Produced by Tor Martin Kristiansen, Margo Romberg, Joseph
Cooper and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net.
THE AUGUSTAN REPRINT SOCIETY
JOSEPH TRAPP
THE
PREFACE
TO
T H E Æ N E I S
OF
VIRGIL
(_1718_)
_Introduction by_
MALCOLM KELSALL
PUBLICATION NUMBERS _214-215_
WILLIAM ANDREWS CLARK MEMORIAL LIBRARY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES
_1982_
GENERAL EDITOR
David Stuart Rodes, _University of California, Los Angeles_
EDITORS
Charles L. Batten, _University of California, Los Angeles_
George Robert Guffey, _University of California, Los Angeles_
Maximillian E. Novak, _University of California, Los Angeles_
Thomas Wright, _William Andrews Clark Memorial Library_
ADVISORY EDITORS
Ralph Cohen, _University of Virginia_
William E. Conway, _William Andrews Clark Memorial Library_
Vinton A. Dearing, _University of California, Los Angeles_
Arthur Friedman, _University of Chicago_
Louis A. Landa, _Princeton University_
Earl Miner, _Princeton University_
Samuel H. Monk, _University of Minnesota_
James Sutherland, _University College, London_
Robert Vosper, _William Andrews Clark Memorial Library_
CORRESPONDING SECRETARY
Beverly J. Onley, _William Andrews Clark Memorial Library_
EDITORIAL ASSISTANT
Frances M. Reed, _University of California, Los Angeles_
INTRODUCTION
Joseph Trapp's translation of the _Aeneid_ was first published in two
volumes dated respectively 1718 and 1720. Its appearance coincided with
his vacation of his chair as Professor of Poetry at the University of
Oxford, an office which he was the first to hold and to which he had
been elected in 1708.[1] The translation may be seen both as a
valediction to the University by one whose subsequent career was to be
made through the paths of clerical controversy and as a claim for the
attention and patronage of the great world. The dedicatee was William,
Lord North and Grey, and the list of subscribers is rich with the names
of lords temporal and spiritual, including the Lord Primate of Ireland
(Thomas Lindsay), who took four sets. Addison, Arbuthnot, Berkeley,
Thomas Sheridan, Tickell, Swift, Young, and Thomas Warton (who succeeded
Trapp as Professor of Poetry) also subscribed, but not Pope, whose views
on Homer, Trapp criticised and misquoted. The University of Oxford was
generous in its support (Cambridge was less so). We have, thus, in
Trapp's _Aeneid_ a translation of Virgil that was probably read by many
of the important figures of the English Augustan cultural milieu. In
turn, Trapp, writing with highest academic authority, offers in his
Preface an important critical account of Virgil's epic.
Trapp's career was typical of his times, combining literary and critical
activity with religious and political partisanship. He was born into a
clerical family in 1679 (his father was rector of Cherrington,
Gloucestershire) and after proceeding to New College School, Oxford, and
Wadham College, he attracted the attention of the wits by a series of
paraphrases, translations, complimentary effusions (including "Peace. A
poem: inscribed to ... Viscount Bolingbroke, 1713"), and at least one
successful tragedy, _Abra-Mule; or Love and Empire_ (1704). In public
affairs he was active in the defence of Henry Sacheverell, and his
partisanship here must have cemented his relationship with Dr. William
Lancaster, one of the bail for Sacheverell, who was Vice-Chancellor of
Oxford at the time of Trapp's election to the chair of poetry. Less
fortunate was Trapp's association with the dedicatee of the translation
of the _Aeneid_, for Lord North and Grey, who was prominent in seeking
to quash Sacheverell's impeachment (and became a privy-councillor in
1711), was committed to the Tower in 1722 for complicity in the
Atterbury plot and ended his days a wanderer on the continent. That
Atterbury himself was a subscriber to the _Aeneid_ serves further to
underline Trapp's Tory affiliations. The dedication by Trapp of his
Oxford lectures on poetry (_Praelectiones Poeticae_, 1711-19)[2] to
Bolingbroke appears to complete a fatal concatenation of literary and
political association in the light of events after the death of Queen
Anne.
Nonetheless, Trapp survived and prospered. Under the Tories he had been
for a time chaplain to Sir Constantine Phipps, Lord Chancellor of
Ireland, and shortly afterwards to Bolingbroke, who stood as godfather
to Trapp's son Henry. During the Tory collapse, Peterborough presented
him to the rectorship of Dauntsey in Wiltshire; Dr. Lancaster obtained
for him the lectureship at St. Martin-in-the-Fields, Westminster; and in
the 1730s Bolingbroke, restored, preferred him to the rectorship of
Harlington, Middlesex. Other livings and the presidency of Sion College
were to accrue for faithful service, as Trapp turned his pen to the
defence of the established church: first against the Roman Catholics
(for which, perhaps, the University of Oxford created him Doctor of
Divinity in 1728) and later against the Methodists, especially in his
discourses on _The Nature, Folly, Sin, and Danger of being Righteous
over much_ (1739).
