Page images
PDF
EPUB

even in the most frantic effusions of
German extravagance: and certainly
the German literary public as a body
are not to be charged with such enor-
mities of folly. Yet, if this judg-
ment have indeed been uttered,
it would well deserve to be put on
record, as an example of the atro-
cities which can be tolerated when
once all reverence for great names is
resolutely shaken off. Eschylus,
and Euripides,-nay he who, led by
the Spirit of God, "presumed into
the Heaven of Heavens," even Milton
himself, are to yield their places,
and to whom? To an old impure
novelist, to the author of "The Sor-
rows of Werther," (risum teneatis?)
to the babbling historian of Punch's
puppet-show, tumblers, rope-dancers,
and strolling-players (see Wilhelm
Meister). Yield their places, did we
say?
Eschylus, Euripides, and
Milton are to have no places at all
in a consistory where this old vaga-
bond is to be the third part of the
world, one of the triumvirate of eter-
nity. What-
but pshaw !-
Scorn and indignation seal up our
mouths. That we have condescend-
ed at all to notice such sentiments,
the reader must ascribe to our ear-
nest desire that we may be accom-
panied by his sympathy in the pro-
gress of our inquiry into Mr. Goethe's
pretensions. We wish him to under-
stand that we engage in any such
task, not from anger that a particular
German has for a few years stepped
out of his natural place and station;
but because his name has been used as
a handle for insulting the greatest of
men; because he has looked on and
tolerated such outrages in his ad-
mirers; because his works are rank
with all impurity; and because upon
this precedent, if it is once admitted
to any authority in this country, we
have much evil to anticipate of the
same sort and tendency.

Before we begin, let us give notice -that, as we have declined all benefit of dogmatisms in our own behalf, we must also resolutely insist on

disowning their validity when urged against us. We shall pay no sort of attention to the blank unsupported opinion of any author whatsoever, let his weight be what it may with the reader. No man must expect that we shall be awed by sounding compliments addressed to Goethe from whatsoever quarter. Compliinents the most extravagant cost little to a man in good humour, when returning compliments to himself. "Illustrious"-is soon said: "Incomparable" is but one syllable more: and in general that impotence of mind and want of self-command, which urges men into the language of brutal malignity, is readiest to run into the licence of doating panegyric-such as the author himself is ashamed of in a week after he has written it. Nameless Germans we have already seen annihilating by a dogmatic fiat all the greatness of this world to make room for Mr. Goethe: and it has cost the anonymous translator of Wilhelm Meister but a dash of his pen to confer upon the same gentleman a patent of precedency throughout Europe more unlimited (if it were but valid) than any king in christendom could confer by his heralds even within his own dominions. The easy thoughtlessness with which the title to create such distinctions is assumed recalls the reader to the sense of their hollowness; and reminds him that, if one author may with a despotic fiat create, another may come and with as good a right may revoke: in which case, both are thrown back upon the grounds and principles of their judgment, which might as well have been alleged at first. Of any judgment, supported by an appeal to principles, let it come from what quarter it will, we say " Valeat quantum valere potest." Arguments of any kind are not what we shun; to these we are happy to allow their whole intrinsic value: but let us have no tyrannic dogmatisms,* which depend for their brief currency only

some degree in every man quá man. To love, to hope, to enjoy, are all affections of the genial nature: and the term genius expresses that nature only in its more intense degrees, and as a habit not as an act.-Talents may be easily conceived to exist in man discontinuously, and per saltum, but not genius. The expression "only three men of genius" therefore is an absurdity in adjecto: the comprehensiveness of one term (by its very definition) destroys the limitation in the other.

To take the sting out of those dogmatisms which are at present afloat, we must

upon considerations of person and accident extrinsic to the opinion it

self.

All these preliminaries settled, we shall now begin.-And first, before we speak of the book itself (which is our thesis), a word or two on the Translation. This part of our task we would most gladly have declined from the unaffected spirit of courtesy in which we retreat from the office of sitting in judgment upon any contemporary author of our own country, except when we can conscientiously say that we have found nothing of importance to blame: even to offer our praise ex cathedrâ is not pleasant to us. Nevertheless, for the credit of any thing which we shall allege against Goethe, it is necessary to declare our opinion very frankly that this translation does not do justice to the original work-which, however worthless in other respects, is not objectionable in the way in which the translation is so. For the "style" of Goethe, in the true meaning of that word, we profess no respect: but, according to the common use of the expression as implying no more than a proper choice of words, and a proper arrangement of them (pure diction in a collocation agreeable to

the idiom of the language), we know of nothing to object to it. Living in a court, and familiar with most of his distinguished contemporaries in Germany since the French revolution, Goethe of necessity speaks and therefore writes his own language as it is commonly written and spoken in the best circles, by which circles we mean, in a question of this nature, the upper circles. He is no great master, nor was ever reputed a master, of the idiomatic wealth of his own language; but he does not offend by provincialisms, vulgarisms, or barbarisms of any sort: with all which the translation is overrun.

