of the corrupted Text, and establish the Reiteration of the genuine
Readings; some others have been as necessary for the Explanation of
Passages obscure and difficult. *To understand the Necessity and Use
of this Part of my Task, some Particulars of my Author’s Character
are previously to be explain’d. There are _Obscurities_ in him,
which are common to him with all Poets of the same Species; there
are Others, the Issue of the Times he liv’d in; and there are
Others, again, peculiar to himself. The Nature of Comic Poetry
being entirely satyrical, it busies itself more in exposing what
we call Caprice and Humour, than Vices cognizable to the Laws. The
_English_, from the Happiness of a free Constitution, and a Turn of
Mind peculiarly speculative and inquisitive, are observ’d to produce
more _Humourists_ and a greater Variety of Original _Characters_,
than any other People whatsoever: And These owing their immediate
Birth to the peculiar Genius of each Age, an infinite Number of
Things alluded to, glanced at, and expos’d, must needs become
obscure, as the _Characters_ themselves are antiquated, and disused.
An Editor therefore should be well vers’d in the History and Manners
of his Author’s Age, if he aims at doing him a Service in this Respect.
Besides, _Wit_ lying mostly in the Assemblage of _Ideas_, and in the
putting Those together with Quickness and Variety, wherein can be
found any Resemblance, or Congruity, to make up pleasant Pictures,
and agreeable Visions in the Fancy; the Writer, who aims at Wit,
must of course range far and wide for Materials. Now, the Age, in
which _Shakespeare_ liv’d, having, above all others, a wonderful
Affection to appear Learned, They declined vulgar Images, such as
are immediately fetch’d from Nature, and rang’d thro’ the Circle
of the Sciences to fetch their Ideas from thence. But as the
Resemblances of such Ideas to the Subject must necessarily lie very
much out of the common Way, and every piece of Wit appear a Riddle
to the Vulgar; This, that should have taught them the forced,
quaint, unnatural Tract they were in, (and induce them to follow a
more natural One,) was the very Thing that kept them attach’d to it.
The ostentatious Affectation of abstruse Learning, peculiar to that
Time, the Love that Men naturally have to every Thing that looks
like Mystery, fixed them down to this Habit of Obscurity. Thus
became the Poetry of DONNE (tho’ the wittiest Man of that Age,)
nothing but a continued Heap of Riddles. And our _Shakespeare_, with
all his easy Nature about him, for want of the Knowledge of the true
Rules of Art, falls frequently into this vicious Manner.
The third Species of _Obscurities_, which deform our Author, as
the Effects of his own Genius and Character, are Those that proceed
from his peculiar Manner of _Thinking_, and as peculiar a Manner of
_cloathing_ those _Thoughts_. With regard to his _Thinking_, it is
certain, that he had a general Knowledge of all the Sciences: But
his Acquaintance was rather That of a Traveller, than a Native.
Nothing in Philosophy was unknown to him; but every Thing in it had
the Grace and Force of Novelty. And as Novelty is one main Source of
Admiration, we are not to wonder that He has perpetual Allusions to
the most recondite Parts of the Sciences: and This was done not
so much out of Affectation, as the Effect of Admiration begot by
Novelty. Then, as to his _Style_ and _Diction_, we may much more
justly apply to SHAKESPEARE, what a celebrated Writer has said of
MILTON; _Our Language sunk under him, and was unequal to that
Greatness of Soul which furnish’d him with such glorious
Conceptions_. He therefore frequently uses old Words, to give his
Diction an Air of Solemnity; as he coins others, to express the
Novelty and Variety of his Ideas.
Upon every distinct Species of these _Obscurities_ I have thought it
my Province to employ a Note, for the Service of my Author, and the
Entertainment of my Readers. A few transient Remarks too I have not
scrupled to intermix, upon the Poet’s _Negligences_ and _Omissions_
in point of Art; but I have done it always in such a Manner, as will
testify my Deference and Veneration for the Immortal Author. Some
Censurers of _Shakespeare_, and particularly Mr. _Rymer_, have
taught me to distinguish betwixt the _Railer_ and _Critick_. The
Outrage of his Quotations is so remarkably violent, so push’d beyond
all Bounds of Decency and sober Reasoning, that it quite carries
over the Mark at which it was levell’d. Extravagant Abuse throws
off the Edge of the intended Disparagement, and turns the Madman’s
Weapon into his own Bosom. In short, as to _Rymer_, This is my
Opinion of him from his _Criticisms_ on the _Tragedies_ of the Last
Age. He writes with great Vivacity, and appears to have been a
Scholar: but, as for his Knowledge of the Art of Poetry, I can’t
perceive it was any deeper than his Acquaintance with _Bossu_ and
_Dacier_, from whom he has transcribed many of his best Reflexions.
