1825.) 
poetiulites)soimuch; of Italian ‘softness 
with, his unrivalled grandeur and! subli- 
ity; thatweare surprized the attempt, 
toigivein faithful translation of his works 
intedtalian:; verse,,has not been more 
frequent, anil,more, successful: for we 
are-far) from admitting that dignity and 
subkimity iare inconsistent with the soft 
ain of Htaly, or with the genius and sweet 
melody of her language: as the Inferno 
of Dante, the Gerusalemme of. Tasso, 
and ithe dramasjof Alfieri, indeed, might 
sufficicntly_testify. 
As the translation of Felice Mariot- 
tin is the: only previous Italian version 
to/ which we ean, at present, turn,—and 
we are not disposed. to draw critical 
comparisons; upon, the authority of 
passing impressions and vague remem- 
branees,—~it) is to) that alone that we 
refer im any comparative estimate of the 
translation by Sorelli, now before us. 
Mariottini, in: his t’anslation, though 
it possesses considerable merit, does not 
adhere: to the text. of his author with 
theserupulous fidelity:necessary to do 
perfect: justice to the ideas and graces 
of thes original z\.and we confess that, in 
a-translation, we could~ sooner excuse 
some little dilation: of phraseology (if 
that-were necessary) than suffer a par- 
tidle of the thought and feeling, or what 
wmight be -ealled the: mental idiom of the 
original, to:be lost. 
_ The work befere us, has, however, we 
think, taken something more than the 
utmost, of justifiable latitude, in this 
respect. .Not) that we can accuse the 
translator of any interpolation of thought 
or, imagery; in this he has been suffi- 
ciently guarded. Heseems to have erred 
more from the want of that prompt and 
copious familiarity with the resources 
of his own language (which is, indeed, 
to the translator, in general, even a more 
indispensable requisite than an equally 
exténsive familiarity with the entire vo- 
cabulary “of the language from which 
he translates), than trom any misappre- 
hension of his author. Indeed, he seems 
to have a just idea of the duties of a 
tYanslator in this respect, and has. fol- 
lowed his author with a simple’ fidelity 
very rarely tobe met itt vi Wipe 
We imuist, However, instance one slight 
misapprehension in the very outset. — 
Tihie first hetiistich of our divine Hard, 
upon the fine discrimination of which 
the whole of the thedlogical nioral of 
his poem, in jreality, turns, is thus Pen- 
Maths jo. seb, nish id. | ane 
’ vyoDsw Wubi pritniee Y invbedien ya.” 
mene ; MuapT ) 
L' Ape Kahana, 
517 
This igiving ;the epithet 'to!man; instead 
of obedience ; which chahges:theisénsevof 
the author.—“ The, disobediencecof the 
Sitst man, instéadoof man’s vfirsty disabe- 
dience.’* And. again, further! -on,a‘he 
turns) Leviathan: intoja whales Mariot- 
tini seems to have understood 'thisibet- 
ter, as he has renderediit 
“ Leviatan, Ja marina’ belya,” (the sea- 
beast). 49991 
+ ty 
Such instances are, however, very rare: 
indeed, our quotation“of , these;twover- 
bal instances may; in-some degree; sug- 
gest the general correctness of the whole 
translation. + It is'seldom that) a: trans- 
lator leaves us leisure for such miero- 
scopic animadyersion. do 
The versification (as far as an English 
ear may’ be allowed to judge) appears; to 
be smooth and. easy ; the style is, chaste 
and perspicuous, and there are many 
passages of sweetness and pathose,.dn 
the loftier fights, the. translator ;fre- 
quently wants force and, steeagth;of 
pinion. ' His Janguage- does; not; dar- 
monize, sufficiently, with. the, boldness 
and grandeur ‘of the original concep- 
tion. His imagination does (not warm 
and kindle; enongh, with the! primeval 
fire. His thoughts do not breathe;deep 
enough; and his words do »not burn. 
For instance; in that fine passage of 
Milton,» stir On 
* Round he throws his baleful eyes, 
That witness’d huge affliction and 
may, ’— Psa Tmaorh; 
Said 
‘dis- 
the translator’s apprehension evaporates 
in, mperagee: rerrners 
“ In giro gli oechi sconsolati ei. manda; 
Testimoni di duolo sterminato :”; 
which would have been correct-enough 
had Milton only. said, -‘Arewnd, he 
throws his disconsolate eyes, witnesses 
of excessive grief.” ff jo odhT aye 
Again :— 
* According to the theological system ‘of 
Milton, and which runs through the whole 
work, it was ‘not the first man only who 
sinned in the disobedience of Adam 4 it was 
man. altogether, aggregate, man,—- man, 
without discriminative article, or, epithet,— 
the whole incipient human xace, who, in the 
person of their universal progenitor, volun- 
tarily disobeyed. Hence the original ‘sm 
itt Which, upon this hypothesis, we are all 
born, Upon this principle it is ‘that Milton 
rests, throu@hout, his system of ethics ‘aid 
theology, and “justifies the ways of God to 
inau.”’ A/niore serious thistake, therefore, 
trifling, as, i¢ appears, the. tranglator could 
not have fallen into, imdevetwort ‘o4hg 
