critical effort; the endeavour, in all branches of knowledge, theology, philosophy, history, art, science,—to see the object as in itself it really is. But, owing to the presence in English literature of this eccentric and arbitrary spirit, owing to the strong tendency of English writers to bring to the consideration of their object some individual fancy, almost the last thing for which one would come to English literature is just that very thing which now Europe most desires—criticism. It is useful to notice any signal manifestation of those faults, which thus limit and impair the action of our literature. And therefore I have pointed out how widely, in translating Homer, a man even of real ability and learning may go astray, unless he brings to the study of this clearest of poets one quality in which our English authors, with all their great gifts, are apt to be somewhat wanting—simple lucidity of mind.
III
Homer is rapid in his movement, Homer
is plain in his words and style, Homer is
simple in his ideas, Homer is noble in his
manner. Cowper renders him ill because
he is slow in his movement, and elaborate
in his style; Pope renders him ill because
he is artificial both in his style and in his
words; Chapman renders him ill because
