« PoprzedniaDalej »
pressed strongly her weariness of life
Where sitting sadly by its side how all had failed; but there is no look
ller tears dropped slowly in;
They were soft tears of woman's pride, ing beyond; no resting on the hope of an
Of sorrow, not of sin. eternal home, where we shall see all things in the light of God.
There came a naiad from the wave,
And caught them in a shell ! CLARIBEL.-For some months before
More purely white than mountain-snov, the wreck, her boy had been teaching her
She caught them as they fell. the lessons she should have learned in her
The father watched the glancing sprite, own infancy. Her heart had been born
And bending o'er his child, old, and it was growing young. He might IIe said with accents low and soft, also have led her to a simple faith. She
Aud lips that fuintly smiled might, guiding his infant steps, have en
“Behold, sweet girl, the ways of love; tered as a little child” the kingdom of
Those tears that sadly fell, God.
Shall prove bright gems of precious worth ZOE,—While you have been talking, I
Hid in that prison shell." have made another poem.
CLARIBEL. — Was that really im
promptu? LINES ON SETTING A CAPTIVE MILLER FREE.
ZOE.— I hope you don't suppose it was "Put out the light."--Shakespeare.
any thing else. It was repeated off withFly, airy sprite; imprisoned now no more,
out pause, as I have said it to you. Haste to the mossy dells where violets lie,
MARGARET.—I can be more lenient to Upon the pinions of the south wind soar, And all rejoicing in thy liberty;
original trash, I think, than to the trash llence, child of freedom, fly!
which spoils a foreign poet by translation.
I greatly prefer to read the works of any Ilie to the greenwool, where the gushing rills
forcign bard (if I cannot understand then Flow swiftly onwarıd on their gentlo way, Where the clal nightingale her vesper trills,
in his own tongue), through the medium And flowerets fold their leaves at close of day; of a prose translation in a third language. llaste joyously away!
One is not annoyed by awkward English, Where the pine forest rears its stately head,
and the poetry retains a sort of foreign Where the pale primroso pours its rich perfume,
flavor. Where tulips bright their gandy petals shed,
CLARIBEL.—By the way, German prose And the young roses all unreckod of bloom
may be literally translated, and the English Amid the deepening gloom.
version of a German work gains by a Ilence! cleave once more the blue ethereal air, little foreign llavor; but Frenchified Eng
And when the moon illumes the ocean's breast, lish is a caricature of fine writing; and Seek thee some bed beside the waters fair,
justice may be best done to a French And when the earth in her dark robes is drest
author by rendering his work, not word Fold thy light wings and rest!
for word, but idiom for idiom. MARGARET.—That is so speciously non Zoe.—I seldom read poetical translasensical, that it would be worth while to tions without thinking of what the cocktry if it might not impose on the editor of ney draper aptly said, that Homer by Mr. some literary journal, who, deceived by the Pope was “unclassicked, not translated." sweetness of the metre, might print it in
ÑARGARET. - A few years since every good faith as the production of a disciple literary miss, and forward schoolboy tried of Mrs. Ilemans.
their hands upon translation, and the reZoc.—Multitudes of published poems
sult was, both so vile and so voluminous, are to the full as absurd. Did we ever that it is a mercy the task of compiling an show you, Claribel, the poem Margaret
edition of the “Poets and Poetry of Euand I once wrote to see what we could do was not appropriated by one who, as a bona fide joint impromptu ? Vile as as Carlyle says, would have edited them it is, it is an average specimen of the style as one • edits wagon loads of broken bricks of poem to which it belongs. We agreed
and dry mortar, simply by 'tumbling up to compose in alternate lines. Neither
the wagon.” was to hesitate or change a word. We
CLARIBEL.—One of our very best Engstarted without any design, nor did we
lish translations, is Leigh Hunt's spirited find one, till I gave the two last lines in a version of Redi's Bacchanalian Ode in breath and wrote over it a title.
praise of the wines of Tuscany.
