[ 42 ] 



to unimportant altercations about a phrafc in which fludy is 

 requifite to difcover obfcurity. Who, indeed, while rapt in the 

 harmony of Handel, can liften with patience to remarks on the 

 ftrudure of the inftrument or drefs of the performer ? Here and 

 there, indeed, (even in the edition I fpeak of) an obfervation 



truly 



" CBefar. The one had been confident with your patriotifin, the other witl> your 

 " prudence." There is no one who reads thefe two fentences tliat will not imme- 

 diately give a decided preference to the original. But a reafon for this preference 

 may be required, and muft be deduced from nature. Let us compare the feveral parts 

 of each. " Utinam, Cn. Pompei I" Our attention is awakened by the folemnity of this; 

 opening, and the dignity of the perfon who is addrefled ; while the cold " I •wijh" 

 of the tranflation, prepares us for a wifh of equal importance with my uncle Toby's — 

 " I wifh, faid my uncle Toby — I wifli. Trim, / -was ajleep." After we have learned 

 that the fpeakcr is exprefling a wifli, we naturally expeft to be informed of the fubjeft 

 of this wifh. And this the Roman orator tells us in the next words, " cum C. Cxfarr 

 faciei at em." After which the wifh itfelf is declared, when the mind is enabled to judge 

 ef its propriety, " ant nunquam coijfes, aid nunquam diremijfes" But the tranflator, 

 inverting this order, informs us that foniething fliould never have been contracted or 

 never broken ; and then tells us what this fometti/ig is. So that after the concluCon 

 of the fentence, we mull go hach to confider the juftice of the fpeaker's fentiment. 

 In the original the fentence is clofed with that on which the mind fliould dwell : in 

 the tranflation, the attention is called off from this to a particular which ought to 

 have been known before. In the confirmation which is fubjoined, the concluding 

 word implies an artful compliment, wifely intended to effiice thofe difagreeable 

 fenfations which might have been excited by the preceding reproof. This alfo is 

 loft in the tranflation. The language of the antieiits was certainly more favourable 

 than ours to fuch delicacies of arrangement. Yet I believe our language is hot fo 

 much in fault as our negligence. The prefent fentence might be tranflateJ to more 

 advantage thus : " Tliat union with Cjefar — would to heaven, Cn. Pompey ! either 

 " that you never had formed or never had diflblved it. The one was the part of 

 " dignity — the other of prudence — fueh as your's." 



