For this last half year I have been troubled with the
disease (as I may call it) of translation. The cold prose
fits of it, which are always the most tedious with
me, were spent in the History of the League;[47] the
hot, which succeeded them, in this volume of Verse
Miscellanies. The truth is, I fancied to myself a
kind of ease in the change of the paroxysm; never
suspecting but that the humour would have wasted
itself in two or three pastorals of Theocritus, and as
many odes of Horace. But finding, or at least thinking
I found, something that was more pleasing in
them than my ordinary productions, I encouraged
myself to renew my old acquaintance with Lucretius
and Virgil; and immediately fixed upon some parts
of them, which had most affected me in the reading.
These were my natural impulses for the undertaking.
But there was an accidental motive which
was full as forcible, and God forgive him who was
the occasion of it. It was my Lord Roscommon's
"Essay on Translated Verse;"[48] which made me
uneasy till I tried whether or no I was capable
of following his rules, and of reducing the speculation
into practice. For, many a fair precept in poetry
is, like a seeming demonstration in the mathematics,
very specious in the diagram, but failing in
the mechanic operation. I think I have generally
observed his instructions; I am sure my reason is
sufficiently convinced both of their truth and usefulness;
which, in other words, is to confess no
less a vanity, than to pretend that I have, at least
in some places, made examples to his rules. Yet,
withal, I must acknowledge, that I have many
times exceeded my commission; for I have both
added and omitted, and even sometimes very boldly
made such expositions of my author's, as no
Dutch commentator will forgive me. Perhaps, in
such particular passages, I have thought that I discovered
some beauty yet undiscovered by those pedants,
which none but a poet could have found.
Where I have taken away some of their expressions,
and cut them shorter, it may possibly be on this
consideration, that what was beautiful in the Greek
or Latin, would not appear so shining in the English:
and where I have enlarged them, I desire
the false critics would not always think, that those
thoughts are wholly mine, but that either they are
secretly in the poet, or may be fairly deduced from
him; or at least, if both those considerations should
fail, that my own is of a piece with his, and that if
he were living, and an Englishman, they are such
as he would probably have written.
For, after all, a translator is to make his author
appear as charming as possibly he can, provided he
maintains his character, and makes him not unlike
himself. Translation is a kind of drawing after the
life; where every one will acknowledge there is a
double sort of likeness, a good one and a bad. It
is one thing to draw the outlines true, the features
like, the proportions exact, the colouring itself perhaps
tolerable; and another thing to make all these
graceful, by the posture, the shadowings, and, chiefly,
by the spirit which animates the whole. I cannot,
without some indignation, look on an ill copy
of an excellent original; much less can I behold
with patience Virgil, Homer, and some others, whose
beauties I have been endeavouring all my life to
imitate, so abused, as I may say, to their faces, by a
botching interpreter. What English readers, unacquainted
with Greek or Latin, will believe me, or
any other man, when we commend those authors,
and confess we derive all that is pardonable in us
from their fountains, if they take those to be the
same poets, whom our Oglebies have translated?
But I dare assure them, that a good poet is no more
like himself, in a dull translation, than his carcase
would be to his living body. There are many, who
understand Greek and Latin, and yet are ignorant
of their mother-tongue. The proprieties and delicacies
of the English are known to few; it is impossible
even for a good wit to understand and
practise them, without the help of a liberal education,
long reading, and digesting of those few
good authors we have amongst us, the knowledge
of men and manners, the freedom of habitudes and
conversation with the best company of both sexes;
and, in short, without wearing off the rust which
he contracted while he was laying in a stock of
learning. Thus difficult it is to understand the purity
of English, and critically to discern not only
good writers from bad, and a proper style from a
corrupt, but also to distinguish that which is pure in
a good author, from that which is vicious and corrupt
in him. And for want of all these requisites,
or the greatest part of them, most of our ingenious
young men take up some cried-up English poet for
their model, adore him, and imitate him, as they
think, without knowing wherein he is defective,
where he is boyish and trifling, wherein either his
thoughts are improper to his subject, or his expressions
unworthy of his thoughts, or the turn of both
is unharmonious. Thus it appears necessary, that a
man should be a nice critic in his mother-tongue,
before he attempts to translate in a foreign language.
