An excuse for the ornaments, with which Pope has studiously attempted to set off his translation, is furnished by the remark of Dr. Johnson, that "though Virgil "wrote in language of the same general fabric with that "of Homer, in verses of the same measure, and in an age nearer to Homer's time by 1,800 years, yet he found, "even then, the state of the world so much altered, and "the demand for elegance * so much increased, that "mere nature would be endured no longer; and that, "perhaps, in the multitude of borrowed passages, very "few can be shown which he has not embellished."† It is impossible to deny the general justness of this remark; but may not the Reminiscent be allowed to hint, ordinary poet, but will contend that its pleonasms considerably detract from its merit. Its great defect, however, is its total misrepresentation of the image and sentiment expressed in the original. Homer describes real, quiescent nature; Pope makes her poetical and animated: The moon is the principal object in the translation; the original directs the attention to the stars, to which the poet resembles the fires burning in the Trojan camp, and which form the subject of the comparison. "The flood of glory," which, in the words of the translator, "bursts from all the skies," is represented by him to irradiate all nature. The original more justly, and more picturesquely, limits both the glory and its effects; the former to the glittering of the stars, the latter to their bringing into view the woods, the mountain heads, and the promontories. Is not this its real effect? Would not the scene have been thus painted by Vernêt?

At the end of the simile, half of a verse in the original is expanded into two verses; in the last, the translator makes the swains bless the "useful" light is not this epithet both very improper, and singularly contrary to the genius of Homer?

If an admirer of Homer were required to prove the general inferiority of Pope's translation, and the nature of that inferiority, could he prove them better than by producing the original and translation of this simile?

* Would not "refinement" have been a more proper word? + Has he often improved them by these embellishments?

that no embellishment should have been admitted by Pope that was contrary to the genius of the original; and to ask, whether many embellishments of this kind have not found their way into the translation ?

With the translation of Pope, that of Cowper will sustain no comparison. It is literal; and may be thought to bear, on this account, a nearer resemblance to the original. It is true, that, if it be examined word for word, this will appear to be the case; but, if the general effect of any one speech, or any one narrative, be considered, the result will be very different. Let their translations of that part of the first book of the Iliad, which describes the walk of the priest on the shore of the loud-resounding sea, and his address to the chiefs, be compared :which will be found to give the best notion of the exquisite charm of the original? Even the most orthodox Grecian must give the palm to Pope. Dr. Johnson pronounces his translation to be "a poetical wonder,-a produc❝tion which no age or nation can pretend to equal." Is this exaggerated praise? Dryden's translation of the Æneid stands nearest to it: a poet by profession, in search of poetical imagery, poetical combinations and poetical diction, will perhaps find more of these in Dryden; but general readers will unquestionably give a decided preference to Por.

III.

JURISPRUDENCE.

THE Inns of Court completely divorced the Reminis cent from the muses :-in the course of his professional studies he endeavoured to obtain a general elementary knowledge of the Laws and Constitutions of other coun⚫ tries. The few following miscellaneous observations on some of the topics, to which this subject leads, will not, perhaps, be unacceptable to his readers.

III. 1.

Heirship and Venality of Judicial Offices in France. AN Englishman will hear with surprise, that in France, from the age of Lewis the twelfth, till the revolution, most offices of justice were both hereditary and saleable; he will hear, with greater surprise, that the wisdom of this national provision was a point on which respectable opinions were divided at the first, and continued divided to the last.

In the year 1467, offices, which before that time had been simple commissions, revocable at the king's plea sure, were, by an edict of Lewis the eleventh, rendered perpetual and hereditary. This edict gave rise both to the heirship and sale of offices. In 1493, Charles the eighth published an edict, which, while it prohibited the sale by one subject to another, of offices that regarded the administration of justice, was silent on the sale of other offices, and was therefore supposed to legalize their sale. An edict of Lewis the twelfth allowed the sale even of offices of justice. Until 1522, the whole of the money paid for the purchase of them was received by the crown; but in that year, an edict of Francis the first permitted

individuals, possessed of such offices, to sell them, on paying a certain proportion of the purchase-money into the royal treasury: this made venality of offices an important article of the French constitution, and an important branch of the royal revenue.

In the course of time, it underwent many modifications. For some centuries before the French revolution, it was conducted on the following plan :-When the king established a new court of justice, the edict of its creation fixed the number of the magistrates or judges, and the specific sums to be paid by them for grants of the offices, which they should fill. For these, the candidates petitioned the king; the grants of them were made by letters under the great seal; and, from that time, the offices were hereditary in the family of the grantee.-Where a court was established, the possesssor of any of the offices, of which it was composed, might, in his life-time, and his heirs might, after his decease, dispose of it by sale; or he might direct by will that it should be sold. When the sale of an office took place, the purchaser petitioned the crown for a grant of it; and, when the grant was signed, he paid, besides the price payable to the vender, a sum of money into the royal treasury: the amount of it varied from 1,000 to 2,000 French crowns. The money which he paid into the royal treasury, was, on a subsequent sale of the office, returned to him or his heirs. Thus, the purchaser of an office virtually paid for it no more than the interest which accrued upon the purchase-money from the time of its payment until the return of it on a resale. But great care was exerted to ascertain that the person, to whom the office was granted, should be properly qualified for the discharge of its duties. It was always required that he should have taken

the degree of licentiate both in the civil and the canon law; and the taking of such a degree, in a French university, was far from a matter of course. As soon as the grant of the office was delivered to the purchaser, he presented it to the tribunal to which the office belonged, with a petition, stating generally, his qualifications, and expressly averring that the money, which he had paid for the office, was really his own, and had not been borrowed by him for the purpose. A commission then issued, composed of lay and ecclesiastical lawyers and other persons of rank: they were directed to inquire and report upon the learning, morals, political conduct and general idoniety of the purchaser. The procureur-general of the parliament, within whose resort the office lay, presided over the commission. If the inquiry was favourable to the purchaser, they chose, out of the digest or code, some point of law, upon which, at the end of eight days, he was to come prepared with complete legal information; he was also expected to answer, with general sufficiency, on the civil and canon law, and on the ordonnances and customary law of the country. Sometimes, he was declared incapable of the office; sometimes, a term for further probation was allowed him. Till the middle of the last century these examinations were conducted with great strictness. The chancellor himself occasionally examined the persons appointed to offices, on their competency. "One day," says Brantôme, "I "called on M. le Chancelier de l'Hôpital, with Marés"chal Strozzi, who was among his favourites, and he invi❝ted us to dinner. He gave us an excellent bouillie,* and

*Of the excellence of this bouillie, Strozzi was a consummate judge, if he was capable of appreciating the merit of his own cook.