First, for provincialisms :—these are in this case chiefly (perhaps altogether) Scotticisms. Saying this, we must call upon the reader to distinguish two kinds of Scotticisms. A certain class of Scotch words and phrases, which belong to the poetic vocabulary of the nation, have deservedly become classical; as much so as the peculiar words and peculiar forms of the Greek dialects; and for the same reason; viz. not because they have been consecrated by the use of men of genius (for that was but the effect): but because they express shades and modifications of

apprise the reader that the most celebrated of the proncurs of Goethe have not professed even to read the language in which he has written. Madame de Staël, for instance, was neither mistress of the German-nor was ever understood upon any German question to speak but as she was prompted by her German friends. Moreover her own opinions, however valuable on some subjects, were of no value on any question of this nature.-A late noble author, again, did not express any opinion of Goethe before Goethe had in some measure obliged him to a flattering one by the homage he had paid him in the sight of all Germany-and the appeal which he had thus made we will not say (harshly and merely) to his vanity, but also to more amiable and kindly feelings. On this account it is doing no dishonour to the noble Lord-to say that his opinion of Goethe cannot even be received as his sincere opinion. Independently of which, we believe that his sincerest opinions have no great weight in matters of criticism even with those who are otherwise his greatest admirers. Without wishing to take part in any general discussion on the noble author's pretensions, it is pretty evident that a rash and inconsiderate speaker, of no self-control, and who seldom uttered an opinion except as he was swayed by momentary passions, could not be relied on-if he had been otherwise endowed with any power of judgment. That he was so endowed, however, there is no reason to believe; and much reason against it. Blindness to the greatness of Milton is but a bad preparation for judicious criticism; and even in Germany a sneer at Shakspeare, whether sincere or an anti-national affectation, must have a fatal effect on a compliment to Goethe. On this occasion it may as well be added that the way in which the noble lord wrote the name of Goethe, was a sufficient evidence that he had no acquaintance with the language of Goethe. It was not an error of mis-spelling merely, or one which might have arisen at the press, but an error impossible to the youngest student in Germanas it must have been forestalled by the first examination of the German alphabet. This remark, which we made at the time, we have since seen urged against another writer in the first or second Number of a new Review: and justly urged: for in so short a compass there can be no more unanswerable argument against any pretensions to acquaintance with the German.-Acquaintance with the German is no indispensable accomplishment for an English nobleman; but quite indispensable for a critic upon the general merits of Goethe.

-

meaning, and sometimes more than that-absolutely new combinations of thought and feeling, to which the common language offers no satisfactory equivalent. Indeed every language has its peculiar combinations of ideas to which every other language not only offers no equivalent, but which it is a mistake to suppose that any other can ever reach for purposes of effect by any periphrasis. -But Scotticisms of this class are not to be confounded with the mere Scotch provincialisms, such as are banished from good company in Scotland itself. These are entitled to no more indulgence than cockneyisms, or the provincialisms of Lincolnshire and Somersetshire. For instance the Scotticism of "open up" is perfectly insufferable. We have lived a little, for these last ten years, in the Scotch capital; and there at least we never heard such an expression in any well-bred society. Yet in the work before us hardly a page but is infested with this strange phrase, which many a Scotch gentleman will stare at as much as the English of every class. No man in these volumes opens a book; he opens it "up:❞ no man opens a door; he opens it "up" no man opens a letter; he opens it "up." The Scotticism of " in place of" for "instead of," -and the Scotticism of " inquire at a man" instead of " inquire of him," are of that class which we have sometimes heard from Scotch people of education; the more's the pity: for both disfigure good composition and polished conversation more than a Scotchman will believe; the latter being generally unintelligible out of Scotland; and the former, which is intelligible enough, sounding to an English ear about upon a level in point of elegance with the English phrase "in course for" of course," which is confined to the lowest order of cockneys. However, Scotch provincialisms, though grievous blots in regular composition, are too little familiar to

[ocr errors]

