[1] The Dean and Chapter of _Durham_.
[2] The Reverend Dr. _Fitzherbert Adams_, Prebendary of _Durham_.
[3] It is a known Saying, Ὁ Θεος γεωμετρει, _God performs the
Office of a Geometrician_.
[4] Pro Arch. Poeta, c. v.
[5] The Reverend Dr. _William Lancaster_, S. T. P. Head of _Queen's
College_, and at that Time Vice-chancellor of _Oxford_.
LECTURE II, and III.
_Of the Nature and Origin of Poetry in general._
Before we enter upon the different Branches of the Art we propose
to treat of, it may not be improper to clear our Way, by giving, as
the Schoolmen speak, a general Idea of it, and laying before you a
comprehensive View of whatever is common to all its Parts. None, that
I know of, has given a just Definition of it; not _Aristotle_ himself,
tho' a perfect Master in _Definitions_: And yet there's nothing in the
Subject repugnant to one. To be short, then, Poetry seems in general,
_An Art of imitating or illustrating in metrical Numbers every Being
in Nature, and every Object of the Imagination, for the Delight and
Improvement of Mankind_.
_Vossius_'s Definition[6] (I speak it with humble Deference to so great
a Man) to me is by no means satisfactory, who makes Poetry consist in
being _An Art of representing Actions in Metre_. This Definition falls
too short, and is not comprehensive enough of the Nature of the Thing
defined. For I would ask, is it not the Business of Poetry to represent
every Thing that is capable of being represented? And are Actions the
only Things capable of being represented? This, indeed, is expresly
asserted by _Dacier_, the _French_ Interpreter of _Aristotle_: But to
any one that considers the Passage, it will abundantly appear, that
this Opinion cannot be drawn from _Aristotle_ by a just Interpretation
of him. That great Philosopher, and Prince of Critics, says, that
_Imitators imitate Actions_. Now, can any one, without violating all the
Rules of Reasoning this Philosopher has taught, conclude from hence that
Actions _alone_ are capable of being imitated? He indeed says, or rather
the _French_ Version is made to say, that ALL _that imitate,
imitate Actions_; but in his own Original he says no such Thing; the
Word ALL is added by the Interpreter: His Words are[7],
μιμουνται ὁι μιμουμενοι πραττοντας, i. e. _Imitators imitate Actions_.
But if the Version were true, the Conclusion drawn from it would,
however, be false. For _All_ Imitators may imitate Actions, and yet
possibly not _Actions only_. But there's no need of many Words to prove
_Aristotle_'s Authority unjustly alledged for this Proposition; since he
tells us himself, a little before the Passage above cited[8],
μιμουνται και ηθη και παθη και πραξεις, i. e. _they imitate Manners,
Passions, and Actions_. He thought therefore that not only Actions, but
Manners and Affections, were capable of being imitated. It is certain,
if by Imitation is meant that which impresses upon the Mind a true and
genuine Representation of any Thing, it will be no less repugnant to
common Sense than to _Aristotle_'s, to affirm that nothing but Actions
can be imitated. For, besides them, we see Passions, Things, Places, and
Men are imitated, not only by Poets, but by Painters too. This _Horace_,
the best Interpreter of _Aristotle_, sufficiently intimates, when he
uses the Word _imitari_ in the same Sense with _describere_, _pingere_,
or _sculpere_:
_Molles imitabitur ære capillos_[9]
In Brass shall imitate the waving Hair.
Besides, _Vossius_'s Definition is short in another Respect; as it makes
the Object of Imitation too narrow, so it makes the Essence of Poetry
consist _solely in Imitation_; whereas there are some Kinds of it that
have little to do with Imitation, but much in Illustration; as we shall
shew in the Sequel.
That Poetry is an _Art_, is sufficiently plain, and we have no Occasion
to use many Words to prove it. It observes certain Laws and Rules,
is brought to the Test of right Reason, and, lastly, it aims at some
particular End. I cannot but wonder, therefore, why those that fix'd
the Number of the Liberal Arts, as they are commonly reckon'd up,
should have allowed no Place for Poetry and Oratory among them. They
were thought, perhaps, reducible partly to Rhetorick, and partly to
Grammar. But this, I think, they are not, with any Propriety. For, not
to observe that Poetry and Oratory are in their Merit too good, and in
their Extent too great to be included in other Sciences, the Business
of Rhetorick is wholly to polish the Style of both of them; and, by the
Way, as it is now-a-days managed, tends more, perhaps, to the Detriment
and Corruption, than the Credit and Honour of either; but is fully and
professedly concerned in neither. As to Grammar, they can no more be
reduced to that, than all other Sciences whatever; for to all Sciences
Words, whether written or spoken, are subservient. Well, then, _Vossius_
and all agree that Poetry is an _Art_, tho' that great Man has not
sufficiently shewn the peculiar Business of it.
