There are not, I believe, a greater number of any sort of verses than of
those which are called pastorals; nor a smaller, than of those which are
truly so. It therefore seems necessary to give some account of this kind
of poem; and it is my design to comprise in this short paper the
substance of those numerous dissertations the critics have made on the
subject, without omitting any of their rules in my own favour. You will
also find some points reconciled, about which they seem to differ, and a
few remarks, which, I think, have escaped their observation.
The original of poetry is ascribed to that age which succeeded the
creation of the world: and as the keeping of flocks seems to have been
the first employment of mankind, the most ancient sort of poetry was
probably pastoral.[2] It is natural to imagine, that the leisure of
those ancient shepherds admitting and inviting some diversion, none was
so proper to that solitary and sedentary life as singing; and that in
their songs they took occasion to celebrate their own felicity. From
hence a poem was invented, and afterwards improved to a perfect image of
that happy time; which, by giving us an esteem for the virtues of a
former age, might recommend them to the present. And since the life of
shepherds was attended with more tranquillity than any other rural
employment, the poets chose to introduce their persons, from whom it
received the name of pastoral.
A pastoral is an imitation of the action of a shepherd, or one
considered under that character. The form of this imitation is dramatic,
or narrative, or mixed of both[3]; the fable simple; the manners not too
polite nor too rustic: the thoughts are plain, yet admit a little
quickness and passion, but that short and flowing: the expression
humble, yet as pure as the language will afford; neat, but not florid;
easy, and yet lively. In short, the fable, manners, thoughts, and
expressions are full of the greatest simplicity in nature.
The complete character of this poem consists in simplicity[4], brevity,
and delicacy; the two first of which render an eclogue natural, and the
last delightful.
If we would copy nature, it may be useful to take this idea along with
us, that pastoral is an image of what they call the golden age. So that
we are not to describe our shepherds as shepherds at this day really
are, but as they may be conceived then to have been; when the best of
men followed the employment.[5] To carry this resemblance yet further,
it would not be amiss to give these shepherds some skill in astronomy,
as far as it may be useful to that sort of life. And an air of piety to
the gods should shine through the poem, which so visibly appears in all
the works of antiquity; and it ought to preserve some relish of the old
way of writing; the connection should be loose, the narrations and
descriptions short,[6] and the periods concise. Yet it is not
sufficient, that the sentences only be brief, the whole eclogue should
be so too. For we cannot suppose poetry in those days to have been the
business of men, but their recreation at vacant hours.[7]
But with respect to the present age, nothing more conduces to make these
composures natural, than when some knowledge in rural affairs is
discovered.[8] This may be made to appear rather done by chance than on
design, and sometimes is best shown by inference; lest by too much study
to seem natural, we destroy that easy simplicity from whence arises the
delight. For what is inviting in this sort of poetry, as Fontenelle
observes, proceeds not so much from the idea of that business, as of the
tranquillity of a country life.
We must therefore use some illusion to render a pastoral delightful; and
this consists in exposing the best side only of a shepherd's life, and
in concealing its miseries.[9] Nor is it enough to introduce shepherds
discoursing together in a natural way: but a regard must be had to the
subject, that it contain some particular beauty in itself, and that it
be different in every eclogue. Besides, in each of them a designed scene
or prospect is to be presented to our view, which should likewise have
its variety.[10] This variety is obtained in a great degree by frequent
comparisons, drawn from the most agreeable objects of the country; by
interrogations to things inanimate; by beautiful digressions, but those
short; sometimes by insisting a little on circumstances; and lastly, by
elegant turns on the words, which render the numbers extremely sweet and
pleasing. As for the numbers themselves, though they are properly of the
heroic measure, they should be the smoothest, the most easy and flowing
imaginable.
It is by rules like these that we ought to judge of pastoral. And since
the instructions given for any art are to be delivered as that art is in
perfection, they must of necessity be derived from those in whom it is
acknowledged so to be. It is therefore from the practice of Theocritus
and Virgil (the only undisputed authors of pastoral) that the critics
have drawn the foregoing notions concerning it.
