In a conversation, some months ago, I happened to mention to you the
idea I had long entertained of that celebrated Epistle of Horace,
commonly distinguished by the title of THE ART OF POETRY. I will not say
that you acceded to my opinion; but I flattered myself that I at least
interested your curiosity, and engaged your attention: our discourse,
however, revived an intention I had once formed, of communicating my
thoughts on the subject to the Publick; an intention I had only dropt
for want of leisure and inclination to attempt a translation of the
Epistle, which I thought necessary to accompany the original, and my
remarks on it. In the original, Horace assumes the air and stile of an
affectionate teacher, admonishing and instructing his young friends and
pupils: but the following translation, together with the observations
annexed, I address to You as my Masters, from whom I look for sound
information, a well-grounded confirmation of my hypothesis, or a
solution of my doubts, and a correction of my errors.
It is almost needless to observe, that the Epistle in question has very
particularly exercised the critical sagacity of the literary world;
yet it is remarkable that, amidst the great variety of comments and
decisions on the work, it has been almost universally considered, except
by one acute and learned writer of this country, as a loose, vague,
and desultory composition; a mass of shining materials; like pearls
unstrung, valuable indeed, but not displayed to advantage.
Some have contended, with Scaliger at their head, that this pretended
_Art of Poetry_ is totally void of art; and that the very work, in which
the beauty and excellence of _Order_ (ordinis virtus et Venus!)
is strongly recommended, is in itself unconnected, confused, and
immethodical. The advocates for the writer have in great measure
confessed the charge, but pleaded in excuse and vindication, the
familiarity of an epistle, and even the genius of Poetry, in which the
formal divisions of a prosaick treatise on the art would have been
insupportable. They have also denied that Horace ever intended such a
treatise, or that he ever gave to this Epistle the title of _the Art of
Poetry_; on which title the attacks of Scaliger, and his followers, are
chiefly grounded. The title, however, is confessedly as old as the age
of Quintilian; and that the work itself has a perpetual reference to
_Poets and Poetry,_ is as evident, as that it is, from beginning to end,
in its manner, stile, address, and form, perfectly _Epistolary._
The learned and ingenious Critick distinguished above, an early ornament
to letters, and now a worthy dignitary of the church, leaving vain
comments, and idle disputes on the title of the work, sagaciously
directed his researches to scrutinize the work itself; properly
endeavouring to trace and investigate from the composition the end and
design of the writer, and remembering the axiom of the Poet, to whom his
friend had been appointed the commentator.
_In every work regard THE AUTHOR'S END!
For none can compass more than they intend. _ Pope.
With this view of illustrating and explaining Horace's Art of Poetry,
this shrewd and able writer, about thirty years ago, republished the
original Epistle, giving the text chiefly after Dr. Bentley, subjoining
an English Commentary and Notes, and prefixing an Introduction, from
which I beg leave to transcribe most part of the three first paragraphs,
"It is agreed on all hands, that the antients are our masters in the
_art_ of composition. Such of their writings, therefore, as deliver
instructions for the exercise of this _art_, must be of the highest
value. And, if any of them hath acquired a credit, in this respect,
superior to the rest, it is, perhaps, the _following work:_ which the
learned have long since considered as a kind of _summary_ of the rules
of good writing; to be gotten by heart by every young student; and to
whose decisive authority the greatest masters in taste and composition
must finally submit.
"But the more unquestioned the credit of this poem is, the more it will
concern the publick, that it be justly and accurately understood. The
writer of these sheets then believed it might be of use, if he took some
pains to clear the sense, connect the method, and ascertain the scope
and purpose, of this admired epistle. Others, he knew indeed, and some
of the first fame for critical learning, had been before him in this
attempt. Yet he did not find himself prevented by their labours; in
which, besides innumerable lesser faults, he, more especially, observed
two inveterate errors, of such a fort, as must needs perplex the genius,
and distress the learning, of _any_ commentator. The _one_ of these
respects the SUBJECT; the other, the METHOD of the _Art of Poetry_. It
will be necessary to say something upon each.