The Definition we have given above, seems to be full, and every Way
compleat, inasmuch as it comprehends the whole Nature of Poetry,
is applicable only to Poetry, and all the Species of it; for all of
them are always concern'd, either in Imitation, or Illustration, or
both at once. Between these two there is some Difference; for he that
beautifully imitates any Thing, always illustrates it; but not on the
contrary; the Rule does not hold _vice versa_. Those Things that relate
to Science, and Discipline, such as the Ideas of the Mind, Virtues,
Vices, Manners, and the like, are _illustrated_ by being explained; but
no one will say, that by being explained they are _imitated_. But, as I
said, it is an undoubted Maxim, that all Kinds of Poetry are employed
one or other of these Ways, or both. In Descriptions of whatever Kind,
in moving the Passions, in Panegyric, in Satire, in Heroics, in Ethics,
the Poet either imitates or illustrates something, or does both; unless,
perhaps, we ought to except the Writers of those short Sentences, that
are mere _moral Sayings_; such as _Pythagoras_, _Phocyllides_, and the
like; who may be said, indeed, to write Verses, but not Poems: They want
the Force, the Elegance, the Style, and peculiar Turn of Thought that
discriminates Poets from other Writers. 'Tis plain, then, the Business
of Poets is either Imitation or Illustration; and that, not only of
Actions, but, as we presumed to lay down in our Definition, of every
Being in Nature, or in the Imagination. The Object, then, of Poetry,
must be enlarged, and those Bounds extended, that _Vossius_ prescribed
to it: For is there any Thing in the real or ideal World, not capable of
being described or illustrated? any Thing which the capacious Stretch of
Poetry will not comprehend?
And since it chiefly consists in Imitation, it may not be amiss,
perhaps, to make a short Comparison between that and Painting. All
Poetry will not admit of this Comparison, but such only as consists
in Description; upon which whatever is in common between them,
depends. Painting, as well as Poetry affects the Passions; That by
Description alone, This by other adventitious Arts. I would here,
however, particularly observe, that Poetry consists much more in
Description, than is generally imagined. For, besides those longer and
set Descriptions of Things, Places, and Persons, there are numberless
others, unobserved by common Readers, contained in one Verse, sometimes
in one Word, to which the whole Beauty of the Thought is owing; and
which wonderfully affect us, for no other Reason but because they are
Descriptions, that is, impress a lively Image of somewhat upon the
Mind. To this it is, that metaphorical Expressions, when selected with
Judgment, owe their Beauty, and their Elegance; every Metaphor being a
short Description.
But to return to our Comparison between Painting and Poetry. They both
agree, in representing to the Mind Images of Things, and ought both
of them to be govern'd by Nature and Probability. So near is their
Affinity, that by a very natural and common Metaphor, Poetry is said
to paint Things, Painting to describe them. Both give us _Draughts_
of the Body, as well as the Soul; but with this Difference, that the
former is chiefly expressed by Painting, the latter by Poetry. It
cannot be denied, but that the Lines of a Face are much more strongly
distinguish'd by Light and Shade, than by any Colouring of Words, tho'
ever so elegant, or well chosen: Add, moreover, that the Attitudes, the
various Positions and Gestures of the Body, the confused Rout and Tumult
of a Battle, the Gloominess or Brightness of a Landscape, the Prospect
of a Building, and the like, are represented to much greater Perfection
by Painters, than Poets; tho', in these Particulars, Description
approaches nearer to Painting than in Portraitures. The Reason of
these Advantages of the Painter's over the Poet's Art, is obvious; for
as the Things represented are the Objects of the Senses, to the Senses
Painting exhibits the Images of them, as well as to the Imagination,
and that according to the exactest Rules of Optics and Proportion:
Whereas the Poet can only apply to the inward Faculties of the Soul, by
the fainter Helps of Words and Sound, of Memory and Recollection. In
Verse, indeed, we find these Things wonderfully described, and every Way
agreeably to Nature; and tho' it is impossible for Words to represent
them to the Mind, as graphically as Colours do to the Eyes; yet perhaps
less Genius is required in the one than in the other. But the inward
Springs and Movements of the Soul, the Actions, Passions, Manners, the
distinguishing Tempers and Natures of Men, are drawn with much more
Accuracy by the Poet, than the Painter. The one can imitate only so much
of the Passions, as appears in the outward Man, in his Countenance,
and Gesture; the other fetches them from the inmost Recesses of the
Heart, describes them as they lurk there, without Disguise, in all their
genuine Conflicts. The Representation we see of these, even in Painting
(as far as Colours can represent them) is exquisite, even to Admiration;
but, upon the whole, after a fair Comparison between the two Arts,
Poetry excels Painting as much as the Soul does the Body, that being
best represented by the former, as this is by the latter.
