Page images
PDF
EPUB

1715, the month in which Wycherley died. But the 'heat' out of which the satire grew was evidently felt as early as July 15, the date assigned to the genuine or fictitious letter to Craggs, in which the 'sketch' of the character is given in prose. Lastly, in the poetical sketch' itself, in one at least of the early versions, what in later editions became 'Gildon's venal quill' is found to be merely 'Gildon's meaner quill;" while a couplet was inserted in the satire on Addison

66 Who, when two wits on rival themes contest,
Approves of both, but likes the worst the best,"

which was omitted in the final character of Atticus.

[ocr errors]

All this makes it probable, as I have already said, that the satire was engendered by the suspicions caused by the appearance of Tickell's rival translation. That it was ever sent to Addison is in the highest degree unlikely. Open warfare of this kind was not in Pope's manner, while the liberal criticism in the Freeholder' is written without a shadow of reserve, such as must have appeared if Addison had ever seen the verses. They were read by others, however, of whom Lady M. W. Montagu was one,' and after having been commended as a masterpiece by Atterbury, were allowed to appear in print for the first time in December, 1722. Hence arose naturally the report that the satire had been written after Addison's death, and Pope's numerous enemies seized on the opportunity of blackening his character. Forced to defend himself from this injurious charge, angry that what was in his opinion the justice of the satire should not be recognized, and at the same time, perhaps, uneasily conscious that his suspicions about the Translation might have been insufficiently grounded, he produced as his apology a romantic narrative, in which he sought to give colour to his own original belief by the addition of numerous fictitious details. He was firmly convinced, and in this, perhaps, he was not wrong, that Addison was jealous of his reputation, and having once secured this

1 But on this point see 'Corrigenda,' p. 445. Spence's 'Anecdotes,' p. 237.

VOL. V.

basis of fact, his lax moral code allowed him to build upon it such an imaginative structure as would be most likely to appeal to the public judgment.

As to the merits of the two translations the verdict of the town was never in doubt: Tickell's version sank before the overpowering superiority of its rival. One hundred and seventy years have since gone by, and many attempts have been made by writers of distinction to supply the admitted deficiencies in Pope's work. Yet his translation of the 'Iliad' occupies a position in literature which no other has ever approached. It is the one poem of the kind that has obtained a reputation beyond the limits of the country in the language of which it is written, and the only one that has fascinated the imagination of the unlearned. Many an English reader, to whom the Greek was literally a dead language, has followed through it the action of the Iliad with a livelier interest than that of the 'Faery Queen' or of 'Paradise Lost.' The descriptions of the single combats and the funeral games have delighted many a schoolboy, who has perhaps revolted with an equally intense abhorrence from the syntax of the original. What is the cause of the unique success obtained by this Translation? To answer this question conclusively I think we have only to consider the different objects aimed at in their translations by Pope and his rivals, and to compare with his their renderings of a single passage in the ‘Iliad.'

All English translations of Homer may be said to be comprised in three classes. The first exhibits the method followed by almost all Pope's predecessors before Dryden, and its most favourable representative is Chapman. Chapman's aim was to reproduce the sense of his original. Having chosen the long ballad-metre as his vehicle of translation, he stuck so closely to the text that, though translating paraphrastically, he rendered the Greek in an even smaller number of English lines. No material thought is omitted in his version; none is added; by his literal fidelity, and (it must be added) by his own genuine poetical feeling, he catches something of the greatness of his author, but his metre is not equal to the epic dignity of the

subject, and his verses are devoid of grace, proportion, and harmony. His translation of Agamemnon's invective against Calchas at the opening of the 'Iliad' offers a good example of the results of the method he adopted:

"Prophet of ill! for never good came from thee towards me,
Not to a word's worth; evermore thou took'st delight to be
Offensive in thine auguries, which thou continuest still;
Now casting thy prophetic gall, and vouching all our ill,
Shot from Apollo, is imposed since I refused the price
Of fair Chryseis' liberty; which would in no worth rise
To my rate of herself, which moves my vows to have her home,
Past Clytemnestra loving her, that graced my nuptial room
With her virginity and flower. Nor ask her merits less
For person, disposition, wit, and skill in housewiferies.
And yet for all this she shall go, if more conducible

That course be than her holding here. I rather wish the weal
Of my loved army than the death. Provide yet instantly
Supply for her, that I alone of all our royalty

Lose not my winnings; 'tis not fit, ye see all, I lose mine,
Forced by another, see as well some other may resign
His prize to me."

