Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

cannot render them entirely agreeable to a judicious reader of modern times, for whom the artifice is not necessary.

I read Xenophon's Memorabilia in Greek, while at school, and I was delighted with them. I read them afterwards in an English translation, and I found them in many places tedious and insipid. The translation was apparently performed with sufficient fidelity; but it did not affect or strike with any peculiar force. I have experienced effects exactly similar to this in the perusal of other books in the most celebrated translations. To what shall I attribute them? Are there such charms in the Greek language, as are able to give a value to sentiments which of themselves have no recommendation? Certainly not: But there is a conciseness, and, at the same time, a force and comprehension of expression in the Greek language besides its harmony, which, I think, the English cannot equal. On the mind of a reader, who completely understands the language of a Greek author, the ideas are impressed with more vivacity and perspicuity by the original, than by any translation into modern languages. The ancient Greek authors, it is acknowledged, paid great attention to the art of composition, to the choice and arrangement of words, and to the structure of periods; so as to communicate the idea, or raise the sentiment intended, with peculiar force and precision. Xenophon is known to have been one of the most successful cultivators of the art of composition; and it cannot be supposed, that all who have undertaken to translate his works, though they might understand the matter, could have equalled him in style and expression, for which his country and himself were remarkably celebrated. To represent him adequately they must have possessed a style in English equal to his style in Greek.

The pleasure which a reader feels in the perusal of a Greek author, has been attributed to the pride of conscious superiority, over those who are not able to unlock the treasures of which he keeps a key. This opinion has owed its origin to the poor appearance which some of the most celebrated authors of antiquity have made, when presented to the public in the dress of a modern language. The English reader has read translations of the classics, without being able to discover any excellence adequate to the univer

sal reputation of the authors. The translator, though he comprehended his author, and was faithful as to the meaning, was perhaps a poor writer, unable to communicate properly the thoughts which he conceived with a sufficient degree of accuracy. The blame unjustly fell on the original author, and on his admirers. He was supposed to have written poorly, and they to have admired him only from motives of pride and pedantical affectation. Some, whose ignorance prevented them from deciding fairly, rejoiced to see that ancient learning, which they possessed not, despised; and eagerly joined in attributing to arrogance and pedantry, all praise of Greek and Latin, to which they were inveterate enemies, as well as perfect strangers. Thus Greek and Latin studies fell into disrepute.

But the supposition that the pleasure which men feel in reading authors in the ancient languages, arises solely, or chiefly, from the pride of possessing a skill in those languages, is too unreasonable to be generally admitted. Of the many thousand admirers of the ancients, who, in every part of their conduct and studies, displayed great judgment and love of truth, must we suppose the greater part, either deceived in the estimate of the authors whom they read, or actuated by pride, and mistaking the self-complacency of conscious learning and ability, for the pleasure naturally arising from the study of a fine author? Why is not a man, who understands Welsh, German, Dutch, or any other language not remarkable for literary productions, as much inclined to extol the writers in those languages, as the reader of Greek and Latin, if the motive for praise consists only in possessing a knowledge of a language unknown to the majority of his countrymen or companions?

In accounting for the great esteem in which the Greek and Latin authors are held, much must be attributed to the LANGUAGES SOLELY, exclusively of thought, doctrine, or method. Many mere English readers, who are but poorly qualified to give an opinion on the subject, will impute it to pedantry, when I say, that those languages possess inherent beauties, and an aptitude for elegant and expressive composition, to which the best among modern languages can make no just pretension. Till, therefore, an ancient Greek author can be translated into a language

equal to his own, it will be unjust and unreasonable to form a final judgment of him from the best translation. It is better to read a good author in a translation, than not to read him at all. I only contend against the injustice of condemning original authors in consequence of the unavoidable imperfections of all translations into the modern languages of Eu

rope.

But, to return to Xenophon's Memorabilia, with the consideration of which I began this paper. It has been usual, among the admirers of Socratic morality, to compare it with the evangelical. I am ready to acknowledge the great excellence of it; but I see clearly, that it is no more to be compared to the gospel, than the river Nile to the Pacific Ocean. It seems not to flow from the heart, and it cannot reach its recesses. It knows little of universal charity. It taught not the golden rule of doing to others as we wish they

should do unto us.