Neither is it sufficient, that he be able to judge
of words and style; but he must be a master of
them too; he must perfectly understand his author's
tongue, and absolutely command his own.
So that, to be a thorough translator, he must be
a thorough poet. Neither is it enough to give his
author's sense in good English, in poetical expressions,
and in musical numbers; for, though all these
are exceeding difficult to perform, there yet remains
a harder task; and it is a secret of which few
translators have sufficiently thought. I have already
hinted a word or two concerning it; that is,
the maintaining the character of an author, which
distinguishes him from all others, and makes him
appear that individual poet whom you would interpret.
For example, not only the thoughts, but the
style and versification, of Virgil and Ovid are very
different: Yet I see, even in our best poets, who
have translated some parts of them, that they have
confounded their several talents; and, by endeavouring
only at the sweetness and harmony of numbers,
have made them both so much alike, that,
if I did not know the originals, I should never be
able to judge by the copies, which was Virgil, and
which was Ovid. It was objected against a late
noble painter,[49] that he drew many graceful pictures,
but few of them were alike. And this happened
to him, because he always studied himself
more than those who sat to him. In such translators
I can easily distinguish the hand which performed
the work, but I cannot distinguish their
poet from another. Suppose two authors are equally
sweet, yet there is as great distinction to be made
in sweetness, as in that of sugar, and that of honey.
I can make the difference more plain, by giving you
(if it be worth knowing) my own method of proceeding,
in my translations out of four several poets
in this volume; Virgil, Theocritus, Lucretius, and
Horace. In each of these, before I undertook them,
I considered the genius and distinguishing character
of my author. I looked on Virgil as a succinct,
and grave majestic writer; one who weighed, not
only every thought, but every word and syllable;
who was still aiming to crowd his sense into as narrow
a compass as possibly he could; for which reason
he is so very figurative, that he requires (I may
almost say) a grammar apart to construe him.
His verse is every where sounding the very thing in
your ears, whose sense it bears; yet the numbers
are perpetually varied, to increase the delight of the
reader; so that the same sounds are never repeated
twice together. On the contrary, Ovid and Claudian,
though they write in styles differing from each other,
yet have each of them but one sort of music in their
verses. All the versification and little variety of
Claudian is included within the compass of four or
five lines, and then he begins again in the same tenor;
perpetually closing his sense at the end of a
verse, and that verse commonly which they call golden,
or two substantives and two adjectives, with a
verb betwixt them to keep the peace. Ovid, with
all his sweetness, has as little variety of numbers
and sound as he: he is always, as it were, upon the
hand-gallop, and his verse runs upon carpet-ground.
He avoids, like the other, all synalæphas, or cutting
off one vowel when it comes before another in the
following word; so that, minding only smoothness,
he wants both variety and majesty.—But to return to
Virgil: though he is smooth where smoothness is required,
yet he is so far from affecting it, that he seems
rather to disdain it; frequently makes use of synalæphas,
and concludes his sense in the middle of
his verse. He is every where above conceits of
epigrammatic wit, and gross hyperboles; he maintains
majesty in the midst of plainness; he shines,
but glares not; and is stately without ambition,
which is the vice of Lucan. I drew my definition
of poetical wit from my particular consideration of
him: for propriety of thoughts and words are only
to be found in him; and, where they are proper,
they will be delightful. Pleasure follows of necessity,
as the effect does the cause; and therefore is
not to be put into the definition. This exact propriety
of Virgil I particularly regarded, as a great
part of his character; but must confess, to my
shame, that I have not been able to translate any
part of him so well, as to make him appear wholly
like himself: for, where the original is close, no
version can reach it in the same compass. Hannibal
Caro's,[50] in the Italian, is the nearest, the most
poetical, and the most sonorous of any translation
of the Æneids; yet, though he takes the advantage
of blank verse, he commonly allows two lines for
one of Virgil, and does not always hit his sense.
