hole; but this matter is husht up, and the fervants are forbid to talk of it.

I must needs have tired you by this long defcription: but what engaged me in it, was a generous principle to preserve the memory of that, which itself must soon fall into duft, nay perhaps part of it, before this letter reaches your hands.

Indeed we owe this old house the fame kind of gratitude that we do to an old friend, who harbours us in his declining condition, nay even in his last extremities. How fit is this retreat for uninterrupted study, where no one that passes by can dream there is an inhabitant, and even those who would dine with us dare not stay under our roof! Any one that fees it will own I could not have chofen a more likely place to converfe with the dead in. I had been mad indeed if I had left your Grace for any one but Homer. But when I return to the living, I fhall have the fenfe to endeavour to converse with the best of them, and fhall therefore as foon as poffible tell you in perfon how much I am, &c.

LETTER XII.

The D. of BUCKINGHAM to Mr. POPE.

OU defire my opinion as to the late dispute in

YOU

excufable (at an age alas! of not much pleasure) to amufe myself a little in taking notice of a contro

verfy, than which nothing is at prefent more remarkable (even in a nation who value themselves fo much upon the Belles Lettres) both on account of the illuftrious fubject of it, and of the two perfons ingaged in the quarrel.

The one is extraordinary in all the Lyric kind of Poetry, even in the opinion of his very adverfary. The other a Lady (and of more value for being fo) not only of great Learning, but with a Genius admirably turn'd to that fort of it which most becomes her Sex for foftnefs, genteelnefs, and promoting of virtue; and fuch as (one would think) is not so liable as other parts of fcholarship, to rough difputes, or violent animofity.

Yet it has so happen'd, that no writers, even about Divinity itself, have been more outrageous or uncharitable than these two polite authors; by suffering their judgments to be a little warped (if I may ufe that expreffion) by the heat of their eager inclinations, to attack or defend so great an Author under debate. I wish for the fake of the public, which is now fo well entertained by their quarrel, it may not end at laft in their agreeing to blame a third man who is fo prefumptuous as to cenfure both, if they should chance to hear it.

To begin with matter of fact. M. D'Acier has well judg'd, that the best of all Poets certainly deferved a better tranflation, at leaft into French profe, because to fee it done in verfe was despair'd of: [ beaeve indeed from a defect in that language, inc..

pable of mounting to any degree of excellence fuitable to fo very great an undertaking.

She has not only perform'd this task as well as profe can do it, (which is indeed but as the wrong fide of tapestry is able to reprefent the right *) fhe has added to it alfo many learned and useful annotations. With all which fhe moft obligingly delighted not only her own fex, but most of ours, ignorant of the Greek, and confequently her adverfary himself, who frankly acknowledges that igno

rance.

'Tis no wonder therefore, if, in doing this, fhe is grown fo enamour'd of that unspeakably-charming Author, as to have a kind of horror at the leaft mention of a man bold enough to blame him.

Now as to M. de la Motte, he being already defervedly famous for all forts of Lyric poetry, was fo far introduced by her into thofe beauties of the Epic kind (tho' but in that way of tranflation) as not to refift the pleasure and hope of reputation, by attempting that in verfe, which had been applauded fo much for the difficulty of doing it even in profe; knowing how this, well executed, must extremely tranfcend the other.

But, as great Poets are a little apt to think they have an ancient right of being excus'd for vanity on all occafions, he was not content to out-do M. D'Acier, but endeavour'd to out-do Homer himself, and all that ever in any age or nation went before him in A thought of Cervantes.

the fame enterprize; by leaving out, altering, or adding whatever he thought beft.

Against this presumptuous attempt, Homer has been in all times fo well defended, as not to need my small affiftance; yet I muft needs fay, his excellencies are fuch, that for their fakes he deserves a much gentler touch for his seeming errors. These if M. de la Motte had tranflated as well as the reft, with an apology for having retained them only out of meer veneration; his judgment, in my opinion, would have appear'd much greater than by the best of his alterations, though I admit them to be written very finely. I join with M. de la Motte in wondering at fome odd things in Homer, but 'tis chiefly because of his fublime ones, I was about to fay his divine ones, which almost surprize me at finding him any where in the fallible condition of human nature.

mean

And now we are wondering, I am in a difficulty to guess what can be the reason of these exceptions against Homer, from one who has himself tranflated him, contrary to the general custom of tranilators. Is there not a little of that in it? I to be fingular, in getting above the title of a Tranflator, tho' fufficiently honourable in this cafe. For fuch an ambition no body has lefs occafion, than one who is fo fine a Poet in other kinds; and who must have too much wit to believe, any alteration of another can entitle him to the denomination of an Epic Poet himself: tho' no man in this age feems more capable of being a good one, if the French

tongue would bear it. Yet in his tranflation he has done too well, to leave any doubt (with all his faults) that her's can be ever parallel'd with it.

Befides he could not be ignorant, that finding faults is the most easy and vulgar part of a critic; whereas nothing fhews fo much skill and taste both, as the being thoroughly fenfible of the fublimeft excellencies.

What can we fay in excufe of all this? Humanum eft errare: Since as good a Poet as, I believe, the French language is capable of, and as sharp a Critic as any nation can produce, has by too much cenfuring Homer subjected a tranflation to cenfure, that would have otherwife ftood the teft of the fevereft adversary.

But fince he would needs chufe that wrong way of criticifm, I wonder he mifs'd a stone so easy to be thrown against Homer, not for his filling the Iliad with fo much flaughter (for that is to be excufed, fince a War is not capable of being defcribed without it) but with fo many various particulars of wounds and horror, as fhew the writer (I am afraid) fo delighted that way himself, as not the leaft to doubt his reader being fo alfo. Like Spanioletta, whofe difmal pictures are the more difagreeable for being always fo very movingly painted. Even Hector's laft parting from his fon and Andromache hardly makes us amends for his body's being dragg'd thrice round the town. M. de la Motte in his ftrongest objection about that difmal combat, has fufficient