Action, and the Fable seem not to be sufficiently distinguished. The
Action is a great Achievement of some illustrious Person, attended with
an important and memorable Event. The Fable is that Complication of
Incidents, Episodes, and other Circumstances, which tend to the carrying
on of the Action, or give Reasons for it, or at least embellish and
adorn it. I make this Distinction; because Episodes are such, as are
either absolutely necessary, or very requisite. Of the former sort is
that long Narration of _Æneas_, I mean in the main Substance of it,
which is the entire Subject of the Second, and Third Books. This perhaps
will not by some be allowed to be an Episode; because, I think, it is
not commonly called so: For that Word is generally appropriated to
_Actions_, and therefore will be supposed not applicable to a
_Narration_. But I think we shall speak more clearly; if by that Word we
mean (as indeed the [7]Etymology of it imports) whatsoever is
_adventitious_ to the grand Action of the Poem, connected to it, or
inserted in it; whether it be it self an Action, or no. And there is
Ground enough to distinguish This from the immediate, and direct Train,
or Course of the main Action it self; and to shew what may, and may not,
be called an Episode. For Example; The Sailing of the _Trojan_ Fleet
from _Sicily_ in the First Book, it's Arrival there again at the
Beginning of the Fifth, and it's Sailing from thence at the End of that
Book; The Landing at _Cumæ_ in the Beginning of the Sixth; and in
another Part of _Italy_, at the Beginning of the Seventh; The whole
Operations of that Book, and so of all the rest, wherever the Heroe
himself, or his Armies for him, either with or without his Presence, are
directly engaged in the great Affair to be carry'd on, are, all of them,
so many successive Parts of one, and the same Action (the great Action
of the Poem) continued in a direct Line, and flowing in it's proper
Channel. But where any Part comes under any one of the Bye-Characters
above-mentioned, it is properly an Episode, whether it be an Action, or
a Narration. The long Recital of Adventures in the Second and Third
Books is not an _Action_, but it is _Necessary_: The Expedition of
_Nisus_ and _Euryalus_ in the Ninth is not _Necessary_, but it is an
_Action_: And Both are Episodes. Which brings us back to the Distinction
before taken notice of, between Incidents and Episodes, and the several
Kinds of the latter. All Episodes are Incidents; but it is not so on the
Reverse. The Storm in the First Book, driving the Fleet on the Coast of
_Carthage_, is an Incident, but not an Episode; because the Heroe
himself, and the whole Body of his Forces, are concerned in it; and so
it is a _direct_, not a _collateral_ Part of the main Action. But even
Episodes (as I said) must carry on the main Action, or give Reasons for
it, or at least embellish it: And therefore I said they are either
_absolutely necessary_, or _very requisite_. The Narration in the Second
and Third Books is not a _Part_ of the Action; but it _gives Reasons_
for it, and so is _Necessary_: The Adventures of _Nisus_ and _Euryalus_
in the Ninth Book, of _Mezentius_ in the Tenth, and of _Camilla_ in the
Eleventh, are all _requisite_, but not _absolutely necessary_; and yet
they are properly _Parts_ of the main Action, tho' _collateral_, not
_direct_. The Loves of _Dido_ and _Æneas_ in the Fourth Book, the Sports
at the Tomb of _Anchises_ in the Fifth, the Description of Hell in the
Sixth, the Story of _Cacus_, and the Decorations of the Shield in the
Eighth, are all supposed by some to be entirely ornamental, and no Parts
of the main Action. And This perhaps they may imagine to be a great
Point yielded to the Disadvantage of _Virgil_. Admitting it were so,
_Homer_ would gain nothing by it; most of them being taken from him, and
he having more of such _Excrescencies_, if they must be so called. But
This in Reality is no reasonable Objection against either. The Episode
of _Dido_ and _Æneas_ shall be considered in my Remarks upon the Fourth
Book. The Descent into Hell is a direct Part of the Action; the Heroe
going thither to consult his Father's Ghost concerning the Operations of
the War, and the future Fate of Himself, and his Posterity (for _all_
Action, even in an Heroic Poem, does not consist in _Fighting_:) And it
would be very strange, if, in a Work of such a Length, the Poet might
not be allowed to take that Occasion, to describe the Regions thro'
which his Heroe passed, and to make the noblest, and most surprizing
Description that ever the World saw. The same may be said of the
Casting, and Engraving of the Shield, which contains a considerable Part
of the _Roman_ History; as does the Speech of _Anchises_ in the
foregoing Division; both introduced with exquisite Art, and Judgment.