Such engagements left him little time for literary creativity in the
years before his death in 1747. However, Trapp finally finished his
labors on Virgil by issuing a translation of the works (1731); and his
poem _Thoughts Upon the Four Last Things: Death, Judgment, Heaven, Hell_
(1734-35) shows him attempting to combine literary pleasure with
theological instruction--a potent mixture forcibly administered to his
parishoners, for it is recorded that he desired in his will that a copy
be presented to each "housekeeper" among them. _The Paradisus Amissus,
Latine Redditus_ appeared in 1741-44. This translation of Milton into
Latin is more than a freak of the neoclassical mind. It is the natural
complement to his earlier translation of the _Aeneid_ into Miltonic
blank verse as well as his attempt to judge the classic sublime by the
achievement of the masterwork of Christian epic, a task that had
preoccupied him as Oxford's Professor of Poetry.
The importance of Trapp's Preface to his version of the _Aeneid_ (and
the extensive notes to the text) lies fundamentally in the fusion of
Miltonic example with neoclassical precept in an attempt both to
understand the Latin text rationally and to communicate the intensely
exciting and moving experience that the _Aeneid_ evokes. This was a new
departure. French Aristotelian criticism of classical epic was
(inevitably) not influenced by Milton. In the English tradition, neither
Dryden in his Dedication of the _Aeneid_ nor Pope in the prefatory
material to the _Iliad_ (with which Trapp frequently takes issue) used
_Paradise Lost_ as the basic touchstone of value. Trapp was to be
sneered at in Delany's "News from Parnassus" for claiming in Pythagorean
vein that the spirit of Milton had descended to him. This was unfair; he
made no such claim. Trapp was trying to discover affinities between past
and present in poetic sensibility and in the use of language. In doing
so, he sought to place a major English poet in relation to Virgil, and
he judged from this example that the English blank verse line had more
of the grandeur of the Latin hexameter than the couplet in the hands
even of Dryden or Pope. His taste told him that the imaginative
invention and force of Milton had more of the Virgilian spirit than the
elegant correctness of English Augustanism. He argues his position with
vigor in the Preface and in his notes, and often with illustrative
example.
The conventional view that Trapp wished to change by the interpolation
of Milton was that, whereas Virgil merited the laurel for judgment and
decorum, Homer possessed greater "fire," "sublimity," "fecundity,"
"majesty," and "vastness" (to use Trapp's terms). Homer was praised as
the great original and inventor; Virgil followed in his steps with more
refinement and rationality, showing everywhere that good sense and
polished concision of expression characteristic of the Augustan age (so,
for instance, René Rapin claimed in the well-known _Comparaison_).[3]
One blossomed with the wild abundance and grandeur of nature; the other
displayed that cultivated order shown in fields and gardens. Trapp
accepts all that was granted to the Roman poet, but he claims for
Virgil, Homeric qualities also: his borrowings are merely the basis for
his invention (witness the tale of Dido); and as for the fire of
sublimity, Trapp, like a critical Prometheus, filches that also. Among
the many instances of the Virgilian fire given in the Preface, he cites
"the Arrival of _Aeneas_ with his Fleet and Forces" in the tenth book.
His translation runs thus:
Amaz'd stood _Turnus_, and th' _Ausonian_ Chiefs;
'Till, looking back, they saw the Navy move
Cov'ring the Sea, and gliding make to Shore.
Fierce burns his Helm; and from his tow'ring Crest
Flame flashes; and his Shield's round Bossy Gold
Vomits vast Fires: As when in gloomy Night
Ensanguin'd Comets shoot a dismal Glare;
Or the red Dog-Star, rising on the World,
To wretched Mortals threatens Dearth, and Plagues,
With Baleful Light; and saddens all the Sky. (360 _ff._)
Trapp does not play the trite old game of setting the texts of Homer and
Virgil in comparison, but what comes to his mind at once in his note,
and rightly, given the language of his translation, is Milton describing
Satan:
Like a Comet burn'd,
That fires the Length of _Ophiucus_ huge
In th' Artick Sky; and from his horrid hair
Shakes Pestilence and War. (II. 708-711)
Similarly, when Aeneas hastens to meet Turnus in the twelfth book,
Miltonic translation and Miltonic original are brought together to show
the similarity between Virgilian and Christian sublime:
_Aeneas_ ... with Joy
Exults; and thunders terrible in Arms.
As great as _Athos_, or as _Eryx_ great,
Or Father _Apennine_, when crown'd with Okes
He waves the ruffled Forest on his Brow,
And rears his snowy Summit to the Clouds. (902 ff.)
