him in passages 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 version of whom (notwithstanding some human errors) is

the most noble and spirited translation I know in any language. But the

fate of great geniuses is like that of great ministers: though they are

confessedly the first in the commonwealth of letters, they must be envied

and calumniated only for being at the head of it.

That which, in my opinion, ought to be the endeavour of any one who

translates Homer, is above all things to keep alive that spirit and fire

which makes his chief character: in particular places, where the sense can

bear any doubt, to follow the strongest and most poetical, as most

agreeing with that character; to copy him in all the variations of his

style, and the different modulations of his numbers; to preserve, in the

more active or descriptive parts, a warmth and elevation; in the more

sedate or narrative, a plainness and solemnity; in the speeches, a fulness

and perspicuity; in the sentences, a shortness and gravity; not to neglect

even the little figures and turns on the words, nor sometimes the very

cast of the periods; neither to omit nor confound any rites or customs of

antiquity: perhaps too he ought to include the whole in a shorter compass

than has hitherto been done by any translator who has tolerably preserved

either the sense or poetry. What I would further recommend to him is, to

study his author rather from his own text, than from any commentaries, how

learned soever, or whatever figure they may make in the estimation of the

world; to consider him attentively in comparison with Virgil above all the

ancients, and with Milton above all the moderns. Next these, the

The Iliad of Homer