“SuocimiterodaquestapartehannoConEpieurotuttiisuoiseguaci，Chel’animacolcorpomortafanno。“
Inferno，
Andheremyeyes，revertingtotheendofCantoIX。，falluponasimilarcontrastbetweenMr。Longfellow’slines，——
“Forflamesbetweenthesepulchreswerescattered，Bywhichtheysointenselyheatedwere，Thatironmoresoasksnotanyart，“——
andthoseofDr。Parsons，——
“Forheremidsepulchresweresprinkledfires，Wherewiththeenkindledtombsall-burninggleamed；
Metalmorefiercelyhotnoartrequires。“
“Chetragliavelliflammeeranosparte，Perlequalieransideltuttoaccesi，Cheferropiunonchiedeverun’arte。“
Inferno，IX
DoesitnotseemthatinallthesecasesMr。Longfellow，andtoaslightlylessextentMr。Cary，bytheirstrictadherencetotheletter，transgresstheordinaryrulesofEnglishconstruction；
andthatDr。Parsons，byhiscomparativefreedomofmovement，producesbetterpoetryaswellasbetterEnglish？Inthelastexampleespecially，Mr。Longfellow’sinversionsaresoviolentthattoareaderignorantoftheoriginalItalian，hissentencemightbehardlyintelligible。InItaliansuchinversionsarepermissible；inEnglishtheyarenot；andMr。Longfellow，bytransplantingthemintoEnglish，sacrificesthespirittotheletter，andcreatesanobscurityinthetranslationwhereallislucidityintheoriginal。Doesnotthisshowthatthetheoryofabsoluteliterality，inthecaseoftwolanguagessowidelydifferentasEnglishandItalian，isnotthetrueone？
Secondly，Mr。Longfellow’stheoryoftranslationleadshiminmostcasestochoosewordsofRomanicorigininpreferencetothoseofSaxondescent，andinmanycasestochooseanunfamiliarinsteadofafamiliarRomanicword，becausetheformerhappenstobeetymologicallyidenticalwiththewordintheoriginal。LetmeciteasanexampletheopeningofCantoIII。:——
“Permesivanellaeittidolente，Permesivanell’eternodolore，Permesivatralaperdutagente。“
Herearethreelineswhich，intheirmatchlesssimplicityandgrandeur，mightwellexcitedespairinthebreastofanytranslator。LetuscontrastMr。Longfellow’sversion——
“Throughmethewayistothecitydolent；
Throughmethewayistoeternaldole；
Throughmethewayamongthepeoplelost，“——
withthatofDr。Parsons，——，“Throughmeyoureachthecityofdespair；
Throughmeeternalwretchednessyefind；
Throughmeamongperdition’sraceyefare。“
IdonotthinkanyonewilldenythatDr。Parsons’sversion，whilefarmoreremotethanMr。Longfellow’sfromthedictionoftheoriginal，issomewhatneareritsspirit。Itremainstoseektheexplanationofthisphenomenon。ItremainstobeseenwhywordstheexactcounterpartofDante’sareunfittocallupinourmindsthefeelingswhichDante’sownwordscallupinthemindofanItalian。AndthisinquiryleadstosomegeneralconsiderationsrespectingtherelationofEnglishtootherEuropeanlanguages。
EveryoneisawarethatFrenchpoetry，ascomparedwithGermanpoetry，seemstotheEnglishreaderverytameandinsipid；butthecauseofthisfactisbynomeanssoapparentasthefactitself。ThatthepoetryofGermanyisactuallyandintrinsicallysuperiortothatofFrance，mayreadilybeadmitted；butthisisnotenoughtoaccountforallthecircumstancesofthecase。ItdoesnotexplainwhysomeoftheverypassagesinCorneilleandRacine，whichtousappeardullandprosaic，aretotheFrenchman’sapprehensioninstinctwithpoeticfervour。Itdoesnotexplaintheundoubtedfactthatwe，whospeakEnglish，arepronetounderrateFrenchpoetry，whileweareequallydisposedtorendertoGermanpoetryevenmorethanitsdueshareofmerit。