* * * * *
On th' other Side _Satan_ allarm'd
Collecting all his Might, dilated stood;
Like _Teneriff_, or _Atlas_ unremov'd:
His Stature reach'd the Sky, and on his Crest
Sat Horrour plum'd. (IV. 985-989)
In the light of such illustration, it is not surprising that Trapp, in
the Preface, when he wishes to give the feel of the Virgilian sublime,
quotes Milton's description of the creation:
Let there be Light, said God; and forthwith Light
Ethereal, first of Things, Quintessence pure,
Sprang from the Deep. (p. xxx)
When he wants to show what grandeur with propriety the English language
can achieve (even in the teeth of Dryden's rendering of Virgil, which he
pertinently censures), he chooses his prime examples from Milton:
witness the account of Satan "Hurl'd headlong, flaming from th' ethereal
Sky...." It was a bold undertaking by Trapp, for Pope's version of
Homer, elegantly correct in couplets, was in the press. Many a man was
to suffer more in _The Dunciad_ for less.[4]
Trapp's immediate critical associates in England clearly are John Dennis
and Joseph Addison, and the origins of Trapp's thinking in classical
antiquity may be found in Longinus. Dennis had united Milton with the
poets of antiquity as an example of the passionate effects of the
religious sublime,[5] while Addison (who had already translated a
fragment of _Aeneid_ III into blank verse) in his _Spectator_ papers on
_Paradise Lost_ had tastefully combined the structural formalism of
Aristotelian criticism of the epic with enthusiastic comment on the
grandeur and beauty of Milton's verse. To these must be added Trapp's
favorite, Roscommon, who in _An Essay on Translated Verse_ (1685)[6] had
interposed an imitation of Milton to illustrate how English verses might
rise to Roman greatness. But it would be unfair to Trapp merely to
reduce him to a series of component sources. He adopts and adapts; and
as far as the criticism of Virgil was concerned, his Preface and his
notes are a refreshing plea for something that he felt had not been
sufficiently emphasized in the _Aeneid_: the ever-varying energetic
passion that Longinian criticism had claimed was an essential quality of
the greatest literary works. Trapp's choice of Miltonic example is only
one means by which he emphasises that to truly respond to the _Aeneid_
(as to any major poem) was to be ravished by an overwhelming emotive
experience. "The Art, and Triumph of Poetry are in nothing more seen,
and felt, than in _Moving the Passions_," he comments in his "Remarks"
on the tragical action of the fourth book to which he prefaced "_An
Essay upon the Nature, and Art of_ Moving the Passions _in Tragedy, and
Epic Poetry_" (I. 377). "A Man cannot command his own Motions, while he
reads This; The very _Verses are alive_" (II. 942) is a typical comment
from his "Remarks" (on breaking the truce in the twelfth book). He
introduces the third book by citing Horace: the poet's art is like
magic, transporting us now to Thebes, now to Athens (I. 365). Sometimes
he throws up his hands in rapture at the _je ne sais quoi_: "Some
Beauties are the more so, for not being capable of Explanation. I feel
it, tho' I cannot account for it" (I. 339). It is to the text the
Preface lays the foundation for this kind of response in its emphasis on
the emotive range of Virgil--on his power to burn and to freeze, to
raise admiration, terror, and pity. "The _Greek_ Poet knew little of the
Passions, in comparison of the _Roman_" his argument runs, setting
Virgil on the peak of Parnassus.
This enthusiastic excitement is firmly controlled in the Preface by the
disciplines of more formal criticism, and here, inevitably, Trapp
follows the same kind of standard authorities as Dryden in his
translation. It would be untypical of the man not to give positive
guarantees of his learning and respectability. He shows that he had
absorbed the arguments of René le Bossu's _Traité du Poème Epique_
(1675) and knows Jean Regnauld de Segrais' translation of the _Aeneid_
(1668). He was familiar with René Rapin's _Réflexions sur la Poétique
d'Aristote_ (1674) and André Dacier's _La Poétique d'Aristote Traduite
en Français. Avec des Remarques_ (1692). The name of J. C. Scaliger
intrudes, if only to be mentioned with distaste; for the pedantic
querulousness of Scaliger's extended comparison of Homer with Virgil
attracted Trapp no more than it did Addison, both critics, in the
English humanistic tradition, being more concerned with an appreciative
and elegant brevity than with exhaustive scholarship. It was necessary
also to show some knowledge of the quarrel of the ancients and moderns;
but Trapp is concerned with the integrity of European culture, not with
the inane counting of points for or against past or present and not at
all with scoring off personal antagonists. In comparison, he makes
Swift, who always sneered at him, and even Pope seem sometimes trivial
and bitchy.
The restrained humanism of the Preface is noticeable. Thus, although the
critical concerns of the age lead Trapp to seek to annex "clear Ideas"
"to the Words, _Action_, _Fable_, _Incident_, and _Episode_," there is
nothing in his writing resembling the prolegomena to the _Aeneid_ in the
Delphin edition,[7] prolegomena that define epic from the doctrine of
Aristotle as the imitation of one action, illustrious, complete, of a
certain magnitude, which by narration in hexameter verse raises eminent
men to the prime virtues by delight and admiration, proceeds to define
the _actio_, _fabula_, _mores_, _sententia_, and _dictio_ in the
abstract, and then demonstrates that the definitions fit the _Aeneid_
(_ergo_ it is an epic poem). This is scientific method ossified. On the
other hand, if one compares Dryden's Dedication of the _Aeneid_, Trapp
equally eschews the quirky digressiveness (and the wholesale
borrowings), which give to Dryden's writing both its sense of personal
and spontaneous insight and yet its prolixity and mere messiness. Trapp
had studied the art to blot. The reader is spared Dryden's extended and
pointless discussion (at second hand) of how long the action of the
_Aeneid_ takes, let alone whether this is the right length for an epic
action or whether Aeneas was too lacrymose to be a hero (presumably
Trapp thought that those who will believe that will believe anything).
