was too modeft to set up for a dictator; and being fhocked perhaps with his old stile, never examined into the depth of his good fenfe. Chaucer, I confefs, is a rough diamond, and must first be polished, ere he shines. I deny not likewise, that, living in our early days of poetry, he writes not always of a piece: but fometimes mingles trivial things with thofe of greater moment. Sometimes alfo, though not often, he runs riot, like Óvid, and knows not when he has faid enough. But there are more great wits befides Chaucer, whofe fault is their excefs of conceits, and thofe ill forted. An author is not to write all he can, but only all he ought. Having observed this redundancy in Chaucer (as it is an easy matter for a man of ordinary parts to find a fault in one of greater), I have not tied myself to a literal tranflation; but have often omitted what I judged unneceffary, or not of dignity enough to appear in the company of better thoughts. I have prefumed farther, in fome places, and added somewhat of my own where I thought my author was deficient, and had not given his thoughts their true luftre, for want of words in the beginning of our language. And to this I was the more emboldened, becaufe (if I may be permitted to fay it of myfelf) I found I had a foul congenial to his, and that I had been converfant in the fame ftudies. Another poet, in another age, may take the fame liberty with my writings; if at leaft they live long enough to deferve correction. It was alfo neceffary fometimes to restore the fenfe of Chaucer, which was loft or mangled in the errors of the prefs: let this example fuffice at prefent ;

in the ftory of Palamon and Arcite, where the temple of Diana is defcribed, you find these verses, in all the editions of our author:

There faw I Danè turned into a tree,

I mean not the goddess Diane,

But Venus daughter, which that hight Danè :

Which after a little confideration I knew was to be reformed into this fenfe, that Daphne the daughter of Peneus was turned into a tree. I durft not make thus bold with Ovid, left fome future Milbourn fhould arife, and fay, I varied from my author, because I understood him not.

But there are other judges who think I ought not to have tranflated Chaucer into English, out of a quite contrary notion: they fuppofe there is a certain veneration due to his old language; and that it is little lefs than profanation and facrilege to alter it. They are farther of opinion, that fomewhat of his good sense will fuffer in this transfufion, and much of the beauty of his thoughts will infallibly be loft, which appear with more grace in their old habit. Of this opinion was that excellent perfon, whom I mentioned, the late earl of Leicester, who valued Chaucer as much as Mr. Cowley defpifed him. My lord diffuaded me from this attempt, (for I was thinking of it fome years before his death) and his authority prevailed fo far with me, as to defer my undertaking while he lived, in deference to him: yet my reason was not convinced with what he urged against it. If the first end of a writer be

to be understood, then as his language grows obfolete, his thoughts must grow obfcure :

"Multa renafcentur quæ jam cecideré; cadentque, "Quæ nunc funt in honore vocabula; fi volet ufus, "Quem penès arbitrium eft, & jus, & norma loquendi.” When an ancient word for its found and fignificancy deferves to be revived, I have that reasonable veneration for antiquity, to restore it. All beyond this is fuperftition. Words are not like landmarks, fo facred as never to be removed; cuftoms are changed; and even statutes are filently repealed, when the reafon ceafes for which they were enacted. As for the other part of the argument, that his thoughts will lofe of their original beauty, by the innovation of words; in the firft place, not only their beauty, but their being is loft, where they are no longer understood, which is the present cafe. I grant that something must be lost in all transfufion, that is, in all translations; but the fenfe will remain, which would otherwife be loft, or at least be maimed, when it is fearce intelligible; and that but to a few. How few are there who can read Chaucer, fo as to understand him perfectly! And if imperfectly, then with lefs profit and no pleasure. It is not for the use of fome old Saxon friends, that I have taken these pains with him: let them neglect my verfion, becaufe they have no need of it. I made it for their fakes who understand fenfe and poetry as well as they, when that poetry and fenfe is put into words which they understand. I will go farther, and dare to add, that what beauties I lofe in fome places, I give to others which had them not originally: but in this I

may be partial to myself; let the reader judge, and I fubmit to his decifion. Yet I think I have juft occafion to complain of them, who, because they understand Chaucer, would deprive the greater part of their countrymen of the fame advantage, and hoard him up, as mifers do their grandam gold, only to look on it themfelves, and hinder others from making use of it. In fum, I feriously proteft, that no man ever had, or can have, a greater veneration for Chaucer, than myself. I have tranflated fome part of his works, only that I might perpetuate his memory, or at least refresh it, amongst my countrymen. If I have altered him any where for the better, I must at the fame time acknowledge, that I could have done nothing without him : "Facile eft inventis addere," is no great commendation; and I am not fo vain to think I have deferved a greater. I will conclude what I have to fay of him fingly, with this one remark: a lady of my acquaintance, who keeps a kind of correspondence with fome authors of the fair sex in France, has been informed by them, that Mademoiselle de Scudery, who is as old as Sibyl, and inspired like her by the fame god of poetry, is at this time tranflating Chaucer into modern French. From which I gather, that he has been formerly translated into the old Provençal (for how the fhould come to understand old English I know not). But the matter of fact being true, it makes me think that there is fomething in it like fatality; that, after certain periods of time, the fane and memory of great wits should be renewed, as Chaucer is both in France and England. If

this be wholly chance, it is extraordinary, and I dare not call it more, for fear of being taxed with fuperftition.

Boccace comes laft to be confidered, who, living in the fame age with Chaucer, had the fame genius, and followed the fame ftudies; both writ novels, and each. of them cultivated his mother tongue. But the greatest resemblance of our two modern authors being in their familiar file, and pleafing way of relating comical adventures, I may pafs it over, because I have tranflated nothing from Boccace of that nature. In the ferious part of poetry, the advantage is wholly on Chaucer's fide; for though the Englishman has borrowed many tales from the Italian, yet it appears that thofe of Boccace were not generally of his own making, but taken from authors of former ages, and by him only modelled: fo that what there was of invention in either of them, may be judged equal. on Boccace, and has mended the ftories which he has borrowed, in his way of telling; though profe allows more liberty of thought, and the expreffion is more easy when unconfined by numbers. Our countryman carries weight, and yet wins the race at disadvantage. I defire not the reader should take my word: and therefore I will fet two of their difcourfes on the fame fubject, in the fame light, for every man to judge betwixt them. I tranflated Chaucer firft, and, amongst the rest, pitched on the Wife of Bath's tale; not daring, as I have said, to adventure on her prologue, because it is too licentious: there Chaucer introduces an old woman of mean parentage, whom a youthful knight of noble blood was

D 4

But Chaucer has refined

forced