#

have the effect of vulgarisms upon southern ears: they are in general simply uncouth or unintelligible; amongst which latter class by the way we must ask the translator, in the name of Hermes Trismegistus, to expound for us all the meaning of "backing a letter:" to "break up a letter," we presume, is simply what in England we call opening a letter or breaking the seal; but backing a letter" has baffled the penetration of all expositors whom we have consulted: some have supposed it, in the plain English sense, to mean betting on the side of a letter. But this is impossible: two letters cannot be brought up "to the scratch:" such a match was never heard of even in Lombard-street, and not to be reconciled with the context. Is it possible that this mysterious expression is no more than a Scotch vulgarism for writing the address or direction on a letter? From these however, which are but semi-vulgarisms to an English ear, because but doubtfully intelligible, we pass to such as are downright, full, and absolute vulgarisms. At p. 233, vol. i. we find the word "wage," for " wages," a vulgarism which is not used in England even by respectable servants, and by no class above that rank: wage" is not an English word:-at p. 143, vol. i. we find "licking his lips," which is English, but plebeian English from the sewers and kennels: again "discussing oysters" which is English of that sort called slang; and neoteric slang besides; not universal slang, not classical:-this for dramatic purposes is sometimes serviceable; but ought surely not to be used by the author speaking gravely in his own person. Elsewhere we find "doxies" for girls, which is not only a lowcomedy word, but far more degrading to the women so designated than Goethe could have designed. Of all plebeianisms however, which to this hour we ever met with in a book, the

66

A few English writers, not exactly understanding the common-place employment of this phrase in Scotland, have adopted it under a mistaken notion that it was used for particular and expressive purposes; and have regulated their own use of it accordingly. Thus Mr. Coleridge has sometimes talked of opening up prospects; " keeping his eye upon the optical effect where a vista is laid open at the extremity farthest from the eye, in which case by the general laws of perspective in proportion as it opens it seems to ascend. But no such nice regards are considered in the Scotch provincial use, as is sufficiently evident from the instance alleged above.

most shocking is the word thrash as used in the following passage, vol. ii. p. 111: "His father was convinced, that the minds of children could be kept awake and stedfast by no other means than blows: hence, in the studying of any part, he used to thrash him at stated periods." In whatever way men will allow themselves to talk amongst men, and where intimate acquaintance relaxes the restraints of decorum, every gentleman abjures any coarse language which he may have learned at school or elsewhere under two circumstances --in the presence of strangers--and in the presence of women; or whenever, in short, he is recalled to any scrupulous anxiety about his own honour and reputation for gentlemanly feeling. Now an author, with some special exceptions, is to be presumed always in the presence of both; and ought to allow himself no expressions but such as he would judge consistent with his own self-respect in a miscellaneous company of good breeding and of both sexes. This granted, we put it to the translator's candour -whether the word "thrash" (except in its literal and grave meaning) be endurable in "dress" composition? For our own parts, we never heard a gentleman of polished habits utter the word-except under the circumstances pointed out above, where people allow themselves a sort of "undress" manners. Besides, the word is not even used accurately: "to thrash" is never applied to the act of beating without provocation, but to a retaliatory beating: and the brutal father, who should adopt the treatment of an unoffending child which Goethe here describes, would not call a beating, inflicted under the devilish maxim supposed, "a thrashing." These instances are sufficient to illustrate the coarseness of diction which disfigures the English translation, and which must have arisen from want of sufficient intercourse

[ocr errors]

with society. One winter's residence in the metropolis either of England or Scotland, or the revisal of a judicious friend, would enable the translator to weed his book of these deformities, which must be peculiarly offensive in two quarters which naturally he must wish to conciliate; first to his readers, secondly to Mr. Goethe-who, besides that he is Mr. Von Goethe and naturally therefore anxious to appear before foreigners in a dress suitable to his pretensions as a man of quality, happens to be unusually jealous on this point; and would be more shocked, than perhaps a "philosopher" ought to be, if he were told that his Wilhelm Meister spoke an English any ways underbred or below the tone of what is technically understood in England by the phrase "good company or company "comme il faut."-Thirdly, under the head of barbarisms, we shall slightly notice such expressions as disturb the harmony of the stylewhether exotic phrases, hostile to pure English; or mere lawless innovations, which violate idiomatic English; or archaisms, which violate simple English. Of exotic phrases, the very opposite to that of provin cialisms, these are instances: "Philina-tripped signing down stairs: "signing” in English means "subscribing her name "-and was never used for "beckoning" or "making signs," which is what the translator here means. "His excellence," which is obstinately used for "his Excellency," is a gallicism; and is alone a proof of insufficient intercourse with the world; otherwise the translator must have been aware that no such title of address is or ever was in use. "The child laid the right hand on her breast, the left on her brow." This form of expression is most of fensively exotic: probably it was here adopted to evade the clash of the word her four times repeated: but in this situation 'her' is not less