Likewise, Dryden's political insights, gathered as much from his own
experience as from Roman history, are also swiftly passed by for more
aesthetic concerns. Perhaps the view of Dryden (and Pope) that the
_Aeneid_ was a party piece like _Absalom and Achitophel_ was
unbalanced,[8] but Trapp might have reflected that, if any man knew
about political poetry, it was John Dryden and that the _Aeneid_ has a
place in the history of the Roman civil wars. But the Oxford professor
was more concerned with the sublime and beautiful.
As a critic of classical epic there can be little reasonable doubt that
Trapp stands comparison with either Dryden or Pope, and the honesty and
value of his critical endeavor are worth respect. He can be cool and
analytical when dispassionate reason is required (witness his account of
how in brevity and morality Virgil surpasses Homer); but he is in no
sense tied by a rigidly formalistic approach, happy to praise even that
"_Variety_" which "justifies the Breach of almost any Rule" (Preface p.
xlvi), or the organic development of structure that seems to be "_no
Method_ at all" (II. 953). Essentially, behind this firm but flexible
criticism, there is a compelling sense that to read a great poem is to
submit to an overwhelming experience; and his criticism is always
hastening to illustration, with the tacit appeal, "It is like this,
isn't it?" What is particularly stimulating, whether one accepts the
claim or not that Virgilian style and sensibility are reflected in
Milton, is the continual illumination of the classics by the vernacular
and particularly by modern example. It seems as if he is claiming that,
to understand the past, we must respond to the literature of our own
culture and that there are no important barriers between antiquity and
the modern world, the appreciation of foreign languages and our own
tongue. All true culture is always immediate and felt vitally as part of
our being. In attempting to express this, Trapp is in touch with what is
best in neoclassicism.
University of Reading.
NOTES TO THE INTRODUCTION
[1] He had held the chair for the maximum period of ten years permitted
by the original statute. For further particulars, see Thomas Hearne,
_Remarks and Collections_, ed. C. E. Doble (Oxford, 1886), entries for
14 July and 27 July 1708.
[2] There is a translation by William Bowyer, assisted by William
Clarke, entitled _Lectures on Poetry_ (London, 1742).
[3] _Comparaison des poèmes d'Homère et de Virgile_ (Paris, ?1688).
[4] He is identified by the Twickenham editor as the "_T--_" of the line
"_T--s_ and T--the church and state gave o'er," in _The Dunciad_ of 1728
II. 381, but was dropped from the _Variorum_ in 1729. In the Warburton
note of 1743, I.33, he may be alluded to in the gibe at "Professors."
[5] Notably in _The Advancement and Reformation of Modern Poetry_
(London, 1701) and _The Grounds of Criticism in Poetry_ (London, 1704).
[6] The Miltonic passage was added to the second edition (1685). The
poem originally appeared the previous year.
[7] Ed. Carolus Ruaeus, i.e. Charles de la Rue (Paris, 1675).
[8] I have further discussed this point in "What God, What Mortal? The
_Aeneid_ and English Mock-Heroic," _Arion_ 8 (1969), 359-79.
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE
The Preface to Joseph Trapp's translation of _The ÆNEIS of Virgil_,
Volume I (1718) is reproduced from a copy of the first edition in the
William Andrews Clark Memorial Library (Shelf Mark:
*FPR3736/T715V3/1718). A typical type-page (p. vii) measures 231 x 156
mm.
THE
ÆNEIS
OF
VIRGIL,
TRANSLATED INTO
BLANK VERSE:
By _JOSEPH TRAPP_, M.A.
Professor of Poetry in the University of _Oxford_.
_----Parnassia Laurus
Parva sub ingenti Matris se subjicit umbra_.
Virg.
VOLUME _the_ FIRST.
_LONDON_:
Printed in the Year MDCCXVIII.
THE
PREFACE.
However Poetry may have been dishonoured by the _Follies_ of some, and
the _Vices_ of others; the Abuse, or Corruption of the best Things being
always the worst: It will, notwithstanding, be ever regarded, as it ever
has been, by the wisest, and most judicious of Men, as the very _Flower_
of human _Thinking_, the most _exquisite Spirit_ that can be extracted
from the _Wit_ and _Learning_ of Mankind. But I shall not now enter into
a formal Vindication of this Divine Art from the many groundless
Aspersions which have been cast upon it by Ignorance, and Ill-nature;
nor display either it's Dignity in it self, or it's Usefulness both in
Philosophy, and Religion; or the delightful Elegancy of it's refined
Ideas, and harmonious Expressions. This I have in some measure
attempted in another[1] Treatise; to which I rather chuse to refer the
Reader, than to repeat what I have already said, tho' in a different
Language from This, in which I am now writing. I shall therefore only
observe at present, that to hate, or despise Poetry, not only argues a
Man deficient in Wisdom, and Learning; but even brings his Virtue and
Goodness under Suspicion: What our _Shakespear_ says of another
melodious Science, being altogether as applicable to This; and Poetry it
self being the Musick of Thoughts, and Words, as Musick is the Poetry of
Sounds.
_The Man that hath not Musick in his Soul,
And is not mov'd with Concord of sweet Sounds;
Is fit for Treasons, Stratagems, and Spoils;
The Motions of his Spirit are dull as Night,
And his Affections dark as Erebus:
Let no such Man be trusted.----_[2]
And as Poetry was by the Heathen stiled the _Language of the Gods_; much
the same may be said by a Christian of the one true Deity: Since a great
part of the Holy Scriptures themselves is to the last degree Poetical,
both in Sentiments, and Diction.