The late Mr. _Gildon_ was One attached to _Rymer_ by a similar Way
of Thinking and Studies. They were Both of that Species of Criticks,
who are desirous of displaying their Powers rather in finding
Faults, than in consulting the Improvement of the World: the
_hypercritical_ Part of the Science of _Criticism_.
I had not mentioned the modest Liberty I have here and there taken
of animadverting on my Author, but that I was willing to obviate in
time the splenetick Exaggerations of my Adversaries on this Head.
From past Experiments I have Reason to be conscious, in what Light
this Attempt may be placed: and that what I call a _modest Liberty_,
will, by a little of their Dexterity, be inverted into downright
_Impudence_. From a hundred mean and dishonest Artifices employ’d to
discredit this Edition, and to cry down its Editor, I have all the
Grounds in Nature to be aware of Attacks. But tho’ the Malice of Wit
join’d to the Smoothness of Versification may furnish some Ridicule;
Fact, I hope, will be able to stand its Ground against Banter and
Gaiety.
[Sidenote: _Shakespeare_’s Anachronisms defended.]
[Sidenote*: Mr. _Pope_’s Anachronisms examin’d.]
It has been my Fate, it seems, as I thought it my Duty, to discover
some _Anachronisms_ in our Author; which might have slept in
Obscurity but for _this Restorer_, as Mr. _Pope_ is pleas’d
affectionately to style me; as, for Instance, where _Aristotle_
is mentioned by _Hector_ in _Troilus_ and _Cressida_: and _Galen_,
_Cato_, and _Alexander_ the Great, in _Coriolanus_. These, in Mr.
_Pope_’s Opinion, are Blunders, which the Illiteracy of the first
Publishers of his Works has father’d upon the Poet’s Memory: _it not
being at all credible, that These could be the Errors of any Man who
had the least Tincture of a School, or the least Conversation with_
_such as had._ But I have sufficiently proved, in the Course of my
_Notes_, that such Anachronisms were the Effect of poetic Licence,
rather than of Ignorance in our Poet. And if I may be permitted
to ask a modest Question by the way, *Why may not I restore an
Anachronism really made by our Author, as well as Mr. _Pope_ take
the Privilege to fix others upon him, which he never had it in his
Head to make; as I may venture to affirm He had not, in the Instance
of Sir _Francis Drake_, to which I have spoke in the proper Place?
But who shall dare make any Words about this Freedom of Mr. _Pope_’s
towards _Shakespeare_, if it can be prov’d, that, in his Fits of
Criticism, he makes no more Ceremony with good _Homer_ himself?
To try, then, a Criticism of his own advancing; In the 8th Book of
the _Odyssey_, where _Demodocus_ sings the Episode of the Loves of
_Mars_ and _Venus_; and that, upon their being taken in the Net by
_Vulcan_,
----the God of Arms
Must pay the Penalty for lawless Charms;
Mr. _Pope_ is so kind gravely to inform us, “That _Homer_ in This,
as in many other Places, seems to allude to the Laws of _Athens_,
where Death was the Punishment of Adultery.” But how is this
significant Observation made out? Why, who can possibly object any
Thing to the Contrary?----_Does not_ Pausanias_ relate, that _Draco_
the Lawgiver to the _Athenians_ granted Impunity to any Person that
took Revenge upon an Adulterer? And was it not also the Institution
of _Solon_, that if Any One took an Adulterer in the Fact, he might
use him as he pleas’d?_ These Things are very true: and to see What
a good Memory, and sound Judgment in Conjunction can atchieve! Tho’
_Homer_’s Date is not determin’d down to a single Year, yet ’tis
pretty generally agreed that he liv’d above 300 Years before _Draco_
and _Solon_: And That, it seems, has made him _seem_ to allude to
the very Laws, which these Two Legislators propounded above 300
Years after. If this Inference be not something like an _Anachronism_
or _Prolepsis_, I’ll look once more into my Lexicons for the true
Meaning of the Words. It appears to me, that somebody besides _Mars_
and _Venus_ has been caught in a Net by this Episode: and I could
call in other Instances to confirm what treacherous Tackle this
Network is, if not cautiously handled.