"1. That the _Art of Poetry_, at large, is not the _proper_ subject of
this piece, is so apparent, that it hath not escaped the dullest and
least attentive of its Criticks. For, however all the different _kinds_
of poetry might appear to enter into it, yet every one saw, that _some_
at least were very slightly considered: whence the frequent attempts, the
_artes et institutiones poetica_, of writers both at home and abroad, to
supply its deficiencies. But, though this truth was seen and confessed,
it unluckily happened, that the sagacity of his numerous commentators
went no further. They still considered this famous Epistle as a
_collection_, though not a _system_, of criticisms on poetry in general;
with this concession however, that the stage had evidently the largest
share in it [Footnote: Satyra hac est in fui faeculi poetas, praecipui
yero in Romanum Drama, Baxter.]. Under the influence of this prejudice,
several writers of name took upon them to comment and explain it: and
with the success, which was to be expected from so fatal a mistake on
setting out, as the not seeing, 'that the proper and sole purpose of the
Author, was, not to abridge the Greek Criticks, whom he probably never
thought of; nor to amuse himself with composing a short critical
system, for the general use of poets, which every line of it absolutely
confutes; but, simply to criticize the Roman drama.' For to this end,
not the tenor of the work only, but as will appear, every single precept
in it, ultimately refers. The mischiefs of this original error have been
long felt. It hath occasioned a constant perplexity in defining the
_general_ method, and in fixing the import of _particular_ rules. Nay
its effects have reached still further. For conceiving, as they did,
that the whole had been composed out of the Greek Criticks, the labour
and ingenuity of its interpreters have been misemployed in picking out
authorities, which were not wanted, and in producing, or, more properly,
by their studied refinements in _creating,_ conformities, which
were never designed. Whence it hath come to pass that, instead of
investigating the order of the Poet's own reflexions, and scrutinizing
the peculiar state of the Roman Stage (the methods, which common sense
and common criticism would prescribe) the world hath been nauseated
with, insipid lectures on _Aristotle_ and _Phalereus;_ whose solid sense
hath been so attenuated and subtilized by the delicate operation of
French criticism, as hath even gone some way towards bringing the _art_
itself into disrepute.
"2. But the wrong explications of this poem have arisen, not from the
misconception of the subject only, but from an inattention to the method
of it. The _latter_ was, in part the genuine consequence of the
_former._ For, not suspecting an unity of design in the subject it's
interpreters never looked for, or could never find, a consistency of
disposition in the method. And this was indeed the very block upon which
HEINSIUS, and, before him,. JULIUS SCALIGER, himself fumbled. These
illustrious Criticks, with all the force of genius, which is required to
disembarrass an involved subject, and all the aids of learning, that can
lend a ray to enlighten a dark one, have, notwithstanding, found
themselves utterly unable to unfold the order of this Epistle; insomuch,
that SCALIGER [Footnote: Praef. i x LIB. POET. ct 1. vi. p. 338] hath
boldly pronounced, the conduct of it to be _vicious;_ and HEINSIUS had
no other way to evade the charge, than by recurring to the forced and
uncritical expedient of a licentious transposition The truth is, they
were both in one common error, that the Poet's purpose had been to write
a criticism of the Art of Poetry at large, and not, as is here shewn of
the Roman Drama in particular."
The remainder of this Introduction, as well as the Commentary and Notes,
afford ample proofs of the erudition and ingenuity of the Critick: yet
I much doubt, whether he has been able to convince the learned world
of the truth of his main proposition, "than it was the proper and sole
purpose of the Author, simply to _criticise_ the Roman drama." His
Commentary is, it must be owned, extremely seducing yet the attentive
reader of Horace will perhaps often fancy, that he perceives a violence
and constraint offered to the composition, in order to accommodate it to
the system of the Commentator; who, to such a reader, may perhaps seem
to mark transitions, and point out connections, as well as to maintain
a _method_ in the Commentary, which cannot clearly be deduced from the
text, to which it refers.
This very-ingenious _Commentary_ opens as follows:
"The subject of this piece being, as I suppose, _one,_ viz. _the state
of the Roman Drama,_ and common sense requiring, even in the freest
forms of composition, some kind of _method._ the intelligent reader will
not be surprised to find the poet prosecuting his subject in a regular,
well-ordered _plan;_ which, for the more exact description of it, I
distinguish into three parts:
"I. The first of them [from 1. 1 to 89] is preparatory to the main
subject of the Epistle, containing some general rules and reflexions on
poetry, but principally with an eye to the following parts: by which
means it serves as an useful introduction to the poet's design, and
opens with that air of ease and elegance, essential to the epistolary
form.
"II. The main body of the Epistle [from 1. 89. to 295] is laid out in
regulating the_ Roman_ Stage; but chiefly in giving rules for Tragedy;
not only as that was the sublimer species of the _Drama,_ but, as it
should seem, less cultivated and understood.