But among all the Species, or Kinds of Poetry; That which is
distinguished by the Name of Epic, or Heroic, is beyond comparison the
Noblest, and most Excellent. _An Heroic Poem, truly such, is undoubtedly
the greatest Work which the Soul of Man is capable to perform._ These
are the first Words of Mr. _Dryden_'s admirable Dedication of his
_English Æneis_ to the present Duke of _Buckingham_: They are translated
indeed from Monsieur _Rapin_; and are likewise the first Words of his
Comparison between _Homer_ and _Virgil_.[3] "The Design of it (continues
Mr. _Dryden_) is to form the Mind to Heroic Virtue by Example; 'Tis
convey'd in Verse, that it may delight, while it instructs; The Action
of it is always One, Entire, and Great. The least, and most trivial
Episodes, or Under-Actions, which are interwoven in it, are Parts either
necessary, or convenient; that no others can be imagined more suitable
to the place in which they are. There is Nothing to be left void in a
firm Building; even the Cavities ought not to be filled with Rubbish,
which is of a perishable Kind, destructive of the Strength: But with
Brick, or Stone, tho' of less pieces, yet of the same Nature, and fitted
to the Cranies. Even the least Portions of them must be of the Epic
kind; All Things must be Grave, Majestical, and Sublime: Nothing of a
foreign Nature, like the trifling Novels, which _Ariosto_,[4] and others
have inserted in their Poems. By which the Reader is misled into another
sort of Pleasure, opposite to That which is designed in an Epic Poem.
One raises the Soul, and hardens it to Virtue; the other softens it
again, and unbends it into Vice." But what makes this Kind of Poem
preferable to all others, is, that it virtually contains and involves
them: I mean their Excellencies and Perfections, besides That which is
proper, and peculiar to it self. This likewise is observed by Mr.
_Rapin_ in the place above-cited: And by this Assertion I do not
contradict what I have cited from Mr. _Dryden_; which I am supposed to
approve, while I transcribe it. For besides that he does not speak, as I
do, of the different _Turns_, and _Modifications_ of _Thinking_, and
_Writing_, but of _trifling Episodes_, or _Under-Actions_, which he says
are improper for this sort of Poetry, and in which I entirely agree with
him; I say, besides This, I do not affirm that an Ode, or an Elegy, for
example, can with propriety be _actually_, and _formally_ inserted in an
Heroic Poem; But only that the regular Luxuriancy, and noble Excursions
of _That_, and the pathetical and tender Complainings of _This_, are not
always forreign to the Nature of an Epic Subject, but are sometimes very
properly introduced to adorn it. The same may be said of the Poignancy
of Satyr; and the natural Images of ordinary Life in Comedy. It is one
Thing to say, that an Heroic Poem virtually includes These; and another,
that it actually puts them into Practice, or shews them at large in
their proper Forms, and Dresses. I do not mention Tragedy; because That
is so nearly ally'd to Heroic Poetry, that there is no Dispute or
Question concerning it. An Epic Poem then is the same to all the other
Kinds of Poetry, as the _Primum Mobile_ is to the System of the
Universe, according to the Scheme of the ancient Astronomy: That great
Orb including all the heavenly Bodies in it's Circumference, and
whirling them round with it's own Motion. And then the Soul of the
Poet, or rather of Poetry, informing this mighty, and regular Machine,
and diffusing Life and Spirit thro' the whole Frame, resembles that
_Anima Mundi_, that Soul of the World, according to the _Platonic_, and
_Pythagorean_ Philosophy, thus admirably represented in the Sixth
_Æneid_:
_Principio cœlum, ac terras, camposque liquentes,
Lucentemque globum Lunæ, Titaniaque astra
Spiritus intus alit, totamque infusa per artus
Mens agitat molem, & magno se corpore miscet._
Here we have at once the Soul of Poetry, and the Soul of the World: The
one _exerted_, while the other is _described_. Whether there be any such
Thing as the Last or not, we certainly perceive the First; and however
That be, Nothing, in reality, can give us a justly resembling Idea of
the Fabrick of an Heroic Poem; but That, which alone is superiour to it,
the Fabrick of the Universe.
I speak of an Heroic Poem, properly so called; for I know of but Three,
or Four, which deserve the Glory of That Title. And it's transcendent
Excellence is doubtless the Reason, why so few have attempted a Work of
this Nature; and fewer have succeeded in such their Attempts. _Homer_
arose like Light at the Creation; and shone upon the World, which (at
least so far as we know) was, with respect to that kind of Light, in
total Darkness, before his Appearing. Such was the Fire, and Vivacity of
his Spirit; the Vastness, and Fecundity of his Invention; the Majesty,
and Sublimity of his Thoughts, and Expressions; that, notwithstanding
his Errours and Defects, which must be acknowledged, his controuling,
and over-bearing Genius demanded those prodigious Honours, which in all
Ages have been justly paid him. I say, notwithstanding his Errours and
Defects: for it would have been strange indeed, had he been chargeable
with None; or had he left no room to be refined, and improved upon by
any Successour.
