proved Professor Herford's statement1 that Jonson's translations were characterized by 'rigid fidelity.' 'It is, however, true that most of Jonson's work is not so notably free as the passage given above. The next five lines, which follow the original a little more closely, and yet with no slavish subservience to the form in which the Latin expresses itself, are more typical of Jonson's average work. The first clause of the sentence is characteristic of Jonson's style of translation where he follows Sallust more closely: "Sed quia multis et magnis tempestatibus, vos cognovi fortes fidesque-" But since in many, and the greatest dangers I still haue knowne you no lesse true, then valianta faithful translation, but expressed in such easy and rhythmical English that the adjective "rigid" could certainly not be applied to it. The rest of the passage: eo animus ausus maximum atque pulcherimum facinus incipere; simul, quia vobis eadem, quae mihi, bona malaque intellexi; nam idem velle atque nolle, ea demum firma amicitia est is translated: And that I tast, in you, the same affections Or leade, vnto this great, and goodliest action. Here Jonson has cleverly changed the order, and woven together the more or less disconnected clauses of the original into a compact whole, while he has rendered the Latin into flowing and forceful English in a manner which gives an accurate rendering of the thought and feeling of the original, and yet does not allow itself to be trammeled by a too conscientious fidelity. 1 See Dict. Nat. Biog. 'Comparing Jonson's translation as a whole with Sallust's version of the speech of Catiline, we find, then, that he has brought out Sallust's ideas clearly, emphatically, and accurately. His work is characterized by an ease and smoothness not found in Sallust's succession of short, abrupt sentences. It nowhere degenerates into a servile word-for-word rendering of the original, and is dominated throughout by spirit and energy. 'Now it is a strange fact that, although a close comparison of the kind which we have just made will prove Jonson's translations to be remarkably free, a hasty reading without such comparison is likely to leave the impression that they are slavishly literal-a fact which no doubt explains the cause of so many really unjust criticisms. This is due to a certain peculiarity in Jonson's style, which I shall now try to illustrate and explain by a comparison of Cicero's speech in the Senate with its original in the first Catilinarian. The peculiarity to which I refer is the frequency of Latinisms, or the use of derivatives or equivalents of Latin words in their native, not their English, sense. 'In order to illustrate what I mean in my comparison of Jonson and Cicero, I shall not be able, as in the speech just discussed, to use one connected passage for detailed analysis, but shall be compelled to base my conclusions on a selection of the sentences in which this characteristic is most strikingly brought out. In the six following clauses, it will be noticed that each of the chief words is used in the distinctly Latin meaning of the word which it translates, and that this gives an effect of rather servile following of the Latin. The phrase in Jonson's rendering, Speake, and this shall conuince thee is a free translation of Cicero's "convincam, si negas," in which Jonson's convince is a Latinism for "convict." Aske my counsell, I perswade it, translates "Si me consulis, suadeo." What domesticke note of priuate filthinesse translates "Quae nota domesticae turpitudinis," where the word note is made to carry the meaning of the Latin word "nota," "a brand." In the phrase, Who of such a frequency, translating "quis ex hac tanta frequentia," the word frequency means, like the Latin "frequentia," "a crowd." So much consent is a translation of "tantam consensionem," "so much unanimity"; and in the sentence, All shall be cleere, made plaine, oppres'd, reueng'd, a comparison with the Latin "omnia patefacta illustrata, oppressa, vindicata esse videatis" shows that the word oppressed really means "suppressed", as does the Latin "oppressa.' 'Now this is the kind of translation that the ordinary schoolboy is apt to make, on account, perhaps, of a lack of vocabulary, or an inherent indisposition to take the trouble to think up the exact word; and Jonson has received no little abuse because of it. A glance through the pages of Catiline will show, however, that these Latinisms are used not only in translations, but also frequently throughout the play. His Sejanus, too, is full of them. But it will also be noticed that they are used comparatively rarely in his comedies. The frequent use of a peculiar diction throughout two plays, and a rare use of it elsewhere, would seem to indicate a special purpose for its introduction in those particular instances. And undoubtedly Jonson had such a purpose. Just as we saw, in studying his treatment of the recorded facts of the conspiracy, what pains he took to produce on his hearers exactly the effect which would have been produced on them by reading Sallust or Cicero, so now we see this same idea showing itself in his method of translation. His appeal in each case is to the reader extraordinary, who is familiar with Sallust and Cicero, in whose mind he hopes the Anglicized Latin words will C rouse the memories and associations connected with their Latin use. Relying on the subtle suggestiveness which all these words contain, on account of their intimate connection in our minds with the thoughts and literature of ancient Rome, he strives to bring us back as nearly as possible into the spirit and atmosphere of the world of Catiline and Cicero. Jonson's purpose is the same as that of certain writers who, in picturing scenes of days gone by, make their characters speak in quaint and stilted language, to give a flavor of reality. The weakness in this method is that it produces the required illusion only in those who are very familiar with the Latin language. The uninitiated, thinking that the words are used in their customary sense, find them often unmeaning in the connection in which they occur, and sometimes even inconsistent. A striking example of this is found in the first sentence of Jonson's translation of Catiline's speech to the conspirators. There he translates the Latin "virtus"-meaning "courage, "capability"-by its English derivative, "virtue." The reader in ordinarie, taking the word in its accustomed English sense, wonders that it should be used to describe a band of men to whom no quality could have been less appropriately attributed. And here I must mention another thing that Jonson does less frequently, but with the same purpose; namely, the introduction now and then into his play of a word-for-word translation of some Latin idiom. In 4. 823, for instance, Cicero says, My vertue (Will) glad me, doing well, though I heare ill, the last two words of which are a literal rendering of the Latin idiom, "audire male," "to be ill spoken of." In 1. 416, vse me your generall translates "imperatore me utimini," where your generall is made predicate apposi tive to me, as in the Latin clause. Jonson speaks of this one CATILINE (4. 444) instead of saying “Catiline alone," as if he were translating the Latin "unus Catilina"; and when he wishes to say that something is inconsistent with something else, he uses the expression abhorring from (5. 479), evidently having in mind the Latin construction "abhorrens ab." 'It can easily be seen how a superficial critic, not noticing that these Latinisms and Latin idioms are used in the original parts of Jonson's play, as well as in the translations, nor realizing the purpose for which they were introduced, might consider them the earmarks of uninspired renderings.' 7. Jonson's Debt to Seneca In many ways we must call Catiline a Senecan tragedy. It is certainly not tragedy exactly such as Seneca wrote, but it would seem that Jonson certainly believed he was reproducing Senecan traditions. The play opens with the familiar Senecan ghost, introduced with much the same purpose as the overture to a Wagnerian opera. There is the Senecan dearth of rapid movement, although Catiline has considerably more real progression than is usual with Seneca. Further, the hero (if we way call him such) is a thoroughly depraved character, not at all resembling the Greek tragic heroes: and such a hero and his career of crime are what Seneca delights to portray. The long dialogues, full of sententiæ (such as The vicious count their yeeres, vertuous their acts, etc.), the choruses having no connection with the dramatic action, and the use of portents, as if Nature reflected man's moods, are also thoroughly Senecan. However, it is in the character of Catiline that Seneca's influence shows most plainly. Catiline in Sallust is immensely practical, and never works himself up into such frenzies of rage and hate, in which |