Perhaps the mixture of fome Grecisms 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 seems to require a venerable antique caft. But certainly the ufe of modern terms of war and government, fuch as platoon, campagne, 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 first fight: Thofe who are not his greatest admirers look upon them as defects; and those who are, feem pleased 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 destroying the purity of our language. I believe fuch should be retained as flide easily of themselves into an English compound, without violence to the ear or to the received rules of compofition; as well as those which have received a fanction from the authority of our best Poets, and are become familiar thro' their use of them; fuch as the cloud-compelling Jove, etc. As for the reft, whenever any can be as fully and fignificantly exprest in a single word as in a compounded one, the course to be taken is obvious.

3

Some that cannot be fo turned as to preserve their full image by one or two words, may have justice done them by circumlocution; as the epithet eivoriquλ to a mountain, would appear little or ridiculous tranflated literally leaf-shaking, but affords a majestic idea in the periphrafis : The lofty mountain shakes 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, xnCóλ@, or farfhooting, is capable of two explications; one literal in respect of the darts and bow, the enfign of that God; the other allegorical with regard to the rays of the fun: Therefore in fuch places where Apollo is represented as a God in perfon, I would ufe 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 neceffary to avoid that perpetual repetition of the same epithets which we find in Homer, and which, tho' it might be accommodated (as has been already shewn) to the ear of those 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 employ'd; and in doing this properly, a translator may at once shew his fancy and his judgment.

As for Homer's Repetitions, we may divide them into three forts; of whole narrations and speeches,

of fingle fentences, and of one verfe or hemistich. I hope it is not impoffible to have such 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 speaker 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 ftate, or where the ceremonial of religion feems to require it, in the folemn forms of prayers, oaths, or the like. In other cafes, I believe the best rule is to be guided by the nearnefs, or distance, at which the repetitions are placed in the original: When they follow too clofe, one may vary the expreffion, but it is a queftion whether a profeffed tranflator be authorized to omit any: If they be tedious, the author is to anfwer for it.

It only remains to fpeak 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 poffeft of his image: however it may be reafonably 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 endeavour'd at this beauty.

Upon the whole, I must confefs myself 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 translation in verse 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 fearce any paraphrase more loose and rambling than his. He has frequent interpolations of four or fix lines, and I remember one in the thirteenth book of the Odyffey, ver. 312. where he has spun twenty verses out of two. He is often miftaken in fo bold a manner, that one might think he deviated on purpose, if he did not in other places of his notes infift so 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 myfteries he had revealed in Homer: and perhaps he endeavoured to ftrain the obvious fenfe 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'Amboise, etc. 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,

Сса

In a

and an enthusiast in poetry. His own boast of having finished half the Iliad in less than fifteen weeks, shews with what negligence his version was performed. But that which is to be allowed him, and which very much contributed to cover his defects, is a daring fiery fpirit 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 circumstances he continually lops them, and often omits the most beautiful. As for its being efteemed a clofe tranflation, I doubt not many have been led into that error by the fhortnefs of it, which proceeds not from his following the original line by line, but from the contractions above-mentioned. He fometimes omits whole fimiles and fentences, and is now and then guilty of mistakes, into which no writer of his learning could have fallen, but thro' careleffnefs. His poetry, as well as Ogilby's, is too mean for criticism.

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 firft book, and a fmall 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 excufed on account of the hafte he was obliged to write in. He feems to have had too much regard to Chapman, whofe words he