to be found, the only true mirror of that ancient world. By this means alone their greatest obstacles will vanish; and what ufually creates their dislike, will become a fatisfaction.

This confideration may farther ferve to answer for the conftant ufe of the fame epithets to his gods and heroes, fuch as the far-darting Phoebus, the blue-eyed Pallas, the fwift-footed Achilles, &c. which fome have cenfured as impertinent and tediously repeated. Those of the gods depended upon the powers and offices then believed to belong to them, and had contracted a weight and veneration from the rites and folemn devotions in which they were ufed; they were a fort of attributes with which it was a matter of religion to falute them on all occafions, and which it was an irreverence to omit. As for the epithets of great men, Monf. Boileau is of opinion, that they were in the nature of furnames, and repeated as fuch; for the Greeks, having no names derived from their fathers, were obliged to add fome other diftinction of each perfon; either naming his parents exprefsly, or his place of birth, profeffion, or the like: as Alexander the fon of Philip, Herodotus of Halicarnaffus, Diogenes the Cynic, &c. Homer therefore, complying with the cuftom of his country, used fuch distinctive additions as better agreed with poetry. And indeed we have fomething parallel to thefe in modern times, fuch as the names of Harold Harefoot, Edmund Ironfide, Edward Long-fhanks, Edward the Black Prince, &c. If yet this be thought to account better for the propriety than for the repetition, I shall add a farther conjecture: Hefiod, dividing the world into its different ages, has placed a fourth age between the brazen and the iron one, of "Heroes diftinct from other men: a divine race, who fought at Thebes and Troy, are called Demi-Gods, and live by the care of Jupiter in the islands of the bleffed." Now among the divine honours which were paid them, they might have this alfo in common with the gods, not to be mentioned without the folemnity of an epithet, and fuch as might be acceptable to them by its celebrating their families, actions, or qua

lities.

What other cavils have been raised againit Homer, are fuch as hardly deferve a reply, but will yet be taken notice of as they occur in the courfe of the work.

Hefiod, lib. i. ver. 155, &c.

Many have been occafioned by an injudicious endeavour to exalt Virgil; which is much the fame, as if one fhould think to raise the superstructure by undermining the foundation: one would imagine, by the whole courfe of their parallels, that thefe critics never fo much as heard of Homer's having written firft; a confideration which whoever compares thefe two poets ought to have always in his eye. Some accufe him for the fame things which they overlook or praife in the other; as when they prefer the fable and moral of the Aneis to thofe of the Iliad, for the fame reasons which might fet the Odysses above the

neis: as that the hero is a wifer man; and the action of the one more beneficial to his country than that of the other: or elfe they blame him for not doing what he never defigned; as because Achilles is not as good and perfect a prince as Æneas, when the very moral of his poem required a contrary character: it is thus that Rapin judges in his comparison of Homer and Virgil. Others felect those particular paffages of Homer, which are not fo laboured as fome that Virgil drew out of them: this is the whole management of Scaliger in his Poetices. Others quarrel with what they take for low and mean expreffions, fometimes through a falfe delicacy and refinement, oftener from an ignorance of the graces of the original; and then triumph in the awkwardness of their own tranflations; this is the conduct of Perault in his Parallels. Laftly, there are others, who, pretending to a fairer proceeding, diftinguish between the perfonal merit of Homer, and that of his work; but when they come to affign the causes of the great reputation of the Iliad, they found it upon the ignorance of his times and the prejudice of those that followed: and in purfuance of this principle, they make thofe accidents (fuch as the contention of the cities, &c.) to be the caufes of his fame, which were in reality the confequences of his merit. The fame might as well be faid of Virgil, or any great author, whofe general character will infallibly raife many cafual additions to their reputation. This is the method of Monf. de la Motte; who yet confeffes upon the whole, that in whatever age Homer had lived, he must have been the greatest poet of his nation, and that he may be faid in this fenfe to be the mafter even of those who furpaffed him.

In all thefe objections we fee nothing that contradicts his title to the honour of the

G g

the chief invention; and as long as this (which is indeed the charact riftic of poetry itfelf) remains unequalled by his followers, he fill continues fuperior to them. A cooler judgment may commit fewer faults, and be more approved in the eyes of one fort of critics: but that warmth of fancy will carry the loudest and most univerfal applautes, which holds the heart of a reader under the ftrongest enchantment. Homer not only appears the inventor of poetry, but exce's all the inventors of other arts in this, that he has fwallowed up the honour of thofe who fucceeded him. What he has done admitted no increase, it only left room for contraction or regulation. He fhewed all the ftretch of fancy at once; and if he has failed in fome of his flights, it was but because he attempted every thing. A work of this kind feems like a mighty tree which rifes from the moft vigorous feed, is improved with induftry, flourishes, and produces the fincit fruit; nature and art confpire to raise it; pleasure and profit join to make it valuable: and they who find the jufteft faults, have only faid, that a few branches (which run luxuriant through a richness of nature) might be lopped into form to give it a more regular appear

ance.