And drink of the wine of the vino benign,
That sparkles warm in Sansovine !
Those lines are more musical than the
Italian—and think of the old gentleman
having been a water-drinker after all!
ZoE.—He sings the praise of ice as musically and enthusiastically as that of the vine. If I were a member of the skating club, I'd skate an inscription from the Ode on Lake VVenham.
MARGARET.--Reading a translated poem ought to be made a punishment for not having studied the language of the original, and therefore I would never find fault with a translation, like Cary's Dante, in which the strained involved English makes the author's meaning harder to get at than it would be to a student with common sense in the original with even an imperfect knowledge of the poet's tongue; but the huge mass of modern poetical translation is in the glib versification of the Laura Matilda school. I speak feelingly upon this subject, because I number ainongst the sins of my youth a translation, which I suffered to appear in print, of what was probably in the original a rude, rough, broken, and effective ejaculatory people's ballad. I reduced it to smooth annual-like stanzas-reminding me whenever I think of it, of Champagne or sparkling Moselle in a cut glass decanter. It was courteously alluded to, too, at the time, by no less an authority than a London Quarterly Reviewer !
ZOE.—Who can write a respectable imitation of the national poetry of the old Sherwood Forest days? Why is it that the Ballad, the earliest expression of popular feeling, dies out at the approach of civilization? Sir Walter Scott's “Glenfinlas” is scarcely worth the trouble of reprint-and if you want to see degeneration, compare the fragment "Barthram's Dirge” with " Elfinland Weed.” or “Rudiger," or the “Eve of St. John.”
MARGARET.-It was always a proof to me how greatly the national taste for poetry was far gone from original simplicity in Johnson's days, that Chatterton's imitation was so widely mistaken for a genuine old Ballad. Any one familiar with Ellis, Ritson, and Bishop Percy could, it seems to me, detect the forgery in half a line. There is another vice of ordinary translation-I mean expansion—which interferes with our rendering the lays of an earlier day. A nation in its infancy lisps in numbers, intent not on its form of speech, but the expression of its feeling. When it has acquired greater command of language it is so pleased by “the beauty
and newness of its art" that it floods its ideas with words, and loses the conciseness and simplicity, and at the same time the pre-Raphaelitic attention to details, which characterized its earlier poetry.
ZoE.—To resume your champagne similo it would be well if our translators in decanting would be content to give us du champagne non mousseau at least free from the adulteration of their own turnip juice or gooseberry.
C'est le bon roi Dagobert
Qui mit sa culotte à l'envers.
Zor.—You are not competent to the task, Margaret. You have no genius for redundancy. The nursery distich has five principal words. These you have only expanded into a line a-piece with one to spare for the interpolation of your own gratuitous supposition. You have given, however, the jerky way in which somo folks translate epigrams:
CLARIBEL.—It is nearly twelve o'clock,
“See, we have wasted half a summer's night! ” may we not say with Arteveld.
You have damaged the reputation of poets we all love; and mercy and truth have not met together in your estimate of the poetlings. What good does it do to point out spots in the sun? Leave us to fancy him all brightness.
Zoe.—What good may I have done to poetlings? Such good as may be done by nailing a dead hawk to a barn door! Nor does it do us harm to turn our opinion of our favorites sometimes wrongside out, and ravel out unsightly threads. And principally good is done by reflections on this subject, because young writers may be warned to have an eye to sense, and some may be scared, as Margaret and I have been, from second-rate attempts at versification. A verse containing bits of broken similes is not redeemed by unimpeachableness of rhyme-or sweetness of rhythm.
TII E LOST PRINCE.
(We shall probably not again bo called upon to give place to another article on the subject of the Dauphin, and we only do so now in justice to our readers, whose curiosity bas been excited by the two previous articles from Mr. Hanson, and who may consider themselves entitled to know all the developments which have been made in this strange history since his list communication. The first article which we published on this sudject, " Have we a Bourbon amongst us?” was introduced by a letter from one of the most distinguished clergymen of the Episcopal Church, vouching for the respectability and disinterested zeal of the author, and the following review is by another eminent clergyman of tho same church, who, as will be seen, has had the advantage of knowing Mr. Williams from his boyhood, and whoso testimony is beyond tho suspicion of sinister motives or partisan zeal.—Ev. P. JI.
