PREFACE
IF such a people as the ancient Greeks were at this moment existing in the Eastern Archipelago; and if an Englishman who had resided many years among them were faithfully to describe their manners and sentiments, the state of religion and of knowledge, the organization of society, and the arts of peace and war among them;-the book would probably be a universal favourite. Homer himself has done this, and done it with native simplicity and vividness. He sets us as in the midst of the most ancient Greeks. We may disbelieve, as in a modern novel, every individual fact; yet from his poem, as from a good novel, the stranger will imbibe a perfect idea of the state of society. Homer is in truth to his reader better than the best book of travels into old Greece. Nor only so; but by reason of the unbounded popularity of his poems with his countrymen, their influence over the Greek mind may be compared to the combined effect produced in England by the Bible and by Shakespeare. In discerning the mind of Homer, -as to its intellectual and moral tone,-we get discernment not into one Greek only, but into all the Greeks, of whom he is emphatically a noble type. In this respect, the substance of what he tells is often of less importance to us than the manner in which he tells it; and it becomes a first-rate duty of a translator to adhere closely to his manner and habit of thought, as also to his moral sentiments.
The weakest point of the Greeks, their absurd religion, has its interest and instruction in its eminently childlike simplicity. We see in this people (what may be called) the childish mind magnified, both as to intensity and duration; and through them we can trace step by step the wonderful changes of religious thought, from Homer to Pindar and to Plato or Aristotle: but to be familiar first with Homer, is the basis of this contemplation. It is to be added, that this poet wrote in a stage of the national mind in which divisions of literature were not recognized. Even the distinction of prose and poetry had not yet arisen. He is alternately Poet, Orator, Historian, Theologian, Geographer, Traveller, jocose as well as serious, dramatic as well as descriptive. In this half-developed condition, each separate function is less perfectly performed than afterward; yet the work, as a whole, has charms not easily attained by anything less comprehensive. Here, however, it suffices to warn the reader not to expect, or to wish, Homer to be always at the same high pitch of poetry. He rises and sinks with his subject, is prosaic when it is tame, is low when it is mean. To express this suitably, we need a diction sufficiently antiquated to obtain pardon of the reader for its frequent homeliness. The style of Homer himself is direct, popular, forcible, quaint, flowing, garrulous, abounding with formulas, redundant in particles and affirmatory interjections, as also in grammatical connectives of time, place, and argument. In all these respects it is similar to the old English ballad, and is in sharp contrast to the polished style of Pope, Sotheby, and Cowper, the best known English translators of Homer. By general consent, Chapman's version is far more Homeric than these. In regard to diction, Dryden in part agrees with Homer, namely, in his love of strong and racy words. Aphrase can hardly be too homely for the true Epic style, if it be but energetic and graphic. Those words only are to be rejected as mean which are also weak and petty. The problem presented to a translator is highly complicated, and he is constantly obliged to compromise. Even after he has chosen all his principles correctly, he is liable perpetually to miss in detail, from the delicacy of applying them: but if he choose his first principles wrongly, all is over: no skill can bring his work right. He may produce a splendid piece of varnish, as Pope has done; or a vigorous poem, as Chapman; but it will not so represent the original as the translation of a great poem ought. And here, the first matter of all, is, to select the metre; with which the style is intimately connected. The moral qualities of Homer's style being like to those of the English ballad, we need a metre of the same genius. It must be fundamentally musical and popular. Only those metres which, by the very possession of these qualities, are liable to degenerate into doggerel, are suitable to reproduce the ancient Epic. To say this, is to say, that our metre must be composed of systems of either four or three beats; for it is of such lines that English ballads or ditties are composed. Indeed, musicians tell us that all simple melodies are formed in eight bars, even what is called "the subject" in the most complicated pieces of Mozart or Beethoven. I imagine that the "Long Metre" of our Hymn Books, (the metre of Walter Scott, by far the most Homeric of our poets,)-is in fact founded on this musical principle; while our "Common Metre" is the same, with merely "a rest" at the end. How naturally one generates the other, is seen in Scott's own practice, who intermingles lines of three beats as a sort of close to those of four. The same thing appears in Greek anapæsts, which close with a "paræmiac" verse. Indeed the Homeric line itself is composed of two shorter lines, withthree beats in each,* and is undoubtedly founded on "ditty" or sing-song, like our own ballad. On the contrary, the verse with five accents, which Pope, Cowper, Sotheby use, is adapted only to the terse, polished, oratorical or philosophical poetry of a cultivated age. In such a metre (and peculiarly without rhyme) a high