to soar out of
sight, and to 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, Samson-like, he shakes it off. A genius so elevated and
unconfixed as Mr Cowley's was but necessary 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
used, 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 something new produced, which is almost the creation of
another hand. By this way, it is true, somewhat that is excellent may
be invented, perhaps more excellent than the first design; though
Virgil must be still excepted, when that perhaps takes place. Yet he
who is inquisitive 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 present 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 translator to show himself, but the greatest wrong which can be
done to the memory and reputation of the dead. Sir John Denham (who
advised more liberty than he took himself) gives his reason for his
innovation in his admirable preface before the translation of the
second AEneid. 'Poetry is of so subtle a spirit, that in pouring out
of one language into another, it will all evaporate; and, if a new
spirit be not added in the _transfusion_, there will remain nothing
but a _caput mortuum_.' I confess this argument holds good against a
literal translation; but who defends it? Imitation and verbal version
are, in my opinion, the two extremes which ought to be avoided; and
therefore, when I have proposed the mean betwixt them, it will be
seen how far this argument will reach.

"No man is capable of translating poetry, who, besides a genius to
that art, is not a master both of his author's language and of his
own; nor must we understand the language only of the poet, but his
particular turn of thoughts and expression, 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 our