pieces in fashion. He neither chooses to draw a beauty in a ruff, or a French head; but with its neck uncovered, and in its natural ornament of hair curled up, or spread becomingly: so may a writer choose a natural manner of expressing himself, which will always be in fashion, without affecting to borrow an odd solemnity and unintelligible pomp from the past times, or humouring the present by falling into its affectations, and those phrases which are born to die with it.
I asked him, lastly, whether he would be strictly literal, or expatiate with further licenses? I would not be literal, replies he, or tied up to line for line in such a manner wherein it is impossible to express in one language what has been delivered in another. Neither would I so expatiate, as to alter my author's sentiments, or add others of my own. These errors are to be avoided on either hand, by adhering not only to the word, but the spirit and genius of an author; by considering what he means, with what beautiful manner he has expressed his meaning in his own tongue, and how he would have expressed himself, had it been in ours. Thus we ought to seek for Homer in a version of Homer. Other attempts are but transformations of him; such as Ovid tells us, where the name is retained, and the thing altered. This will be really what you mentioned in the compliment you began with, a transmigration of the poet from one country to another.
Here ended the serious part of our conference.
