2;57 
H O 
ancient book In the world, next to the Bible. Without 
making this reflection, he cannot enter into the fpirit, nor 
relilh the compofition, of the author. Ke is not to look 
for the correcinefs and elegance of the Auguftan age. 
He mult diveft himlelf of our modern kjeas of dignity 
and refinement, and tranfport his imagination almoft three 
thoufand years back in the hiltory of mankind. What 
he is to expeft, is a picture of the ancient world. He mult 
reckon upon finding characters and manners that retain 
a confulerable tinCture of the lavage ftate; moral ideas, as 
yet, imperfectly formed ; and the appetites and paflions 
of men brought under none of thofe reftraints, to which, 
in a more advanced ftate of fociety, they are accultomed ; 
but bodily ft length, prized as on&jof the chief heroic en¬ 
dowments ; the preparing of a meal, and the appeafing of 
liunger, defcribed as very interefting objeCts ; and the he¬ 
roes boafting of thenifelves openly, fcolding one another 
outrageoully, and glorying, as we Ihould now think very 
indecently, over their fallen enemies. 
“ The fubjeCt of Iliad, mult unqueltionably be admit¬ 
ted to be, in the main, happily chofen. In the days of Ho¬ 
mer, no objeCt could be more fplendid and dignified than 
the Trojan war. So great a confederacy of the Grecian 
States under one leader, and the ten-years fiege which 
they carried on againft Troy, rnuft have fpread far abroad 
the renown of many military exploits, and interefted all 
Greece in the traditions concerning the heroes who had 
moll eminently fignalized themfelves. He has not chofen 
for his fubjeCt the whole Trojan war ; but, with great judg¬ 
ment, he has feleCted one part of it, the quarrel betwixt 
Achilles and Agamemnon, and the events to which that 
quarrel gave rife; which, though they take up forty-feven 
days only, yet include the molt interefting and molt cri¬ 
tical period of the war. By this management, he has 
given greater unity to what would have otherwife been 
an unconnected hiltory of battles. He has gained one 
hero, or principal character, Achilles, who reigns through¬ 
out the work; and he has Ihown the pernicious effeCt of 
difcord among confederated princes. At the fame time, 
I admit that Homer is lefs fortunate in his fubjeCt than 
Virgil. The plan of the iEneid includes a greater com- 
pafs, and a more agreeable diverfity of events; whereas 
the Iliad is almoft entirely filled with battles. 
“ The praife of high invention has, in every age, been 
given to Homer, with the greateft reafon. The prodi¬ 
gious number of incidents, of fpeeches, of characters di¬ 
vine and human, with which he abounds; the furprifing 
variety with which he has diverlified his battles, in the 
'wounds and deaths, and little hiftory-pieces of almoft all 
the perfons flain, difcover an invention next to boundlefs. 
But the praife of judgment is, in my opinion, no lefs due 
to Homer, than that of invention. His ltory is all along 
conducted with great art. He rifes upon us gradually ; 
his heroes are brought out, one after another, to be ob¬ 
jects of our attention. Thediftrefs thickens, as the poem 
advances; and every thing is fo contrived as to aggran¬ 
dize Achilles, and to render him, as the poet intended he 
ihould be, the capital figure. 
“ But that wherein Homer excels all writers, is the cha- 
raCteriltical part. Here, he is without a rival. His lively 
and fpirited exhibition of characters, is, in a great mea- 
fure, owing to his being fo dramatic a writer, abounding 
every where with dialogue and converfation. It is under 
the head of characters, that Homer’s gods, or his machi¬ 
nery, according to the critical term, come under confi- 
-deration. The gods make a great figure in the Iliad; 
much greater indeed than they do in any other epic poem ; 
and hence Homer has become the ftandard of poetic the¬ 
ology. Concerning Homer’s machinery, we mult ob- 
ferve, that it was not his own invention. Like every 
other good poet, he unqueltionably followed the tradi¬ 
tions of his country. The age of the Trojan war ap¬ 
proached to the age of the gods, and demi-gods, in Greece. 
Several of the heroes concerned in that war, were re¬ 
puted to be the children of thefe gods. Of courfe, the 
VOL. X. N0.65S. 
M E It. 
traditionary tales relating to them, and to the exploits of 
that age, were blended with the fables of the deities. 