Tasso tells us, in his letters, that Sperone Speroni,
a great Italian wit, who was his contemporary,
observed of Virgil and Tully, that the Latin orator
endeavoured to imitate the copiousness of Homer,
the Greek poet; and that the Latin poet made
it his business to reach the conciseness of Demosthenes,
the Greek orator. Virgil therefore, being
so very sparing of his words, and leaving so much
to be imagined by the reader, can never be translated
as he ought, in any modern tongue. To make
him copious, is to alter his character; and to translate
him line for line, is impossible; because the
Latin is naturally a more succinct language than
either the Italian, Spanish, French, or even than
the English, which, by reason of its monosyllables,
is far the most compendious of them. Virgil is
much the closest of any Roman poet, and the Latin
hexameter has more feet than the English heroick.
Besides all this, an author has the choice of his
own thoughts and words, which a translator has
not; he is confined by the sense of the inventor to
those expressions which are the nearest to it: so
that Virgil, studying brevity, and having the command
of his own language, could bring those words
into a narrow compass, which a translator cannot
render without circumlocutions. In short, they,
who have called him the torture of grammarians,
might also have called him the plague of translators;
for he seems to have studied not to be translated.
I own that, endeavouring to turn his "Nisus
and Euryalus" as close as I was able, I have performed
that episode too literally; that, giving more
scope to "Mezentius and Lausus," that version, which
has more of the majesty of Virgil, has less of his
conciseness; and all that I can promise for myself,
is only, that I have done both better than Ogleby,
and perhaps as well as Caro; so that, methinks, I
come like a malefactor, to make a speech upon the
gallows, and to warn all other poets, by my sad example,
from the sacrilege of translating Virgil. Yet,
by considering him so carefully as I did before my
attempt, I have made some faint resemblance of
him; and, had I taken more time, might possibly
have succeeded better; but never so well as to have
satisfied myself.
He who excels all other poets in his own language,
were it possible to do him right, must appear
above them in our tongue, which, as my Lord Roscommon
justly observes, approaches nearest to the
Roman in its majesty; nearest indeed, but with a
vast interval betwixt them. There is an inimitable
grace in Virgil's words, and in them principally
consists that beauty, which gives so inexpressible a
pleasure to him who best understands their force.
This diction of his (I must once again say) is never
to be copied; and, since it cannot, he will appear
but lame in the best translation. The turns of his
verse, his breakings, his propriety, his numbers, and
his gravity, I have as far imitated, as the poverty of
our language, and the hastiness of my performance,
would allow. I may seem sometimes to have varied
from his sense; but I think the greatest variations
may be fairly deduced from him; and where I
leave his commentators, it may be I understand him
better: at least I writ without consulting them in
many places. But two particular lines in Mezentius
and Lausus, I cannot so easily excuse. They are
indeed remotely allied to Virgil's sense; but they
are too like the trifling tenderness of Ovid, and were
printed before I had considered them enough to
alter them. The first of them I have forgotten, and
cannot easily retrieve, because the copy is at the
press. The second is this:
When Lausus died, I was already slain.
This appears pretty enough at first sight; but I
am convinced, for many reasons, that the expression
is too bold; that Virgil would not have said it,
though Ovid would. The reader may pardon it, if
he please, for the freeness of the confession; and
instead of that, and the former, admit these two
lines, which are more according to the author:
Nor ask I life, nor fought with that design;
As I had used my fortune, use thou thine.
Having with much ado got clear of Virgil, I
have, in the next place, to consider the genius of
Lucretius, whom I have translated more happily in
those parts of him which I undertook. If he was
not of the best age of Roman poetry, he was at
least of that which preceded it;[51] and he himself
refined it to that degree of perfection, both in the
language and the thoughts, that he left an easy
task to Virgil; who, as he succeeded him in time, so
he copied his excellencies; for the method of the
Georgics is plainly derived from him. Lucretius
had chosen a subject naturally crabbed; he therefore
adorned it with poetical descriptions, and precepts
of morality, in the beginning and ending of
his books, which you see Virgil has imitated with
great success in those four books, which, in my opinion,
are more perfect in their kind than even his
divine Æneids. The turn of his verses he has likewise
followed in those places which Lucretius has
most laboured, and some of his very lines he has
transplanted into his own works, without much variation.