Poetry, then, being a sort of _Imitation_, those that practise the Art
are not called Ποιηται, _Makers_[10], from _creating_; as if
it was their peculiar Province to produce, out of nothing, new Matter
for their Subject: So far is this from being true, that they propose
always to copy Nature. But this Appellation is given them by way of
Eminence, as their Thoughts are more exercised in _Invention_, and
_forming_ Ideas, than any other Writer's; as such Symmetry and Harmony
is required in their Compositions; and such Artifice in their Fictions
(for they not only adorn their Subject, but generally make it) and,
lastly, such Management and Pains in working up the Machines of their
Poem, and conducting the several Parts of it, so as to make them all
conspire to one uniform Action. In this last Particular Poets remarkably
excel other Writers, as all that are versed in them are sensible. But
among those that are honoured with the Title of Poets, and are such,
all have not an equal Claim to it. To the Epic and Dramatic Writers it
is more peculiarly applicable; to the rest, only, as we term it, by
Analogy. Their Business is Invention, as well as Disposition; the rest
have little to do with the one, much less with the other. So that there
are not only different Degrees of Poets, and subordinate Honours; but
some who are called so only in an improper Sense: For who would mention
_Martial_ and _Virgil_ under the same Predicament?
We said above, that Poetry consisted of _metrical Numbers_: This is a
necessary Part of the Definition, as being the very Essence of Poetry,
properly so called; and tho', as we observed, there may be Verses
without a Poem, there can't be a Poem without Verses. I am obliged,
therefore, once more to dissent from Monsieur _Dacier_; who, not,
indeed, without the Authority of others, maintains[11], that those
fabulous Narratives in Prose, of _Lucian_, _Heliodorus_, and the like,
among the Ancients, and of many others among the Moderns, that are
held in so great Esteem, in _France_, particularly, and _Spain_, are
Poems. I readily own some of them are truly elegant, and give us ample
Testimonies of the Authors Wit and Judgment; nay, and except their
want of Verse, are very little different from Epic Poems. But if even
_Homer_'s _Ilias_, or _Virgil_'s _Æneis_, were to be stript of their
Metre, they would no longer be looked upon as Poems; if we may judge of
the Nature of a Poem from the general Consent of Writers, who always
take it for granted that Verse is an essential Property of it.
Those who are of the other Opinion, think they are supported by no
less Authority than _Aristotle_'s; who asserts τ' εποποιιαν
to consist μονον τοις ψιλοις λογοις, η τοις μετροις. The
foremention'd learned Writer insists, that ψιλοις λογοις
can signify nothing else but plain Prose; that therefore _Aristotle_
admitted some sort of Epic Poem without Metre. Others, that take the
contrary Side, endeavour to shew, that by ψιλοις λογοις is
to be understood a poetical Discourse, not without Metre, but without
_Harmony_ and _Rhythm_; by which _Aristotle_ meant Music, and Measures
which they used to dance to. So that, according to these Interpreters,
the Particle η is not _disjunctive_ in this Place, but
_explanatory_. They that would see the Arguments in Defence of this
Exposition, may consult _Vossius_[12]. But if we grant our Opponents
what they desire, _viz._ that _Aristotle_ meant only Prose by
ψιλοις λογοις, as indeed it is most probable he did; yet it will
not follow that he reckoned such fictitious Narratives, as we are now
speaking of, or indeed any kind of Prose whatever, to be a Species of
Poetry. To make this plain, we must enquire into the genuine Sense
of the other Word εποποιια. Here the _French_ Interpreter
supposes, without any Hesitation, that it signifies nothing else but
an Epic Poem, or the Art of making it. But _Vossius_ proves, to a
Demonstration, that it must have a larger Sense, so as to include the
Epic Poem, and that kind of Fable without Metre, which is the Subject
of our present Debate. The Meaning, then, of _Aristotle_, is this, that
the _Epopœia_ is the _Genus_, one Species of which is the _Epic_
Poem; the other, the _Novel_, or Fable in Prose. Upon this View, then,
we see, that granting ψιλοις λογοις, in _Aristotle_, to denote
only Prose; yet it can't from thence be concluded, that these fictitious
Narratives, or any kind of Prose, can be brought under the Head of
Poetry. To the _Epopœia_ they truly belong, and to nothing else.
