as a mere guide to those learning the language by such aid, a rendering which sacrifices to literal interpretation, the propriety and beauty of our own language; the next is, to give the spirit and meaning of a writer, in our own language, violating none of its laws and introducing no foreign idiom. The former of these theories was the earlier, and as in the lines we have quoted, was occasionally carried out with success. With the usual vitality of error, an attempt has been made to revive it; but fortunately this retrograde movement numbers as yet but few supporters. The true theory was next discovered; but after some time degenerated in many cases into paraphrase. Sir J. Denham, in his Preface to his translation of Book II. of "Æneid," has made a few remarks on this subject which we cannot help quoting. "I conceive it," he writes, "a vulgar error in translating poets to affect being fidus interpres. Let that care be with those who deal in matters of fact and matters of faith; but whosoever aims at it in poetry, as he attempts what is not required, so shall he never perform what he attempts; for it is not his business alone to translate language into language, but poesie into poesie, and poesie is of so subtle a spirit, that in pouring out of one language into another it will all evaporate; and if a new spirit is not added in the transfusion, there will remain nothing but a caput mortuum." Those who abet the attempt to revive the old system of translation should consider these remarks, and remember that on a very different theory, one of the best lengthy translations in the English language was produced—the "Georgics" of Virgil, by Mr. Sotheby.
Jonson is no exception to the rule that clear and strong utterance is one of the chief characteristics of genius, and that great poets have been good prose writers. The fragment entitled "Lumber, or Discoveries," sufficiently shows,