If I am not mistaken, the distinguishing
character of Lucretius (I mean of his soul and
genius) is a certain kind of noble pride, and positive
assertion of his opinions. He is every where confident
of his own reason, and assuming an absolute
command, not only over his vulgar reader, but
even his patron Memmius. For he is always bidding
him attend, as if he had the rod over him; and
using a magisterial authority, while he instructs
him. From his time to ours, I know none so like
him, as our poet and philosopher of Malmesbury.[52]
This is that perpetual dictatorship, which is exercised
by Lucretius; who, though often in the wrong,
yet seems to deal bonȃ fide with his reader, and tells
him nothing but what he thinks; in which plain
sincerity, I believe, he differs from our Hobbes, who
could not but be convinced, or at least doubt of
some eternal truths, which he has opposed. But
for Lucretius, he seems to disdain all manner of
replies, and is so confident of his cause, that he is
beforehand with his antagonists; urging for them
whatever he imagined they could say, and leaving
them, as he supposes, without an objection for the
future: all this, too, with so much scorn and indignation,
as if he were assured of the triumph, before
he entered into the lists. From this sublime and
daring genius of his, it must of necessity come to
pass, that his thoughts must be masculine, full of argumentation,
and that sufficiently warm. From the
same fiery temper proceeds the loftiness of his expressions,
and the perpetual torrent of his verse,
where the barrenness of his subject does not too
much constrain the quickness of his fancy. For there
is no doubt to be made, but that he could have been
every where as poetical, as he is in his descriptions,
and in the moral part of his philosophy, if he had
not aimed more to instruct, in his system of nature,
than to delight. But he was bent upon making
Memmius a materialist, and teaching him to defy
an invisible power: in short, he was so much an
atheist, that he forgot sometimes to be a poet.
These are the considerations, which I had of that
author, before I attempted to translate some parts
of him. And accordingly I laid by my natural diffidence
and scepticism for a while, to take up that
dogmatical way of his, which, as I said, is so much
his character, as to make him that individual poet.
As for his opinions concerning the mortality of the
soul, they are so absurd, that I cannot, if I would,
believe them. I think a future state demonstrable
even by natural arguments; at least, to take away
rewards and punishments is only a pleasing prospect
to a man, who resolves beforehand not to live morally.
But, on the other side, the thought of being
nothing after death is a burthen insupportable to a
virtuous man, even though a heathen. We naturally
aim at happiness, and cannot bear to have it
confined to the shortness of our present being; especially
when we consider, that virtue is generally
unhappy in this world, and vice fortunate: so that
it is hope of futurity alone, that makes this life tolerable,
in expectation of a better. Who would not
commit all the excesses, to which he is prompted by
his natural inclinations, if he may do them with security
while he is alive, and be incapable of punishment
after he is dead? If he be cunning and secret
enough to avoid the laws, there is no band of
morality to restrain him: for fame and reputation
are weak ties; many men have not the least sense
of them. Powerful men are only awed by them, as
they conduce to their interest, and that not always,
when a passion is predominant; and no man will be
contained within the bounds of duty, when he may
safely transgress them. These are my thoughts abstractedly,
and without entering into the notions of
our Christian faith, which is the proper business of
divines.
But there are other arguments in this poem
(which I have turned into English) not belonging
to the mortality of the soul, which are strong
enough to a reasonable man, to make him less in
love with life, and consequently in less apprehensions
of death. Such as are the natural satiety proceeding
from a perpetual enjoyment of the same
things; the inconveniences of old age, which make
him incapable of corporeal pleasures; the decay of
understanding and memory, which render him contemptible,
and useless to others. These, and many
other reasons, so pathetically urged, so beautifully
expressed so adorned with examples, and so admirably
raised by the prosopopeia of Nature, who is
brought in speaking to her children with so much
authority and vigour, deserve the pains I have taken
with them, which I hope have not been unsuccessful,
or unworthy of my author: at least I must
take the liberty to own, that I was pleased with my
own endeavours, which but rarely happens to me;
and that I am not dissatisfied upon the review of
any thing I have done in this author.