Metre, then, we'll conclude to be an essential Part of Poetry. Another
Question arises, whether _Fiction_ is likewise so. Some tell us, that
no one should be entitled a Poet, but he that invents some Fable, and
heightens it with the Decoration of Verse. To this Opinion I can by no
means assent. The first Writers of Verses, no doubt, made them in Praise
of somewhat that was real, and before them. For it is highly probable,
that this Art, as most others, was in its Infancy employ'd about Things
that were most obvious, and easy to the Learner. Now it is certainly
more easy to describe a Subject that already exists, than to form a new
one. _Vossius_[13] thinks, that Love was the first Occasion of Poetry.
Which is not improbable, considering that this Affection is coeval with
Mankind, is universal, and naturally productive of Poetry. True Love,
then, or somewhat true, was the Poets first Theme; afterwards, by Length
of Time, they rose to Things that were more difficult, and blended
artful Devices and Truth together. So that Poetry was before Fiction;
and even since they have been united, there have been many Poets, truly
so called, who have had to do with Fiction. Those that exercise that
Talent with Art, are Poets in a more peculiar Manner, and of a superior
Genius. But if those only were to be honour'd with the Title, the Number
of them would be very small. To all, therefore, it ought to extend, who,
tho' they _invent_ nothing, yet _illustrate_ their Subject with Metre,
animated with the Style and Spirit of Poetry.
I cannot, therefore, sufficiently wonder that the great _Scaliger_[14]
should assert, there was no Difference between Poetry and History,
except in the _Diction_. 'Tis certain he could not mean Poetry in
general; for there are many Sorts of it, which are so totally different
from History, that they have scarce any Thing in common with it. Even
the Epic Poem, tho' it consists much in Narration, yet is distinguish'd
enough from History, by the subject Matter, by the Disposal of the
Parts, and many other Criterions. _Scaliger's_ Opinion may seem true in
respect of one kind of Poetry only, such as that of _Lucan_, which is
properly call'd an Historical Poem: Tho' this may be heighten'd with
that poetic Rage and Fire, which, I presume, is somewhat more than
_Diction_, and incompatible with History.
Tho' we generally use the Words _Poesis_ and _Poetica_, _Poesy_ and
_Poetry_, indiscriminately; yet, if we would speak properly, they ought
to be distinguish'd. By a _Poem_ (a third Word, that often occurs in
this sort of Dissertations) is meant the Work of the Poet; by _Poesy_,
the actual Exercise; by _Poetry_, the Art or Habit.
And since Harmony and Sonorousness are so necessary a Part of Poetry, it
may not be foreign to our Purpose to compare it with Music; especially
as these two entertaining Arts are not only nearly allied in their
Nature, but in Fact also, often united: This we see, especially in Odes
and Songs, and the Entertainments of the Theatre; where Poesy and Music
lend each other their friendly Aid, become joint Associates, and both
conspire to captivate their Hearers. In this, also, they farther agree,
that they have both the same Admirers. I speak of such as have made a
Progress in Letters; for we often meet not only with Lovers of Music,
but Masters in it, that, for want of Learning, have no Taste for the
Pleasures of Poetry. But among those that are advanced in Literature,
an Admirer of one of these Arts, loves the other also; and he that
understands one, has a Knowledge in both, or desires and wishes for it.
From hence it was, no doubt, that the Ancients made the same _Apollo_
the Patron of Poetry and Music, and attributed to the Muses the divinest
Melody, adorning them with the Ensigns of the Harp, and other musical
Instruments. _Aristotle_, likewise, seems to have comprehended Music
under Poetry; and tho' that may not be altogether so proper, since Music
consists of Sound only, without Words, yet it is plain the Affinity
between them is very great. Both charm the Ear with sonorous Measures;
Music, indeed, in a higher Degree, but Poetry comes much nearer to it in
this Respect, than Prose, how flowing or tuneable soever.
Both turn more particularly upon the Harmony of the Parts, and the
proper Disposal of them; both suited to Men of the politest Taste, and
both improve it. In short, so nearly are they the same, that the Word
_Singing_ is equally applied to both. But this Difference there is,
that Poetry is much the more excellent in its kind; because the whole
Circle of Learning enters into its Composition; it applies itself more
particularly to the Soul, as the other to the Senses; and, lastly, the
Advantages of it to Mankind are abundantly greater.
From hence I am naturally led to enquire into the Use and End of
Poetry, which is generally reckoned twofold, _viz._ to _instruct_ and
to _please_. So that we come now to the last Branch of our Definition,
wherein we asserted, that Poetry was design'd _for the Pleasure and
Improvement of Mankind_, according to that well known Saying of _Horace_,
_Aut prodesse volunt, aut delectare Poetæ._[15]
A Poet shou'd instruct, or please, or both.
