E. 31-2. Cf. Aeneid 3. 175. I. I. 47-88. The translation of Ovid, El. 1. 15, in so far as it presents a problem of authorship, is fully discussed elsewhere in this Introduction. As a piece of literature, it may be said to preserve something of the brevity and force of the Latin, while its want of Ovid's ease and elegance is not surprising. To turn 42 lines of Latin verse into 42 lines of English, and still to be clear, is something of an achievement. I. 2. Scene 2 of act 1 is largely indebted to Ovid, Trist. 4. 10. 17-26, this being especially noticeable in 1. 2. 78-98 of the play. With lines 25-6 of Ovid, cf. Poetaster 1. 3. 8–9. 2. 2. 120 ff., 201 ff. Gifford and others have noted that the characterization of Hermogenes in the second scene of act 2 is merely an elaboration of Horace, Sat. 1. 3. 1–8. 2. 2. 173-182, 189-198. Whalley was the first to note that the outline of Hermogenes' song is found in Martial, Epig. 1. 57. 2. 2. 186–7. Cf. Horace, Sat. 1. 9. 25. Compare also Poetaster 3. 1. 190-2 with Sat. 1. 10. 90-1. 2. 2. 211-3. Cf. Horace, Sat. 1. 3. 1-3. Act 3, scenes 1, 2 and 3. Gifford, who combines these three scenes into one, remarks: This scene is little more than a translation of Hor. Lib. I. Sat. IX. It is far from ill done; and yet, methinks, Jonson might have found a happier method of introducing himself.' Now Horace's satire contains 78 lines, which we here find expanded into three scenes, comprising 325 lines. Allowing liberally for the compression and pithiness of the Latin, it is still clear that Jonson, who is never given to useless. verbiage, must have produced something more than a mere translation of Horace, Sat. 1. 9. Jonson has contributed to the interest and the dramatic effect by his eleven preliminary lines, including the lyric, which is graceful and in character. Lines 23-30 of our text are Jonson's. The theme for lines 31-123 of the play is furnished by lines of the satire: Cum quidlibet ille Garriret, vicos, urbem laudaret. In lines 124-140 Jonson keeps fairly close to lines 14-19 of his source. Lines 141-171 are Jonson's. Lines 172-293 of the play carry us over lines 20-60 of the satire. Lines 294-9 are interpolated. The 29 lines of scene 2 cover lines 60 b-74 a of Horace, but Jonson has dropped the allusion to the Jews and contributed what was, considering his purpose, an excellent touch in the allusion to Mæcenas. This scene is as far from mere translation as Gifford could wish, one would think. Lines 74b-78 of the satire furnish the slight suggestion necessary for the dramatic action and animated dialogue of the 28 lines of scene 3. I submit, then, that if Jonson's translating had never gone farther or fared worse than in this instance, one might have wished him even more given to invasion and pillage than he was. 3. 5. The Horace-Trebatius dialogue was not in quarto 1602. The 86 lines of Horace, Sat. 2. I are here expanded to 140 lines. The more interesting resemblances and differences between the English and the Latin are given in the Notes, but a few others should be mentioned. Lines 37-42 are an awkward and somewhat obscure rendering of Quanto rectius hoc, quam tristi laedere versu Pantolabum scurram Nomentanumque nepotem! Quum sibi quisque timet, quamquam est intactus, et odit. The lines made prominent with quotation-marks by Jonson were favorites of his in these times of bulldozing the public and quarrelling with fellow authors. Horace's line 23 was quoted in the dedication to Volpone, 1607. As has been pointed out by H. Reinsch (Ben Jonson's Poetik 114) lines 3. 5. 51-53 of Poetaster involve one of Jonson's rare mistranslations. Sat. 2. 1. 31-2— Neque, si male gesserat, usquam Decurrens alio, neque si bene becomes 3. 5. 77-8. tabitur urbe. our play. 5. 3. 103-4 Nor, in things vniuft, Or actions lawfull, ran to other men. Cf. Sat. 2. 1. 46: Flebit et insignis tota can- What? when the man that firft did satyrize, Durft pull the skin ouer the eares of vice; &c. This is a somewhat too literal rendering of Sat. 2. 1. 