"III. The last part [from 1. 295 to the end] exhorts to correctness in
writing; yet still with an eye, principally, to the _dramatic species;_
and is taken up partly in removing the causes, that prevented it; and
partly in directing to the use of such means, as might serve to promote
it. Such is the general plan of the Epistle."
In this general summary, with which the Critick introduces his
particular Commentary, a very material circumstance is acknowledged,
which perhaps tends to render the system on which it proceeds extremely
doubtful, if not wholly untenable. The original Epistle consists of four
hundred and seventy-six lines; and it appears, from the above numerical
analysis, that not half of those lines, only two hundred and six verses,
[from v. 89 to 295] are employed on the subject of _the Roman Stage_.
The first of the three parts above delineated [from v. i to 89]
certainly _contains general rules and reflections on poetry,_ but
surely with no particular reference to the Drama. As to the second
part, the Critick, I think, might fairly have extended the Poet's
consideration of the Drama to the 365th line, seventy lines further than
he has carried it; but the last hundred and eleven lines of the Epistle
so little allude to the Drama, that the only passage in which a mention
of the Stage has been supposed to be implied, _[ludusque repertus,
&c.]_ is, by the learned and ingenious Critick himself, particularly
distinguished with a very different interpretation. Nor can this portion
of the Epistle be considered, by the impartial and intelligent reader,
as a mere exhortation "to correctness in writing; taken up partly in
removing the causes that prevented it; and partly in directing to the
use of such means, as might serve to promote it." Correctness is
indeed here, as in many other parts of Horace's Satires and Epistles,
occasionally inculcated; but surely the main scope of this animated
conclusion is to deter those, who are not blest with genius, from
attempting the walks of Poetry. I much approve what this writer has
urged on the _unity of subject, and beauty of epistolary method_
observed in this Work; but cannot agree that "the main subject and
intention was _the regulation of the Roman Stage_." How far I may differ
concerning particular passages, will appear from the notes at the end
of this translation. In controversial criticism difference of opinion
cannot but be expressed, (_veniam petimusque damusque vicissim_,) but
I hope I shall not be thought to have delivered my sentiments with
petulance, or be accused of want of respect for a character, that I most
sincerely reverence and admire.
I now proceed to set down in writing, the substance of what I suggested
to you in conversation, concerning my own conceptions of the end and
design of Horace in this Epistle. In this explanation I shall call upon
Horace as my chief witness, and the Epistle itself, as my principal
voucher. Should their testimonies prove adverse, my system must be
abandoned, like many that have preceded it, as vain and chimerical: and
if it should even, by their support, be acknowledged and received, it
will, I think, like the egg of Columbus, appear so plain, easy, and
obvious, that it will seem almost wonderful, that the Epistle has never
been considered in the same light, till now. I do not wish to dazzle
with the lustre of a new hypothesis, which requires, I think, neither
the strong opticks, nor powerful glasses, of a critical Herschel, to
ascertain the truth of it; but is a system, that lies level to common
apprehension, and a luminary, discoverable by the naked eye.
My notion is simply this. I conceive that one of the sons of Piso,
undoubtedly the elder, had either written, or meditated, a poetical
work, most probably a Tragedy; and that he had, with the knowledge of
the family, communicated his piece, or intention, to Horace: but Horace,
either disapproving of the work, or doubting of the poetical faculties
of the Elder Piso, or both, wished to dissuade him from all thoughts
of publication. With this view he formed the design of writing this
Epistle, addressing it, with a courtliness and delicacy perfectly
agreeable to his acknowledged character, indifferently to the whole
family, the father and his two sons. _Epistola ad Pisones, de Arte
Poetica_.
He begins with general reflections, generally addressed to his _three_
friends. _Credite_, Pisones!--pater, & juvenes _patre digni!_--In these
preliminary rules, equally necessary to be observed by Poets of every
denomination, he dwells on the necessity of unity of design, the danger
of being dazzled by the splendor of partial beauties, the choice of
subjects, the beauty of order, the elegance and propriety of diction,
and the use of a thorough knowledge of the nature of the several
different species of Poetry: summing up this introductory portion of his
Epistle, in a manner perfectly agreeable to the conclusion of it.
Descriptas servare vices, operumque colores,
Cur ego si nequeo ignoroque, poeta salutor?
Cur nescire, pudens pravè, quam discere malo?