_Roscom._
It is agreed, then, by all, that this is the twofold End of Poetry; but
which the principal, is still a Doubt. It may bear a Dispute, indeed,
which is in _Fact_ the principal; but which _ought_ to be so, surely
can be none: For in this, as in all other Arts, the Advantage ought to
be considered before the Pleasure. Some, indeed, of our modern Writers,
think otherwise; and boldly pronounce Pleasure to be the chief End of
Poetry. It can't be denied, but this Opinion is perfectly consonant
to their Writings; in which they not only principally consult their
Reader's Pleasure, but in Opposition to their Advantage. Witness those
lewd Poems with which this divine Art is polluted. But if we would
consult Reason, we should allow that even in Verse what improves us,
ought to be more regarded than what delights us. I own, the severest
Wits, that lay down the most rigid Precepts of Virtue, ought to have a
View to Pleasure in their Compositions; for it is the distinguishing
Mark of the Poet from the Philosopher, that tho' Virtue is the Aim of
both, yet the one presses it closer, indeed, but in a less engaging
Manner. In the dry Method of a Teacher he defines his Subject, he
explains his Terms, and then gives you Rules; the other cloaths his
Precepts in Examples, and imperceptibly insinuates them under the
beautiful Disguise of Narration. I own, likewise, that Readers are
generally more sensible of the Pleasure they receive, than the Profit,
even when it is less proposed by the Writers; for it is That makes the
strongest Impression upon the Imagination: Nay, and I grant, that this
is what Writers themselves ought to study. Yet notwithstanding all this,
Profit may be the chief End of Poetry, and ought to be so; but for that
very Reason Pleasure should be joined to it, and accompany it, as a
Handmaid, to minister to its Occasions. When Children are allured with
the sweeten'd Draught, or gilded Pill, they, as the Physician intended,
consider nothing but the Beauty of the one, or the Taste of the other:
But it is well known, this was not the _chief_ Intent of the Physician
in his Prescription.
This Rule relates principally to the more perfect and sublimer Kinds of
Poetry, and especially the Epic and Dramatic. For we don't pretend that
Epigram, Elegy, Songs, and the like, conduce much to the Improvement
of Virtue. It is enough, if these Writings keep within the Bounds of
Chastity, and give no Offence to Good-manners. Poets sometimes write,
not so much to move others Passions, as to indulge their own. And as
Pleasure is the chief, or, perhaps, the only _Effect_ of this sort of
Levities, so it may very innocently be proposed by Authors as the chief
_End_ of them. Tho' even from these lesser Flights one Advantage arises,
that they improve the Wit, and polish the style, both of the Writer and
the Reader; a Circumstance that may be observed in Favour of all Kinds
of Poetry.
If it be asked, What are those inward Sensations of Pleasure with
which Poetry affects us, or from whence it is Mankind are so highly
delighted with that Way of Writing; I answer, this may in some Measure
be collected from what has been already said, and farther, from what
we shall have Occasion to say hereafter under the subject Matter of
Poetry. At present let the following Considerations suffice: It is
obvious enough why Harmony of Verse should please us, since that's a
Pleasure that arises from a proper Disposition of Sounds, which make
their Way directly to the Senses. But still we feel a much higher, from
the Images of Things beautifully painted, and strongly impressed upon
the Mind. As we are naturally desirous of Truth, we are glad to find our
Ideas confirmed by those of others; for from thence we conclude ours are
just, and agreeable to Nature. This Assimilation of Ideas is still more
pleasant, when it arises from some sudden unforeseen Impression; for all
Impressions upon the Mind, whether of Joy or Grief, are more affecting,
the swifter they are made, and the more unexpected; the slower they are,
the more languid. This is confirmed no less by Experience, than Reason.
Since the Impressions, then, of Poetry, are of the vehement kind, it is
no Wonder so much Pleasure should attend them, especially when the Ideas
we speak of are heighten'd with all the Elegance of Expression. This
Pleasure is likewise in some Measure to be attributed to the natural
Love of Mankind for Imitation, the Reason of which we shall attempt to
give in its proper Place. From these Principles we may account for the
Pleasure that arises from Description, as well as that from Fiction.
The Pleasure we receive from the Variety of Thought, and sudden
Transitions in Poetry, seems owing to our natural Love of Novelty;
for so imperfect is the Happiness of us Mortals, that every Thing by
Constancy grows nauseous and insipid to us.