Having now fpoken of the beauties and defects of the original, it remains to treat of the tranflation, with the fame view to the chief characteristic. As far as that is feen in the main parts of the poem, fuch as the fable, manners, and fentiments, no tranflator can prejudice it but by wilful omiffions or contractions. As it alfo breaks out in every particular image, defcription, and fimile, whoever leffens or too much foftens thofe, takes off from this chief character. It is the fet grand duty of an interpreter to give his author entire and unmaimed; and for the reit, the diction and verfification only are his proper province; fince thefe muit be his own, but

the others he is to take as he finds them.

It thould then be confidered what methods may afford fome equivalent in our language for the graces of thefe in the Greek. It is certain no literal tranflation can be just to an excellent original in a fuperior language: but it is a great miftake to imagine (as many have done) that a rah paraphrafe can make amends for this general defect; which is no lefs in danger to love the fpirit of an ancient, by deviating into the modern manners of exprofiou. If there be fometimes a dark

nefs, there is often a light in antiquity, which nothing better preferves than a verfion almoft literal. I know no liberties one ought to take, but thofe which are neceffary for transfufing the spirit of the original, and fupporting the poetical style of the tranflation: and i will venture to fay, there have not been more men milled in former times by a fervile dull adherence to the latter, than have been deladed in ours by a chimerical infolent hope of raifing and improving their author. It is not to be doubted that the fire of the poem is what a tranflator fhould principally regard, as it is most likely to expire in his managing: however, it is his fafent way to be content with preferving this to his utmoft in the whole, without endeavouring to be more than he finds his author is, in any particular place. It is a great fecret in writing, to know when to be plain, and when poetical and figurative; and it is what Homer will teach us, if we will but follow modeftly in his footsteps. Where his diction is bold and lofty, let us raise ours as high as we can; but where he is plain and humble, we ought not to be deterred from imitating him by the fear of incurring the cenfure of a mere English critic. Nothing that belongs to Homer feems to have been more commonly miftaken than the juft pitch of his ftyle: fome of his tranflators having fwelled into fuftian in a proud confidence of the fublime; others funk into flatnefs in a cold and timorous notion of fimplicity. Methinks I, fee thefe different followers of Homer, fome fweating and training after him by violent leaps and bounds, (the certain figns of falfe mettle); others flowly and fervilely creeping in his train, while the poet himself is all the time proceeding with an unaffected and equal majefly before them. However, of the two extremes, one could fooner pardon frenzy than frigidity: no author is to be envied for fuch commendations as he may gain by that character of style, which his friends must agree together to call fimplicity, and the reft of the world will call dulnefs. There is a graceful and dignified fimplicity, as well as a bald and fordid one, which differ as much from each other as the air of a plain man from that of a floven: it is one thing to be tricked up, and another not to be dreffed at all. Simplicity is the mean be tween oftentation and rufticity.

This pure and noble fimplicity is no where in fuch perfection as in the Scrip

ture

ture and our author. One may, affirm, with all respect to the infpired writings, that the divine fpirit made use of no other words but what were intelligible and common to men at that time, and in that part of the world; and as Homer is the author nearest to thofe, his ftyle muft of course bear a greater refemblance to the facred books than that of any other writer. This confideration (together with what has been obferved of the parity of fome of his thoughts) may methinks induce a tranflator on the one hand to give into feveral of thofe general phrafes and manners of expreflion, which have attained a veneration even in our language from being used in the Old Testament; as on the other, to avoid thofe which have been appropriated to the Divinity, and in a manner configned to mystery and religion.

For a farther preservation of this air of fimplicity, a particular care fhould be taken to exprefs with all plainnefs thofe moral fentences and proverbial fpeeches which are fo numerous in this poet. They have fomething venerable, and I may fay oracular, in that unadorned gravity and fhortnefs with which they are delivered: a grace which would be utterly loft by endeavouring to give them what we call a more ingenious (that is, a more modern) turn in the paraphrafe.

Perhaps the mixture of fome Grecifms and old words, after the manner of Milton, if done without too much affectation, might not have an ill effect in a verfion of this particular work, which most of any other feems to require a venerable antique caft. But certainly the ufe of modern terms of war and government, fuch as platoon, campaign, junto, or the like (into which fome of his tranflators have fallen) cannot be allowable; thofe only excepted, without which it is impoffible, to treat the fubjects in any living-language.

There are two peculiarities in Homer's diction, which are a fort of marks, or moles, by which every common eye diftinguishes him at firft fight: thofe who are not his greateft admirers look upon them as defects, and those who are, feem pleafed with them as beauties. I fpeak of his compound epithets, and of his repetitions. Many of the former cannot be done literally into English without deftroying the purity of our language. I believe fuch fhould be retained as flide cafily of themfelves into an English com

pound, without violence to the ear, or to the received rules of compofition; as well as thofe which have received a fanction from the authority of our beft poets, and are become familiar through their use of them; fuch as the cloud-compelling Jove, &c. As for the reft, whenever any can be as fully and fignificantly expreffed in a fingle word as in a compound one, the courfe to be taken is obvious.