[ocr errors]

This indeed for another and deeper reason, than merely because the word "thrash" in its proper use always implies a contest and a retaliation,-viz. for a reason which latently and unconsciously governs the use and the growth of figurative language in more cases than this: and that is, that the parental relation is too grave and awful to admit of any action from the fancy. Law presents us with another case of the same sanctity, and the same consequent rejection of all fanciful or figurative language. What would be thought of a penal statute which should direct the magistrate to bleed the prisoner's purse," or to "dust his jacket," or curry his hide." The solemnity of the relation under which a child stands to his parents, or a citizen to the state, quells all action of the fancy.

66

[ocr errors]

indispensable in English, than it is offensive in most continental languages. "The breast is inflamed to me" would be as shocking to an English ear, as "my breast” would be to some foreign ones. "What fellow is that in the corner?' said the Count, looking at a subject who had not yet been presented to him:" this use of the word subject is a gallicism. As mere licentious coinages or violations of the English idiom without reference to any foreign idiom or (we presume) to any domestic provincialisms, we notice such expressions as youthhood" vol. ii. p. 104, "giving a man leave," vol. i. p. 160 (apparently for dismissing him); &c. But here it is so difficult to distinguish the cases where the writer has, and has not any countenance from provincial peculiarities, -that we shall pass on to complain of his archaisms or revivals of obsolete English phrases, which however may also be provincialisms; many old English expressions being still current in the remote provinces, which have long been dismissed from our literature. Be that as it may, these are the peculiarities which are least licentious; for the phrases are in themselves often beautiful. Yet they break the simplicity of a prose style. Thus for example the word "unrest" is a beautiful and a Shaksperian word; and is very advantageously restored to the language of poetry but in prose it has the air of affectation. "He wanted to be at one with me," vol. ii. p. 279,-was never common, and is now quite obsolete, and mysterious to most people. Again, the word want used in the antique sense exposes the writer to be thoroughly misunderstood. "I cannot want them," said Charles I, speaking of some alleged prerogatives of his crown; and his meaning was that he could not do without them, that they were indispensable to him. But in modern English he, who says "I cannot want them," gives his hearer to understand that no possible occasion can arise to make them of any use to him. This archaic use of the word "want" survives however, we believe, as the current use in some parts of Scotland. But enough of the defects of the English Wilhelm Meister, which we have noticed upon a scale of minuteness pro

portioned (as the reader must already be aware) not to our own sense of the value of the original work, but to the pretensions made on its behalf by former critics, and more extravagantly than ever by the present translator. On two other considerations we have also been more diffuse than would otherwise have been reasonable: first, because a work like Wilhelm Meister, which is totally without interest as a novelthat is, in the construction of its plot, having, in fact, no plot at all— is thrown more imperiously upon the necessity of relying, in part, upon the graces of its style: this, which in any case is a most weighty attraction, is here (by the confession of the translator) almost the sole one to all who may fail to discover what he himself describes (Pref. xii.) as "its more recondite and dubious qualities.” This writer, who professes so much admiration of the work, is obliged to acknowledge (Pref. x.) that " for the friends of the sublime, for those who cannot do without heroic sentiments, there is nothing here that can be of any service." True, there is not: being confessedly then not designed for the "friends of the sublime," we presume that it is chiefly calculated for the use of those who patronize "the profound," as Martinus Scriblerus happily denominates the Bathos, or Anti-sublime. Now all we "friends of the sublime" are clearly left without any thing for our gratification, unless we have some elegance of diction. The other party have their "profound" in great abundance: but we poor souls, that "cannot do" upon that diet, have nothing. Seriously, however, this translator and others offer Wilhelm Meister as a great philosophic romance, and Goethe as a great classic -nay as a transcendant classic, who is to put out the lights of all others, but two. Agreeably, therefore, to these representations which promise so much, we have a right to demand the most exquisite burnish of style, that all things may be in harmony, and the casket suited to the jewels. Agreeably to our representations on the other hand, which promise so little, we are still better entitled to this gratification: since, if we do not get that, we are well assured that we shall get nothing at all. This is one

« PreviousContinue »