It is true, there is something, and that of some
moment, to be objected against my englishing the
Nature of Love, from the fourth book of Lucretius;
and I can less easily answer why I translated it,
than why I thus translated it. The objection arises
from the obscenity of the subject; which is aggravated
by the too lively and alluring delicacy of the
verses. In the first place, without the least formality
of an excuse, I own it pleased me; and let my
enemies make the worst they can of this confession.
I am not yet so secure from that passion, but
that I want my author's antidotes against it. He
has given the truest and most philosophical account,
both of the disease and remedy, which I ever found
in any author; for which reasons I translated him.
But it will be asked, why I turned him into this
luscious English, for I will not give it a worse
word. Instead of an answer, I would ask again
of my supercilious adversaries, whether I am not
bound, when I translate an author, to do him all
the right I can, and to translate him to the best
advantage? If, to mince his meaning, which I am
satisfied was honest and instructive, I had either
omitted some part of what he said, or taken from
the strength of his expression, I certainly had wronged
him; and that freeness of thought and words
being thus cashiered in my hands, he had no longer
been Lucretius. If nothing of this kind be to be
read, physicians must not study nature, anatomies
must not be seen, and somewhat I could say of particular
passages in books, which, to avoid profaneness,
I do not name. But the intention qualifies
the act; and both mine and my author's were to
instruct, as well as please. It is most certain, that
bare-faced bawdry is the poorest pretence to wit
imaginable. If I should say otherwise, I should
have two great authorities against me: the one is
the "Essay on Poetry," which I publicly valued
before I knew the author of it, and with the commendation
of which my Lord Roscommon so happily
begins his "Essay on Translated Verse;" the
other is no less than our admired Cowley, who says
the same thing in other words; for, in his "Ode
concerning Wit," he writes thus of it:
Much less can that have any place,
At which a virgin hides her face;
Such dross the fire must purge away; 'tis just
The author blush, there, where the reader must.
Here indeed Mr Cowley goes farther than the
Essay; for he asserts plainly, that obscenity has no
place in wit; the other only says, it is a poor pretence
to it, or an ill sort of wit, which has nothing
more to support it than bare-faced ribaldry; which
is both unmannerly in itself, and fulsome to the
reader. But neither of these will reach my case:
for, in the first place, I am only the translator, not
the inventor; so that the heaviest part of the censure
falls upon Lucretius, before it reaches me: in
the next place, neither he nor I have used the grossest
words, but the cleanliest metaphors we could
find, to palliate the broadness of the meaning; and,
to conclude, have carried the poetical part no farther,
than the philosophical exacted.[53]
There is one mistake of mine, which I will not
lay to the printer's charge, who has enough to answer
for in false pointings; it is in the word, viper:
I would have the verse run thus:
The scorpion, love, must on the wound be bruised.[54]
There are a sort of blundering, half-witted people,
who make a great deal of noise about a verbal
slip; though Horace would instruct them better in
true criticism:
——non ego paucis
Offendar maculis, quas aut incuria fudit,
Aut humana parùm cavit natura.
True judgment in poetry, like that in painting,
takes a view of the whole together, whether it be
good or not; and where the beauties are more than
the faults, concludes for the poet against the little
judge. It is a sign that malice is hard driven,
when it is forced to lay hold on a word or syllable:
to arraign a man is one thing, and to cavil at him
is another. In the midst of an ill-natured generation
of scribblers, there is always justice enough left
in mankind, to protect good writers: and they too
are obliged, both by humanity and interest, to espouse
each other's cause, against false critics, who
are the common enemies. This last consideration
puts me in mind of what I owe to the ingenious
and learned translator of Lucretius.[55] I have not
here designed to rob him of any part of that
commendation which he has so justly acquired by
the whole author, whose fragments only fall to my
portion. What I have now performed is no more
than I intended above twenty years ago. The
ways of our translation are very different. He
follows him more closely than I have done, which
became an interpreter of the whole poem: I take
more liberty, because it best suited with my design,
which was, to make him as pleasing as I could. He
had been too voluminous, had he used my method
in so long a work; and I had certainly taken his,
had I made it my business to translate the whole.