For the rest; granting that they are purely ornamental; and that while
the Poet is describing them, the Action stands still, as the Criticks
express themselves: There let it stand, with all my heart, 'till
_Virgil_ thinks fit to set it a going again. If the Action stands still,
I am sure the Poem does not; and the Reader, I think, must be very
phlegmatick, if his Spirits do. What if those Episodes are not Parts of
the Action? They are Parts of the Poem, and with the greatest Skill
inferred in it. What if they are not absolutely _necessary_? They are
very _convenient_; and that is sufficient. For if we allow that they are
entirely ornamental, we deny that they are impertinent, or superfluous;
no Things in the World being more uniform, or more naturally and
elegantly connected. Nor does _Virgil_ ever commit the Fault of those
whom _Horace_ justly condemns; by whom
_Purpureus, late qui splendeat, unus & alter
Assuitur pannus----_
But the Foundation of all this wrong Criticism, is the Errour of
reducing an Heroic Poem to the narrow Rules of the _Stage_. For tho' the
Drama be, in some Respects, more perfect than the Epopée, in others it
is inferiour. And it is not _Virgil_'s Fault, if we will not distinguish
between the Building of a House, and of a City; or between that of a
City, and of the Universe. In a Work of such an Extent as an Epic Poem,
and all delivered in Narration, not represented by Action, these
Interruptions of the main Business (especially when they are some of the
most beautiful Parts of the Poem, as they always are in _Virgil_'s) are
so far from being Improprieties, that they are Excellencies. This
Variety is a Relief to the Mind of the Reader; who is more diverted by
the alternate Rest, and Rapidity of the Action, than he would be by it's
perpetual Motion. Nay the Mind is therefore the more in perpetual
Motion, (tho' in several kinds of it) than if the Action really were so.
For the Poem, as I observed, does not stand still, tho' the Action may.
If what I have discoursed upon Episodes be not in the usual, I think it
is in the clearer way of Expressing; and as such I propose it to
others. _Bossu_, in his excellent Treatise of Epic Poetry, has some
nice Distinctions concerning them; which to me are more subtile, than
perspicuous: But that, I am sensible, may be my Fault, not his. And yet
he seems not to distinguish enough, when he says all Episodes are
necessary Parts of the Action, and makes no Difference between
Necessary, and Convenient. Nay he appears to be inconsistent[8] with
himself upon this Head, and to mistake the Sense of _Aristotle_. To the
Doctrine of which Philosopher I think my Account is more agreeable. For
after he has represented the Action of the _Odyssée_ in a direct Line,
as I have That of the _Æneis_; he immediately adds,[9] _This then is
proper; the rest are Episodes_. By the Word _Proper_, I understand
Immediately, and Directly Necessary. But he no where says that all
Episodes are so in any Sense; but leaves that Matter at large. For tho'
his _French_ Translators, _Bossu_, and _Dacier_ (which latter, I think,
is in the same Errour with the former) use the same Word _Proper_, when
apply'd to Episodes, as when apply'd to the main Action; yet the
Words[10] in the Original are different. _Bossu_ argues, that the
litteral Signification of the Word _Episode_, [something _adventitious_]
cannot take place; because an Episode must not be _added_, or
_superinduced_, but naturally _flow_, or _arise_ from the Subject. As if
a new Person could not enter a Room to a Company already there
assembled, without being impertinent: Surely his Coming may not only be
proper, but necessary; tho' I confess it may not be necessary, and yet
be proper: Which is the very thing I would say of Episodes. According to
this, when _Virgil_ says in the Seventh Book,
_Hos_ super advenit _Volsca de gente Camilla;_
That Heroine is a mere Intruder; and her Story afterwards in the
Eleventh Book is no _Episode_. In short, it matters not whether we say
those Incidents _flow_, or _arise from_ the Subject; or are _added_, and
_connected to it_; or _inserted_, and _interwoven with_ it: If they are
_natural_, and _proper Parts_ of the _Poem_, That is sufficient; all
the rest is a Dispute about Words, and of no Importance, or
Significancy. However it be, I think I cannot better represent the
several sorts of Episodes which I have mentioned, than by an Instance
nearly ally'd to my Subject; I mean that of a General making a Campaign.
