This was reserved for Luke Milbourne, a clergyman, who, by that assurance, has consigned his name to no very honourable immortality.  This person appears to have had a living at Great Yarmouth,[17] which, Dryden hints, he forfeited by writing libels on his parishioners; and from another testimony, he seems to have been a person of no very strict morals.[18] Milbourne was once an admirer of our poet, as appears from his letter concerning “Amphitryon,” vol. viii.  But either poetical rivalry, for he had also thought of translating Virgil himself,[19] or political animosity, for he seems to have held revolution principles, or deep resentment for Dryden’s sarcasms against the clergy, or, most probably, all these united, impelled Milbourne to publish a most furious criticism, entitled, “Notes on Dryden’s Virgil, in a Letter to a Friend.”  “And here,” said he, “in the first place, I must needs own Jacob Tonson’s ingenuity to be greater than the translator’s, who, in the inscription of his fine gay (title) in the front of the book, calls it very honestly Dryden’s Virgil, to let the reader know, that this is not that Virgil so much admired in the Augustaean age, an author whom Mr. Dryden once thought untranslatable, but a Virgil of another stamp, of a coarser allay; a silly, impertinent, nonsensical writer, of a various and uncertain style, a mere Alexander Ross, or somebody inferior to him; who could never have been known again in the translation, if the name of Virgil had not been bestowed upon him in large characters in the frontispiece, and in the running title.  Indeed, there is scarce the magni nominis umbra to be met with in this translation, which being fairly intimated by Jacob, he needs add no more, but si populus vult decipi, decipiatur.”

With an assurance which induced Pope to call him the fairest of critics, not content with criticising the production of Dryden, Milbourne was so ill advised as to produce, and place in opposition to it, a rickety translation of his own, probably the fragments of that which had been suppressed by Dryden’s version.  A short specimen, both of his criticism and poetry, will convince the reader, that the powers of the former were, as has been often the case, neutralised by the insipidity of the latter; for who can rely on the judgment of a critic so ill qualified to illustrate his own precepts?  I take the remarks on the tenth Eclogue, as a specimen, at hazard.  “This eclogue is translated in a strain too luscious and effeminate for Virgil, who might bemoan his friend, but does it in a noble and a manly style, which Mr. Ogilby answers better than Mr. D., whose paraphrase looks like one of Mrs. Behn’s, when somebody had turned the original into English prose before.

“Where Virgil says,

Lauri et myricae flevere,

the figure’s beautiful; where Mr. D. says,

         the laurel stands in tears,
  And hung with humid pearls, the lowly shrub appears,