This was abundantly performed by _Virgil_; whose _Æneis_ is therefore
only not perfect, because it did not receive his last Hand. Tho', even
as it now is, it comes the nearest to Perfection of any Heroic Poem; and
indeed of any Poem whatsoever, except another of his Own: I mean his
_Georgicks_; which I look upon to be the most Consummate of all human
Compositions: It's Author for Genius and Judgment, for Nature and Art,
joined together, and taken one with another, being the greatest, and
best of all human Writers. How little Truth soever there may be in the
Prodigies which are said to have attended his Birth; certain it is, that
a Prodigy was then born; for He himself was such: And when God made That
Man, He seems to have design'd to shew the World how far the Powers of
mere human Nature can go, and how much they are capable of performing.
The Bent of his Mind was turned to Thought, and Learning in general; and
to Poetry, and Philosophy in particular. Which we are assured of not
only from the Spirit and Genius of his Works; but from the express
Account which he gives of himself, in Those sweet Lines of the second
_Georgick_:
_Me vero primum dulces ante omnia Musæ
(Quarum sacra fero, ingenti perculsus amore)
Accipiant, cœlique vias, & sydera monstrent.
Defectus solis varios, lunæque labores;
Unde tremor Terris, quâ vi maria alta tumescant
Objicibus ruptis, rursusque in seipsa residant.
Quid tantum oceano properent se tingere soles
Hyberni, vel quæ tardis mora noctibus obstet._
It is true, he here only tells us of his Inclination to Natural
Philosophy; but then he tells it us in Poetry: As few Things are more
nearly related.
For his Temper, and Constitution; if We will believe Mr. _Dryden_[5], it
was Phlegmatick, and Melancholick: As _Homer_'s was Sanguine, and
Cholerick, and This, he says, is the Reason of the different Spirit,
which appears in the Writings of those two great Authors. I make no
doubt, but that _Virgil_, in his _natural Disposition, as a Man_, was
rather Melancholick; as, I believe, most learned, and contemplative Men
ever were, and ever will be. And therefore how does he breath the very
Soul of a Poet, and of a Philosopher; when in the Verses immediately
following Those above-cited, he thus expresses the Thoughtfulness of
both those Tempers, as well as the peculiar Modesty of his Own!
_Sin has nè possim naturæ accedere partes
Frigidus obstiterit circum præcordia sanguis;
Rura mihi, & rigui placeant in vallibus amnes,
Flumina amem, silvasque inglorius.----_
Methinks, I _see_ him, while I read Those Verses; I am sure I _feel_
him. How delightful must it be, to enjoy so sweet a Retirement! What a
Glory, to be so inglorious! This, I say, is generally the Natural Make
of learned, and ingenious Men; and _Homer_ himself, notwithstanding his
Poetical Fire, was in all probability of the same Complexion. But if we
consider _Virgil as a Poet_; I hope to make it appear, before I have
finished This Preface, that, _as such_, he wanted neither the Sanguine,
nor the Cholerick; tho' at the same time I acknowledge a Man's _natural
Temper_ will _very much incline_ him to one way of Thinking, and
Writing, more than to another.
But tho' his _Genius_ was thus perfect; yet I take his _most
distinguishing_ Character to be the incomparable _Accuracy_ of his
_Judgment_; and particularly his elegant, and exquisite _Brevity_. He is
never luxuriant, never says any thing in vain: _We admire Others_ (says
Monsieur _Rapin_) _for what they say; but we admire_ Virgil, _for what
he does not say_: And indeed his very Silence is expressive, and even
his Omissions are Beauties. Yet is his Brevity neither _dry_, nor
_obscure_; so far otherwise, that he is both the _fullest_, and the
_clearest_ Writer in the World. He always, says enough, but never too
much: And This is to be observed in him, as well when he insists upon a
Thing, as when he slightly passes it over, when his Stile is long, and
flowing, as when it is short, and concise; in This Sense, he is brief,
even where he enlarges; and while he rolls like a Torrent, he has
nothing frothy, or redundant. So that to Him, of all Mankind, are Those
famous Verses of Sir _John Denham_ most particularly applicable:
_Tho' deep, yet clear; tho' gentle, yet not dull;
Strong, without Rage; without O'erflowing, full._
Meaning _Rage_ properly so called; not the _Poetical Fury_: For That He
was very far from wanting; as will be seen in it's proper Place. His
avoiding Redundancy therefore proceeded neither from Poverty, nor
Parsimony; but from Elegancy, and Exactness. So correct is he in Those
Parts of his Writings which are allowed to be finished; that I have
often thought what a Treasure That Man would be possessed of (were such
a Thing possible) who could procure the Filings of his Poems; and shew
the World what _Virgil_ would _not_ shew it. The very Chippings of Those
Diamonds would be more valuable than the richest Jewel of the _Indies_.
I have already said enough to involve my self in the now unavoidable
Comparison between _Homer_, and _Virgil_; which has so much employ'd the
Speculations of the Learned. Because it will be justly expected that I
should endeavour at least to give some Reasons for my Assertions; or
rather for my _Opinion_: For I desire that my _Assertions_ may all along
be understood to imply no more. As to _Homer_, nothing can be farther
from my Thoughts than to defraud that prodigious Man of his due Praise.
