Theophrastus, at the Time he writ, referr’d to nothing but what was well known to the meanest Person in Athens; but as Mr. Bruyere has manag’d it, by hinting at too many Grecian Customs, a modern Reader is oblig’d to peruse one or two Notes, which are frequently longer than the Sentence it self he wou’d know the meaning of.  But if those Manners and Customs, which Theophrastus alludes to, were, in his Time, well known to the meanest Athenian, it does not follow that they are now so well known to a modern Reader.

  [D:  Preface to his Translation of Theophrastus.]

Mr. de la Bruyere’s_ Fault does not consist in having put Notes to his Translation, but rather in not having put enough.  When a Translator of an antient Author intends to preserve the peculiar Character of the Original, Notes become absolutely necessary to render the Translation intelligible to a modern Reader.  The Learn’d may pass them over; and those, for whom Explanatory Notes are chiefly designed, must not think it too much Trouble, to bestow a second Reading on the Text, after they have given a First to the Whole.  This Trouble (if any thing ought to be call’d so that conveys Instruction) is no more than what many persons, who have attained to no small share of Knowledg in the learn’d Languages, must submit to, at the first Perusal of an Original Author.  If in a translated Author any Difficulties occur, on this Head, to a modern Reader, and the Translator has taken Care to clear up those difficulties by adding Notes, the modern Reader ought to thank him for his Pains, and not think his Labour superfluous.

’Tis hop’d then that the Notes, that I have added, will be kindly receiv’d.  The Reader will nevertheless be at full Liberty to peruse them, or to pass them over.  If he if but so favourable as to approve of the Translation it self, this will be a sufficient Satisfaction to the Translator, and be looked upon as no finall Commendation of the Performance.  For a Translation, if it be well performed, ought in Justice to be receiv’d as a good Commentary_.

SECT.  II.

There is no Kind of polite Writing that seems to require a deeper Knowledge, a livelier Imagination, and a happier Turn of Expression than the Characteristic.  Human Nature, in its various Forms and Affections, is the Subject; and he who wou’d attempt a Work of this Kind, with some assurance of Success, must not only study other Men; he has a more difficult Task to perform; he must study himself.  The deep and dark Recesses of the Heart must be penetrated, to discover how Nature is disguis’d into Art, and how Art puts on the Appearance of Nature.—­This Knowledge is great; ’tis the Perfection of Moral Philosophy; ’tis an inestimable Treasure:  But yet if it shou’d fall into the Hands of one, who wants proper Abilities to communicate his Knowledge to the World, it wou’d be of no Service but to the Owner:  It wou’d make him, indeed, an able Philosopher, but not an able Writer of Characters.