How just, notwithstanding, I have been in detecting the Anachronisms
of my Author, and in defending him for the Use of them, Our late
Editor seems to think, They should rather have slept in Obscurity:
and the having discovered them is sneer’d at, as a sort of
wrong-headed Sagacity.
The numerous Corrections, which I made of the Poet’s Text in my
SHAKESPEARE _Restor’d_, and which the Publick have been so kind to
think well of, are, in the Appendix of Mr. _Pope_’s last Edition,
slightingly call’d _Various Readings_, _Guesses_, &c. He confesses
to have inserted as many of them as he judg’d of any the least
Advantage to the Poet; but says, that the Whole amounted to about
25 Words: and pretends to have annexed a compleat List of the Rest,
which were not worth his embracing. Whoever has read my Book will at
one glance see, how in both these Points Veracity is strain’d, so an
Injury might but be done. _Malus etsi obesse non pote, tamen cogitat_.
[Sidenote: _Literal Criticism_ defended.]
Another Expedient, to make my Work appear of a trifling Nature, has
been an Attempt to depreciate _Literal Criticism_. To this End, and
to pay a servile Compliment to Mr. _Pope_, an _Anonymous_ Writer
has, like a _Scotch_ Pedlar in Wit, unbraced his Pack on the
Subject. But, that his Virulence might not seem to be levelled
singly at Me, he has done Me the Honour to join Dr. _Bentley_ in
the Libel. I was in hopes, We should have been Both abused with
Smartness of Satire, at least; tho’ not with Solidity of Argument:
that it might have been worth some Reply in Defence of the Science
attacked. But I may fairly say of this Author, as _Falstaffe_ does
of _Poins_;--_Hang him, Baboon! his Wit is as thick as _Tewksbury_
Mustard; there is no more Conceit in him, than is in a _MALLET_._ If
it be not Prophanation to set the Opinion of the divine _Longinus_
against such a Scribler, he tells us expresly, “That to make a
Judgment upon _Words_ (and _Writings_) is the most consummate Fruit
of much Experience.” ἡ γὰρ τῶν λόγων κρίσις πολλῆς ἐστὶ πείρας
τελευταῖον ἐπιγέννημα. Whenever Words are depraved, the Sense of
course must be corrupted; and thence the Readers betray’d into a
false Meaning. Tho’ I should be convicted of Pedantry by some,
I’ll venture to subjoin a few flagrant Instances, in which I have
observed most Learned Men have suffer’d themselves to be deceived,
and consequently led their Readers into Error: and This for want
of the Help of _Literal Criticism_: in some, thro’ Indolence and
Inadvertence: in others, perhaps, thro’ an absolute Contempt of It.
If the _Subject_ may seem to invite this Digression, I hope, the
_Use_ and _Application_ will serve to excuse it.
[Sidenote: _Platonius_ corrected.]
I. In that golden Fragment, which we have left of _Platonius_, upon
the three Kinds of _Greek_ Comedy, after he has told us, that when
the State of _Athens_ was alter’d from a Democracy to an Oligarchy,
and that the Poets grew cautious whom they libell’d in their
Comedies; when the People had no longer any Desire to choose the
accustom’d Officers for furnishing _Choric_ Singers, and defraying
the Expence of them, _Aristophanes_ brought on a Play in which
there was no _Chorus_. For, subjoins He, τῶν γὰρ ΧΟΡΕΥΤΩΝ μὴ
χειροτονουμένων, καὶ τῶν ΧΟΡΗΓΩΝ οὐκ ἐχόντων τὰς τροφὰς,
ὑπεξῃρέθη τῆς Κωμῳδίας τὰ χορικὰ μέλη, καὶ τῶν ὑποθέσεων ὁ
τρόπος μετεβλήθη. _“The _Chorus-Singers_ being no longer chosen
by Suffrage, and the _Furnishers_ of the_ Chorus _no longer having
their Maintenance, the _Choric_ Songs were taken out of Comedies,
and the Nature of the Argument and Fable chang’d._” But there
happen to be two signal Mistakes in this short Sentence. For the
_Chorus-Singers_ were never elected by Suffrage at all, but hir’d by
the proper Officer who was at the Expence of the _Chorus_: and the
_Furnishers_ of the _Chorus_ had never either Table, or Stipend,
allowed them, towards their Charge. To what Purpose then is this
Sentence, which should be a Deduction from the Premises, and yet is
none, brought in? Or how comes the Reasoning to be founded upon what
was not the Fact? The Mistake manifestly arises from a careless
Transposition made in the Text: Let the two _Greek_ Words, which I
have distinguished by _Capitals_, only change Places, and we recover
what _Platonius_ meant to infer: “That the [A]_Furnishers_
of _Chorus_’s being no longer elected by Suffrage, and the
[B]_Chorus-Singers_ having no Provision made for them, _Chorus_’s
were abolished, and the Subjects of Comedies alter’d.”