I have before said a little of it; and (would the Limits of this
Discourse permit) could with Pleasure enlarge upon that Subject. Many of
his Faults, as they are called, are indeed no Faults; but only charged
upon him by ignorant Pretenders to Criticism: Others, if they are really
so, are not His, but are entirely to be imputed to the Manners and
Customs of the Age in which he writ: And even those which are least
justifiable are to be excused upon this single Consideration, that he
was the first of his Species. No Science starts into Perfection at it's
Birth: And it is amazing that the Works of this great Poet come so near
it as they do. Thus as to himself: Then as to others; his Glory in Point
of Precedency is uncontestable; he is the Father of Poets, and of
Poetry; and _Virgil_ particularly has copy'd from him in a multitude of
Instances. But after all, the Question is; Whether upon the whole,
_Homer_'s or _Virgil_'s be the best Poems_, as we have them now; setting
aside all _external Considerations_, relating to Times, and Customs;
Inventing, and Borrowing; Precedency, and Succession; Master, and
Scholar; and regarding only the _internal Advantages_, and
_Disadvantages_, Beauties, and Faults of both; upon the Foundations of
Nature, and Art, of Truth, and Reason. _Homer_'s Faults are to be
excused: I am very glad of it; for I have an exceeding Honour, and Love
for him. But still _They are Faults_: Has _Virgil_ so many? I mean too
in Proportion, and allowing for the unequal Length of their Writings.
_Virgil_ imitated _Homer_, and borrowed from him: But did he not
_improve_, as well as _imitate_; and by borrowing, and adding to his own
vast Fund what the other never parted with, grow richer than him from
whom he so borrowed? In a word, did he not out of two very good Poems
make a better than either of them, or than both of them put together? I
am sensible it may be said on the other hand, that _Homer_ had the
_Disadvantage_, as well as _Glory_ of being the First: He had no body to
rely upon, but himself; whereas _Virgil_ had _Homer_'s Materials,
besides his own. All this I acknowledge; nay at present, and for
Argument's sake, let _Homer_'s be the _greater Glory_: Still is not
_Virgil_'s the _best Poem_? For I agree that in these Comparisons we
ought to make a Distinction between the _Man_, and the _Work_. Or if we
must make the Comparison in the former respect; _Homer_ was _Virgil_'s
Master, Father, what you please: But nothing is more common, than for
the Scholar to excel the Master, and the Son the Father. I think we
ought to lay aside the Prejudices of an undue Veneration for the
_greatest Antiquity_, and argue only from _Reason_; and that not only in
the Comparison of the Ancients with one another; but even in That of the
Ancients with the Moderns. I have a very great Honour for the _Greeks_
and _Romans_; but 'tis because their Writings are generally _good_, not
because they are _ancient_: And when we think they are otherwise than
good, I cannot imagine why we should not say so; provided it be with
Modesty, and with a due Deference to the Opinions of Those who differ
from us, whether they be dead or living. The famous Dispute about
Ancient and Modern Learning would, I believe, be soon determined; were
it not for unreasonable Prejudices to each of Those Names respectively.
The Ancients, _as such_, have the Advantage in This, that they ought to
be honoured as the Inventers of most Arts and Sciences; but then the
Moderns, _as such_, have the Advantage in This, that besides their own
Strength and Sagacity, they have the Models of the Ancients to improve
upon: And very strange it would be, if they should not improve in some
things, as well as lose in others.
I shall give the particular Reasons for my Opinion of these two great
Poets, before I finish: In the mean time, I hope the Reader will excuse
my Rambling. I am very sensible that I shall not only differ in judgment
from many Criticks of great Name, both Ancient and Modern; but that I am
like to fall under the ready, and natural Censure of being prejudiced my
self, while I warn against it in others. All I can say, is, that I have
endeavoured to divest my self of it as much as possible; but cannot be
positive that I am entirely free from it; being well aware that nothing
in the World is more difficult. For I am sure I have followed _One_
Precept of my Lord _Roscommon_, in his excellent Essay on Translated
Verse:
_Examine how your Humour is inclin'd,
And which the ruling Passion of your Mind;
Then seek a Poet who that way does bend,
And chuse an Author, as you chuse a Friend._
And as this is _One_ Circumstance, which is like to make a Man succeed,
as a _Translator_; so it is like to make him err, as a _Judge_. For this
Sort of Friendship (like all others) will certainly incline us to be
partial in favour of the Person whom we praise, or defend. It is in
This, as in every thing else; the Affections will be apt to biass the
Understanding; and doubtless a Man in a great measure judges This, or
That way of Writing to be best, because it is most agreeable to his own
natural Temper. Thus, for Example; One Man judges (as he calls it)
_Horace_'s Satyrs to be the best; Another is for _Juvenal_'s: When, all
this while, strictly speaking, they may not so much differ in
_Judgment_, as _Inclination_: For each of them perhaps will allow Both
to be best _in their Kind_; but the one is chiefly _delighted_ with this
Kind, and the other with that; and _there_ is all the real Difference
between them. And tho' this does not exactly parallel the present Case;
the Poems of _Homer_ and _Virgil_ being more of the same Species, than
