Homer, even not in the second book (a graceful flattery to his countrymen); but he hastens from the ships, and concludes not that book till he has made you an amends by the violent playing of a new machine. From thence he hurries on his action with variety of events, and ends it in less compass than two months. This vehemence of his, I confess, is more fuitable to my temper; and therefore I have translated his first book with greater pleasure than any part of Virgil: 'but it was not a pleasure without pains: the continual agitations of the spirits must needs be a weakening of any constitution, especially in age; and many paufes are required for refreshment betwixt the heats; the Iliad of itself being a third part longer than all Virgil's works together.

This is what I thought needful in this place to fay of Homer. I proceed to Ovid and Chaucer; confidering the former only in relation to the latter. With Ovid ended the golden age of the Roman tongue: from Chaucer the purity of the English tongue began. The manners of the poets were not unlike: both of them were well-bred, well-natured, amorous, and libertine, at least in their writings, it may be also in their lives. Their studies were the fame, philofophy and philology. Both of them were known in astronomy, of which Ovid's books of the Roman feasts, and Chaueer's treatise of the Astrolabe, are fufficient witnesses. But Chaucer was likewise an aftrologer, as were Virgil, Horace, Perfius, and Manilius. Both writ with wonderful facility and clearness: neither were great inven

+tors: for Ovid only copied the Grecian fables; and most of Chaucer's stories were taken from his Italian contemporaries, or their predecessors. Boccace's Decameron was first published; and from thence our Englishman has borrowed many of his Canterbury tales : yet that of Palamon and Arcite was written in all probability by fome Italian wit, in a former age; as I shall prove hereafter: the tale of Grizild was the invention of Petrarch; by him fent to Boccace; from whom it came to Chaucer: Troilus and Creffida was also written by a Lombard author; but much amplified by our English translator, as well as beautified; the genius of our countrymen in general being rather to improve an invention, than to invent themselves; as is evident not only in our poetry, but in many of our manufactures. I find I have anticipated already, and taken up from Boccace before I come to him: but there is so much less behind ; and I am of the temper of most kings, who love to be in debt; are all for present money, no matter how they pay it afterwards: befides, the nature of a preface is rambling; never wholly out of the way, nor in it. This I have learned from the practice of honest Montaigne, and return at my pleasure to Ovid and Chaucer, of whom I have little more to say. Both of them built on the inventions of other men; yet fince Chaucer had fomething of his own, as The Wife of Bath's Tale, The Cock and the Fox, which I have translated, and some others, I may justly give our countryman the precedence in that part; fince I can remember nothing of Ovid which was wholly his. Both

C4

Both of them understood the manners, under which name I comprehend the passions, and, in a larger fenfe, the descriptions of perfons, and their very habits: for an example, I see Baucis and Philemon as perfectly before me, as if fome ancient painter had drawn them; and all the pilgrims in the Canterbury tales, their humours, their features, and the very dress, as distinctly as if I had fupped with them at the Tabard in Southwark: yet even there too the figures in Chaucer are much more lively, and set in a better light: which though I have not time to prove; yet I appeal to the reader, and am fure he will clear me from partiality. The thoughts and words remain to be confidered in the comparison of the two poets; and I have faved myself one half of that labour, by owning that Ovid lived when the Roman tongue was in its meridian; Chaucer, in the dawning of our language: therefore that part of the comparison stands not on an equal foot, any more than the diction of Ennius and Ovid; or of Chaucer and our present English. The words are given up as a poft not to be defended in our poet, because he wanted the modern art of fortifying. The thoughts remain to be confidered: and they are to be measured only by their propriety; that is, as they flow more or less naturally from the perfons described, on such and fuch occafions. The vulgar judges, which are nine parts in ten of all nations, who call conceits and jingles wit, who fee Ovid full of them, and Chaucer altogether without them, will think me little less than mad, for preferring the Englishman to the Roman: yet, with their

7

their leave, I must prefume to say, that the things they admire, are not only glittering trifles, and so far from being witty, that in a ferious poem they are nauseous, because they are unnatural. Would any man, who is ready to die for love, describe his paffion like Narcissus? Would he think of "inopem me copia fecit," and a dozen more of such expreffions, poured on the neck of one another, and signifying all the fame thing? If this were wit, was this a time to be witty, when the poor wretch was in the agony of death! This is just John Littlewit in Bartholemew Fair, who had a conceit (as he tells you) left him in his misery; a miferable conceit. On these occafions the poet should endeavour to raife pity: but, instead of this, Ovid is tickling you to laugh. Virgil never made use of fuch machines, when he was moving you to commiferate the death of Dido: he would not destroy what he was building. Chaucer makes Arcite violent in his love, and unjust in the purfuit of it: yet when he came to die, he made him think more reasonably: he repents not of his love, for that had altered his character; but acknowledges the injustice of his proceedings, and resigns Emilia to Palamon. What would Ovid have done on this occafion? He would certainly have made Arcite witty on his death-bed. He had complained he was farther off from poffeffion, by being so near, and a thousand fuch boyisms, which Chaucer rejected as below the dignity of the subject. They, who think otherwise, would by the fame reason prefer Lucan and Ovid to Homer and Virgil, and Martial to all four of them. As for the turn of words, in which Ovid particularly.excels all poets; they are sometimes a fault, and sometimes a beauty, as they are used properly or improperly; but in strong passions always to be shunned, because passions are ferious, and will admit no playing. The French have a high value for them; and I confefs, they are often what they call delicate, when they are introduced with judgment; but Chaucer writ with more fimplicity, and followed nature more closely, than to use them. I have thus far, to the best of my knowledge, been an upright judge betwixt the parties in competition, not meddling with the design nor the difposition of it; because the design was not their own; and in the disposing of it they were equal. It remains that I fay fomewhat of Chaucer in particular.

In the first place, as he is the father of English poetry, so I hold him in the fame degree of veneration as the Grecians held Homer, or the Romans Virgil: he is a perpetual fountain of good sense; learned in all sciences; and therefore speaks properly on all subjects: as he knew what to say, so he knows also when to leave off; a continence which is practised by few writers, and scarcely by any of the ancients, excepting Virgil and Horace. One of our late great poets is funk in his reputation, because he could never forgive any conceit which came in his way; but fwept like a drag-net, great and small. There was plenty enough, but the dishes were ill-forted; whole pyramids of sweet-meats, for boys and women; but little of solid meat, for men: all this proceeded not from any want of knowledge,

but