All the important Undertakings, and Performances of Himself, or the
Gross of his Army, or Both, in pursuance of the Design proposed, are
direct Parts of the main Action; and so far the Campaign, and the Poem
agree even in Terms. If he sitting in his Tent either gives, or hears,
the Recital of something past, the Knowledge of which is absolutely
necessary to the Prosecution of his Enterprize; This indeed is not
Action: But still it was said to be absolutely necessary in order to the
Prosecution of his Enterprize. And so is that Narration of _Æneas_ in
the Second, and Third Books, in order to the carrying on of the Action,
and to shew the Reason of it. This in War would not be called an
Episode; but it is so in Poetry. Should the same General detach a Part
of his Army upon a particular Expedition; and the Commander of that Body
behave himself with uncommon Gallantry, and attempt something very
extraordinary, and to be distinguished in History; whether he succeeded
in that Attempt or not: This would indeed be a Part of the Campaign; but
perhaps not a necessary one; because the Campaign might have subsisted,
and have been successful, or unsuccessful, with it, or without it. Such
are the Episodes of _Nisus_ and _Euryalus_; of _Mezentius_; and of
_Camilla_. The Case of the same General's being for some time diverted
from Action by an Amour, or some such Incident, shall be considered in
my Remarks upon the Fourth Book. But should he in Time of Inaction, tho'
the Campaign still continued, entertain his Officers and Soldiers with
warlike Sports and Recreations; or hear the Relation of some memorable
Adventure, in the Place where he encamped (like the Adventure of
_Hercules_, and _Cacus_) tho' no way concerning his own Affairs: These
indeed would not be Parts of the Action of his Campaign; but still might
be very properly recorded in History, and afford great Delight to the
Reader; who would by no Means be offended either with the General, or
the Historian; nor think the History of that Campaign to be less of a
Piece, because the warlike Operations were for some Time suspended. For
we must still remember, that tho' an Epic Poem be widely different from
History in many Circumstances; yet it is more nearly ally'd to it, than
any Dramatic Piece whatsoever. The learned Reader, I fear, will think I
might have troubled him with fewer Words upon this Subject, but such
Readers I presume not to instruct: What I have said may not perhaps be
altogether unuseful to Those who are less conversant in these Matters:
To acquaint them with which, nothing can contribute more, than clear
Ideas annexed to the Words, _Action_, _Fable_, _Incident_, and
_Episode_: All which (especially the last) are ill understood by many,
who yet use them with the greatest Freedom and Familiarity.
Now if my Opinion be not received, I hope my avowed Ignorance will at
least be excused; while I confess, that tho' I very clearly apprehend
the Settling of the _Trojan_ Colony in _Italy_ to be the Action of the
_Æneis_; and the Return of _Ulysses_ to be the Action of the _Odyssée_:
yet I do not so well understand how the Anger of _Achilles_ comes to be
called the Action of the _Iliad_. For besides that Anger is a Passion,
not an Action: And if you mean the immediate Effect of that Anger, not
the Anger it self; Standing still, and doing nothing (which was the
Consequence of that Heroe's Resentment) can as little be called an
Action as the Other; I say, not to insist upon This, tho' it is by no
means so trivial a Nicety as some may suppose; the Anger of _Achilles_
is not the _main Subject_ of the Poem, nor the chief Hinge upon which it
turns. The Action of it seems to be the Conquest of _Troy_; the Fable,
the _Trojan_ War; and the Anger of _Achilles_, an important Incident,
serving to aggrandize the Heroe, and consequently the Action, and to
render them more illustrious; as also at the same time to convey that
useful Moral, concerning the fatal Effects of Discord and Contention. It
will be said, that what I have mentioned is not the Action of the Poem,
because _Homer_ has not proposed it as such: But may it not be as well
replied, that _it is_ the Action of the Poem; and therefore he _should
have_ proposed it as such? For what is the Action, appears from the
Stress and Turn of the Work, not from the Title or Exordium; from the
End, not from the Beginning: And of This the Readers are to judge, as
well as of any thing else. Did not _Homer_ then know the Action of his
own Poem? Yes questionless; but he did not mention it in his
Proposition; which may possibly be chargeable upon him as an Errour: He
mentions the most important Incident, but omits the Action. Had the
Exordium set forth the Defeat of the _Trojans_, and the Destruction of
_Troy_, with such a Clause as this, "Tho' that great Event was suspended
by the fatal Anger of _Achilles_, Ἠ μύρι' Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε' ἔθηκε, and so
on, as it now stands; it would, in my humble Opinion, have been more
unexceptionable than it is at present. But I beg Pardon for even seeming
to pretend to correct _Homer_; and speak This with all possible
Submission. It is true, the Conquest of _Troy_ is not compleated in the
_Iliad_; no more is the Settlement of the _Trojans_ by the Building of
the Heroe's City in the _Æneis_: But _Hector_ is killed in the one; as
_Turnus_ is in the other; and the Consequences of Both are very visible.