Thefe popular legends Homer very properly adopted; 
though it is perfectly abfurd to infer from this, that there¬ 
fore poets arifing in fucceeding ages, and writing on quite 
different fubjeCts, are to foiiow the fame fyftem of machi¬ 
nery. 
“ In the hands of Homer, it produces, on the whole, a 
noble effeCt; it is always gay and amufing; often loftv 
and magnificent. It introduces into his poem a great 
number of perfonages, almoft as much diftinguifiied by 
characters as his human aCtors. It diverfifies his battles 
greatly by the intervention of the gods; and, by fre¬ 
quently ihifting the fcene from earth to heaven, i gives 
an agreeable relief to the mind, in the midft of fo much 
blood and daughter. Homer’s gods, it mult be confeffed, 
though they are always lively and animated figures, yet 
fometimes want dignity. In the defeription of battles, 
Homer particularly excels. He works up the hurry,, the 
terror, and Confufion, of them in fo mafterly a manner, 
as to place the reader in the very midft of the engage¬ 
ment. It is here, that the fire of his genius is molt high¬ 
ly difplayed; infomuch, that Virgil’s battles, and thofe of 
molt other poets, are cold and inanimated in comparifon 
of Homer’s.—M. la Motte, indeed, endeavours to bring 
the merit of the Iliad very low. But his principal ob¬ 
jections turn on the debafing ideas which are there given 
of the gods, the grofs characters and manners of the he¬ 
roes, and the imperfeCt morality of the fentiments ; but 
this, as Voltaire obferves, is like accufing a painter for 
having drawn his figures in the drefs of the times. Ho •. 
mer painted his gods, fuch as popular tradition then re- 
prefented them; and defcribed fuch characters and fenti¬ 
ments, as he found among thole with whom he lived.” 
The comparifon of the £! Iliad of Homer” with tire 
“ Paradile Loft” of Milton, as recently given by the 
Rev. George Walker, F. R. S. in the firlt volume (new 
feries) of the Manchester TranfaCtions, may be worth the 
reader’s notice.- 1 —“ Thefe poems are not unlike in fevcral 
refpeCls. As Homer’s has been obferved to be the hiltory 
of gods, Milton’s may' be faid to be that of devils. The 
gods of the one, and the devils of the other, are nearly 
of equal credit; the former altogether, and the latter for 
the greater part, being the creatures of a popular and 
fabulous fuperftition. Homer had his Pantheon, Milton 
his Pandsemonium, each their courts and councils, and 
each a fupreme regent. But wherein they differ, the dif¬ 
ference is immense in the eftimation of the two poems, 
with refpeCl to their fupernatural machinery. Willing or 
unwilling, man was fubjeCt to the caprice and violence of 
Homer’s gods, -and thefe gods ulurped over the whole field 
of human aCtion:—while only by the confent of his own 
will could man be fubjeCled to the influence of Milton’s, 
devils ; and, if fuffering under this influence, had if ill 
his refuge in an almighty, wife, and beneficent, Being. 
From the tyranny of Homer’s gods, man had no refuge 
whatever. In the court of Homer’s heaven, all was dif¬ 
cord and mifrule ; god was oppofed to god, and all the 
pretended power of Jove was impotent to reconcile the 
contending deities, or by awe reduce them to fijbmiflion. 
Milton’s t Satan was truly fovereign, and an union of ien- 
timent and defign pervaded the whole of his gloomy do¬ 
main. Milton’s devils, though wicked beyond the ftile 
of Homer’s gods, are uniformly grand, they exhibit that 
fublime of terrific which the epic al'pires to. Homer’s 
gods, though wicked enough, are as foolifh and freakifii 
as they are wicked ; they are not fuperior to what we may 
conceive of the loweft rabble in Milton’s hell. I enter not 
into the heaven of Milton; and, perhaps, it would have 
been as well, if he had not fo familiarly unveiled that fa- 
cred region. But there Homer prelents no parallel, and 
the comparifon fails. The picture of mw alfo in the two 
poems is greatly in fayour of M^It^n, and fhows the ad-- 
vantage which is derived to the nfthd that has received 
a purer and nobler faith. Indeed to illuftrate this advan- 
3 U tage, 