ThereasonistobesoughtintheverbalassociationsestablishedinourmindsbythepeculiarcompositionoftheEnglishlanguage。
OurvocabularyischieflymadeupontheonehandofindigenousSaxonwords，andontheotherhandofwordsderivedfromLatinorFrench。Itismostlywordsofthefirstclassthatwelearninchildhood，andthatareassociatedwithourhomeliestanddeepestemotions；whilewordsofthesecondclass——usuallyacquiredsomewhatlaterinlifeandemployedinsedateabstractdiscourse——haveanintellectualratherthananemotionalfunctiontofulfil。Theiroriginalsignifications，thephysicalmetaphorsinvolvedinthem，whichareperhapsstillsomewhatapparenttotheFrenchman，aretouswhollynon-existent。Nothingbutthederivativeormetaphysicalsignificationremains。Nophysicalimageofamansteppingoveraboundaryispresentedtoourmindsbythewordtransgress，norinusingthewordcomprehensiondowepicturetoourselvesanymanualactofgrasping。ItistothisdoublestructureoftheEnglishlanguagethatitowesitssuperiorityovereveryothertongue，ancientormodern，forphilosophicalandscientificpurposes。Albeittherearenumerousexceptions，itmaystillbesafelysaid，inageneralway，thatwepossessandhabituallyusetwokindsoflanguage，——onethatisphysical，forourordinarypurposes，andonethatismetaphysical，forpurposesofabstractreasoninganddiscussion。
WedonotsayliketheGermans，thatwe“begripe“begreifenanidea，butwesaythatwe“conceive“it。Weuseawordwhichoncehadtheverysamematerialmeaningasbegreifen，butwhichhasinourlanguageutterlylostit。Weareaccordinglyabletocarryonphilosophicalinquiriesbymeansofwordswhicharenearlyorquitefreefromthoseshadowsoforiginalconcretemeaningwhich，inGerman，toooftenobscuretheacquiredabstractsignification。
WhoeverhasdealtinEnglishandGermanmetaphysicswillnotfailtorecognizetheprodigioussuperiorityofEnglishinforceandperspicuity，arisingmainlyfromthecausesherestated。ButwhilethishomogeneityofstructureinGermaninjuresitforphilosophicalpurposes，itistheverythingwhichmakesitsoexcellentasanorganforpoeticalexpression，intheopinionofthosewhospeakEnglish。GermanbeingnearlyalliedtoAnglo-Saxon，notonlydoitssimplewordsstrikeuswithalltheforceofourownhomelySaxonterms，butitscompoundsalso，preservingtheirphysicalsignificationsalmostunimpaired，callupinourmindsconcreteimagesofthegreatestdefinitenessandliveliness。ItisthusthatGermanseemstouspre-eminentlyapoeticallanguage，anditisthusthatwearenaturallyinclinedtooverrateratherthantodepreciatethepoetrythatiswritteninit。
WithregardtoFrench，thecaseisjustthereverse。TheFrenchmanhasnoSaxonwords，buthehas，ontheotherhand，anindigenousstockofLatinwords，whichhelearnsinearlychildhood，whichgiveoutlettohismostintimatefeelings，andwhichretaintosomeextenttheirprimitiveconcretepicturesqueness。TheyaretohimjustasgoodasourSaxonwordsaretous。Thoughcoldandmerelyintellectualtous，theyaretohimwarmwithemotion；andthisisonereasonwhywecannotdojusticetohispoetry，orappreciateitasheappreciatesit。Tomakethisperfectlyclear，letustaketwoorthreelinesfromShakespeare:——
“Blow，blow，thouwinterwind！
ThouartnotsounkindAsman’singratitude，Thytoothisnotsokeen，“etc。，etc。；
