It is literalism, however, which bears the brunt of his attack. He is always conscious, "how pedantical and absurd an affectation it is in the interpretation of any author (much more of Homer) to turn him word for word, when (according to Horace and other best lawgivers to translators) it is the part of every knowing and judicial interpreter, not to follow the number and order of words, but the material things themselves, and sentences to weigh diligently, and to clothe and adorn them with words, and such a style and form of oration, as are most apt for the language in which they are converted."[363] Strangely enough, he thinks this literalism the prevailing fault of translators. He hardly dares present his work To reading judgments, since so gen'rally, Custom hath made ev'n th'ablest agents err In these translations; all so much apply Their pains and cunnings word for word to render Their patient authors, when they may as well Make fish with fowl, camels with whales, engender, Or their tongues' speech in other mouths compell.[364] Chapman, however, believes that it is possible to overcome the difficulties of translation. Although the "sense and elegancy" of Greek and English are of "distinguished natures," he holds that it requires Only a judgment to make both consent In sense and elocution; and aspire, As well to reach the spirit that was spent In his example, as with art to pierce His grammar, and etymology of words. This same theory was taken up by numerous seventeenth and eighteenth century translators. Avoiding as it does the two extremes, it easily commended itself to the reason. Unfortunately it was frequently appropriated by critics who were not inclined to labor strenuously with the problems of translation. One misses in much of the later comment the vigorous thinking of the early Renaissance translators. The theory of translation was not yet regarded as "a common work of building" to which each might contribute, and much that was valuable in sixteenth-century comment was lost by forgetfulness and neglect. FOOTNOTES: [250] Gregory Smith, _Elizabethan Critical Essays_, vol. I, p. 313. [251] _Introduction_, in Foster Watson, _Vives and the Renaissance Education of Women_, 1912. [252] Letter prefixed to John, in _Paraphrase of Erasmus on the New Testament_, London, 1548. [253] _Dedication_, 1588. [254] _To the Reader_, in _Shakespeare's Ovid_, ed. W. H. D. Rouse, 1904. [255] Bishop of London's preface _To the Reader_, in _A Commentary of Dr. Martin Luther upon the Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians_, London, 1577. [256] Preface to _The Institution of the Christian Religion_, London, 1578. [257] Preface to _The Three Orations of Demosthenes_, London, 1570. [258] Dedication of _Montaigne's Essays_, London, 1603. [259] Reprinted, Roxburghe Club, 1887. [260] Preface to _The Book of Metals_, in Arber, _The First Three English Books on America_, 1885.