[Footnote A: Χορηγῶν.]
[Footnote B: Χορευτῶν.]
II. There is another more egregious Error still subsisting in this
instructive Fragment, which has likewise escaped the Notice of
the Learned. The Author is saying, that, in the _old Comedy_, the
_Masks_ were made so nearly to resemble the Persons to be satirized,
that before the Actor spoke a Word, it was known whom he was to
personate. But, in the _New Comedy_, when _Athens_ was conquered
by the _Macedonians_, and the Poets were fearful lest their Masks
should be construed to resemble any of their New Governors, they
formed them so preposterously as only to move Laughter; ὁρῶμεν γοῦν
(says He) τὰς ὀφρῦς ἐν τοῖς προσώποις τῆς Μενάνδρου κωμῳδίας ὁποίας
ἔχει, καὶ ὅπως ἐξεστραμμένον τὸ ΣΩΜΑ. καὶ οὐδε κατὰ ἀνθρώπων φύσιν.
“We see therefore what strange Eyebrows there are to the Masks used in_
Menander_’s Comedies; and how the _Body_ is distorted, and unlike
any human Creature alive.” But the Author, ’tis evident, is speaking
abstractedly of _Masks_; and what Reference has the _Distortion_ of the
_Body_ to the Look of a _Visor_? I am satisfied, _Platonius_ wrote; καὶ
ὅπως ἐξεστραμμένον τὸ ὌΜΜΑ, _i.e._ “and how the _Eyes_ were _goggled_
and _distorted_.” This is to the Purpose of his Subject: and _Jul.
Pollux_, in describing the Comic Masques, speaks of some that had
ΣΤΡΕΒΛΟΝ τὸ ὌΜΜΑ: Others, that were ΔΙΑΣΤΡΟΦΟΙ τὴν ὌΨΙΝ.
PERVERSIS _oculis_, as _Cicero_ calls them, speaking of _Roscius_.
[Sidenote: _Camerarius_ and _Keuster_, mistaken.]
III. _Suidas_, in the short Account that he has given us of
_Sophocles_, tells us, that, besides Dramatic Pieces, he wrote
Hymns and Elegies; καὶ λόγον καταλογάδην περὶ τοῦ Χοροῦ πρὸς
Θέσπιν καὶ Χοίριλον ἀγωνιζόμενος. This the Learned _Camerarius_
has thus translated: _Scripsit Oratione solutâ de _Choro_ contra
_Thespin_ & _Chœrilum_ quempiam._ And _Keuster_ likewise
understood, and render’d, the Passage to the same Effect. He
owns, the Place is obscure, and suspected by him. “For how could
_Sophocles_ contend with _Thespis_ and _Chœrilus_, who liv’d long
before his Time?” The Scholiast upon [C]_Aristophanes_, however,
expresly says, as _Keuster_ might have remember’d, that _Sophocles_
actually did contend with _Chœrilus_. But that is a Point nothing
to the Passage in Question; which means, as I have shewn in another
Place, That _Sophocles_ declaimed in Prose, contending to obtain a
_Chorus_ for reviving some Pieces of _Thespis_ and _Chœrilus_.
Is This contending against Them, as rival Poets?
[Footnote C: In Ranis, v. 73.]
[Sidenote: _Meursius_, and _Camerarius_ mistaken.]