the Satyrs of _Horace_ and _Juvenal_; yet it comes very near it: and the
Word _Species_ will admit of more Distinction than is commonly imagined:
These two Heroic Poets being very different in their _Turn_, and
_Manner_ of Thinking, and Writing. But after all, there are in Nature
and Reason certain Rules by which we are to judge in these Matters, as
well as in others; and there are still such things as Truth and
Falshood, notwithstanding Partiality and Prepossession. And this I can
assure my Reader, I am not prejudiced in Behalf of my Author, by
attempting to be his Translator; for I was of the same Opinion, before I
had the least Thought of this daring Enterprize. However, I do not
pretend to decide as a Judge, but only to argue as an Advocate; and a
Man may be allowed to plead with Prejudice, tho' he always ought to
determine without it: For it may do no Mischief at the Bar, tho it be
intolerable upon the Bench. But that my Reader may not be misguided by
it, upon a Supposition that I am; I desire him to consider, that as I
differ from some great Criticks, so I have the Authority of others to
support my Opinion. I need not insist upon _Scaliger_, _Rapin_, and the
incomparable Earl of _Roscommon_, whose Judgments upon this Point are
very well known; but I will produce the Words of _Macrobius_, as
collected by _la Cerda_[6], because he is commonly supposed to be in the
other Interest. It is true, in the Comparison of particular Passages, he
generally prefers _Homer_; yet he says, _Virgilius Homero ditior,
locupletior, cultior, purior, clarior, fortior vi argumentorum,
diligentior, observantior, uberior, pulchrior_. "_Virgil_ is richer, and
fuller than _Homer_, neater, purer, clearer, stronger in the Force of
his Arguments, more diligent, more observing, more copious, more
beautiful." Thus, I say, he speaks, as he is represented by the
above-mentioned Commentator; who only pretends to have picked up those
Words from several scattered Passages in his Writings: Whether they are
faithfully collected, or no (for he does not quote the particular
Places) I have not had the Patience to examine, nor am I at all
solicitous to know. It would be endless to cite _Scaliger_ upon this
Subject; and besides, when I agree with him, it is rather in his Praise
of _Virgil_, than in his Dispraise of _Homer_. I am far from being of
his Opinion in some Particulars, and farther from approving of his Way
and Manner of Proceeding. He inveighs against _Homer_ with as much
Bitterness, as if he had a personal Quarrel with him; prosecutes him
with all the Malice of Criticism, and that too sometimes false
Criticism; and is upon the whole highly injurious to the Character of
that wonderful Poet. Yet I cannot on the other side agree with Madam
_Dacier_, who is at least even with _Scaliger_, by calling him the worst
Critick in the World: _Le plus mechant Critique du Monde_, are the very
Words she uses. On the contrary, I think, he is generally upon these
Occasions rather Hyperbolical in his Expressions, than Erroneous in his
Judgment. I am indeed amazed at the Confidence of Monsieur _de la
Motte_, who treats _Homer_ with the greatest Freedom, and almost with
Contempt, when at the same time he acknowledges he does not understand
one Word of his Language. For my self, I have nothing to say, but that
I have a Right to deliver my Sentiments, as well as another; and, to use
the Words of that noble Poet and Critick above-mentioned,
_I speak my private, but impartial Sense,
With Freedom, and I hope without Offence._
And here I cannot but observe, that tho' I am charmed with that fine
Turn of his, after having remarked upon some supposed Faults in _Homer_;
_But I offend_; Virgil _begins to frown,
And_ Horace _looks with Indignation down;
My blushing Muse with conscious Fear retires,
And whom they like implicitly admires:_
Tho', I say, I am charmed with the Elegancy of the Poet, the Modesty of
the Critick, and the courtly Politeness of the Nobleman; and tho', as I
shall observe hereafter, I am not of his Opinion, as to the Particulars
he takes notice of, in the Verses preceding: yet I do not understand
why, for disapproving of some things in _Homer_, he should apprehend
either the Frowns of _Virgil_, or the Indignation of _Horace_. As
_Virgil_ saw the Beauties of _Homer_, while he imitated them; he no less
saw his Errours, while he avoided them. And as to _Horace_, that _Nil
molitur inepte_, in one Place, and----_Quandoque bonus dormitat
Homerus_, in another, must be regarded as Hyperboles; the one as an
Auxesis, the other as a Meiôsis. Not but that upon the whole, he
certainly admired _Homer_; nor would he have been the good Judge he was,
if he had not. But as he was acquainted with the _Iliad_, and the
_Odyssee_, so had he lived to have been as well acquainted with the
_Æneis_; would he not have preferred the last, before both the first?
Those who differ from me will say he _would not_; and 'tis altogether as
easy for me to say he _would_. The same, and more, may be remarked of
_Aristotle_; who was perfectly acquainted with _Homer_, but not at all
with _Virgil_.
Invention, Fire, and Judgment, will, I think, include all the Requisites
of an Epic Poem. The Action, the Fable, the Manners, the Compass, and
Variety of Matter, seem to be properly comprehended under the First of
these; yet not so as to exclude the Two last. For the particular
Disposition of them all is an Act of the Judgment, as the first Creating
of them is an Act of Invention; and Fire, tho' distinct from Invention,
and Judgment, has a near Relation to them Both, as it assists the one,
and is to be regulated by the other.