The Lost PRINCE: facts tending to prove the iden 4. Two French refugees, as they were tity of Louis the Seventeenth of France, and tho
supposed to be, a man and woman, apRev. Eleazer Williams, Missionary among the Indians of North America. By John II. llanson.
peared in Albany, N. Y., in 1795, in New-York: G. P. Putnam & Co. 1804. pp. 479.
charge of two children, a boy and girl,
under such circumstances as to justify the TIE PIE Rev. Mr. Ilanson, author of the theory, that the boy was the Dauphin ;
articles on this subject published in and that they left Albany for parts un this magazine in February and April of known. last year, avowed his deep interest in the 5. In the same year, 1795, two French question from the start, and has not hesi men, one of them having the appearance tated to declare his conviction, that the of a Roman Catholic priest, brought " a Rev. Eleazer Williams is the son of Louis weak, sickly boy, in a state of mental imSixteenth of France, and, consequently, becility," to Ticonderoga, and left him the Dauphin, who was alleged to have with the Indians. The child was adopted died in the tower of the Temple at Paris, on by an Iroquois chief, named Thomas Wi} the 8th of June 1795. Under such an im liams. pression, it was not to be expected that 6. This child is proved to be the Rev. Mr. Ilanson, after all that he had done, Eleazer Williams. woulti let the subject sleep. lIe has, ac
7. Mr. Williams is not an Indian. cordingly, given it diligent attention—has 8. The Duchess D'Angoulême, and the examined critically all that has been writ other members of the French Bourbon faten and said against the claims of Mr. mily, have always known that the DauWilliams-has travelled extensively, to phin did not die in the Temple, and that he look up additional evidence—and has fi was carried to America. nally come forth with the result of his in 9. The same members of the French vestigations, in a handsome duodecimo of Royal family have always been well ad479 pages, in a little less than a year after vised, so as to believe the fact, that the his first article on the subject was pub Dauphin was still alive, in the person of lished. The volume bears the title of the the Rev. Eleazer Williams. motto at the head of this article, Tue We do not say that all these proposiLost PRINCE.And Mr. Ilanson has not tions are clearly demonstrated; for then labored in vain. Ile has certainly accom there would be no remaining question. plished something. We may even say, Some of them are, doubtless, better estahe has done a good deal. Where his work blished than others. Some, indeed, are does not produce conviction, it will at proved beyond the possibility - of doubt. least command respect. lIe has, we think, But the sum of probabilities which cluster cleared the way for, and abundantly justi around the more doubtful, is of a nature fied the following propositions :
and character fully to justify the conclu1. The Dauphin did not die in the sion, that Mr. Williams may be the DauTemple, as the French Government alleged phin, and, perhaps, to justify the belief, at the time, and as has been commonly that he actually is so. Mr. Hanson has supposed.
prefaced his argument by the following 2. The child that died there was clan two mottos, which appear on his titledestinely introduced as a substitute for
“ There is no historical truth the Dauphin, while the Dauphin was se against which obstinacy cannot raise some cretly carried away.
objections. Many people think themselves 3. Ho was brought to America, and justified in asserting, against an alleged disposed of, with the intent that he should historical fact, its impossibility, without never appear as a claimant of the throne considering, that nothing is true or untrue of France.