IV. Some other Learned Men have likewise been mistaken in
Particulars with regard to _Sophocles_. In the Synopsis of his Life,
we find these Words; Τελευτᾶ δὲ μετὰ Ἐυριπίδην ἐτῶν ϛ’. _Meursius_,
as well as _Camerarius_, have expounded This, as if _Sophocles_
surviv’d _Euripides_ six Years. But the best Accounts agree that
they died both in the same Year, a little before the _Frogs_ of
_Aristophanes_ was play’d; _scil._ Olymp. 93, 3. The Meaning,
therefore, of the Passage is, as some of the Commentators have
rightly observ’d; _That _Sophocles_ died after _Euripides_, at
90 Years of Age._ The Mistake arose from hence, that, in Numerals,
ϛʹ signifies as well 6 as 90.
[Sidenote: Father _Brumoy_ mistaken.]
V. The Learned Father _Brumoy_ too, who has lately given us three
Volumes upon the _Theatre_ of the _Greeks_, has slipt into an Error
about _Sophocles_; for, speaking of his _Antigone_, he tells us, it
was in such Request as to be perform’d Two and Thirty times; _Elle
fût representée trente deux fois._ The Account, on which This is
grounded, we have from the Argument prefix’d to _Antigone_ by
_Aristophanes_ the Grammarian: and the _Latin_ Translator of this
Argument, probably, led Father _Brumoy_ into his Mistake, and
he should have referr’d to the Original. The _Greek_ Words are;
λέλεκται δὲ τὸ δρᾶμα τοῦτο τριακοστὸν δεύτερον. i. e. “_This _Play_
is said to have been the _Thirty Second_, in Order of Time, produced
by_ Sophocles.”
The Mistakes, that I have mentioned, (tho’ they necessarily lead
into Error, from the Authority with which they come into the World;)
yet are such, ’tis obvious, as have been the Effects of Inadvertence;
and therefore I do not quote them to the Dishonour of their Learned
Authors. I shall point out Two or Three, which seem to have sprung
from another Source: either a due Want of Sagacity, or an absolute
Neglect of _literal Criticism_.
[Sidenote: Sir _George Wheler_ corrected.]
VI. Sir _George Wheler_, who, in his JOURNEY into GREECE, has traded
much with _Greek_ Antiquities and Inscriptions, and who certainly
was no mean Scholar, has shewn himself very careless in this
Respect. When he was at _Sardis_, he met with a Medal of the Emperor
_Commodus_ seated in the Midst of the Zodiack with Celestial Signs
engraven on it; and, on the other Side, a Figure with a Crown-Mure
with these Letters about it, Σάρδις Ἀσίας, ΑΥΔΙΑΣ, Ἕλλαδος, ᾱ
μητρόπολις: __Sardis_, the first Metropolis of _Asia_, _Greece_,
and _Audia_._--But where and what _Audia_ was, (_says He_) I find
not. Now is it not very strange, that this Gentleman should not
remember, that _Sardis_ was the Capital City of _Lydia_; and,
consequently, that for ΑΥΔΙΑΣ we should read ΛΥΔΊΑΣ? Tho’ my
Correction is too obvious to want any Justification, yet, I find, it
has One from the Learned Father [D]_Harduin_; who produces another
Coin of _Sardis_ (in the _French_ King’s Cabinet) which bears the
very same Inscription, only exhibited as it ought to be.
[Footnote D: In his _Nummi Antiqui illustrati_.]
Nor was This a single Inaccuracy in Sir _George_. I’ll instance in
Two pretty Inscriptions, the One an _Epitaph_, the other a _Votive
Table_, which He has given Us, but in a very corrupt Condition. Tho’
I have never been in _Greece_, nor seen the Inscriptions any where
but in _his_ Book, I think, I can restore them to their true Sense
and Numbers: And, as they are particularly elegant, some Readers
will not be displeas’d to see them in a State of Purity.
[Sidenote: An _Epitaph_ corrected and explained.]
VII. _Of the Antiquities of _Philadelphia_ (says he) I had but a
slender Account; only I have the Copy of one Inscription, being the
Monument of a _Virgin_, in these three Couplets of Verses_. But she
was so far from being a _Virgin_, that the Epitaph shews her to have
been a _Wife_; that it was put up in Memory of Her by her _Husband_;
and that she dy’d in the Flower of her Youth at the Age of twenty
three.
Ξαντίππην Ἀκύλα μνήμην [1]βίου παρέδωκην
Βωμῷ [2]τειμήσας σεμνω ταυτην ἄλοχον‧
Παρθένον ἧς ἀπέλυσε μίτρην ΗΣΔΡΙΟΝ ἄνθοσ.