Some that cannot be fo turned as to preferve their full image by one or two words, may have juftice done them by circumlocution; as the epithet sivosipunos to a mountain, would appear little or ridiculous tranflated literally "leaf-fhaking," but affords a majestic idea in the periphrafis : "The lofty mountain fhakes his waving woods." Others that admit of differing fignifications, may receive an advantage by a judicious variation according to the occafions on which they are introduced. For example, the epithet of Apollo, ixnC6λos, or far-fhooting," is capable of two explications; one literal in refpect to the darts and bow, the enfigns of that god; the other allegorical with regard to the rays of the fun: therefore in fuch places where Apollo is reprefented as a god in perfon, I would use the former interpretation; and where the effects of the fun are described, I would make choice of the latter. Upon the whole, it will be neceflary to avoid that perpetual repetition of the fame epithets which we find in Homer; and which, though it might be accommodated (as has been already fhewn) to the ear of thofe times, is by no means fo to ours: but one may wait for opportunities of placing them, where they derive an additional beauty from the occafions on which they are employed; and in doing this properly, a tranflator may at once thew his fancy and his judgment.

As for Homer's repetitions, we may divide them into three forts; of whole narrations and fpeeches, of fingle fentences, and of one verfe or hemiftich. I hope it is not impoflible to have fuch a regard to thefe, as neither to lofe fo known a mark of the author on the one hand, nor to offend the reader too much on the other. The repetition is not ungraceful in thofe fpeeches where the dignity of the fpeaker renders it a fort of infolence to alter his words; as in the meffages from Gods to men, or from higher powers to inferiors in concerns of flate, or where the ceremonial of reugion feems to require it, in the fon Gg 2

forms

forms of prayer, oaths, or the like. In other cafes, I believe, the best rule is, to be guided by the nearness, or distance, at which the repetitions are placed in the original when they follow too close, one may vary the expreffion; but it is a queftion, whether a profeffed tranflator be authorised to omit any: if they be tedious, the author is to answer for it.

It only remains to speak of the Verfification. Homer (as has been faid) is perpetually applying the found to the fenfe, and varying it on every new fubject. This is indeed one of the most exquifite beauties of poetry, and attainable by very few: I know only of Homer eminent for it in the Greek, and Virgil in Latin. I am fenfible it is what may fometimes happen by chance, when a writer is warm, and fully poffeffed of his image: however it may be reasonably believed they defigned this, in whofe verfe it fo manifeftly appears in a fuperior degree to all others. Few readers have the ear to be judges of it; but those who have, will fee I have endeavoured at this beauty.

Upon the whole, I must confefs myfelf utterly incapable of doing juftice to Homer. I attempt him in no other hope but that which one may entertain without much vanity, of giving a more tolerable copy of him than any entire tranflation in verfe has yet done. We have only thofe of Chapman, Hobbes, and Ogilby. Chapman has taken the advantage of an immeasurable length of verfe, notwithstanding which, there is fcarce any paraphrafe more loofe and rambling than his. He has frequent interpolations of four or fix lines, and I remember one in the thirteenth book of the Odyffes, ver. 312, where he has fpun twenty verfes out of two. He is often mistaken in fo bold a manner, that one might think he deviated on purpofe, if he did not in other places of his notes infift fo much upon verbal trifles. He appears to have had a strong affectation of extracting new meanings out of his author, infomuch as to promife, in his rhyming preface, a poem of the mysteries he had revealed in Homer: and perhaps

he endeavoured to ftrain the obvious fense to this end. His expreffion is involved in fuftian, a fault for which he was remarkable in his original writings, as in the tragedy of Buffy d'Amboife, &c.

In a

word, the nature of the man may account for his whole performance; for he appears, from his preface and remarks, to

have been of an arrogant turn, and an enthufiaft in poetry. His own boat of having finished half the Iliad in less than fifteen weeks, fhews with what negligence his verfion was performed. But that which is to be allowed him, and which very much contributed to cover his defects, is a daring fiery spirit that animates his tranflation, which is fomething like what one might imagine Homer himself would have writ before he arrived at years of difcretion.

Hobbes has given us a correct explanation of the fenfe in general: but for particulars and circumftances he continually lops them, and often omits the most beautiful. As for its being efteemed a close tranflation, I doubt not many have been led into that error by the thortness of it, which proceeds not from his following the original line by line, but from the contractions above mentioned. He fometimes omits whole fimilies and fentences, and is now and then guilty of mistakes, into which no writer of his learning could have fallen, but through careleffness. His poetry, as well as Ogilby's, is too mean for criticifm.

It is a great lofs to the poetical world that Mr. Dryden did not live to tranflate the Iliad. He has left us only the first book, and a small part of the fixth; in which, if he has in fome places not truly interpreted the fenfe, or preferved the antiquities, it ought to be excused on account of the hafte he was obliged to write in.

He feems to have had too much regard to Chapman, whofe words he fometimes copies, and has unhappily followed him in paffages where he wanders from the original. However, had he translated the whole work, I would no more have attempted Homer after him than Virgil, his verfion of whom (notwithstanding fome human errors) is the most noble and fpirited tranflation I know in any language. But the fate of great geniufes is like that of great minifters, though they are confeffedly the first in the commonwealth of letters, they must be envied and calumniated only for being at the head