With Regard to the Passions, why some of them should give us greater
Pleasure, the more they are put in Motion, is plain; but how Delight
should flow from Pity, Terror, and even Sorrow itself, seems truly
wonderful, and difficult to account for. And, indeed, to do Justice to
this Question, we ought to know the secret Springs of the Soul, and to
lay open the Foundations of human Happiness and Misery: Which, because
it will require a distinct Dissertation, we shall pass by, at present;
reserving it for a more full Enquiry, when we come to treat more
particularly of the Nature of Tragedy.
We have already, in a few Words, shewn, wherein the Advantages of Poetry
consist; no one can be a Stranger to them: This Art will receive no less
Honour, if we look back into its Antiquity. If it took its Rise from
Love, (the Opinion, which, in Conformity with _Vossius_, we have above
proposed as most probable) yet to Religion it owes its Increase and
Progress; and it may be question'd, which of the two is its true Parent.
_Dacier_ calls it the Offspring of Religion; and it is certain, in the
earliest Ages of the World it was usual to sing Hymns to the Honour
of God upon the solemn Festivals; upon those especially, when after
the In-gathering of Harvest they offer'd up to him the First-fruits,
and prais'd him for the Blessings they were now in Possession of. In
Course of Time, Poetry, which had hitherto depended wholly upon Nature,
and knew not the Name of Art, by the Corruption of Mankind grew itself
corrupted. To bring it back to its Purity, it was the Care of the wiser
Part of Men to lay it under certain Laws and Regulations. From hence
arose the _Art_ of Poetry. It is a great Dispute among the Learned,
what Nation produced the first Poets. The _Greeks_, who to their own
refined Taste ascribe the Origin of all Learning and Arts, laid Claim,
likewise, to this, and instanced in _Orpheus_, _Linus_, and _Musæus_,
as the first Poets. But _Vossius_[16] proves it very probable that this
Triumvirate of Poetry never existed; and that they are not proper,
but common Names, derived from the old _Phœnician_ Language. Be
that as it will, (for I am little disposed to engage in so minute a
Controversy) I agree with the same _Vossius_, that Shepherds (I may
add, or Husbandmen) found out the Use of Poetry; and that they lived
in _Greece_, near those celebrated Mountains and Springs, _Helicon_,
_Parnassus_, _Aganippe_, _Hippocrene_, _Pirene_, and the like, that
were therefore sacred to the Muses and _Apollo_. But still it does not
appear, that Poetry owes its first Original to the _Greeks_, (for,
as the forementioned learned Author goes on[17]) "if we examine this
Matter by the Scripture, we shall find the People of God, the first
Inhabitants of the Earth, from whom all Nations are descended, have the
best Title to this Honour. Poetry flourished among the _Israelites_, not
only before the _Trojan War_, but before the coming of _Cadmus_ into
_Bœotia_, who first taught the _Greeks_ the Use of Letters. And tho'
we were utterly ignorant of what is mentioned concerning the _Hebrew_
Poetry, yet the Antiquity of Music would teach us that the Original of
Verse must be owing to the Oriental Nations; for little Doubt is to be
made but Singing begun in the very Infancy of the World. This is farther
confirmed, from what we read of _Jubal_, the seventh from _Adam_, who
is styled the Father of such as handle the Harp and Organ. Antiently,
then, Musicians and Poets were the same."
But to examine still farther into the Origin of Poetry, (for what we
have hitherto said relates only to the _Subject_, and the _Authors_, not
to the immediate _Occasion_ of it:) Now this seems to be owing to the
Love implanted in Mankind of _Imitation_ and _Harmony_. _Vossius_ very
undeservedly ascribes it to the three following Causes, _viz. Nature_,
an _Attempt_ to write Verse, and _a finish'd Skill_. By _Nature_ he
understands not only the ευφυια, or Happiness of Parts, but
the ὁρμη, the Impetus, usually styled the Poetic Fire. I am
very sensible of the Advantage of these, and of their Necessity to
constitute a good Poet; but much doubt whether they are to be reckoned
(what he and I both speak of) the efficient Causes of Poetry. No one can
_excel_ in Poetry, without a Genius peculiarly turn'd for it; but the
Question is, what _general_ Reason can be assign'd, that gives all Men,
even those that have no Talent for it, as well as those that have, a
natural Inclination to it. As to the poetic Fire, it may be reckoned a
Concomitant of Poetry, but not the Cause of it. No more can an Attempt
to write Verses, which is rather the Thing itself in its first State of
Imperfection; much less can the Perfection of any Thing be the Cause of
its being perfected; that's absurd, and a mere Contradiction in Terms.