I cannot, however, avoid recommending the Socratica Charta, or the fine Ethics of Socrates, as preserved by Xenophon and Plato, to every student who is designed for the sacred profession. He will there find a store of fine observations, maxims, and precepts, which he may recommend with authority and success to his people, under the sanction, and with the improvements, of Christianity*,

Dr. Edwards's attempt to discover a system in the Memorabilia of Socrates, notwithstanding its ingenuity, seems to be unsuccessful. It resembles the ingenious efforts of many critics to reduce Horace's Epistle ad Pisones on the art of poetry, to the methodical regularity of a technical recipe for making poems. Some critics, like the old gardeners, have no idea of beauty, unless every thing is laid out by the line and rule, the level and the square. But mathematical precision is not required in moral disquisition.

Knox's Winter Evenings. $150. On the Characters of THEOPHRASTUS and other Writers of Characters. If the artist whose pencil represents the features with fidelity is greatly esteemed, it is surely reasonable to appre

ciate highly the skill of him who can paint the manners to the life. The moral painter must be furnished with a taste equal to that of any manual artist, and he must also possess a peculiar penetration. He must know mankind, not only in a theoretical view, but also from actual experience, and in the common transac tions of human intercourse. He must be accustomed to watch those minute circumstances of conversation and behaviour, which escape the notice of a superficial observer. He must trace words and actions to their motives. He must, in a word, possess a sagacity with which few are distinguished; and he must have had many opportunities for its exertion.

The ancient critics refer every thing to Homer. They affirm that Homer was the first who wrote characters, and that the characteristical writers derived the idea of

their works from him. Casaubon introduces in his preface a fine quotation from the thirteenth book of the Iliad +; a specimen which seems to justify the opinion. It is a very lively picture of the coward and of the brave man. But Homer every where discriminates his characters, and blends beautiful epithets, which mark his heroes with peculiar distinction. It is on all sides confessed, that, in this respect, he is greatly superior to Virgil.

Theophrastus is the earliest author extant who has professedly written charac

ters.

Varro Wrote a book περι χαρακτη pwv, or concerning characters, but his work is not preserved, and it is imagined that he treated on the characters, or discriminating marks of style and composition. Others think it was on the different kinds of eloquence.

Theophrastus flourished in the time of Alexander the Great, and about three hundred years before the Christian æra. His name was Tyrtamus; but Aristotle changed it to Theophrastus; because his elocution had something in it of divine, and the word expresses that idea. He was celebrated as a natural philosopher, and his school was frequented by four thousand scholars. He lived to the age of one hundred and seven, and wrote a

multitude of treatises.

But I must not deviate from the pre

*Socratica Charta quem non fecêre disertum? HOR.
Socratic lore with eloquence inspires.

Lib. xiii. ver. 278.

* Θεόφρασος προτερον έκαλείτο Τυρταμος Δια δε το θείως φράζειν, ύπο Αριςοτέλους εκλήθη Εν φρασος, ειτα Θεοφράσος,

SUIDAS.

sent object, which is the consideration of Theophrastus as the delineator of moral characters.

His book contains twenty-six chapters, in each of which a character is delineated. There is no doubt but that much of the work is lost, something interpolated, and a great deal transposed. It is but a fragment; yet, like the fragment of a diamond, curious and valuable.

Menander is said to have been the scholar of Theophrastus; and Theophrastus has been therefore called the Father of Comedy. The characters certainly contain many touches of such comic humour as might adorn the stage.

They begin with a formality which would induce one to expect rather a dry and philosophical treatise on the subjects proposed, than a comic picture. The definition of the abstract and concrete resembles the dry and methodical style of Aristotle; but the reader is agreeably surprised to find the careless ease and lively painting of Horace.

It must be owned that Theophrastus appears not to have been possessed of any great delicacy. He pursues his subject so far, as frequently to lead his readers to uncleanly scenes. But the ancients, with all their improvements, were inferior to the moderns in that purity of taste, which excludes whatever is offensive to the senses or imagination. What can be more indelicate than the writings of Aristophanes, which the refined Athenians greatly admired?

To judge of Theophrastus, a reader must divest himself of that narrowness of mind which leads to suppose no state of manners right or tolerable but its own. The French have often displayed that fastidious delicacy which has prevented them from perceiving pleasure in the most celebrated works of antiquity. Even Homer was once too gross for the literary beaux of Paris.

Theophrastus, there is little doubt, represented the Athenians as he found them; and it is a very curious set of pictures which he has bequeathed to posterity. We find, what indeed might reasonably be expected, that men's manners were, three hundred years before the Christian æra, much like those in our own century. Men were then dissemblers, they were misers, they were triflers, they were lovers of novelty to excess; they had a thousand other failings, in every respect resembling

those of modern times in modern Europe.

