as far as I am cognizant of the fact. Whether I have achieved the task in a suitable manner it is for the public to judge. I have never read any translation of this work save a Latin ver- sion by an Oxford scholar, which was published upwards of a century ago, and dedicated to the then Bishop of Bristol. One of the "Daciers" has made a version of it in the French lan- guage, but this I have not read.
Perhaps, it is necessary that I should, in this place, observe,
with respect to the circumstance of my turning a philosophi-
cal
prose work into verse, that I can plead precedents for it;
although no such justification can, in reason and justice, be
necessary; since it is equally proper to translate prose into
poetry, as to compose an original poem out of historical or
fictitious records in prose, which is the common practice of
our times. Even Gibbon represents the immortal Tasso as
having "copied the minutest details of the siege of Jerusalem
from the Chronicles;" and makes this a great point of merit
in the poet. With regard to the following version, it only
remains for me to say that I have adhered as closely to the
text as was necessary in order to convey the exact sense of my
author; without, at the same time, pressing myself up in a
corner, and debarring myself from that liberty of poetic dic-
tion, as well as turn of expression suited to the necessities of
poetry. In one word, I have observed the precept of Horace
touching this matter:—
"Nec verbum verbo curabis reddero, fidus
Interpres : nec desilies imitator in arctum
Unde pedem referre pudor vetet, aut operis lex."