I acknowledge indeed, that those of the former are not so near in view
as those of the latter. But tho' _Virgil_ in his _Æneis_, and _Homer_
himself in his _Odyssée_, inform us that the Death of _Hector_ was not
the immediate Cause of the Destruction of _Troy_; the War continuing
with great Obstinacy for a considerable time after that Heroe's Death;
as the Stratagem of the Wooden Horse was the immediate Cause of that
City's Destruction; And tho' _Homer_ confines the direct Action of his
_Iliad_ only to a Part of the _Trojan_ War: Yet he takes in the Whole
from the Amour of _Paris_ and _Helen_ to the Burning of the Town, by way
of Narration, and by way of Prophecy; which Artifice, next to Fiction,
is the most proper Character of Epick Poetry, as distinguished from
History. For the Invention of This, we are (at least so far as we know)
solely obliged to _Homer_: And for This alone, if he had done nothing
else, he would have merited that immortal Glory, which for This, and for
a thousand other Excellencies, he now most justly possesses.
The Shortness of the Time, and the Simplicity of the Action, are
Circumstances which, in the Opinion of some, give the _Iliad_ a great
Advantage over the _Æneis_. The first mentioned would be no such
Advantage; if what _Ruæus_ says were true; that the _Iliad_ takes up a
Year: For Monsieur _Segrais_ has made it plain to a Demonstration, that
the _Æneis_ takes up no more. But I wonder _Ruæus_ should affirm That of
the _Iliad_; when it is manifest that the whole Action includes no more
than forty seven Days. As to the Simplicity, or Singleness of which; if
That be the Action which I apprehend, (for, out of Deference to the
commonly received Opinion, I do not insist upon it) the Action is more
complex, than it is generally supposed. But admitting that in the
_Iliad_ the Action is more simple, as well as the Time shorter, than in
the _Æneis_: Doubtless a single Action is better than a complicated one,
_as such_; or in other Words, it is better, if it can be made equally
entertaining. But there is the Difficulty: And for that Reason, it is a
Question not yet decided, whether, even in Pieces for the Theatre,
complicated Actions, all things considered, be not, generally speaking,
preferable to single ones. And there is yet more Reason to prefer the
former in an Epic Poem; which is of a far wider Extent, and partakes the
Nature of History in some Respects, as well as of the Drama in others.
"_Virgil_ (says Mr. _Pope_[11]) for want of so warm a Genius [as
_Homer_'s] aided himself by taking in a more extensive Subject, as well
as a greater Length of Time; and contracted the Design of both _Homer_'s
Poems into one, which is yet but a fourth Part as large as his." The
supposed Coolness of _Virgil_'s Genius shall be considered hereafter. At
present I acknowledge he took what he thought proper out of the _Iliad_
and _Odyssée_, tho' he did not take his _Design_ from either; and his
first six Books resemble the _Odyssée_, as the last six do the _Iliad_:
And his one Poem, 'tis granted, is in Number of Books no more than a
Quarter of _Homer_'s two. But in This the Advantage seems to be on his
Side. For there is, if I do not greatly miscalculate, as much important
Matter, and as great a Variety of Incidents, in _Virgil_'s Twelve, as in
_Homer_'s Forty eight. And yet is _Virgil_'s Poem too much crouded, and
the Matter too thick? I think not. Are not _Homer_'s, on the contrary,
too lean? and is not the Matter too thinly spred? I think it is. When I
say a greater Number of Incidents; I do not mean more Men killed, more
Battles fought, more Speeches spoke, and the like: Those are not
Incidents; and I own _Homer_ has many more of them than _Virgil_. Mr.
