Chapter XIV: Front Matter (14)

"I must own, you have pleased me very much by the commendations
so ill bestowed upon me; but, I assure you, much more by the
frankness of your censure, which I ought to take the more kindly
of the two, as it is more advantageous to a scribbler to be
improved in his judgment, than to be soothed in his vanity. The
greater part of those deviations from the Greek, which you have
observed, I was led into by Chapman and Hobbes; who are, it
seems, as much celebrated for their knowledge of the original,
as they are decried for the badness of their translations.
Chapman pretends to have restored the genuine sense of the
author, from the mistakes of all former explainers, in several
hundred places; and the Cambridge editors of the large Homer, in
Greek and Latin, attributed so much to Hobbes, that they confess
they have corrected the old Latin interpretation, very often by
his version. For my part, I generally took the author's meaning
to be as you have explained it; yet their authority, joined to
the knowledge of my own imperfectness in the language, overruled
me. However, sir, you may be confident I think you in the right,
because you happen to be of my opinion: for men (let them say
what they will) never approve any other's sense, but as it
squares with their own. But you have made me much more proud of,
and positive in, my judgment, since it is strengthened by yours.
I think your criticisms, which regard the expression, very just,
and shall make my profit of them: to give you some proof that I
am in earnest, I will alter three verses on your bare objection,
though I have Mr. Dryden's example for each of them. And this, I
hope, you will account no small piece of obedience, from one,
who values the authority of one true poet above that of twenty
criticks or commentators. But, though I speak thus of
commentators, I will continue to read carefully all I can
procure, to make up, that way, for my own want of critical
understanding in the original beauties of Homer. Though the
greatest of them are certainly those of the invention and
design, which are not at all confined to the language: for the
distinguishing excellencies of Homer are (by the consent of the
best criticks of all nations) first in the manners, (which
include all the speeches, as being no other than the
representations of each person's manners by his words;) and then
in that rapture and fire, which carries you away with him, with
that wonderful force, that no man, who has a true poetical
spirit, is master of himself, while he reads him. Homer makes
you interested and concerned before you are aware, all at once;
whereas, Virgil does it by soft degrees. This, I believe, is
what a translator of Homer ought, principally, to imitate; and
it is very hard for any translator to come up to it, because the
chief reason, why all translations fall short of their originals
is, that the very constraint they are obliged to, renders them
heavy and dispirited.

"The great beauty of Homer's language, as I take it, consists in
that noble simplicity which runs through all his works; (and yet
his diction, contrary to what one would imagine consistent with
simplicity, is, at the same time, very copious.) I don't know
how I have run into this pedantry in a letter, but I find I have
said too much, as well as spoken too inconsiderately; what
farther thoughts I have upon this subject, I shall be glad to
communicate to you, for my own improvement, when we meet; which
is a happiness I very earnestly desire, as I do likewise some
opportunity of proving how much I think myself obliged to your
friendship, and how truly I am, sir,

"Your most faithful, humble servant,

"A. POPE."

The criticism upon Pope's epitaphs, [151] which was printed in the Universal Visiter, is placed here, being too minute and particular to be inserted in the life.

Every art is best taught by example. Nothing contributes more to the cultivation of propriety, than remarks on the works of those who have most excelled. I shall, therefore, endeavour, at this _visit_, to entertain the young students in poetry with an examination of Pope's epitaphs.

To define an epitaph is useless; every one knows that it is an inscription on a tomb. An epitaph, therefore, implies no particular character of writing, but may be composed in verse or prose. It is, indeed, commonly panegyrical; because we are seldom distinguished with a stone but by our friends; but it has no rule to restrain or modify it, except this, that it ought not to be longer than common beholders may be expected to have leisure and patience to peruse.