tongues. This may be said: nor do I deny that a certain portion of classical culture may be thus received; but such culture must be very imperfect. For all translations must be very defective in conveying the impression of the original; as every one who has read an original work, and a translation of it, must be aware. In poetry, the defect is immense. We have, in our literature, nothing closely resembling or equivalent to the Greek and Roman forms of composition; and the finest beauties of poetry consist in expressions and touches which cannot be transferred from one language to another. Our possession of a foreign language, and that language one so different in its structure from our own, and from modern languages in general, as Greek and Latin are, gives a peculiar aspect and colour to all that we apprehend through such a medium. The criticism which is applicable to the original work must bear quite as much upon the language as upon the matter, and must necessarily lose its significance if we have before us only a translation. In short, knowledge acquired by translations can hardly be considered as education, in any proper sense of the word. It evokes none of those peculiar powers by which the mind deals with language. When, however, we possess the Greek and Latin languages, and are already familiar with the best classical authors, it is by no means clear that we may not usefully extend our acquaintance with Greek and Latin literature by means of translations; for most students will read English with more facility and rapidity than Greek or Latin; and he who possesses the languages, will constantly be led to compare the translation with the original, and thus will become acquainted with the spirit and form of the work, as well as with its substance and meaning. Translations of Greek and Latin authors have undoubtedly been very effective in extending a knowledge of Classical literature, even among classically educated men. The discussions and

comparisons to which the translations have given rise, have made the originals better known; and by means of such translations, the classical authors have promoted the culture of many persons who could not read the originals. Thus such translations have extended the range of the sympathies by which classical studies bind men together.

92 It might at first appear as if the existence of translations of Classical Authors would make it difficult to ascertain whether the student who is required, as a part of his education, to translate or construe, as it is called, such authors, does so from his knowledge of the language, or from his acquaintance with the translation. But all classical teachers are aware that this is, in reality, no difficulty at all. As we said before, with regard to examinations in Geometry (53), a question or two with reference to the grammatical construction of a passage is quite sufficient to enable the teacher to decide whether the learner performs his task by rote or with intelligence. Moreover the student may be required himself to write or speak in the language, and will then make it evident whether he possesses the language or not. With regard to the Latin language, such exercises have always been part of the usual classical discipline; and are a requisite part of the education which is to connect a man with the literary community of past and present times.

93 With regard to the fidelity and accuracy with which translations convey the meaning of the original, each translation will of course have the tinge of its own period in the national literature to which it belongs, but it is not likely that much progress will be made from age to age in better understanding the sense of the ancient authors. Scholars in all periods, at least since the revival of literature, have well understood the Greek and Latin languages, and what the best authors have written in those languages. It is not likely that

we have, in modern times, any one who knows Latin better than Erasmus did, or Greek better than Bentley. Still, new translations of ancient authors may be made useful works, as parts of Progressive Classical Studies. They may convey the sense in phrases suited to our modern apprehension; and they may have, appended to them, notes and comments, by which the newest views of philologers, antiquaries, and historians may be exhibited to the modern reader. This advantage of new translations belongs especially to works relating to philosophy for the language of philosophy, to be generally intelligible, must be modified from age to age, more than that of poetry or history, as new philosophical views succeed each other in our own nation. And the continued study of the ancient philosophers by modern philosophical scholars may really bring to view much more clearly their meaning and import, than, to other readers, however well versed in the general significations of words, it has before appeared. And thus translations of the philosophical works of Plato, and of Aristotle, especially if philosophical and critical comments be annexed, may be a most effective and instructive mode of showing to the world the progress that our classical scholars have recently made in the study of the Greek philosophy. Such translations have accordingly appeared in recent times by eminent philosophers and scholars in Germany and in France. I am not aware that anything of the same kind has been attempted by our English scholars. And yet I cannot imagine any boon which they could confer upon the world, at the present time, which would be more interesting and instructive than one of this kind: a translation, for instance, with illustrative comments, of the Republic of Plato, or the Ethics of Aristotle. Such translations, so executed as to convey the meaning and force of the philosophical reasoning to the English reader, would be a worthy evidence of the philosophical

scholarship of our times, and a means of extending its beneficial influence to a wider circle than that of mere scholars, or even of the present generation.

94 Translations or Editions of Classical Authors, accompanied with commentaries of a philological, philosophical, antiquarian, or historical character, are natural and obvious means of laying before the literary world the progressive speculations of classical scholars. But such speculations appear in other forms also, as Dissertations, Controversial writings, and the like; and in works of a more independent form, as Histories of Ancient States and Races, Customs and Opinions. Among such works, whether commentatorial or independent, we may reckon many as Capital Works; such as the works of Sigonius on Roman, and Meursius on Greek Antiquities; of Scaliger on Chronology, and Cluverius on Geography. And a fully-instructed classical scholar will be acquainted with the works of such authors, as a fully-instructed mathematician will be acquainted with the works of Archimedes and Euler. In Classics, however, still more than in Mathematics, there is a tendency to study the Elementary Books of recent writers, founded, it may be, at second or third hand, upon the labours of great men, rather than the works of the great men themselves. But yet in Classics, as in Mathematics, for the most part, the Capital Works-those which have made each its epoch in the study of ancient literature-are the most instructive and striking books which can be read; and Compilations, which are supposed to include all that great scholars have established with regard to antiquity, do really impart only a vague, dim, and incomplete knowledge, compared with that which arises from the habit of consulting the great original works of celebrated philologers, antiquaries, and historians. These Capital Works bearing upon classical literature belong to various periods, and are of various extent; as Bentley's

Dissertation on the Epistles of Phalaris; Potter's Greek Antiquities; Porson's Preface to his edition of the Hecuba; Wolf's Preface to Homer; and the like. Several have been produced in our own time: thus, Müller's History of the Dorians, Bockh's Public Economy of Athens, Niebuhr's History of Rome, have recently been main subjects of attention of the classical students of this country; and these may be taken as exhibiting the leading points in the progressive classical studies of the modern world.

95 We may say with regard to classical, as we have said with regard to mathematical studies, that a system which, consisting in private teaching, substitutes some unpublished views of the teachers respecting the subjects taught, for the study of the capital published works on those subjects, is likely to deprave our education, by bringing before the student knowledge which has only a conventional value, acknowledged in a certain circle, in the place of the works which the whole literary world admires; and by substituting for a participation in the general recognition of excellence, a complacency in some supposed peculiar superiority of criticism.

96 The knowledge of the Latin language which belongs to a liberal education when complete, includes not only the power of translating Latin into English, but also the power of writing Latin. The latter faculty is not, indeed, so essential a part of a good education as the former; for a student may feel the force of the language, and admire the beauties of the classical writers, without being himself able to write correct Latin with facility, or to write good Latin at all. Writing Latin, as well as translating Latin, must be practised, in order that the student may write the language correctly and well. The faculty, if formed, must be formed by exercise, especially directed to that end; and such exercise is not at present an indispensable