The preference, then, is justly his; and I join with
Mr Evelyn in the confession of it, with this additional
advantage to him, that his reputation is already
established in this poet, mine is to make its
fortune in the world. If I have been any where
obscure, in following our common author, or if Lucretius
himself is to be condemned, I refer myself to
his excellent annotations, which I have often read,
and always with some new pleasure.
My preface begins already to swell upon me, and
looks as if I were afraid of my reader, by so tedious
a bespeaking of him; and yet I have Horace and
Theocritus upon my hands; but the Greek gentleman
shall quickly be dispatched, because I have
more business with the Roman.
That which distinguishes Theocritus from all
other poets, both Greek and Latin, and which raises
him even above Virgil in his Eclogues, is the inimitable
tenderness of his passions, and the natural
expression of them in words so becoming of a pastoral.
A simplicity shines through all he writes.
He shows his art and learning, by disguising both.
His shepherds never rise above their country education
in their complaints of love. There is the same
difference betwixt him and Virgil, as there is betwixt
Tasso's "Aminta" and the "Pastor Fido" of Guarini.
Virgil's shepherds are too well read in the philosophy
of Epicurus and of Plato, and Guarini's seem to have
been bred in courts; but Theocritus and Tasso have
taken theirs from cottages and plains. It was said
of Tasso, in relation to his similitudes, mai esce del
bosco, that he never departed from the woods; that
is all his comparisons were taken from the country.
The same may be said of our Theocritus. He is
softer than Ovid: he touches the passions more delicately,
and performs all this out of his own fund,
without diving into the arts and sciences for a supply.
Even his Doric dialect has an incomparable
sweetness in its clownishness, like a fair shepherdess
in her country russet, talking in a Yorkshire
tone. This was impossible for Virgil to imitate;
because the severity of the Roman language denied
him that advantage. Spenser has endeavoured it in
his "Shepherd's Calendar;" but neither will it succeed
in English; for which reason I forbore to attempt
it. For Theocritus writ to Sicilians, who
spoke that dialect; and I direct this part of my
translations to our ladies, who neither understand,
nor will take pleasure in such homely expressions.
I proceed to Horace.
Take him in parts, and he is chiefly to be considered
in his three different talents, as he was a
critic, a satirist, and a writer of odes. His morals
are uniform, and run through all of them; for, let
his Dutch commentators say what they will, his philosophy
was Epicurean; and he made use of gods
and providence only to serve a turn in poetry. But
since neither his Criticisms, which are the most instructive
of any that are written in this art, nor his
Satires, which are incomparably beyond Juvenal's, (if
to laugh and rally is to be preferred to railing and
declaiming,) are no part of my present undertaking,
I confine myself wholly to his Odes. These are
also of several sorts: some of them are panegyrical,
others moral, the rest jovial, or (if I may so call
them) Bacchanalian. As difficult as he makes it,
and as indeed it is, to imitate Pindar, yet, in his
most elevated flights, and in the sudden changes of
his subject with almost imperceptible connections,
that Theban poet is his master. But Horace is of
the more bounded fancy, and confines himself
strictly to one sort of verse, or stanza, in every Ode.
That which will distinguish his style from all other
poets, is the elegance of his words, and the numerousness
of his verse. There is nothing so delicately
turned in all the Roman language. There appears
in every part of his diction, or (to speak English) in
all his expressions, a kind of noble and bold purity.
His words are chosen with as much exactness as
Virgil's; but there seems to be a greater spirit in
them. There is a secret happiness attends his
choice, which in Petronius is called curiosa felicitas,
and which I suppose he had from the feliciter
audere of Horace himself. But the most distinguishing
part of all his character seems to me to be his
briskness, his jollity, and his good humour; and
those I have chiefly endeavoured to copy. His
other excellencies, I confess, are above my imitation.