subject is necessary, and an artificial, if not an ornamental, style: even with tender sentiments, simplicity in it is not easily borne, unless there is something elevated or rare in the thoughts; while to be homely and prosaic, even for a few lines, is offensive. Shakespeare knew this so well, that he chooses rather to break into plain prose, than put common thought into five-foot metre. Indeed with this metre the instinct of every translator at once sacrifices as inadmissible all the repetitions of epithets, half lines and whole lines, which so characterize the Greek epic. So glaring a proof of the incongruity of their form might have suggested that the mischief must go far deeper, and that they sacrifice inner qualities of the original life, as well as external badges. The affinity of the five-foot metre for Latinized words, which the ballad rejects, is another criterion which of the two is suitable to the Epic; for the entire dialect of Homer being essentially archaic, that of a translation ought to be as much Saxo-Norman as possible, and owe as little as possible to the elements thrown into our language by classical learning. These considerations convinced me à priori that the English metre fitted to translate Homer's hexameter must be a long line composed of two short ones, having each either three beats or four beats. The nature of our syntax, which habitually begins sentences with unaccented words, (such as And, Or, If, But, For, When, &c.), farther proved to me thatthe line must not be constrained to begin with an accent, as in the metres which we call Trochaic. It remained to inquire what should be its compass; and a series of trials showed, that it was best to compose the line of four beats added to three. Many passages of Homer can be got into an "Alexandrine," that is, into three and three; but I found that, first, this could not be kept up systematically, without becoming too terse ; whereas the genius of Homer is to be loose and expansive : secondly, my metre could not be right, unless it would render also the polished hexameter of epigrams and epitaphs; but while "four and three" had compass enough for this, the "three and three" often failed entirely; next, I found that many even of the Homeric lines by no compression could be brought into the Alexandrine, and that beauty and effect was sometimes largely lost if it was impossible to render line by line; lastly, no long trial made it certain to me that the monotony of the Alexandrine is unendurable in a long poem, since the first part of the line has no facility of various subdivision. Such were the general arguments which forced me to believe four beats and three beats to give the elementary solution of my problem. But, beside this, I held it as an axiom that rhyme must be abandoned. Even to Chapman, with his Homeric genius, and a metre fundamentally good, it was impossible to let the Englishman know what Homer had said, and not obtrude on him what was Chapman's own: for, the exigencies of rhyme positively forbid faithfulness. Yet on abandoning rhyme, to which our ears are accustomed in the popular ballad, I found an unpleasant void, until I gave a double ending to the verse, i. e., one (unaccented) syllable more than our Common Metre allows. Having attained this result by an exhaustive process of argument and experiment, I found with pleasure that I had exactly alighted on the metre which the modern Greeks adoptfor the Homeric hexameter, ever since they have abandoned the musical principle of quantity (or Time) as determining metre, and have betaken themselves to accent. Thus, while our Common Metre has The queen sits lone in Lithgow pile, and weeps the weary day; my metre, as the modern Greek epic, runs:They hied to go, as lions twain, amid the nightly darkness, O'er carcases and dusky gore, through weapons and through carnage. At the same time, I have occasionally varied the division, so as to throw a syllable more to the end of the first part; thus: By far the wisest of the augurs, Calchas, son of Thestor. It need hardly be said, that the printing of such a couplet into a single line is merely for compactness. They still remain essentially two in one; and until all readers are skilful in metre, it is safer to exhibit to the eye their duality, which my page is broad enough generally to allow. I am not so rash as to say that if freedom be given to rhyme, as in Walter Scott's poetry, where the echo comes back sometimes in one, sometimes in two or even three, four lines, -a genius may not arise, who will translate Homer into the melodies of Marmion, and produce a faithful and far more delightful poem than can ever come forth out of the principles on which I proceed. But such geniuses are rare, and they generally prefer to employ themselves on original poetry. Sir Walter Scott, I believe, might have translated Homer nobly, as far as his talents were concerned; but his very genius forbade him. At the same time, in many passages it is of much valueto render the original line by line. To illustrate the principle, let the English reader consider the following stanza of Byron : The horrid crags by toppling convent crown'd, The cork-trees hoar that clothe the shaggy steep, The mountain moss by scorching skies imbrown'd, The sunken glen, whose sunless shrubs must weep, The tender azure of the unruffled deep, The orange tints that gild the greenest bough, The torrents that from cliff to valley leap, The vine on high, the willow-branch below, Mix'd in one mighty scene, with varied beauty glow. Manifestly, it would be better to translate these