whichIhavesomewhereseenthusrenderedintoFrench:
“Souffle，souffle，ventd’hiver！
Tun’espassicruelQuel’ingratitudedel’homme。
Tadentn’estpassipenetrante，“etc。，etc。
Whyareweinclinedtolaughaswereadthis？Becauseitexcitesinusanundercurrentofconsciousnesswhich，ifputintowords，mightrunsomethinglikethis:——
“Insufflate，insufflate，windhibernal！
ThouartnotsocruelAshumaningratitude。
Thydentitionisnotsopenetrating，“etc。，etc。
NosucheffectwouldbeproduceduponaFrenchman。Thetranslationwouldstrikehimasexcellent，whichitreallyis。
Thelastlineinparticularwouldseempoeticaltous，didwenothappentohaveinourlanguagewordscloselyakintodentandpenetrante，andfamiliarlyemployedinsensesthatarenotpoetical。
ApplyingtheseconsiderationstoMr。Longfellow’schoiceofwordsinhistranslationofDante，weseeatoncetheunsoundnessoftheprinciplethatItalianwordsshouldberenderedbytheirRomanicequivalentsinEnglish。Wordsthatareetymologicallyidenticalwiththoseintheoriginalareoften，forthatveryreason，theworstwordsthatcouldbeused。TheyareharshandforeigntotheEnglishear，howeverhomelikeandmusicaltheymaybetotheearofanItalian。Theirconnotationsareunlikeinthetwolanguages；andthetranslationwhichismadeliterallyexactbyusingthemisatthesametimemadeactuallyinaccurate，oratleastinadequate。Doleanddolentaredoubtlesstheexactcounterpartsofdoloreanddolente，sofarasmereetymologycango。Butwhenweconsidertheeffectthatistobeproduceduponthemindofthereader，wretchednessanddespairingarefatbetterequivalents。Theformermaycompelourintellectualassent，butthelatterawakenouremotionalsympathy。
DoubtlessbylongfamiliaritywiththeRomaniclanguages，thescholarbecomestoagreatdegreeemancipatedfromtheconditionsimposeduponhimbythepeculiarcompositionofhisnativeEnglish。TheconcretesignificanceoftheRomanicwordsbecomesapparenttohim，andtheyacquireenergyandvitality。TheexpressiondolentmaythussatisfythestudentfamiliarwithItalian，becauseitcallsupinhismind，throughthemediumofitsequivalentdolente，thesameassociationswhichthelattercallsupinthemindoftheItalianhimself。[41]Butthispowerofappreciatingthoroughlythebeautiesofaforeigntongueisinthelastdegreeanacquiredtaste，——asmuchsoasthetasteforolivesandkirschenwassertothecarnalpalate。Itisonlybylongandprofoundstudythatwecanthustemporarilyvestourselves，sotospeak，withaFrenchorItalianconsciousnessinexchangeforourEnglishone。Theliteraryepicuremaykeenlyrelishsuchepithetsasdolent；butthecommonEnglishreader，wholovesplainfare，canhardlyfailtobestartledbyit。Tohimitsavoursofthegrotesque；andifthereisanyonethingespeciallytobeavoidedintheinterpretationofDante，itisgrotesqueness。
[41]AconsummateItalianscholar，thedelicacyofwhosetasteisquestionedbynoone，andwhoseknowledgeofDante’sdictionisprobablynotinferiortoMr。Longfellow’s，hastoldmethatheregardstheexpressionasanobleandeffectiveone，fullofdignityandsolemnity。
ThosewhohavereadoverDantewithoutreadingintohim，andthosewhohavederivedtheirimpressionsofhispoemfromM。
Dore’smemorableillustrations，willhereprobablydemur。What！
Dantenotgrotesque！Thattunnel-shapedstructureoftheinfernalpit；Minospassingsentenceonthedamnedbycoilinghistail；