ons inconsistent with the creed of the Catholic Church。 He has related nothing concerning them which a good Christian of that age might not believe possible。 On this account there is nothing in these passages that appears puerile or pedantic。 On the contrary； this singular use of classical names suggests to the mind a vague and awful idea of some mysterious revelation； anterior to all recorded history； of which the dispersed fragments might have been retained amidst the impostures and superstitions of later religions。 Indeed the mythology of the Divine Comedy is of the elder and more colossal mould。 It breathes the spirit of Homer and Aeschylus； not of Ovid and Claudian。
This is the more extraordinary； since Dante seems to have been utterly ignorant of the Greek language； and his favourite Latin models could only have served to mislead him。 Indeed； it is impossible not to remark his admiration of writers far inferior to himself； and； in particular； his idolatry of Virgil； who； elegant and splendid as he is； has no pretensions to the depth and originality of mind which characterise his Tuscan worshipper； In truth it may be laid down as an almost universal rule that good poets are bad critics。 Their minds are under the tyranny of ten thousand associations imperceptible to others。 The worst writer may easily happen to touch a spring which is connected in their minds with a long succession of beautiful images。 They are like the gigantic slaves of Aladdin； gifted with matchless power； but bound by spells so mighty that when a child whom they could have crushed touched a talisman； of whose secret he was ignorant； they immediately became his vassals。 It has more than once happened to me to see minds； graceful and majestic as the Titania of Shakspeare； bewitched by the charms of an ass's head； bestowing on it the fondest caresses； and crowning it with the sweetest flowers。 I need only mention the poems attributed to Ossian。 They are utterly worthless； except as an edifying instance of the success of a story without evidence； and of a book without merit。 They are a chaos of words which present no image； of images which have no archetype：they are without form and void； and darkness is upon the face of them。 Yet how many men of genius have panegyrised and imitated them！
The style of Dante is； if not his highest； perhaps his most peculiar excellence。 I know nothing with which it can be compared。 The noblest models of Greek composition must yield to it。 His words are the fewest and the best which it is possible to use。 The first expression in which he clothes his thoughts is always so energetic and comprehensive that amplification would only injure the effect。 There is probably no writer in any language who has presented so many strong pictures to the mind。 Yet there is probably no writer equally concise。 This perfection of style is the principal merit of the Paradiso； which； as I have already remarked； is by no means equal in other respects to the two preceding parts of the poem。 The force and felicity of the diction； however； irresistibly attract the reader through the theological lectures and the sketches of ecclesiastical biography； with which this division of the work too much abounds。 It may seem almost absurd to quote particular specimens of an excellence which is diffused over all his hundred cantos。 I will； however； instance the third canto of the Inferno； and the sixth of the Purgatorio； as passages incomparable in their kind。 The merit of the latter is； perhaps； rather oratorical than poetical； nor can I recollect anything in the great Athenian speeches which equals it in force of invective and bitterness of sarcasm。 I have heard the most eloquent statesman of the age remark that； next to Demosthenes； Dante is the writer who ought to be most attentively studied by every man who desires to attain oratorical eminence。
But it is time to close this feeble and rambling critique。 I cannot refrain； however； from saying a few words upon the translations of the Divine Comedy。 Boyd's is as tedious and languid as the original is rapid and forcible。 The strange measure which he has chosen； and； for aught I know； invented； is most unfit for such a work。 Translations ought never to be written in a verse which requires much command of rhyme。 The stanza becomes a bed of Procrustes； and the thoughts of the unfortunate author are alternately racked and curtailed to fit their new receptacle。 The abrupt and yet consecutive style of Dante suffers more than that of any other poet by a version diffuse in style； and divided into paragraphs； for they deserve no other name； of equal length。
Nothing can be said in favour of Hayley's attempt； but that it is better than Boyd's。 His mind was a tolerable specimen of filigree work；rather elegant； and very feeble。 All that can be said for his best works is that they are neat。 All that can be said against his worst is that they are stupid。 He might have translated Metastasio tolerably。 But he was utterly unable to do justice to the
〃rime e aspre e chiocce； 〃Come si converrebbe al tristo buco。〃 （Inferno； canto xxxii。）