lines into prose, than into a metre which ran one line into another; and a translator who had to turn these nine lines into twelve (or into six couplets,) would inevitably ruin the passage, whatever in other respects his skill. This is an extreme case; yet the principle holds in Homer also. A stereotype Homeric line, which recurs again and again, must of course be completed in one line of the English; as for instance, book i, 43, 68, 73, 84, 130, &c. (and by the way, here also, rhyme is a fatal embarrassment); but, as one specimen out of many, I may refer to the four lines, book i, 436-439, to show how desirable it may sometimes be to render line by line; at which for the most part I aim. But I on no account tie myself slavishly to such a rule. I abandon it whenever the material is unfavourable. The English reader will discover the fact by the numbers added to the lines, which numbers are taken from the Greek text, and are intended to facilitate reference. They will show that five lines of the Greek often go into four lines of English, especially in the battle scenes, and in other passages where a large number of inevitable Saxon monosyllables replace longer Greek words. In adopting the more antiquated style suitable to the subject, no English model can be followed; the attempt would cripple the translator and give no pleasure to the reader. Our real old ballad-writers are too poor and mean to represent Homer, and are too remote in diction from our times to be popularly intelligible. It is requisite for a translator to form his own style. I generally adhere to the principle which Aristotle commended in Euripides, as contrasted with Æschylus, viz., to use little strange diction, but impart elevation by the mode of combining known words. I am not concerned with the historical problem, of writing in a style which actually existed at an earlier period of our language; but with the artistic problem of attaining a plausible aspect of moderate antiquity, while remaining easily intelligible. Now, in doing this, I alight on the delicate line which separates the quaint from the grotesque. I ought to be quaint; I ought not to be grotesque. Yet no two persons will agree, as to where the one ends and the other begins; and in judging concerning a series of words, he who is for excluding one, and for retaining another, finds his decision to be precisely reversed by his neighbour. This is a difficulty which I cannot avoid. Unless I sacrifice a serious portion of my available vocabulary, good Saxon words, which only a false taste counts ignoble, I must retain many which one or other will avow that "he hates"; and against hate it is useless to argue. The nature of the case makes me calculate, that even the man who most thoroughly agrees with my general principles, will differ with me about special words; for certain words have different associations and different recent histories with special minds. If any one wholly dislikes my translation, he has his easy remedy, to keep aloof from it. But if any one accepts it as a whole, let him not think that he does a service to me or to the world by expressing his own distaste for special words, without suggesting better. For suggestions in detail, I shall bethankful; and readers can always introduce their own improvements, for their own comfort, in their private copy of the book. Although the structure of my sentences is antiquated, I venture on but few such words as Thomson in his "Castle of Indolence," or even on some used by Walter Scott: and the inversions which I employ are less Latinized than those of Milton. My inversions are not mere metrical expedients, but necessities of the style; partly, to attain antiquity and elevation, partly for emphasis or for variety, and to break the prosaic effect of compound tenses with auxiliary verbs. Indeed, in all lively conversation we use far more inversion than in the style of essay-writing; putting the accusative before the verb, beginning a sentence with a predicate or with a negative, and in other ways approaching to the old style, which is truly native to every genuine Englishman. The desire of reviewers to deprive our language of its poetical resources is wonderful. Since the above was written, I have read in two highly respectable reviews praise of a modern poet for not deviating from the prosaic order of words! This is an ascription of merit, which would have surprized Sophocles, Virgil, or even Terence, as much as Milton or Pope. The effort to obliterate everything in diction and style which distinguishes poetry from prose, legitimately culminates into Mr. Thomas Carlyle's wish, that men would discard metre, and speak in honest prose. In regard to grammar, I have used several old-fashioned formulas, but I am aware of only one peculiarity which needs explanation; viz., after the particle than, if a pronoun ends the clause, I have uniformly employed what is called the accusative. In modern style, our classical scholars at an early period introduced from Latin a principle which seems to me essentially unpopular, viz., to end a clause with than he, than thou, than she, &c., where they think a nominative is needed: yetthey confess their despair of introducing than who; a circumstance which convinces me that their whole effort has been mistaken. In fact, they have intruded on us an ugly and gratuitous irregularity, in bidding us to say than whom in a sentence where they would forbid than him. Their argument, based on the doctrine of supplying ellipses, is fallacious. It would condemn a Frenchman for saying meilleur que moi and an