& 8 বাল্মীকি ও তৎসাময়িক বৃত্তান্ত । , দ্বিতীয় far-fetched, costly, sickly imitation of that which elsewhere may be found in healthful and spontaneous perfection. The soils on which this rarity flourishes are in general as ill suited to the production of vigorous native poetry as the flower-pots of a hot-house to the growth of oaks”—Macaulay. পুনশ্চ স্থানা ন্তরে উক্ত পণ্ডিত অপর একজন মহাবিজ্ঞের মত ব্যক্ত করিCSCER “Nor was Boileau's contempt of modern Latin either injudicatious or peevish. He thought, indeed, that no poem of the first order would ever he written in a dead language. And did he think amiss? Has not the experience of centuries confirmed his opinion ? Boileau also thought it proper that, in the best modern Latin, a writer of the Augustan age would have detected ludicrous improprieties. And who can think otherwise What modern scholar can honestly declare that he sees the smallest imparity in the style of Livy 2 Yet is it mot certain that, in the style of Livy, Pollio, whose tastes had been formed on the banks of the Tiber, detected the inelegant idiom of Po ? Has any modern Scholar understood Latin better than Frederic the Great understood French 2 Yet is it not notorious that Frederic the Great, after reading, speaking, writing French, and nothing but French, during more than half a century, after unlearning his mother tongue in order to learn French, after living familiarly during many years with French associates, could not, to the last, compose in French, without imminent risk of committing some mistake which would have moved a smile in the literary circle of Paris ? Do we believe that Erasmus and Fracastorius wrote Latin as well as Dr. Robertson and Sir Walter Scott