Ἔσκεν ἐν ἡμιτελεῖ παυσαμενον θαλάμῳ.
Τρεῖς γαρ ἐπ᾽ εἰκοσίους τελεῶσε [3]βιον ἐνιαυτοὺς,
Καὶ μετὰ τούσδε θάνεν [4]τουτου λιπουσαφαος.
[Notes:
1 βιότου παρέδωκεν.
2 τιμήσας σεμνοτάτην.
3 βιοῦσ᾽.
4 τοῦτο λιποῦσα φάος. ]
I have, for Brevity’s sake, mark’d the general Corrections, which I
have made, at the Side. The third Verse is neither true in Quantity,
nor Language: ΗΣΔΡΙΟΝ is a Monster of a Word, which never could
be the Reading of any Marble. As I correct it, we recover a most
beautiful Couplet.
Παρθένον, ἧς ἀπέλυσε μίτρην‧ ἯΣ ἨΡΙΝΌΝ ἄνθος.
Ἔσκεν ἐν ἡμιτελεῖ παυσάμενον θαλάμῳ.
Puellam, cujus Zonam solvit; cujus _VERNUS_ Flos
Præproperô tabuit in Thalamô.
[Sidenote: A _Votive Table_ corrected.]
VIII. I come now to the _Votive Table_, which is rich in poetick
Graces, however overwhelm’d with Depravation: and Sir _George_
seems as much to have mistaken the Purport, as the Words, of the
Inscription. _At _Chalcedon_, _says he_, I found an Inscription in
the Wall of a private House near the Church; which signifieth, that
_Evante_, the Son of _Antipater_, having made a prosperous Voyage,
and desiring to return by the _Ægean_ Sea, offered Cakes at a
Statue, which he had erected to _Jupiter_, which had sent him such
good Weather, as a Token of his good Voyage._
[1]ΟΥΡΙΟΝ ἐπὶ [2]ΠΡΙΜΝΗΣ τις ὁδηγητῆρα καλείτω,
Ζῆνα κατὰ [3]πρωτΟΝ ΩΝιστιον ἐκπετάσας
[4]ΕΠΙ ΚΥΑΝΕΑΣ ΔΙΝΑΣ ΔΡΟΜΟΥΣ ἔνθα Ποσειδῶν
Καμπύλον εἰλίσσει κῦμα παρὰ ψαμαθοῖς.
Εἶτα κατ᾽ Αἰγαῖαν πόντου πλάκα [5]ΝΑΣ ἐρεύνων,
Νείσθω‧ τῷ δὲ [6]ΒΑΛΛΩΝ ψαιστὰ παρὰ [7]ΤΩ ΖΩΑΝΩ.
[8]ΟΔΕ τὸν [9]ΕΥΑΝΤΗ τὸν ἀεὶ θεὸν Ἀντιπάτρου παῖς
Στησε [10]φιλων ἀγαθῆς σύμβολον εὐπλοΐης.
[Notes:
1 Ὂυρον.
2 πρύμνης.
3 πρώτων, ἱστίον.
4 Κυανεαῖς δίνησιν ἐπίδρομον.
5 Νόστον.
6 βαλών.
7 ξοάνῳ
8 Ἐσδέ.
9 εὐανθῆ.
10 Φίλων. ]
I have mark’d, as before, my Corrections at the Side; and I may
venture to say, I have supported the faltring Verses both with
_Numbers_ and _Sense_. But who ever heard of _Evante_, as the Name
of a Man, in _Greece_? Neither is this Inscription a Piece of Ethnic
Devotion, as Sir _George_ has suppos’d it, to a Statue erected to
_Jupiter_: On the contrary, it despises those fruitless Superstitions.
_Philo_ (a _Christian_, as it seems to me;) sets it up, in Thanks
for a safe Voyage, to the _true God_. That all my Readers may
equally share in this little Poem, I have attempted to put it into
an _English_ Dress.
Invoke who Will the prosp’rous Gale _behind_,
_Jove_ at the _Prow_, while to the guiding Wind
O’er the blue Billows he the Sail expands,
Where _Neptune_ with each Wave heaps Hills of Sands:
Then let him, when the Surge he backward plows,
Pour to his Statue-God unaiding Vows:
But to the God of Gods, for Deaths o’erpast,
For Safety lent him on the watry Waste,
To native Shores return’d, thus _Philo_ pays
His Monument of Thanks, of grateful Praise.