Another ideal prevails in the translation of Cowper. His object, which has been that of every subsequent translator, was not only to reproduce Homer's sense as literally as possible, but also to reproduce his style in an epic manner peculiar to the English language. He thought that the best equivalent for the Homeric hexameter was Miltonic blank verse, founding his opinion on the intersection of the verses, and the pauses in particular metrical places which he saw to be common to both styles. On the same principle a recent translator, the late Mr. Worsley, held that the simplicity of Homer might be rendered by a literal translation of his language into old-fashioned English, and in the Spenser stanza. The fatal error of this method, in my opinion, is that the translators conceive of style as something separate from their subject and from themselves. The style of Milton, admirably suited to what Pope called the "out-of-the-world' nature of its subject,' is ill adapted for a narrative of swift action, full of incident, passion, and vehement

I Spence's 'Anecdotes,' pp. 174 and 200.

debate, and Cowper, in his attempt to express these characteristics in it, only makes it heavy and dull. Worsley's Spenserian experiment, though executed with great skill, is equally futile. The semi-conscious, artificiality of Spenser's manner harmonises completely with the matter of the 'Faery Queen,' but it has nothing in common with an archaism arising from the translation of Homer's phrases into obsolete English, made doubly artificial by the repetitions of rhyme necessitated by the metre. The following is Mr. Worsley's version of the passage translated by Chapman :

k Thou seer of mischief dire,

No good to me thy hateful voice yet brings;
Prompt always from thy heart bad divination springs.

"Neither aforetime hast thou spoken good,
Nor brought to pass that any good might be,
Who now the Argives in thy miscreant mood
Teachest for all their troubles to hate me,
Since I restored not for a splendid fee
Chryseis, whom I much desire to dwell
Safe in my own house with myself, for she
Seems to my mind in pleasing to excel
My true wife Clytemnestra, whom she equals well

In womanly good, not worse in anything,
Mien, form, or stature, wit and household grace,
Yet will I send her, though my soul it sting,
If better it be so, back to her place;
Nor will I let these die before my face;
But now fit recompense with speed prepare
That not alone of all men in this place
I go rewardless-'twere by no means fair:
For mark ye all, my guerdon disappears elsewhere."

Pope's version is as follows:

"Augur accursed! denouncing mischief still,
Prophet of plagues, for ever boding ill!

Still must that tongue some wounding message bring,
And still thy priestly pride provoke thy king?

For this are Phœbus' oracles explored,

To teach the Greeks to murmur at their lord?
For this with falsehoods is my honour stained;
Is heaven offended and a priest profaned,
Because my prize, my beauteous prize, I bold,
And heavenly charms prefer to proffered gold!

A maid unmatched in manners as in face,
Skilled in each art, and crowned with every grace,
Not half so dear were Clytemnestra's charms,
When first her blooming beauties blessed my arms,
Yet, if the gods demand her, let her sail;
Our cares are only for the public weal:
Let me be deemed the hateful cause of all,
And suffer rather than my people fall.
The prize, the beauteous prize, I will resign,
So dearly valued, and so justly mine.
But since for common good I yield the fair,
My private loss let grateful Greece repair;
Nor unrewarded let your prince complain,
That he alone has fought and bled in vain.”

Judged merely as a translation it is obvious that Pope's version is inferior in point of verbal exactness both to Chapman's and Worsley's. He makes no attempt like Chapman to give a literal transcript of Homer's thought; nor is he careful like Worsley to seek an equivalent for Homer's manner. His aim is to master the general sense of what he is about to render, and then to give this in such rhetorical forms as his own style requires, omitting and even adding thoughts at his pleasure. But regarded as poetry there can surely be no question that this method gives him a vast superiority over his rivals. He translates the original with the naturalness of Chapman, but without his crude simplicity; with the distinction of Worsley, but without his affected archaism.

In rendering Homer into English verse the first question a translator has to ask himself is "How much of his poetry is it possible to transfer ?" Chapman's practical answer to this question errs from defect: if Homer be translated into verse, it is not enough merely to put his thoughts into metre; they must be presented with metrical refinement, grace, and harmony. Worsley's answer errs from excess, for Homer's manner cannot be preserved in any English metrical style: it belongs to Homer and to Greek. Pope's answer is of course in many respects inadequate. As Bentley said, his translation is not Homer. It is frequentiy inaccurate. De Quincey,

« PreviousContinue »