One Ode, which infinitely pleased me in the reading,
I have attempted to translate in Pindaric verse:
it is that, which is inscribed to the present Earl of
Rochester, to whom I have particular obligations,
which this small testimony of my gratitude can
never pay.[56] It is his darling in the Latin, and I
have taken some pains to make it my master-piece
in English; for which reason I took this kind of
verse, which allows more latitude than any other.
Every one knows it was introduced into our language,
in this age, by the happy genius of Mr
Cowley. The seeming easiness of it has made it
spread; but it has not been considered enough, to
be so well cultivated. It languishes in almost every
hand but his, and some very few, whom (to keep
the rest in countenance) I do not name. He, indeed,
has brought it as near perfection as was possible in
so short a time. But, if I may be allowed to speak
my mind modestly, and without injury to his sacred
ashes, somewhat of the purity of English, somewhat
of more equal thoughts, somewhat of sweetness
in the numbers, in one word, somewhat of a
finer turn, and more lyrical verse, is yet wanting.
As for the soul of it, which consists in the warmth
and vigour of fancy, the masterly figures, and the
copiousness of imagination, he has excelled all
others in this kind. Yet if the kind itself be capable
of more perfection, though rather in the ornamental
parts of it than the essential, what rules of
morality or respect have I broken, in naming the
defects, that they may hereafter be amended? Imitation
is a nice point, and there are few poets who
deserve to be models in all they write. Milton's
"Paradise Lost" is admirable; but am I therefore
bound to maintain, that there are no flats amongst
his elevations, when it is evident he creeps along
sometimes for above an hundred lines together?
Cannot I admire the height of his invention, and
the strength of his expression, without defending
his antiquated words, and the perpetual harshness
of their sound? It is as much commendation as a
man can bear, to own him excellent; all beyond it
is idolatry. Since Pindar was the prince of lyric
poets, let me have leave to say, that, in imitating
him, our numbers should, for the most part, be lyrical:
for variety, or rather where the majesty of
thought requires it, they may be stretched to the
English heroick of five feet, and to the French Alexandrine
of six. But the ear must preside, and direct
the judgment to the choice of numbers. Without
the nicety of this, the harmony of Pindaric verse
can never be complete; the cadency of one line
must be a rule to that of the next; and the sound
of the former must slide gently into that which follows,
without leaping from one extreme into another.
It must be done like the shadowings of a
picture, which fall by degrees into a darker colour.
I shall be glad, if I have so explained myself as to be
understood; but if I have not, quod nequeo dicere, et
sentio tantum,[57] must be my excuse.
There remains much more to be said on this subject;
but, to avoid envy, I will be silent. What I
have said is the general opinion of the best judges,
and in a manner has been forced from me, by seeing
a noble sort of poetry so happily restored by
one man, and so grossly copied by almost all the
rest. A musical ear, and a great genius, if another
Mr Cowley could arise in another age, may bring
it to perfection. In the mean time,
——fungar vice cotis, acutum
Reddere quæ ferrum valet, expers ipsa secandi.
I hope it will not be expected from me, that I
should say any thing of my fellow undertakers in
this Miscellany. Some of them are too nearly
related to me, to be commended without suspicion
of partiality;[58] others I am sure need it not; and
the rest I have not perused.
To conclude, I am sensible that I have written this
too hastily and too loosely; I fear I have been tedious,
and, which is worse, it comes out from the first
draught, and uncorrected. This I grant is no excuse;
for it may be reasonably urged, why did he
not write with more leisure, or, if he had it not,
(which was certainly my case,) why did he attempt
to write on so nice a subject? The objection
is unanswerable; but, in part of recompence, let me
assure the reader, that, in hasty productions, he is
sure to meet with an author's present sense, which
cooler thoughts would possibly have disguised.
There is undoubtedly more of spirit, though not of
judgment, in these uncorrect essays; and consequently,
though my hazard be the greater, yet the reader's
pleasure is not the less.
John Dryden.