Englishman for saying the book is mine. I cannot listen to unsophisticated English talk, without being convinced that in old English the words me, thee, him, &c., are not merely accusatives, but are also the isolated form of the pronoun, like moi, toi, lui. In reply to the question, "Who is there?" every English boy or girl answers Me, until he or she is scolded into saying I. In modern prose the Latinists have prevailed; but in a poetry which aims to be antiquated and popular, I must rebel. If any one insists on my quoting some precedent, I call Southey to my aid (a man very particular about his English), who in his "Thalaba" says, "He must be a stronger than thee, who would break this thread of mine." After all, those readers who cannot bear than thee, than him, &c., in my lines, must alter them to than thou, than he. In regard to pronunciation, our language has undergone a change not dissimilar to that of passing from old Ionic to the later Attic Greek, by a clipping of the sounds, partly by the slurring over of a vowel. We have also shown a tendency to throw the accent to an earlier syllable of a word, as the contemporaries of Aristophanes said trópaion, hómoios, for the older tropdion, homóios. All such trisyllabic compounds as sea-coursing, prize-bearing, are with me accented on the second syllable, and not in modern fashion on the first: so too I pronounce medicínal, as in Milton. Again, to be congruous with the older style, I endeavour to keep up the more elongated pronunciations. Thus with me, ordinarily such words asheaven, tower, bower, are of two syllables; towering, murderous, venison, numerous, threatenest, Ilium, Danaï, chariot, wearied, furious, gorgeous, are three in the metre; outrageous, laborious, Saturnius, Olympian, are generally four syllables. In five-foot metre such words would commonly be clipt, so as virtually to lose a syllable. The more deliberate pronunciation is not only more antiquated, but also has intrinsically something of pomp in it; and is thus on both grounds better adapted to the Epic: yet I scarcely ever follow Shakespeare into making two syllables of the final -tion of nouns, which, to say the truth, I find it hard to pronounce without seeming to myself affected. Where the older spelling (as warriour for warrior) suggests elongation, I have thought it better to retain it. I also spell highth as in Milton, partly for antiquity, partly for its analogy to width, breadth, length; though I suspect that heighth is more correct still. The participle in -ed is often used by me at full;-a pronunciation which is still familiar to us in reading the Bible. Thus hanged in book i, 40, is of two syllables. It is not requisite to print with a grave accent (as, hangèd), since I write an apostrophe for this e when it is elided. Except indeed, that I too late observe, -I have not printed such words as "weari'd," "hurri'd," with apostrophes when they are dissyllabic; hence we need "wearied," "hurried," when they are trisyllabic. This ambiguity will occasionally need attention on the part of the reader. Universally, he is requested to allow no "e mute" in proper names, except in those which have become naturalized with us, as Jove, Thebes, Rhodes. Thus Thebe, Rhode, Rhene, will be pronounced with two syllables, Athéne with three, Eurýbates with four. Eu is a diphthong, as in Theseus, Atreus, Bríareus, Idómeneus, except when the letters are separated by dots, as in Eüsórus. The same remarkapplies to au, as in Naubolus and Meneläus. -Some attention is requisite to the Greek diphthongs ai and oi. These were probably sounded in old Greek as by us in aye and boy; and so we pronounce them at school. But the Romans transcribed them into ae and oe, which perhaps originally did not denote any change of sound. Afterwards, it seems, both nations narrowed the pronunciation, nearly as the modern Germans have done. Finally, the Italians have generally corrupted both diphthongs into a simple e, and so the English vulgarly sound them, by which we have made Caisar (Kaisar) into Sezar! Our printers have aided the obliteration of the a and the o, by printing æ, œ, instead of ae, oe. I am not sorry that my printer, mistaking my directions, has alternately used both methods, as in Mycenæ and Mycenae. This is a case in which uniformity seems to me a sort of vice; for it inculcates error; as if there were some difference between the two. In Homer and Æschylus we may probably infer that ai had a broad sound, from the facility with which it is dissolved. Thus the same word is either one syllable, as pais, or two syllables, païs;-as Achaia in three syllables, or Achaïa in four. If the reader will take my advice, he will always sound ae (æ, ai) and oe (œ, oi) as in our words aye and boy; he will then feel the transition from Achaeans (Achaians), Troians, to Achâïans, Trôïans, natural enough. It is often an inconvenience to my metre, that some of the Latin names of gods, which we generally adopt, are shorter than the Greek. I have found advantage in retaining the Greek names Aphrodite and Ares, instead of the Latin, Venus and Mars. I have also kept Athene, Artemis, Hermeas, or Hermes, chiefly because their identification with Minerva, Diana, Mercurius, is imperfect: also indeed, to retain the similarity of Athene to Athens. The Minerva of the Romans and Etruscans was not a martial goddess, an Amazon, like the
Those who take interest in this subject, may find an elaborate analysis of it by my learned and acute colleague, Professor Malden, in a paper read before the Philological Society of London, March 1852.