_Pope_ admires the Variety of _Homer_'s Battles for this Reason, that
tho' they are so numerous they are not tedious. This is _extraordinary_
indeed, if it be _true_: But whether a Thing be tedious or not, is
Matter of Experience, rather than of Judgment; and so every particular
Person must speak as he finds. Upon his Multitude of Speeches, the most
ingenious Gentleman above-mentioned, (who was certainly _born a Poet_,
if ever Man was) has this Remark: "It is hardly credible, in a Work of
such a Length, how small a Number of Lines are employed in Narration. In
_Virgil_ the Dramatic Part is less in proportion to the Narrative." It
is so; and even in proportion to the different Length of their Works,
_Homer_ has undoubtedly more Speeches than _Virgil_; too many, in my
humble Opinion. _Homer_ has not enough of the Narrative Part; but
_Virgil_ has enough of the Dramatic; if it must be so called. For, by
the way, (tho' I very well remember that _Aristotle_ applies this Word
to the Epopée, and have elsewhere taken notice of it, and have observed
from Monsieur _Dacier_, that he uses it in a different Sense from This
of which we are now speaking) I do not understand why Speech-making in
an Heroic Poem must be called _Dramatic_; and by virtue of that Name
pass for a Beauty. The Drama indeed consists wholly of Speeches; but
then they are spoken by the Persons themselves, who are actually
introduced and represented; not related and recited by the Author as
spoken by others, as they always are in an Epic Poem. _Those_ are both
agreeable, and necessary; _These_, if they take up far the greatest Part
of the Work, being inserted by the everlasting Repetition of those
introducing, and closing interlocutory Tags, Κaί μιν φωνήσας, Τόν δ'
αὖτε προσέειπε, Ὣς ἔφατ', Τὸν δ' ἀπαμειβόμενος, _&c._ are apt to tire
the Reader; nor does the Word _Dramatic_ at all lessen the Disgust which
they give him. I am aware too, that setting aside the Word _Dramatic_,
_Aristotle_ expresly declares for a Multitude of Speeches, and little
Narration in Epic Poetry: But then I beg Leave once for all to make a
Remark upon this Subject, which may be applied to some others; That
_Aristotle_'s Precepts are formed upon _Homer_'s Practice; no _other_
Heroic Poet having _then_ appeared in the World. But since the Case is
now quite altered, to give _Homer_ the Preference to _Virgil_ upon Rules
entirely drawn from his own Practice, would be _begging the Question_
even in the Judgment of _Aristotle_ as a Logician, whatever might be his
Opinion as a Critick. Not but that, after all, a far greater Part even
of _Virgil_'s Poem is employed in Speeches, than one would imagine
without a _very close Attention_: If I may judge of others by my self,
we are deceived by him in this Particular, (so exquisite is his Art) and
even after frequent Readings do not ordinarily take notice that there
are so many Speeches in his _Æneis_ as there really are: An infallible
Sign that they are excellent in themselves, and most skilfully
introduced and connected. I agree that in an Epic Poem they ought to be
_very numerous_; tho' I do not ground that Opinion upon the Reason which
_Aristotle_ assigns; _viz._ That otherwise a Poet would not be an
_Imitator_. For is there no _Imitation_ but in _Speeches_? What are
_Descriptions_?
By more Incidents then I do not mean (as I said) more Men killed, more
Battles fought, more Speeches spoke; but more memorable and surprizing
Events. Take these Poems therefore purely as Romances; and consider them
only with regard to the History, and Facts contained in them, the Plots,
the Actions, Turns, and Events; That of _Virgil_ is more copious, full,
various, and surprizing, and every way more entertaining, than Those of
_Homer_. Then is there any Comparison between the Subjects of the Poems?