The Reason, then, of the Thing in Question, must be fetch'd from the
Love of Imitation and Harmony. To this Principle it is owing, that among
the most barbarous Part of Mankind we meet with Attempts in Painting,
Music, and Poetry. For it is a great Mistake to think that these Arts
are consistent only with such refin'd Nations as are Mistresses of all
other Arts: No, they are Things of an universal Nature, and agreeable,
as it were, to all Mankind, from the very Composition of their Being.
Only with this Difference, that in those Parts of the World where
Learning and Manners are cultivated, these Arts are nurtur'd, and rise
in Perfection; but where the People are rude, and unpolished, they
suffer in the common Calamity of the Place. But still, even there, the
Seeds shoot forth; witness those barbarous, uncouth Songs, the mean
Instruments of Music, and imperfect Sketches in Painting, which are
found, according to the Relation of Travellers, among the _Indians_, and
almost Savage People of the North.
This Fondness of Mankind for imitating, proceeds, probably, from nothing
else but their Desire of _Knowledge_ and _Power_. To produce something
out of nothing, is the peculiar Property of the Almighty: As Man,
therefore, cannot create, it is his Ambition to approach as near to the
Exercise of that Power, as his Nature will allow him; and that can be
only by imitating Things already made.
His Passion for Harmony is no Wonder; because whatever we call beautiful
arises from a just Proportion, and proper Arrangement of its Parts. It
is this composes the whole Frame of the Universe; and the more perfect
every Individual of it is, the greater Share of Harmony it possesses.
So much for the Original and Cause of Poetry. Of its Antiquity, in
Comparison of Prose, I need say but very little, since that seems,
beyond all Doubt, to have been prior to it, in Point of Time, tho'
behind it in Dignity. Some, indeed, have asserted, that Poetry was the
ancienter, out of a Zeal, I suppose, to its Honour, which needs no false
Supports: But this Opinion is by no means credible. 'Tis certain, all
Learners proceed, as Nature directs them, from the plainest and easiest
Things, to those that are more compounded and difficult: For Men to
speak Verse before Prose, is the same as if they should pretend to run,
or dance, before they could stand, or walk. It is a very weak Argument,
with which _Strabo_ (as _Vossius_ cites it) endeavours to maintain the
contrary Opinion. To prove Verse the ancientest Way of Writing, he
observes, that Prose is styled _Oratio Pedestris_, [as if we should
say creeping Prose.] "Now Speech was carried, before it ventured to
walk. _Vossius_ artfully replies, that it was called _Pedestris_, not
because Men against Nature condescended to it, but because they mounted
above it, as it were, and left it upon the Earth: For Prose seems to
creep, when compared with the Loftiness of Poetry. Now, to retort the
Argument, there's no Doubt but Men walk'd first, before they ventured
on Horseback." If any one would see more of this, he may consult
_Vossius_. That Poetry, as an Art, flourish'd before Oratory, or that
the celebrated Professors of the one are not so ancient as those of the
other, is clear from History; but that Men spoke Verse before Prose, is
past all Credit, or Probability.
If any Question should arise about the Prevalence of Nature and Art in
Poetry, I cannot answer it better than in the Words of _Horace_[18]:
_Natura fieret laudabile carmen, an arte,
Quæsitum est; Ego nec studium sine divite vena,
Nec rude quid prosit video ingenium; alterius sic
Altera poscit opem res, & conjurat amice._
Some think, that Poets may be form'd by Art,
Others maintain, that Nature makes them so.
I neither see what Art without a Vein,
Nor Wit without the Help of Art can do;
But mutually they need each other's Aid.
_Roscom._
But if this is the Case, whence comes that Saying so common in every
one's Mouth, _That a Man must be born, not made a Poet_; whereas, in
_Horace's_ Judgment, a Man is both born and made so? In answer to this,
No more to be sure is intended by the Proverb, than that Strength of
Genius enters more into the Composition of a Poet, than the Refinements
of Art; tho' both are necessary to the forming him a great one. Writings
that betray a true poetic Spirit, how unpolish'd soever they are, extort
from us Praise and Admiration; but those that are cold and lifeless,
tho' form'd upon the most scrupulous Observation of the Laws of Poetry,
are neglected, or condemn'd. The Sloth or Inaccuracy of the one, demands
our Censure; but the stupid Rigidness, and labour'd Dulness of the
other, provokes at once our Rage, our Hate, and Disdain. It is of little
Consequence that _Horace_ seems to put these upon the Foot of Equality.
A Poet that lays down general Rules in Verse, and in so short a Compass,
cannot be supposed to enter minutely into every Distinction. Besides,
the Saying above may be true in this Respect; that Poetry _especially_,
and beyond all other Sciences, requires a Fecundity of Nature; and
besides such a _peculiar_ Turn of Wit, as is _seldom_ found, and _few_
are blest with.
