A few translations only have been admitted; the satisfactory translation of verse being an art by itself, demanding special qualifications possessed only by the few. But though it is not often that a rendition does not suffer when compared with its original, it is equally true that in some hands a transcription may equal if not surpass its prototype. Witness, for example, Mr. Andrew Lang’s graceful stanzas entitled “An Old Tune,” adapted from Gérard de Nerval’s dreamy Fantaisie, and which although very closely rendered fully equal the original in colour and fragrance, while surpassing it in melodiousness and rhythm. Nearly as much might be said of Mr. Edmund Gosse’s version of Théophile de Viau’s lovely sonnet, Au moins ay-ie songé que ie vous ay baisée, as also of the late Thomas Ashe’s phrasing of Ma vie a son secret, mon âme a son mystère, which has been so variously rendered by various translators.
With Waller’s “Go, lovely rose,” Herrick’s “Gather ye roses,” Ford’s “There is a lady sweet and kind,” and many another harmonious measure of Lily, Lodge, Lovelace, Campion, Carew, and the rest of them ringing in our ears, what comparison shall be made with the modern laureates of love? Whether the latter indeed chant as sweetly as the Elizabethan meistersingers and their successors under the Restoration, is a question it were perhaps wiser to pass, from lack of space to dwell upon, leaving the reader to form his own opinion. There are those who hold to the contrary; there are others who in the best of existent love-poetry find conceits as colourful, rhythm as resonant, and inspiration as melodious as is still echoed from the sweetest strains of the Elizabethan lyre. Rather, to each let that merit be accorded which is its due. The old songs, like all truly beautiful things of eld, possess the puissant stamp of endurance and the approval of the centuries, added to that indefinable charm which age alone may impart; the new must yet be mellowed and adjudged by Time.
It must be remembered, too, that it is the best of the ancient songs we know and love so well; that if the entire verse of almost any olden bard be closely scanned, it will be found, in very numerous instances, of a widely uneven quality, with many a limping line, strained conceit, or halting measure to offend. Song did not mount to the strain of merle or mavis, or sing itself in the past with greater ease than is the case at present. Greater freedom it possessed; and in the method more than in the matter the chief distinction lies. This distinction between the past-masters and the bards of the present is deftly set forth by Edmund Gosse in his poem, “Impression,”—
. . . . . . . . . .
“If we could dare to write as ill
As some whose voices haunt us still,
Even we, perchance, might call our own
Their deep enchanting undertone.
We are too diffident and nice,
Too learnèd and too overwise,
Too much afraid of faults to be
The flutes of bold sincerity.
For, as this sweet life passes by,
We blink and nod with critic eye;
We’ve no words rude enough to give
Its charm so frank and fugitive.”
. . . . . . . . . .
The term “ill” which is applied to the ancient versifiers in the above lines were perhaps better rendered by the qualification “bold.” It is in this boldness, vigour, and fire that the distinguishing difference largely consists. And in the striving for new effects, when the present aims to reproduce the past, these qualities are usually lacking in their pristine fervour; while the latter-day impressionist and symbolist is frequently so vague as to be well-nigh unintelligible.
The sentiment underlying the expression of the lyrist of to-day does not differ materially, after all, from that of his remote predecessor. The pitch and timbre of modern poetry are somewhat altered, to be sure. There is less personality, less freedom,—shall I say a certain naïve grace and spontaneous virility are wanting in existent verse as compared with Elizabethan song? though in general the latter-day lyrist is the superior craftsman in rhyme. The most marked variation between the two periods is that the so-called Elizabethan poets for the most part wrote their songs to be sung,—“music married to immortal verse.” The lilt and blitheness of these are individual; and these qualities we are apt to miss, in their primal grace, in many a love-song of the present.
So far as the prevailing spirit of love itself is concerned, this has undergone no change, unless that evolved by the natural refining processes of time. Human nature must be human nature still; and passion in the human heart exists unaltered in its essence. We may not have another Herrick, nor may we summon another Tennyson; the breeze of summer blows not twice alike in its passage through the woodland keys. But there must always remain new chords to be sounded while the most potent of verbs remains to be conjugated. The poets pass away, yet Love is ever new; and so long as the seasons endure and new days dawn, the tuneful choir will chant in infinite variation,—
“Methinks no leaf would ever bud in spring,
But for the lovers’ lips that kiss, the poets’ lips that sing.”