Between the Anger of _Achilles_, (if That be the Subject of the _Iliad_)
and the Return of _Ulysses_ in Those of the Greek Poet; and the Founding
of _Rome_, and the Glory of the _Romans_ in That of the Latin one?
It is said by Mr. _Dryden_[12], and others, that _Homer_'s Moral is more
Noble than _Virgil_'s; but for what Reason I know not. The Quarrel of
_Achilles_ and _Agamemnon_ teaches us the ill Consequences of Discord in
a State; and the Story of the Dogs, the Sheep, and the Wolf, in _Æsop_'s
Fables, does the same.[13] This indeed is a very good Lesson; but it
seems too narrow, and particular, to be the _Grand Moral_ of an Heroic
Poem. It is proper, if you please, to be _inserted_ in such a Work; and
many more as important as This are interspersed up and down, and
mentioned among other Things, both in That of _Virgil_, and in Those of
_Homer_. But how much more noble, extensive, and truly Heroic a Moral is
This; That Piety to God, and Justice and Goodness to Men, together with
true Valour, both Active, and Passive, (not such as consists in
Strength, Intrepidity, and Fierceness only, which is the Courage of a
Tyger, not of a Man) will engage Heaven on our Sides, and make both
Prince, and People, victorious, flourishing, and happy? And This is the
Moral of the _Æneis_, properly so called. For tho' _Virgil_ had plainly
another End in view, which was to conciliate the Affections of the
_Roman_ People to the new Government of _Augustus Cæsar_; upon which
_Bossu_, and after him Mr. _Dryden_, have largely, and excellently
discoursed: Yet this is rather of a Political, than of a Moral Nature.
Mr. _Pope_ seeming to acknowledge that the Moral of the _Æneis_ is
preferable to That of the _Iliad_, only says that the same Arguments
upon which that Preference is grounded might set the _Odyssée_ above the
_Æneis_. But as he does not give Reasons for that Assertion, it will be
sufficient to say, that there seems to me to be at least as much
Morality in _Virgil_'s Poem, as in the _Odyssée_ it self; and that
particularly in the Characters of the Heroes, _Æneas_ as much excels
_Ulysses_ in Piety, as _Achilles_ does _Æneas_ in rapid Valour. And for
Virtue in general, the Point between the two Heroes last mentioned is
entirely yielded by every Body in favour of _Virgil_'s; the very Moral
of the _Iliad_ requiring that it's Heroe should be immoral. But sure it
is more artful and entertaining, as well as useful and instructive, to
have the Moral of the Poem so cast and contrived, that the principal
Person in it may be good and virtuous, as well as great and brave. It
will be said, _Homer_ could not avoid that Inconvenience; _Achilles_
having a known Character before: It may be so; and I am glad of that
Excuse: But still _so it is_; and it would have been _better_, if it had
been _otherwise_. Or if you will have it as Mr. _Pope_ puts it, (less, I
think, to _Homer_'s Advantage) He did not design to do otherwise: "They
blame him (says he) for not doing what he never designed: As because
_Achilles_ is not as good, and perfect a Prince as _Æneas_, when the
very Moral of his Poem required a contrary Character." I wish then his
Design had been _different_: Because if it had, it would have been
_better_. If a Man does ill; is it an Answer to say, He designed to do
so? The Account which _Horace_ gives of _Achilles_ is a very true one:
_Impiger, iracundus, inexorabilis, acer;
Jura negat sibi nata, nihil non arrogat armis._
Heroic Virtues, no doubt! An admirable Character of a Demi-god!
But who will contend that the _Grecian_ Poet is comparable to the
_Roman_, in his exquisite Understanding of humane Nature, and
particularly in his Art of moving the Passions? Which is one of the most
distinguishing Characters of a Poet, and in which he peculiarly triumphs
and glories. I mention only the fourth _Æneid_, (tho' an hundred other
Instances might be mentioned) and desire That Book alone may be matched
in this respect by all _Homer_'s Works put together. And yet I am not
unmindful of several excellent pathetical Passages in both those
immortal Poems.