And this is partly the Reason, why Poets were said to be _inspired_;
partly, I say, for the chief Reason is probably owing to that Fire, or
more than, human Impulse, called by the _Greeks_ ενθυσιασμος,
which distinguishes them from other Writers. That this was no real
Inspiration in the ancient Poets, (except in those sacred ones that
communicated God's Will to Mankind) nor is now so in the Moderns, I
suppose needs no Proof; but it is certain, however, that not only the
Poets said it was, but the Heathens, also, thought it divine. Hence
arose that more than common Reverence, the Populace paid to them. Hence
the Title given of them of _sacred_, and _divine_. Hence that solemn
Invocation of the Muses and _Apollo_, and sometimes other Deities, with
which the Poets, and the Poets only, introduce their Works.
I have no Inclination to spend my Time in examining into the Fables
which have long since become an Appendage to Poetry, nor to search out
the hidden Meaning of them: I leave that Task to those whom we call the
Mythologists; let them, if they please, explain the Allegory of the two
Tops of _Parnassus_, of the Number Nine among the Muses, the Mystery of
the Wings of _Pegasus_, and of the Fountains rising at the Stroke of his
Hoof. These, I would only observe, are the Stains of Poetry, contracted
from the Corruption of Heathenism, which infected Religion no less with
its trifling Puerilities; and it is but just that we, upon whom the
clearer Light of Truth has shone, should at length learn to despise such
ridiculous Tales, which, by Repetition, are now grown nauseous; and to
refine Poetry, as well as true Religion, from the Dross and Alloy of
Falshood.
There are some other Things, of less Moment, which I shall pass over
with barely mentioning. Poets had anciently Crowns of Laurel and Ivy,
to denote by those Ever-greens the Immortality they gain to themselves,
and confer on others. Mountains, Groves, and Springs, were sacred to
the Muses, because Poets naturally fly from the Noise and Tumult of the
City, to the peaceful Solitude of the Country; that so, disengaged from
Care and Interruption, they may dedicate the utmost Efforts of Nature to
their beloved Profession: Besides,
_Carmina secessum scribentis, & otia quærunt_[19]:
Leisure and green Retreats the Poets court.
Because Verse flows naturally there, and the Fancy is strangely awaken'd
into Poetry with the Pleasures of Solitude around it.
Lastly, Another Question may possibly be ask'd, and deservedly too, (for
it is a Matter of some Importance to know) how far Poetry and Oratory
agree, and wherein they differ. To give a direct Answer to this, we
say, that Eloquence is common to both; Eloquence, therefore, ought to
be consider'd as twofold; that of Oratory, and that of Poetry. Those
Things that come under the Title of Eloquence in general, relate to both
Arts; such as, Topicks of Praise, whether of Persons, Facts, or Things;
Topicks of Exhortation, Congratulation, Consolation, and the like, with
which the Orator, as well as the Poet, excites Anger, Love, Pity, and
all other Passions. Both observe alike a proper Decorum of Manners,
according to Age, Fortune, and Condition of Life. Ardent Expressions,
and lively Thoughts, are the Embellishments of both. In both the Diction
is elevated, or familiar, grave, florid, or strong, as Occasion serves.
For all these Things, as I said before, are Branches of Eloquence in
general, are drawn from the same Heads of Invention, and illustrated
by Examples fetch'd from Orators or Poets. So that it is impossible
almost for him that treats of one of these Arts, not to mention some
Things that are in common to both. However, the Difference between them
is very great; and Poetry has several other Characteristics besides
that of Metre; a Style, for instance, peculiar to itself, Fiction,
copious Descriptions, poetic Fire, and (to add no more) a certain
Licence, denied to Orators, in the due Exercise of which the Poet's Art
is chiefly conspicuous. These are all worthy an accurate and distinct
Consideration, and such an one hereafter, perhaps, they may come under.
The technical Measure of Verses, and the different Sorts of them, I
leave to the Grammarians, whose Business it is to scan Syllables,
to weigh Dactyls and Spondees, Trochees and Iambics; to teach the
Difference between Heroic, Elegiac, Alcaic, Sapphic, Anapæstic Verse,
and many others, with which the fruitful Field of Poetry abounds: Not
that these Things are to be despised: but only as they are more proper
to be taught in the School, than the University. It is not my Business
to dwell upon so barren a Soil, or to trifle my Time about the Externals
of Poetry; but to enter into the Spirit of it, and make Things, not
Words, the Subject of my Enquiries.