run divisions on the ground-work, as he pleases. Such is Mr. Cowley's practice in turning two Odes of Pindar, and one of Horace, into English.

Concerning the first of these methods, our master Horace has given us this caution:

Nec verbum verbo curabis reddere fidus
Interpres

Nor word for word too faithfully translate,

as the Earl of Rofcommon has excellently rendered it. Too faithfully is, indeed, pedantically: it is a faith, like that which proceeds from fuperftition, blind and zealous. Take it in the expreffion of Sir John Denham to Sir Richard Fanfhaw, on his ver fion of the Paftor Fido;

That fervile path thou nobly doft decline,
Of tracing word by word, and line by line.
A new and nobler way thou doft pursue,
To make tranflations and translators too:
They but preferve the afhes, thou the flame,
True to his fense, but truer to his fame,

It is almoft impoffible to tranflate verbally, and well, at the same time; for the Latin (a most severe and compendious language) often expreffes that in one word, which either the barbarity, or the narrownefs, of modern tongues cannot fupply in more. is frequent alfo that the conceit is couched in fome expreffion, which will be loft in English.

Atque iidem venti vela fidemque ferent.

It

What Poet of our nation is fo happy as to exprefs this thought literally in English, and to ftrike wit, or almoft fenfe, out of it?

In fhort, the verbal copier is incumbered with fo many difficulties at once, that he can never difintangle himself from all. He is to confider, at the fame time, the thought of his author, and his words, and to find out the counterpart to each in another language; and, befides this, he is to confine himself to the compafs of numbers, and the flavery of rhyme. It is much like dancing on ropes with fettered legs: a man can fhun a fall by ufing caution; but the gracefulness of motion is not to be expected: and when we have faid the best of it, it is but a foolish task ; for no fober man would put himself into a danger for the applause of escaping without breaking his neck. We fee Ben Jonfon could not avoid obfcurity in his literal tranflation of Horace, attempted in the fame compafs of lines: nay Horace himfelf could fcarce have done it to a Greek Poet:

Brevis effe laboro, obfcurus fio:

either perfpicuity or gracefulness will frequently be wanting. Horace has, indeed, avoided both these rocks in his tranflation of the three firft lines of Homer's Odyffey, which he has contracted into two.

Dic mihi, mufa, virum, captæ poft tempora Trojæ
Qui mores hominum multorum vidit & urbes.

Mufe, fpeak the man, who, fince the fiege of Troy,
So many towns, fuch change of manners faw.

VOL. IV.

G

ROSCOMMON.

But then the fufferings of Ulyffes, which are a confiderable part of that fentence, are omitted:

[Ὃς μάλα πολλὰ πλά[χθη:]

The confideration of these difficulties, in a fervile, literal, tranflation, not long fince made two of our famous wits, Sir John Denham, and Mr. Cowley, to contrive another way of turning authors into our tongue, called, by the latter of them, Imitation.— As they were friends, I fuppofe they communicated their thoughts on this fubject to each other; and, therefore, their reafons for it are little different.Though the practice of one is much more moderate. I take imitation of an author, in their fenfe, to be an endeavour of a later Poet to write like one, who has written before him, on the fame fubject: that is, not to tranflate his words, or to be confined to his sense, but only to fet him as a pattern, and to write, as he supposes that author would have done, had he lived in our age, and in our country. Yet I dare not say that either of them have carried this libertine way of rendering authors (as Mr. Cowley calls it) fo far as my definition reaches. For in the Pindaric Odes, the customs and ceremonies of ancient Greece are ftill preferved. But I know not what mifchief may arife hereafter from the example of fuch an innovation, when writers of unequal parts to him shall imitate fo bold an undertaking. To add and to diminish what we please, which is the way avowed by him, ought only to be granted to Mr. Cowley, and that too only in his tranflation of Pindar; because he alone was able to make him amends, by giving him

better of his own, whenever he refufed his author's thoughts. Pindar is generally known to be a dark writer, to want connexion, (I mean as to our understanding) to foar out of fight, and leave his reader at a gaze. So wild and ungovernable a Poet cannot be translated literally; his genius is too strong to bear a chain, and, Samfon-like, he shakes it off. A genius fo elevated and unconfined as Mr. Cowley's was but neceffary to make Pindar speak English, and that was to be performed by no other way than imitation. But if Virgil, or Ovid, or any regular intelligible authors be thus ufed, it is no longer to be called their work, when neither the thoughts nor words are drawn from the original: but instead of them there is fomnething new produced, which is almoft the creation of another hand. By this way, it is true, fomewhat that is excellent may be invented, perhaps more excellent than the first design; though Virgil must be ftill excepted, when that perhaps takes place. Yet he who is inquifitive to know an author's thoughts, will be disappointed in his expectation. And it is not always that a man will be contented to have a prefent made him, when he expects the payment of a debt. To state it fairly imitation of an author is the most advantageous way for a tranflator to fhew himself, but the greateft wrong which can be done to the memory and reputation of the dead. Sir John Denham (who advised more liberty than he took himfelf) gives his reafon for his innovation, in his admirable preface before the tranflation of the fecond Æneid. "Poetry is of fo fubtle a fpirit, that, in

pouring out of one language into another, it will all evaporate; and, if a new fpirit be not added in the transfufion, there will remain nothing but a Caput Mortuum." I confefs this argument holds good against a literal tranflation; but who defends it? Imitation and verbal verfion are, in my opinion, the two extremes, which ought to be avoided: and therefore, when I have propofed the mean betwixt them, it will be feen how far his argument will reach.

No man is capable of tranflating Poetry, who, befides a genius to that art, is not a master both of his author's language, and of his own: nor muft we understand the language only of the Poet, but his particular turn of thoughts and expreffion, which are the characters that distinguish, and as it were individuate him from all other writers. When we are come thus far, it is time to look into ourselves, to conform our genius to his, to give his thought either the fame turn, if our tongue will bear it, or, if not, to vary but the drefs, not to alter or deftroy the fubftance. The like care muft be taken of the more outward ornaments, the words. When they appear (which is but feldom) literally graceful, it were an injury to the author that they fhould be changed: but fince every language is fo full of its own proprieties, that what is beautiful in one, is often barbarous, nay fometimes nonfenfe, in another, it would be unreasonable to limit a tranflator to the narrow compafs of his author's words. It is enough if he choofe out fome expreffion which does not vitiate the fenfe. I fuppofe he may stretch his chain to fuch a latitude; but, by innovation of thoughts, methinks, he breaks it. By this