wondering that I should have to write against such notions: I would not take the trouble, only that they come against me from an Oxford Professor of Poetry.
At the same time, his doctrine, as I have said, goes far beyond compound epithets. Whether I say 'motley-helmèd Hector' or 'Hector of the motley helm', silver-footed Thetis' or 'Thetis of the silver foot', 'man-ennobling combat' or 'combat which ennobles man', the novelty is so nearly on a par, that he cannot condemn one and justify the other on this score. Even Pope falls far short of the false taste which would plane down every Homeric prominence: for he prizes an elegant epithet like 'silver-footed', however new and odd.
From such a Homer as Mr Arnold's specimens and principles would give us, no one could learn anything; no one could have any motive for reading the translation. He smooths down the stamp of Homer's coin, till nothing is left even for microscopic examination. When he forbids me (p. 96) to let my reader know that Homer calls horses 'single-hoofed', of course he would suppress also the epithets 'white milk', 'dusky blood', 'dear knees', 'dear life, etc. His process obliterates everything characteristic, great or small.
Mr Arnold condemns my translating certain names of horses. He says (p. 58): 'Mr Newman calls Xanthus Chesnut; as