in the eye of history because it is probable
or improbable, but simply because, assuming its general logical possibility, it can be proved to be or not to be a fact."Bunsen. “On appealing, after a number of years, to the evidence of facts, it will always be found, in the end, that probability is, in all things, the best symptom of truth."--Lamartine. According to the principle of these two mottos, wherein the above propositions, as stated by us, are not clearly demonstrated, they may be safely weighed in the balance of probabilities, and it is on this principle that we have thought proper to give them form and place. The negative of either of them cannot be established by like probabilities, as, for example, in the contradiction between Mr. Williams and the Prince de Joinville, which, indeed, has no direct bearing on either of the propositions we have laid down, though it may possibly be regarded as having an incidental relation. But, assuming that the Prince de Joinville was disappointed in the result of his interview with Mr. Williams, it is easy to see, that he was forced into this contradiction by his plan and policy, admitting the facts alleged by Mr. Williams. Here the rule of probability applies with great force in favor of Mr. Williams' account, as it is very improbable that the Prince would assent to its truth. IIe could not do it, in consistency with the alleged purpose of his mission.
Mr. Hanson, by his industry and zeal in this cause, has certainly collected most important and vital evidence on this question, since his first papers were published, in February and April of last year; and in the volume now under consideration, he has grouped all the testimony in the case with great skill and with telling offect. For his zeal ho needs no apology ; for he professes to believe in his story, which, if true, is worthy of any man's enthusiasm. The first item of additional evidence brought forward, which we propose to notice, is the second affidavit of Asr. Williams' reputed mother, Mary Ann Williams, which was made by her to correct the false statements of the first. To speak in the mildest terms that will properly characterize the discrepancy between the two documents, as it applies to the question at issue, it is a most astounding disclosure-astounding not only for the sudden flood of light which it casts on the main question, but especially and altogether more astounding for the audacity of the fraud practised in the means of obtaining, and in the mode of uttering, the first affidavit. This document, it would seem, was obtained at the
instance of M. De Courcy, though there is no evidence that he gave instructions that would suggest or justify the fraud. It appears, however, to have been quite acceptable to him, as might have been expected from his known feelings. For what reasons he took it to France, before it was published here, or whether he went expressly on that errand, we are not informed. It is natural to suppose, from the fact of his going to France with this document in his pocket, that it required to be submitted there. He then returned it to New-York, to be published in the Courrier des Eluts Unis, from which journal it went the rounds of the papers of the country, silencing, as was supposed at the time, the pretensions of Mr Williams, and overwhelming them with ridicule and contempt. The history of this remarkable document is sufficiently indicated by the following certificate :
"I certify that the affidavit sworn to before me in March last, by Mrs. Mary Ann Williams, was in the English language. She came to my oflice, in Ilogansburgh, either in company with, or met there, the Rev. Francis Marcoux, Roman Catholic priest at St. Regis. Two Indians were also present. Mr. Marcoux acted as interpreter, and put the questions to her in the Indian language, and interpreted them in English.
A. Fulton, J. P. " IIogansburgli, July 8, 1853."
It will be observed, that Mrs. Williams gave her evidence in the Indian language, not understanding English ; and that Mr Marcoux interpreted it to the Justice of the Peace, Mr. Fulton, in English, to be put down, sworn to, and published in that language. It was executed and published accordingly. But, in all the particulars mentioned in this affidavit, touching the question before the public, Mrs. Williams is made to contradict her reputed son, the Rev. Mr. Williams, and to implicate him in false statements. She is made repeatedly to declare, that Eleazer Williams is her own son; to deny the story to the contrary, and to maintain June as the month in which she thinks he was born. Suffice it to state, that she is made to say and swear to in English, a language which she did not understand, many things important to the point in issue, which she did not say in her own tongue, which she did not intend to say, and which she could not say with truth and a good conscience; all which, when she came to have it explained to her, as it really was, she entirely repudiated, and went before the same magistrate, Mr. Fulton, a second time, and made a new affidavit in her own language; and notwithstanding she was followed up by Mr.