62-4: Quid? cum est Lucilius ausus Primus in hunc operis componere carmina morem, Detrahere et pellem, &c. But compare King Cambises (Hawkins, Orig. of Eng. King. Dispatch with swoord this judges life, So doon, draw thou his cursed skin, strait over both his eares. I will see the office doon, and that before mine eyes. Finally, Reinsch (p. 114) notes a change of idea in Jon son: Esto, si quis mala: sed bona si quis Iudice condiderit laudatus Caesare? Si quis Opprobriis dignum latraverit, integer ipse? Solventur risu tabulae; tu missus abibis (Sat. 2. 1. 83-6), becomes in Poetaster, 3. 5. 130-6: I, with lewd verfes; fuch as libels bee, I reuerence and adore that iuft decree: But if they shall be sharp, yet modeft rimes That spare mens perfons, and but taxe their crimes, Such, fhall in open court, find currant passe; Were CAESAR iudge, and with the makers grace. This, as Reinsch remarks, 'einen ganz anderen Sinn ergibt'; but the explanation is that Jonson had in mind at this point Parcere personis, dicere de vitiis, of Martial, 10. 33. 10. 4. 3. 111-123. As Gifford has noted, Tucca here lays Horace under contribution. Cf. Sat. 1. 4. 34-38: Foenum habet in cornu, longe fuge! dummodo risum Et quod cunque semel chartis illeverit, omnes Et pueros et anus. 4. 5. The 'heavenly banquet' participated in by Ovid, Julia and the rest, making scene 5 of act 4, is, as Whalley discovered, modelled upon the synod of the Olympians described in the latter part of book I of the Iliad. Note particularly 1) the altercation between Jove and Juno, 89 ff.; 2) the reference to Thetis as a disturbing element, 109-111; 3) Jove's threat to shake Juno out of Olympus, 120 ff.; 4) the remonstrance of Vulcan, and his displacing Ganymede, 132 ff.; 5) music and song, 165 ff.; 6) the restoration of amity at the end. 4. 6. In connection with the holy indignation of Augustus, when he breaks in upon the masquerade feast, Whalley remarks that 'the infamy of this feast' lies at the door not of Ovid but of the emperor himself. Our authority for this statement is Suetonius, Augustus 70, and I subjoin a translation by Alex. Thomson (L. 1796): 'A supper which he [Augustus] gave, commonly called the Supper of the Twelve Gods, and at which the guests were all dressed in the habit of Gods and Goddesses, and himself in that of Apollo, afforded subject of much conversation, and was imputed to him not only by Antony in his letters, who likewise names all the parties concerned, but in the following well-known and anonymous verses. When Mallia late beheld, in motley train, Jonson was, of course, familiar with this anecdote in Suetonius, but an obvious use of it in Poetaster had to be avoided in order to preserve the dignity of Augustus. 5. 2. 56-97. These lines translate, in an egregiously rough and inadequate manner, Virgil, Aeneid 4. 160-189, 29 lines of the Latin making 42 of the English. Gifford comments: 'I have little to observe on this version: it probably cost Jonson some trouble; and, according to the ancient notion of what translation should be, must be allowed some merit. It was not a general view of an author's sense which contented the writers of those times: they aspired to give his precise words, without addition or diminution; and unfortunately attempted to do it within the compass of the original.' Gifford seems to forget that in this particular instance there was no effort to keep 'within the compass of the original,' and that in Jonson's own time we had such powerful translators as Florio and Chapman, who aimed first of all at 'a general view of an author's sense.' Nothing, indeed, could be more unlike Virgil than these rugged, harsh, gasteropodous lines; while for figures of speech, what could be more ridiculously unpoetic than 'in tail of that?' Our sympathies are all with Virgil in this matter, but it may be said in partial justification of Jonson that he was not the only admirer of these translations: cf. Drummond (Conversations, p. 41): 'His inventions are smooth and easie; but above all he excelleth in a Translation.' 5. 3. 166 ff. In the trial scene of Poetaster Jonson had in mind, as Gifford observed, the contest in Aristophanes' Frogs, though we can point out no close parallels between the two plays. The plot of the Frogs is not to be traced here, yet there occur touches of the Aristophanic humor often noted in Jonson. As Ward has remarked (Eng. Dram. Lit. 2. 358), the opposition of the two great dramatists in the Greek play is of historical and moral, as well as literary, significance, while the practical absence of per |