Traduttore—­traditore, “Translator—­traitor,” says the proverb; and of all traitors shielded under the less offensive name, Signor Tamburini is beyond comparison the worst we have ever had the misfortune to encounter.  A place is reserved for him in that lowest depth in which, according to Dante’s system, traitors are punished.

It appears from his preface that Signor Tamburini is not without distinction in the city of Imola.  He has been President of the Literary Academy named that of “The Industrious.”  To have been President of all Academy in the Roman States implies that the person bearing this honor was either an ecclesiastic or a favorite of ecclesiastics.  Hitherto, no one could hold such an office without having his election to it confirmed by a central board of ecclesiastical inspectors (la Sacra Congregazione degli Studj) at Rome.  The reason for noticing this fact in connection with Signor Tamburini will soon become apparent.

In his preface, Signor Tamburini declares that in the first division of the poem he has kept his translation close to the original, while in the two later divisions he had been meno legato, “less exact,” in his rendering.  This acknowledgment, however unsatisfactory to the reader, presented at least an appearance of fairness.  But, from a comparison of Signor Tamburini’s work with the portions of the original preserved by Muratori, we have satisfied ourselves that his honesty is on a level with his capacity as a translator, and what his capacity is we propose to enable our readers to judge for themselves.  For our own part, we have been unable to distinguish any important difference in the methods of translation followed in the three parts of the Comment.

So far as we are aware, this book has not met with its dues in Europe.  The well-known Dantophilist, Professor Blanc of Halle, speaks of it in a note to a recent essay (Versuch einer blos philogischen Erklaerung der Goettlichen Komoedie, von Dr. L.G.  Blanc, Halle, 1860, p. 5) as “a miserably unsatisfactory translation,” but does not give the grounds of his assertion.  We intend to show that a grosser literary imposition has seldom been attempted than in these volumes.  It is an outrage on the memory of Dante not less than on that of Benvenuto.  The book is worse than worthless to students; for it is not only full of mistakes of carelessness, stupidity, and ignorance, but also of wilful perversions of the meaning of the original by additions, alterations, and omissions.  The three large volumes contain few pages which do not afford examples of mutilation or misrepresentation of Benvenuto’s words.  We will begin our exhibition of the qualities of the Procrustean mistranslator with an instance of his almost incredible carelessness, which is, however, excusable in comparison with his more wilful faults.  Opening the first volume at page 397, we find the following sentence,—­which we put side by side with the original as given by Muratori.  The passage relates to the 33d and succeeding verses of Canto XVI.