He must possess good sense, and some knowledge of the world, who can relish Theophrastus. To a mere scholar, the work must appear defective and disgustful. It has nothing in it of system. The method in each character is often confused, probably from the injuries of time, and possibly from the age of the author; for Theophrastus was no less than ninety-nine years when he composed it, as he informs us himself, though Laertius and some of the critics pretend to know better. One might naturally have expected more regularity in a disciple of the Stagirite.

Casaubon published a most excellent edition of Theophrastus. Casaubon being an admirable scholar, his notes are very instructive and entertaining. That he fully entered into the spirit of his author, I much doubt. I am certain he often misunderstood him; but, at the same time, his notes are valuable. Theophrastus requires not a profusion of learned notes; but, nevertheless, he has had commentators remarkably prolix. Needham's edition is tediously dull, and in no great estimation. Newton's is, I think, the best adapted to young persons. Newton has made the author easy to be understood, and has explained many passages and many single expressions with great ingenuity.

But I must not enter into the extensive subject of editions. I mean rather to point out the merits of the authors themselves, or to mention any little circumstances respecting them which may interest the student of polite letters.

Bruyere stands next in general estimation to the ancient Theophrastus. His work has been much admired, and consequently produced many bad imitators. The characters which he draws are supposed to be personal; yet most of them are capable of general application. There is a great deal of singular sagacity in them, and much knowledge of the world may be derived from them. Whatever knowledge of the world can be acquired without mixing too much in its follies, is certainly desirable; but the wisdom bought by actual experience usually costs too high a price. The translation of Theophrastus, which Bruyere has prefixed, is by no means masterly. Indeed, I rather consider the addition of Theophrastus, as a screen to hide the persona

lities included in the author's own characters. He wished to have his work introduced to the reader's notice as an imitation of Theophrastus. But it is not so; it is a work greatly superior. It has exactness and force. It has wit and satire. It has elegance. But, with all its excellencies, there are few books which sooner tire the reader. The mind loves a connexion of thought, at least for a page or two, when its attention is once secured. It delights in roving for a short time; but it soon grows weary, and seeks satisfaction in confining its attention to a more regular series of ideas.

Chesterfield has strongly recommended Bruyere, and indeed his book conduces greatly to the good purpose of habituating young minds to make observations on men and manners. The substance of much of the more valuable part of Chesterfield's advice will be found in Bruyere. Bruyere well describes the effects of the external graces in the following passage: "La politesse n'inspire pas tou"jours la bonté, l'equité, la complaisance, "la gratitude; elle en donne du moins "les apparences, et fait paroître l'homme au dehors comme il devroit être inte"rieurement."

46

I think I can discover a similarity of style, as well as sentiment, in the writings of Chesterfield and Bruyere; and there is every reason to believe that Chesterfield had been an attentive student of Bruyere.

An author of our own country, in a book entitled Maxims and Characters, has imitated Bruyere with good success. It is lively and witty. There is at the same time an inequality in the work, and several of the descriptions are already antiquated.

Pope is an admirable delineator of characters; nothing was ever more highly finished than his character of Atticus. Addison is also particularly distinguished for his talent of moral painting. Fielding yields to few in the description of manners; and if Smollett had tempered his fertile genius with a regard to decorum, there is no doubt but he would have been one of the first in this kind of excellence.

If the knowledge of human nature is valuable, the power of delineating manners with fidelity is justly held in high esteem. Nothing can contribute more to communicate a knowledge of the human heart, and of the sentiments and conduct

probable in any given situation, than such representations faithfully exhibited. One circumstance has prevented so much good from being derived from the paintings of characters as might have been, and has even caused it to be productive of evil. This is no other than a proneness to personal satire and invective. Moral paintings have too often been little else but severe caricatures of excellent persons whose virtues excited envy.

Knox's Winter Evenings.

§ 151. On CICERO. If among the Latin Classics we name shews the strength of his reason, and the Tully, upon every subject he equally brightness of his style. Whether he addresses his friend in the most graceful negligence of a familiar letter, or moves his auditors with laboured periods, and passionate strains of manly oratory; whether he proves the majesty of God, and imlime and pompous eloquence; or lays mortality of human souls, in a more subdown the rules of prudence and virtue, in a more calm and even way of writing; he always expresses good sense in pure and proper language: he is learned and easy, richly plain, and neat without affectation. He is always copious, but never runs into and though he says almost every thing that a faulty luxuriance, nor tires his reader; can be said upon his subject, yet you will scarce ever think he says too much.

