, if he had been, he would not have rendered his version interesting, or even intelligible; for he was ignorant of the art of translating. He laboured for verbal exactness, for compression, and for rhyme; and, in defiance of all rules of interpretation, he studied to render line for line.* "Holiday had nothing in view but to show, that he understood his author, with so little regard to the grandeur of his diction, or the volubility of his numbers, that his metres can hardly be called verses; they cannot be read without reluctance, nor will the labour always be rewarded by understanding them "t Dryden, with several coadjutors, having translated the satires of Juvenal, undertook alone the translation of Persius to be published in the same volume. Dr. Johnson has given his opinion of this version in a single paragraph; and, though *The writer hazards these remarks chiefly on the authority of Dryden, for he has not been able to obtain Holyday's translation of Juvenal and Persius. Dryden allows, that he possessed a good knowledge of Persius, and commented on many passages with ingenuity and correctness; but his version "cannot be understood without as large a commentary, as that, which he makes on his author." Holyday was humble enough to think there might be defects in his work; but the expression of it is singular. "To have committed no faults," says he, “in this translation would have been to translate myself, and put off man." Wood calls this contemptible pun "an elegant turn." † Johnson's Life of Dryden. consisting of but one sentence, he has been guilty of at least a seeming contradiction. "This work," he remarks, “though, like all other productions of Dryden, it may have shining parts, seems to have been written for wages, in an un form mediocrity, without any eager endeavour after excellence, or laborious effort of the mind." It certainly has " shining parts ;" but to assert, that "it is written in an uniform mediocrity," is neither true in itself, nor does it comport with that occasional brilliancy, which the Doctor allows the work exhibits. Were we to hazard a general opinion, we should say, that Dryden in this performance is very unequal; and, to use the language of calculation, the average quality may be that of mediocrity. Dryden has artfully interdicted criticism on the merit of his work, considered merely as a translation, if his design be always kept in view; for he professed neither to translate, nor paraphrase, nor imitate; but aimed at something "betwixt a paraphrase and imitation." What this something is, he has not explained. Those passages, which resemble, but do not give the meaning of the original, must be classed among imitations, or conjectural interpretations; for he acknowledges, that "Persius is not merely sometimes, but generally obscure." The prevailing character of Dryden's version is paraphrase; and, as far as he was confident of his author's meaning, he has commonly embraced it. How much soever Dryden has abridged the right of criticism, relative to the exactness of his version in its sentiment, by the vague manner in which he proposes his design, we enjoy the liberty of detecting any perverse departure from the elegance and grandeur of his model, and any defects in the beauty or correctness of his versification. Gravity, and even austerity of manner are distinguishing characteristicks of Persius. He has none of the levity and colloquial trifling of Horace. "Dulce est desipere in loco" was not his maxim, for he was always a stoick. But the imagination of Dryden was restless, and would not be perpetually confined. The evenness and severity of Persius were not kindred virtues. We shall now quote a few passages, in which Dryden has departed from the manner of Persius, and made the stern young Roman appear boyish and trifling. Quid faciam? Sed sum petulanti splene cachinno." Dryden. Persius. "Then, then I say, or would say, if I durst; Monitor. "Once more forbear." Persius. "I cannot rule my spleen ; My scorn rebels, and tickles me within." This translation represents justly enough the pretended hesitancy of Persius to proceed in his satire on the scribblers of the day. He asks pardon for his design, which his friend denies him. He doubts ironically whether to proceed; but as he was "cachinno petulanti splene," naturally disposed to ridicule folly and vice, he resolves to apply the lash. What we intended chiefly to remark is the ludicrous turn, which is given to the concluding words of Persius, who surely did not mean to expose himself to ridicule. “Sed sum petulanti cachinno," though it does not admit a literal translation, is made into contemptible English, by being rendered" I must speak out, or burst." But, not contented with this jesting trick, Dryden dilates these four Latin words, which he finds it difficult enough to manage, into another line, where they are metamorphosed into "scorn," who becomes a "rebel," and rebel, that "tickles within." Another instance of a similar departure from the manner of Persius we select from the third satire. "And yet thou snor'st; thou draw'st thy drunken breath, To say nothing of the harsh and grating sound of the second person singular of the verb, abbreviated, and so often introduced, we cannot but observe the needless vulgarity of the language. Stertis adhuc ? may be rendered literally dost thou yet snore? But Dryden was not fearful of an occasional periphrasis, and he might without much effort have avoided this course and offensive phraseology. With respect to the remainder of this quotation it may be remarked, that Dryden has not been much shackled by the original; and, having taken considerable liberty with the text, his commentary ought to have been more delicate and pleasing. "Thou draw'st thy |