Dlarcoux's friends, with assiduous efforts to embarrass her, and to prevent her from purging her conscience, she nevertheless, in her second affidavit, declared, that the Rev. Eleazer Williams was an adopted child, and corrected all the other points in which she had been misinterpreted by Mr. Marcoux in her first affidavit. Mrs. Williams swears, in her second affidavit, that Mr. Marcoux, with others, some women, persuaded her to make the first, and that she found, when the first was explained to her, that it contained things which she did not intend to say, and which were not true; that is, all the material points of the case.
These two aflidavits, and the history of them, are given in the twentieth chapter of the book now under notice, and they claim an attentive perusal by those who desire to understand the merits of this controversy. We need not name the legal or technical denomination which characterizes this fraud, as all know that it constitutes a very high crime. Mr. Inson might well be eloquent, as he is, on this branch of his argument. We cite a single sentence: - Taking advantage of her ignorance of all languages, but Indian, and relying upon the obscurity of a barbaric tongue. to hide from the world his imposture, this clergymnan falsely interprets her answers to the magistrate, substitutes wholesale statements, adapted to his own ends, for those which she in reality makes; then falsely interprets his interpretation to her, procures her oath to his fabrication, poisons the fountains of truth and justice at their primal and most sacred source, and seeks to send the poor woman into the grave with a sworn lie upon her lips, against the child of her adoption, that he might at once destroy his reputation, and deceive the world npon a grave question of history.” And when M. De Courcy gets possession of this precious document, he goes on a mission to France, peradventure to have it determined there when and where it shall be published ; and it is sent back to be published in New-York.
It is true that this enormity in the social state does not prove that the Rev. Eleazer Williams is the son of Louis Sixteenth ; but it does prove that man must have a strong motive, and should receive no trifling compensation, to practice subornation of perjury to prevent the establishment of such an historical fact. It proves, moreover, that there is some stupendous wrong in this business, be it to rob a born prince of his right to a throne, or a private and humble individual of his character, the latter of which may, possibly, in this case, be
more highly prized than the former. So palpable a fraud too, and a fraud of such a character, will naturally lead men to think, that, after all, there is something in this question not only deserving of consideratioion, but of very grave import. There is not, perhaps, in the whole history of this complicated affair, another incident of a more striking and impressive character. Every one will ask, what could be the motive of this subornation of perjury ? and let him who can, answer.
Another interesting and instructive part of the additional evidence adduced by Mr. IIanson, is the narrative, and more succinct affidavit, of Mrs. Brown, of New Orleans, also given in the twentieth chapter of the book, and in Appendix N., Mrs. Reid certifies by affidavit to the character of Mrs. Brown, and the Rev. Mr. Whitall, in the same way, to that of Mrs. Reid. The credibillty of the testimony is well guaranteed. Mírs. Brown was formerly wife of the Secretary of Count D'Artois, and resided six years, from 1804 to 1810, at Holyrood Hlouse, Edinburgh, with the royal exiles; and for nearly as long a time afterwards, she was on terms of intimacy with the Bourbon family, and did them some service, which was highly appreciated. Her position as wife of the Secretary of the Count, was doubtless above that of a domestic. Hence, while in exile, the Duchess d'Angoulême seems to have admitted her to some degree of confidence. The knowledge, however, which she attained from the Duchess, and through other channels, while in this relation to the royal family, of the Rev. Eleazer Williams, as the recognized Dauphin, seems to have been purely accidental, and it is all the more valuable on that account. She testifies that the Duchess d'Angoulême told her, that “She knew the Dauphin was alive and safe in America." The affidavit also proves, that the royal family knew that he was called by the name of Williams; but they said "he was incompetent to reign ;" or as detailed more particularly by Mr. Hanson, page 420, “Mrs Brown went on to say, that, according to Mrs. Chamberlain's state ment (Mrs. Chamberlain was wife to the Secretary of Count De Coigny,) the subject had been much discussed in the palace, and that the royal family said, Williams was incompetent to reign, and his elevation to the throne would only increase the difficulties of the times that a man had come out from America to confer with them on the subject, and that she had seen him. Money was given to this man, and he returned to America,” Mrs. Brown had often heard in the royal family, that