I turn with pleasure from these wretched performances to Mr Cary's translation。 It is a work which well deserves a separate discussion； and on which； if this article were not already too long； I could dwell with great pleasure。 At present I will only say that there is no other version in the world； as far as I know； so faithful； yet that there is no other version which so fully proves that the translator is himself a man of poetical genius。 Those who are ignorant of the Italian language should read it to become acquainted with the Divine Comedy。 Those who are most intimate with Italian literature should read it for its original merits： and I believe that they will find it difficult to determine whether the author deserves most praise for his intimacy with the language of Dante； or for his extraordinary mastery over his own。
。。。
CRITICISMS ON THE PRINCIPAL ITALIAN WRITERS。
No。 II。 PETRARCH。
（April 1824。）
Et vos； o lauri； carpam； et te； proxima myrte； Sic positae quoniam suaves miscetis odores。 Virgil。
It would not be easy to name a writer whose celebrity； when both its extent and its duration are taken into the account； can be considered as equal to that of Petrarch。 Four centuries and a half have elapsed since his death。 Yet still the inhabitants of every nation throughout the western world are as familiar with his character and his adventures as with the most illustrious names； and the most recent anecdotes； of their own literary history。 This is indeed a rare distinction。 His detractors must acknowledge that it could not have been acquired by a poet destitute of merit。 His admirers will scarcely maintain that the unassisted merit of Petrarch could have raised him to that eminence which has not yet been attained by Shakspeare； Milton； or Dante；that eminence； of which perhaps no modern writer； excepting himself and Cervantes； has long retained possession； an European reputation。
It is not difficult to discover some of the causes to which this great man has owed a celebrity； which I cannot but think disproportioned to his real claims on the admiration of mankind。 In the first place； he is an egotist。 Egotism in conversation is universally abhorred。 Lovers； and； I believe； lovers alone； pardon it in each other。 No services； no talents； no powers of pleasing； render it endurable。 Gratitude； admiration； interest； fear； scarcely prevent those who are condemned to listen to it from indicating their disgust and fatigue。 The childless uncle； the powerful patron can scarcely extort this compliance。 We leave the inside of the mail in a storm； and mount the box； rather than hear the history of our companion。 The chaplain bites his lips in the presence of the archbishop。 The midshipman yawns at the table of the First Lord。 Yet； from whatever cause； this practice； the pest of conversation； gives to writing a zest which nothing else can impart。 Rousseau made the boldest experiment of this kind； and it fully succeeded。 In our own time Lord Byron； by a series of attempts of the same nature； made himself the object of general interest and admiration。 Wordsworth wrote with egotism more intense； but less obvious； and he has been rewarded with a sect of worshippers； comparatively small in number； but far more enthusiastic in their devotion。 It is needless to multiply instances。 Even now all the walks of literature are infested with mendicants for fame； who attempt to excite our interest by exhibiting all the distortions of their intellects； and stripping the covering from all the putrid sores of their feelings。 Nor are there wanting many who push their imitation of the beggars whom they resemble a step further； and who find it easier to extort a pittance from the spectator； by simulating deformity and debility from which they are exempt； than by such honest labour as their health and strength enable them to perform。 In the meantime the credulous public pities and pampers a nuisance which requires only the treadmill and the whip。 This art； often successful when employed by dunces； gives irresistible fascination to works which possess intrinsic merit。 We are always desirous to know something of the character and situation of those whose writings we have perused with pleasure。 The passages in which Milton has alluded to his own circumstances are perhaps read more frequently； and with more interest； than any other lines in his poems。 It is amusing to observe with what labour critics have attempted to glean from the poems of Homer； some hints as to his situation and feelings。 According to one hypothesis； he intended to describe himself under the name of Demodocus。 Others maintain that he was the identical Phemius whose life Ulysses spared。 This propensity of the human mind explains； I think； in a great degree； the extensive popularity of a poet whose works are little else than the expression of his personal feelings。
In the second place； Petrarch was not only an egotist； but an amatory egotist。 The hopes and fears； the joys and sorrows； which he described； were derived from the passion which of all passions exerts the widest influ