Theocritus excels all others in nature and simplicity. The subjects of
his Idyllia are purely pastoral; but he is not so exact in his persons,
having introduced reapers and fishermen[11] as well as shepherds.[12]
He is apt to be too long in his descriptions, of which that of the cup
in the first pastoral is a remarkable instance.[13] In the manners he
seems a little defective, for his swains are sometimes abusive and
immodest, and perhaps too much inclining to rusticity; for instance, in
his fourth and fifth Idyllia. But it is enough that all others learnt
their excellencies from him, and that his dialect alone has a secret
charm in it, which no other could ever attain.
Virgil, who copies Theocritus, refines upon his original;[14] and in all
points, where judgment is principally concerned, he is much superior to
his master. Though some of his subjects are not pastoral in themselves,
but only seem to be such, they have a wonderful variety in them,[15]
which the Greek was a stranger to.[16] He exceeds him in regularity and
brevity, and falls short of him in nothing but simplicity and propriety
of style; the first of which perhaps was the fault of his age, and the
last of his language.
Among the moderns, their success has been greatest who have most
endeavoured to make these ancients their pattern. The most considerable
genius appears in the famous Tasso, and our Spenser. Tasso in his Aminta
has far excelled all the pastoral writers, as in his Gierusalemme he has
outdone the epic poets of his country. But as this piece seems to have
been the original of a new sort of poem, the pastoral comedy, in Italy,
it cannot so well be considered as a copy of the ancients.[17] Spenser's
Calendar, in Mr. Dryden's opinion, is the most complete work of this
kind which any nation has produced ever since the time of Virgil.[18]
Not but that he may be thought imperfect in some few points. His
Eclogues are somewhat too long, if we compare them with the
ancients.[19] He is sometimes too allegorical, and treats of matters of
religion in a pastoral style, as the Mantuan had done before him. He has
employed the lyric measure, which is contrary to the practice of the old
poets. His stanza is not still the same, nor always well chosen. This
last may be the reason his expression is sometimes not concise enough:
for the tetrastic has obliged him to extend his sense to the length of
four lines, which would have been more closely confined in the couplet.
In the manners, thoughts, and characters, he comes near to Theocritus
himself; though, notwithstanding all the care he has taken, he is
certainly inferior in his dialect: for the Doric had its beauty and
propriety in the time of Theocritus; it was used in part of Greece, and
frequent in the mouths of many of the greatest persons, whereas the old
English and country phrases of Spenser were either entirely obsolete, or
spoken only by people of the lowest condition.[20] As there is a
difference betwixt simplicity and rusticity, so the expression of simple
thoughts should be plain, but not clownish. The addition he has made of
a calendar to his Eclogues, is very beautiful; since by this, besides
the general moral of innocence and simplicity, which is common to other
authors of pastoral, he has one peculiar to himself; he compares human
life to the several seasons, and at once exposes to his readers a view
of the great and little worlds, in their various changes and
aspects.[21] Yet the scrupulous division of his pastorals into months,
has obliged him either to repeat the same description, in other words,
for three months together; or, when it was exhausted before, entirely to
omit it: whence it comes to pass that some of his Eclogues (as the
sixth, eighth, and tenth, for example) have nothing but their titles to
distinguish them. The reason is evident, because the year has not that
variety in it to furnish every month with a particular description, as
it may every season.
Of the following Eclogues I shall only say, that these four comprehend
all the subjects which the critics upon Theocritus and Virgil will allow
to be fit for pastoral: that they have as much variety of description,
in respect of the several seasons, as Spenser's: that in order to add to
this variety, the several times of the day are observed, the rural
employments in each season or time of day, and the rural scenes or
places proper to such employments; not without some regard to the
several ages of man, and the different passions proper to each age. But
after all, if they have any merit, it is to be attributed to some good
old authors, whose works as I had leisure to study, so I hope I have not
wanted care to imitate.