his eye, which directs him in his race; fome beautiful defign, which he first establishes, and then contrives the means, which will naturally conduct him to his end. This will be evident to judicious readers in his Epiftles, of which fomewhat, at least in general, will be expected.

The title of them in our late editions is Epiftolæ Heroidum, The letters of the Heriones. But Heinfius has judged more truly, that the infcription of our author was barely, Epiftles; which he concludes from his cited verfes, where Ovid afferts this work as his own invention, and not borrowed from the Greeks, whom (as the masters of their learning) the Romans ufually did imitate. But it appears not from their writings, that any of the Grecians ever touched upon this way, which our Poet therefore justly has vindicated to himself. I quarrel not at the word Heroidum, because it is used by Ovid in his Art of Love:

Jupiter ad veteres fupplex Heroidas ibat.

But, fure, he could not be guilty of fuch an overfight, to call his work by the name of Heroines, when there are divers men, or heroes, as, namely, Paris, Leander, and Acontius, joined in it. Except Sabinus, who writ fome anfwers to Ovid's Letters.

(Quam celer è toto rediit meus orbe Sabinus.)

I remember not any of the Romans, who have treated on this fubject, fave only Propertius, and that but once, in his Epiftle of Arethufa to Lycotas, which is written fo near the style of Ovid, that it seems to be but an imitation; and therefore ought not to defraud our Poet of the glory of his invention.

Concerning the Epiftles, I fhall content myfelf to obferve these few particulars: firft, that they are generally granted to be the moft perfect pieces of Ovid, and that the ftyle of them is tenderly paffionate and courtly; two properties well agreeing with the perfons, which were heroines, and lovers. Yet, where the characters were lower, as in Cenone and Hero, he has kept close to nature, in drawing his images after a country life, tho, perhaps, he has romanized his Grecian dames too much, and made them fpeak, fometimes, as if they had been born in the city of Rome, and under the empire of Auguftus. There seems to be no great variety in the particular fubjects which he has chofen; moft of the Epiftles being written from ladies, who were

forfaken by their lovers: which is the reason that many of the fame thoughts come back upon us in divers letters: but of the general character of women, which is modefty, he has taken a moft becoming care; for his amorous expreffions go no further than virtue may allow, and therefore may be read, as he intended them, by matrons without a blush.

Thus much concerning the Poet: it remains that I should fay fomewhat of poetical tranflations in general, and give my opinion (with fubmiffion to better judgments) which way of verfion feems to be the most proper.

All tranflation, I fuppofe, may be reduced to these three heads.

First, that of Metaphrase, or turning an author word by word, and line by line, from one language into another. Thus, or near this manner, was Horace his Art of Poetry tranflated by Ben Johnson. The fecond way is that of Paraphrase, or tranflation with latitude, where the author is kept in view by the tranflator, so as never to be loft, but his words are not so strictly followed as his fenfe; and that too is admitted to be amplified, but not altered. Such is Mr. Waller's tranflation of Virgil's Fourth Æneid. The third way is that of imitation, where the translator (if now he has not lost that name) affumes the liberty, not only to vary from the words and fenfe, but to forfake them both as he fees occafion; and taking only fome general hints from the original, to run divifion on the groundwork, 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 mafter Horace has given us this caution:

Nec verbum verbo curabis reddere fidus
Interpres

Nor word for word too faithfully tranflate,

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 Fanshaw, on his verfion 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 translations and tranflators too:
They but preferve the afhes, thou the flame,
True to his fenfe, but truer to his fame.

It is almost impoffible' to tranflate verbally, and well, at the fame time for the Latin (a moft fevere and compendious language) often expreffes that in one word, which either the barbarity, or the narrowness, of modern tongues cannot fupply in more. It is frequent also that the conceit is couched in fome expreffion, which will be loft in English.

Atque iidem venti vela fidemque ferent.

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 shun a fall by using caution; but the gracefulness of motion is not to be expected: and when we have faid the beft 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 see Ben Johnfon could not avoid obfcurity in his literal translation of Horace, attempted in the fame compafs of lines: nay Horace himfelf could scarce 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 first lines of Homer's Odyffey, which he has contracted into two.

Dic mihi, mufa, virum, capta poft tempora Troja,
Qui mores hominum multorum vidit & urbes.

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

ROSCOMMON.

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

[Ὃς μάλα πολλὰ πλάγχθη : ]

The confideration of thefe 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 subject: that is, not to tranflate his words, or to be confined to his fenfe, but only to fet him as a pattern, and to write, as he fuppofes that author would have done, had he lived in our age, and in our country. Yet I dare not fay 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 fhall 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 tranflated literally; his genius is too ftrong to bear a chain, and Samfon-like he fhakes it off. A genius fo elevated and unconfined as Mr. Cowley's was but neceflary to make Pindar fpeak 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 fomething 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 defign; though Virgil must be still excepted, when that perhaps takes place. Yet he who is inquifi

tive to know an author's thoughts, will be difpappointed 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 advifed more liberty than he took himself) gives his reafon for his innovation, in his admirable preface before the trnflation 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 seen 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 diftinguish, and as it were individuate him from all other writers. When we are come thus far, it is time to look into ourfelves, 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 dress, not to alter or deftroy the fubftance. The like care must 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 nonsense in another, it would be unreasonable to limit a tranflator to the narrow compafs of his author's words. It is enough if he choose out fome expreffion which does not vitiate the fenfe. I fuppofe he may ftretch his chain to such a latitude; but, by innovation of thoughts, methinks, he breaks it. By this means the fpirit of an author may be transfufed, and yet not loft and thus it is plain, that the reafon alledged by Sir John Denham has no farther force than to expreflion: for thought, if it be tranflated truly, cannot be loft in another language; but the words that convey it to our apprehenfion (which are the image and ornament of that thought) may be fo ill chofen, as to make it appear in an unhandfome dress, and