Greek Athene, but the patroness of female manual accomplishments and of boys' schools. Indeed, Apollo of the Iliad is not (as among the after Greeks) the god of the sun, nor Artemis goddess of the moon. The poet does not once name Delos, and in book iv, 101, he calls Apollo "Lycia-born"; though his meaning is not undisputed. The Latin Diana seems to be the same word as the Homeric Dione (b. v, 370), which again is the Greek Zenone or Latin Junone; and in all, it probably means, the Queen of Heaven. Two or more mythologies have run together in each country. In all languages, perhaps, poetry must either take liberties with proper names, or paraphrase and evade them. The latter method is suitable for a polished and artificial style, but is totally opposed to the Homeric genius. Unable to use this device, I feel myself more free to do as Homer himself does, viz., vary the pronunciation of his names. Even Pope says at pleasure Merion and Meriones, Protesilas and Protesilaüs, besides such improprieties as Briáreüs, Echépolus, and others. Achilleus and Achileus come alike to Homer; I wish too late that I had always written Achilleus for Achilles. Other slight varieties will readily explain themselves. A few remarks here on the problem presented to a translator seem to me the more needful, because some reviewers of my translation of Horace's Odes laid down as axioms (to which they assumed my agreement), principles which I regard to be utterly false and ruinous to translation. One of these is, that the reader ought, if possible, to forget that it is a translation at all, and be lulled into the illusion that he is reading an original work. Of course a necessary inference from such a dogma is, that whatever has a foreign colour is undesirable and is even a grave defect. The translator, it seems, must carefully obliterate all that is characteristic of the original, unless it happen to be identical in spirit to somethingalready familiar in English. From such a notion I cannot too strongly express my intense dissent. I aim at precisely the opposite; to retain every peculiarity of the original, so far as I am able, with the greater care, the more foreign it may happen to be, whether it be matter of taste, of intellect, or of morals. And as regards the dogma itself, it seems to me about as reasonable as to say, that if a draughtsman executes drawings of Greek statuary, he should aim to pass the drawings off as actual statuary, or as something original from an English hand. Nay, but he distinctly wishes it never to be forgotten that he is imitating, and imitating in a different material. So also the English translator should desire the reader always to remember that his work is an imitation, and moreover is in a different material; that the original is foreign, and in many respects extremely unlike our native compositions. Again: an original poet aims at attaining the highest excellence in various kinds, -as in sublimity, in beauty, in taste, &c. But a translator must by no means so set his aim; for his first duty is a historical one: to be faithful, exactly as is the case with the draughtsman of the Elgin Marbles. I do not say that he is bound to reproduce every petty defect, even defects which are not characteristic or any way essential. But he has a general duty of telling truth concerning the original, which is the more urgent upon him, the higher are its intrinsic merits; and this duty hinders his aiming at other or more excellence than he actually finds in the original.And because I say this, I have been alleged to hold that the problem of the translator is wholly industrial! Just as much industrial as that of Mr. Scharf, in his beautiful drawings of the Lycian and Assyrian sculptures. Certainly, on the one hand, he would not try so to draw them, that an Englishman should fancy they were English sculptures; nor, on the otherhand, would he try to give them those forms, which he himself thought intrinsically most beautiful. But I believe he would be greatly surprized, at being told, that, if he aimed at faithfulness, he must be content henceforward no longer to be called an artist, but only an industrial mechanic. Nor is it wholly useless here to protest, that I have not the remotest idea of "aiming to reproduce the melodies of Homer," which in the case of Horace has been most gratuitously ascribed to me. Such an aim would seem to me to prove that a translator did not understand his own materials. An accentual metre, in a language loaded with consonants, cannot have the same sort of sounding beauty as a quantitative metre in a highly vocalized language. It is not audible sameness of metre, but a likeness of moral genius which is to be aimed at. A metre which in the original has antiquated, musical, dignified associations, must be represented in a translation by a metre of like character; what is light, merry, whimsical, must be represented by the light, merry, and whimsical; and so on. But whether this reproduction will be best effected by aiming at any near likeness (or analogy) to the metrical form of the original, is a secondary question of experiment. Necessitated, as a translator of Homer (in my opinion) is, to adopt a more or less antiquated style, I farther think he may respectfully claim the same sort of forbearance (I might almost call it humility) in criticism, which is habitually used to old writings, and to dialects which differ from our own: that is to say,-He must be tried, not by the current relative standard, but by one far more absolute. In the present day, so intensely mechanical is the apparatus of prose-composition, -when editors and correctors of the press desire the uniform observance of some one rule (never mind what, so that you find it in the "standard" grammar), -every deviation is bresented as a vexatious eccentricity; and in general it would appear, that dry perspicuity is the only excellence for which the grammarian has struggled. Every expression which does not stand the logical test, however transparent the meaning, however justified by analogies, is apt to be condemned; and every difference of mind and mind, showing itself in the style, is deprecated. On the contrary, how do we behave to an old or to a foreign writer? We invent "figures of Rhetoric," to explain or to apologize for his peculiarities. His phrases are called Synecdoche, or Catachresis, or Metonymy; but if they are clearly intelligible, and not intrinsically unpleasing, we never condemn them barely because they are not scientifically accurate, or because we should not so express ourselves, whether in flat prose or in modern polished versification. Returning from questions of style to the substance of the poem, I must beg the reader to remark, that Homer has no one name for the Greek nation collectively, who afterwards called themselves Hellénes. With him the Hellenes are a single tribe, a part of the kingdom of Achilles. The name Achaians is peculiarly, but not exclusively, applied by him to the people of Southern Greece, i. e., the Peloponnesus or Morea: and when he desires to speak most comprehensively, he says Pan-Achaians, and once Pan-Hellenes. (Pan means All.) Argos with him is not only a city in the southern peninsula, where Diomed was king, but is likewise a city or district in Thessaly, which he names Pelasgian Argos for distinction. Nevertheless Argos (or with an epithet, Achaian Argos) is also used by him more widely for the kingdom of Agamemnon (as book ii, 108), whether he meant the whole Peloponnesus, or rather, the district historically called Argolis. However, the result is, that he employs Achaians and Argives almost indiscriminately for the people over whom Agamemnon's direct and indirect power extended. A thirdname, Danaï is also used in the same sense; but this appears essentially poetical and mythological. The Argives are so called, as connected with the mythical hero Danaüs. Homer's doctrine concerning Pelops and his descendants was far less developed than that of the Greek tragedians. I suppose him to have believed, with the later Greeks, that Pelops, grandsire of Agamemnon (book ii, 105) established the new dynasty at Mycenæ, where Perseus and his race had previously reigned: yet he does not give to the Morea its Greek historical name, Peloponnesus (island of Pelops), but calls it Apia (book i, 269), or land of Apis. This Apis, according to later writers, was a prince of Argos, and son of Phoroneus: he must not be confounded with the Egyptian Apis. To dwell on the peculiarity of the Homeric representations in these and similar matters, is work for an ample treatise, the materials for which already abound in our own language. But probably no one will read such a book, or will care for the discussions of Grote, Thirlwall, and Mure, unless he has previously acquired a deep interest in the old Greek nation; and that can only be after and through the perusal of Homer. I have myself been urged to this labour of translation, by a belief that our countrymen will never become familiar with the old civilized world, and feed on the instruction which its contrast to ourselves suggests, except by entering through the gate of Homer: and, to enable them to do this, we need a translation executed on the principles rather of a daguerreotypist, than of a fashionable portrait-painter. The translator must not seek to "idealize" the Iliad, but to impart to the English reader (as nearly as he is able) the means of judging for himself what the true Homer really was. (In all the above, when I say Homer, I mean the poet of the Iliad: I have no conviction at all, that the Odyssey is from the same author.)
But if once we succeed with Homer, it will have been but a beginning: nearly all the best Greek poetry may then soon become known through English. With the very same objects, I attempted the translation of Horace's Odes, -a book which has the great advantage of compactness. I now more distinctly feel that the English language may cope with even the choral songs of Æschylus, and perhaps with every serious Greek poet except Pindar.