affected and semi-obscure, and you will perceive by force
of contrast why, among the Greeks, the instrument of
thought being more simple, it did its office better and
with less effort."

Among the good books of the year, two belong to a special walk
of letters in which we have not hitherto excelled the English
Translation. There are periods in the history of English Poetry
when translation has played an important part. Such a period
occurred just before the Shakspearean era, and it was noted for
translations from the Latin poets. Chapman was the first English
writer to perceive the greatness of the Greek poets, and, like
the poet that he was, he attempted to translate the father of
poets, Homer. Chapman's Homer is a noble work, with all its
faults; but it is not what Homer should be in English. It was
followed by other translations mostly of the Latin poets, the
best, perhaps, being Dryden's Virgil, until, finally, the English
mind returned to Homer, or supposed it did, in the pretty,
musical numbers of Pope. Who will may read Pope's Homer. We
cannot. Nor Cowper's either, although it contains some good,
manly writing. We can read Lord Derby's Homer, or could, until
Mr. Bryant published his translation of the "Iliad," when the
necessity no longer existed. No English translation of Homer will
compare with Mr. Bryant's; and we are glad that we are soon to
have the whole of the "Odyssey," as we already have the whole of
the "Iliad." The first volume of Mr. Bryant's translation of the
"Odyssey" (J.R. Osgood & Co.) fully sustains the reputation of
the writer. It is so admirably done, that, if we did not know to
the contrary, we should think we were reading an original poem.
The stiffness which generally inheres in translations is wanting;