Blackwall.

§ 152. On several Advantages which the Classics enjoyed.

It was among the advantages which the chief classics enjoyed, that most of them were placed in prosperous and plentiful circumstances of life, raised above anxious cares, want and abject dependence. They were persons of quality and fortune, courtiers and statesmen, great travellers, and generals of armies, possessed of the highest dignities and posts of peace and war, Their riches and plenty furnished them with leisure and means of study; and their employments improved them in knowledge and experience. How lively must they describe those countries, and remarkable places which they had attentively viewed with their own eyes! What faithful and emphatical relations were they enabled to make of those councils, in which they presided; of those actions in which they were present and commanded!

Herodotus, the father of history, be

sides the advantages of his travels and ge neral knowledge, was so considerable in power and interest, that he bore a chief part in expelling the tyrant Lygdamis, who had usurped upon the liberties of his native country.

Thucydides and Xenophon were of distinguished eminence and abilities, both in civil and military affairs; were rich and noble; had strong parts, and a careful education in their youth, completed by severe study in their advanced years: in short they had all the advantages and accomplishments both of the retired and active life.

Sophocles bore great offices in Athens; led their armies, and in strength of parts, and nobleness of thought and expression, was not unequal to his colleague Pericles; who, by his commanding wisdom and eloquence, influenced all Greece, and was said to thunder and lighten in his harangues. Euripides, famous for the purity of the Attic style, and his power in moving the passions, especially the softer ones of grief and pity, was invited to, and generously entertained in, the court of Archelaus king of Macedon. The smoothness of his composition, his excellency in dramatic poetry, the soundness of his morals, conveyed in the sweetest numbers, were so universally admired, and his glory so far spread, that the Athenians, who were taken prisoners in the fatal overthrow under Nicias, were preserved from perpetual exile and ruin, by the astonishing respect that the Sicilians, enemies and strangers, paid to the wit and fame of their illustrious countryman. As many as could repeat any of Euripides's verses, were rewarded with their liberty, and generously sent home with marks of honour.

Plato, by his father's side sprung from Codrus, the celebrated king of Athens; and by his mother's from Solon, their no less celebrated law-giver. To gain experience, and enlarge his knowledge, he travelled into Italy, Sicily, and Egypt. He was courted and honoured by the greatest men of the age wherein he lived; and will be studied and admired by men of taste and judgment in all succeeding ages. In his works, are inestimable treasures of the best learning. In short, as a learned gentleman says, he writ with all the strength of human reason, and all the charm of human eloquence.

Anacreon lived familiarly with Polycrates king of Samos: and his sprightly muse, naturally flowing with innumerable pleasures and graces, must improve in delicacy and sweetness by the gaiety and refined conversation of that flourishing court.

The bold and exalted genius of Pindar was encouraged and heightened by the honours he received from the champions and princes of his age; and his conversation with the heroes qualified him to sing their praises with more advantage. The conquerors at the Olympic games scarce valued their garlands of honour, and wreaths of victory, if they were not crowned with his never-fading laurels, and immortalized by his celestial song. The noble Hiero of Syracuse was his generous friend and patron; and the most powerful and polite state of all Greece esteemed a line of his in praise of their glorious city, worth public acknowledgments, and a statue. Most of the genuine and valuable Latin Classics had the same advantages of fortune and improving conversation, the same encouragements with these and the other celebrated Grecians.

So

Terence gained such a wonderful insight into the characters and manners of mankind, such an elegant choice of words, and fluency of style, such judgment in the conduct of his plot, and such delicate and charming turns, chiefly by the conversation of Scipio and Lælius, the greatest men, and most refined wits, of their age. much did this judicious writer, and clean scholar, improve by his diligent application to study, and their genteel and learned him conversation, that it was charged upon by those who envied his superior excellencies, that he published their compositions. under his own name. His enemies had a mind that the world should believe those noblemen wrote his plays, but scarce believed it themselves; and the poet very prudently and genteelly slighted their malice, and made his great patrons the finest compliment in the world, by esteeming the accusation as an honour, rather than making any formal defence against it*.

Sallust, so famous for his neat expressive brevity, and quick turns, for truth of fact and clearness of style, for the accuracy of his characters, and his piercing view into the mysteries of policy and motives of action, cultivated his rich abilities, and made his acquired learning so useful to the world,

See Prologue to Adelphi, v. 15-22.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »