Things very consistent in their own Nature. And therefore I must insist that Virgil was no way deficient in Poetical Fire; and that Homer excelled him not in that Particular. By which last I always mean, that either Homer had not more of it, or if he had more in the Whole, he had too much in some Instances, and too little in others. If His were more than Virgil's, (tho' even That I question) it was not better; no nor so good: considering how their Fire was disposed, or (if I may so speak) situated in their several Constitutions; and what use they severally made of it in their Writings. And therefore upon this Article I must take the Liberty to say, Mr. Pope is not just to Virgil, as well as to some other Poets, in the Preface to his admirable Translation of Homer. "This Fire (says he) is discerned in Virgil; but discerned as through a Glass, reflected, and rather shining than warm, but every-where equal and constant: In Lucan, and Statius, it bursts out in sudden, short, and interrupted Flashes: In Milton, it glows like a Furnace, kept up to an uncommon Fierceness by the Force of Art: In Shakespear, it strikes before we are aware, like an accidental Fire from Heaven: But in Homer, and in Him only, it burns every where clearly, and every where irresistibly." Supposing his Account of Lucan and Statius to be true: I no more know how to distinguish it from his Account of Shakespear, than I agree with him in the Character he gives of that great Man. For Fires from Heaven do not often strike; and when they do, are of no long Continuance: And so Shakespear's, like That of the other Two before mentioned, is supposed to burst out in short, sudden, and interrupted Flashes: For Instance, like Lightning; which is the only Fire from Heaven that we ordinarily see, or hear of, and even That not very frequently. For if any other Celestial flashes are here meant, they indeed may be more Divine; but they are much more rare, and short, than Those of Statius and Lucan. Whereas Shakespear, in my Judgment, has more of the Poetical Fire, than either of those Poets. Milton indeed had more of it than He: and therefore I am no less suprized at the Character here given of his Fire, that it glows like a Furnace, kept up to an uncommon Fierceness by the Force of Art: Because, tho' his Art, Learning, and Use of Books, especially of Homer, be very great; yet he is most distinguished by natural Genius, Spirit, Invention, and Fire; in all which perhaps he is not very much inferiour to Homer himself. Whose Fire again does not, I conceive, burn every where clearly, and irresistibly: Or if it did, it would be no Commendation. For the small Praise here given to Virgil, is, in my Opinion, no true Praise at all: His Fire is not every where equal: and it would be a Fault in him, if it were; as I have above observed. But waving That; Surely such an Account of Virgil's Fire was never given by any Critick before. It is discerned: As faint, and lessening an Expression, as could have been thought of. And how is it even discerned? Only through a Glass: And lest we should imagine That Glass to be a Burning-Glass; it is reflected, and rather shining, than warm. Now I desire to be informed, what truer Idea any one can have of the coldest, and most spiritless Writer in the World; supposing him only to be a good Judge, and a Man of tolerable Parts. If I am my self a little warm upon this Subject, I hope it may be pardoned upon such an Occasion; when so great a Genius as Virgil's is unjustly censured by so great a Genius as Mr. Pope's. However it be; Homer, according to this Account, remains the Sun of Poetry: For I know of no other Luminary (to which he may be compared) whose Fire burns every where clearly, and every where irresistibly. Whereas, if we must pursue these Similes of Light, and Fire, (tho', like other Similes, they do not answer in every Particular) I should rather say, as I hinted in the Beginning of this Preface, that the Fire of Poetry arose in Homer, like Light at the Creation; shining, and burning, it is true, but enshrined in a Cloud: But was afterwards transplanted into Virgil, as into the Sun; according to the Account which Milton gives of Both:[16]
Let there be Light, said God; and forthwith Light
Ethereal, first of Things, Quintessence pure,
Sprang from the Deep; and from her native East
To journy thro' the airy Gloom began,
Sphear'd in a radiant Cloud: For yet the Sun
Was not; She in a cloudy Tabernacle
Sojourn'd the while.——
Afterwards:
Of Light by far the greater Part he took,
Transplanted from her cloudy Shrine, and plac'd
In the Sun's Orb, made porous to receive
And drink the liquid Light; firm to retain
Her gather'd Beams, great Palace now of Light.
If it be said, that according to this Account, Homer has the Advantage; because all the Light is supposed to have been first in him, and only a Part of it (tho' the greatest) transferred to Virgil: it must be remembered that we are only making a Comparison: For if it were an exact Parallel, we must conceive (which we are far from doing) that the very individual Fire of the Greek Poet was transferred into the Roman; and that the one ceases to exist separately from the other. But besides; admitting Homer to have the Advantage so far as this Objection supposes; yet still Virgil has it upon the Whole, even with respect to Fire, of which we are now discoursing. Tho' the Light in the cloudy Shrine were more than That in the Sun; yet in the Sun it is placed in a higher, and more regular Sphere; more aptly disposed for warming and illuminating, and more commodiously situated for the Delight and Benefit of Mankind. "The Roman Author (we are told) seldom rises into very astonishing Sentiments, where he is not fired by the Iliad.[17]" Tho' I absolutely deny the Matter of Fact yet supposing it were true, still fired he is: The Poetical Spirit is in him, however he came by it; and that too better, if not more, than in him from whom he is imagined to have received it. How far the Reader will be of my Opinion upon this Head I know not: But to me the Truth of what I have urged resembles the Things of which I have been speaking: It shines like the Light, and burns like the Fire.
As to Similes, Homer is supposed to have the full Propriety of Them; and even the greatest Part of Virgil's must be His. That a great Number of Virgil's are taken from him, I deny not; but most of them are exceedingly improved by being transplanted: Tho' I believe if he had taken fewer from Homer, and given us more of his own, his Poem would have been so much the better. Not that he really has copy'd from Homer in this Instance, near so much as some Criticks pretend; and he has more Similes entirely his own; than the aforesaid Criticks will allow him. In my Remarks I shall mention some Particulars.
Generally speaking, Homer's Descriptions are admirable. But even in this View, I think Those are unjust to Virgil, who do not allow that he excels his Master. Consider the several Instances already cited, upon the Article of Poetical Fire; for most of them may be equally applied to This. What Images! what Paintings! what Representations of Nature! what Nature it self, do we find and feel in them! Besides a Multitude of others, which cannot now be so much as mentioned: I must here again refer to my Notes for Particulars.
For Style, Diction, and Verification, Homer, I acknowledge, is allowed the Triumph, even by the Generality of Virgil's Party: particularly by Rapin; as he is likewise by him in the Instances of Fire, and Description, above-mentioned. However, that I may not be thought singular in my Opinion, a Character which I by no means desire; it may be considered that I agree with Scaliger in his express Assertions, and with my Lord Roscommon in his Hints and Insinuations, not to mention other Authorities; when I frankly declare my Sentiments, that the Roman Poet is superiour to the Grecian even in this Respect. The Greek Language, it is true, is superiour to the Latin, in This, as well as in every thing else; being the most expressive, the most harmonious, the most various, rich, and fruitful, and indeed, upon all Accounts, the best Language in the World. But if notwithstanding this great Advantage, Virgil's Diction and Versification be preferable to Homer's; his Glory for That very Reason will be so much the greater. Homer's Epithets, for the most part, are in Themselves exceedingly beautiful; but are not many of them superfluous? Whether many, nay all, of those Particles which are commonly (and indeed, I think, falsly enough) called Expletives, be significant or no, I do not now dispute: But admitting them to be so; are not too many little Words, whether Expletives, nay whether Particles, or not, often crouded together? Ἤ εἰ δή ποτέ τοι κατὰ, &c. and Ἦ ῥὰ νύ μοί ποτὲ καὶ σὺ, &c. are not, I own, very agreeable Sounds to my Ears; and many more of the same Kind are to be met with. Moreover, does not Homer make an ill use of one great Privilege of his Language, (among many others) I mean That of dissolving Diphthongs, by so very frequently inserting a Word of five, or six Syllables, to drag his Sense to the End of a Verse, which concludes with the long Word aforesaid? Those Words, even at the End of a Verse, are sometimes indeed very agreeable: But are they not often otherwise? Especially at the Close of a Paragraph, or Speech; when for the most part too they are Epithets: and yet more especially, when those Epithets are of little Significancy? I shall give but one Instance, tho' it were very easy to produce many; and That shall be the last Line of the Iliad: Upon which, compared with the last of the Æneis, I cannot but think that
Vitaque cum gemitu fugit indignata sub umbras,
is a nobler Conclusion of an Heroic Poem, than