From this general view of poetry, on the canvas of Aristotle, but
entirely after his own manner, the writer proceeds to give the rules and
history of the Drama; adverting principally to Tragedy, with all its
constituents and appendages of diction, fable, character, incidents,
chorus, measure, musick, and decoration. In this part of the work,
according to the interpretation of the best criticks, and indeed (I
think) according to the manifest tenor of the Epistle, he addresses
himself entirely to _the two young gentlemen_, pointing out to them the
difficulty, as well as excellence, of the Dramatick Art; insisting
on the avowed superiority of the Graecian Writers, and ascribing the
comparative failure of the Romans to negligence and avarice. The Poet,
having exhausted this part of his subject, suddenly drops a _second_, or
dismisses at once no less than _two_ of the _three_ Persons, to whom he
originally addressed his Epistle, and turning short _on the ELDER PISO_,
most earnestly conjures him to ponder on the danger of precipitate
publication, and the ridicule to which the author of wretched poetry
exposes himself. From the commencement of this partial address, o major
juvenum, _&c._ [v. 366] to the end of the Poem, _almost a fourth part of
the whole_, the second person plural, _Pisones!--Vos!--Vos, O Pompilius
Sanguis! _&c. is discarded, and the second person singular, _Tu, Te,
Tibi,_ &c. invariably takes its place. The arguments too are equally
relative and personal; not only shewing the necessity of study, combined
with natural genius, to constitute a Poet; but dwelling on the peculiar
danger and delusion of flattery, to a writer of rank and fortune; as
well as the inestimable value of an honest friend, to rescue him from
derision and contempt. The Poet, however, in reverence to the Muse,
qualifies his exaggerated description of an infatuated scribbler, with a
most noble encomium of the uses of Good Poetry, vindicating the dignity
of the Art, and proudly asserting, that the most exalted characters
would not be disgraced by the cultivation of it.
_Ne forte pudori
Sit _tibi _Musa, lyrae solers, & cantor Apollo_.
It is worthy observation, that in the satyrical picture of a frantick
bard, with which Horace concludes his Epistle, he not only runs counter
to what might be expected as a Corollary of an Essay on _the Art of
Poetry_, but contradicts his own usual practice and sentiments. In his
Epistle to Augustus, instead of stigmatizing the love of verse as an
abominable phrenzy, he calls it (_levis haec insania) a slight madness_,
and descants on its good effects--_quantas virtutes habeat, sic collige!_
In another Epistle, speaking of himself, and his addiction to poetry, he
says,
_----ubi quid datur oti,
Illudo chartis; hoc est, mediocribus illis
Ex vitiis unum, _&c.
All which, and several other passages in his works, almost demonstrate
that it was not, without a particular purpose in view, that he dwelt so
forcibly on the description of a man resolved
_----in spite
Of nature and his stars to write._
To conclude, if I have not contemplated my system, till I am become
blind to its imperfections, this view of the Epistle not only preserves
to it all that _unity of subject, and elegance of method, _so much
insisted on by the excellent Critick, to whom I have so often referred;
but by adding to his judicious general abstract the familiarities of
personal address, so strongly marked by the writer, not a line appears
idle or misplaced: while the order and disposition of the Epistle to the
Pisos appears as evident and unembarrassed, as that of the Epistle to
Augustus; in which last, the actual state of the Roman Drama seems to
have been more manifestly the object of Horace's attention, than in the
Work now under consideration.
Before I leave you to the further examination of the original of Horace,
and submit to you the translation, with the notes that accompany it, I
cannot help observing, that the system, which I have here laid down, is
not so entirely new, as it may perhaps at first appear to the reader,
or as I myself originally supposed it. No Critick indeed has, to my
knowledge, directly considered _the whole Epistle_ in the same light
that I have now taken it; but yet _particular passages_ seem so strongly
to enforce such an interpretation, that the Editors, Translators, and
Commentators, have been occasionally driven to explanations of a similar
tendency; of which the notes annexed will exhibit several striking
instances.
Of the following version I shall only say, that I have not, knowingly,
adopted a single expression, tending to warp the judgement of the
learned or unlearned reader, in favour of my own hypothesis. I attempted
this translation, chiefly because I could find no other equally close
and literal. Even the Version of Roscommon, tho' in blank verse, is, in
some parts a paraphrase, and in others, but an abstract. I have myself,
indeed, endeavoured to support my right to that force and freedom of
translation which Horace himself recommends; yet I have faithfully
exhibited in our language several passages, which his professed
translators have abandoned, as impossible to be given in English.
All that I think necessary to be further said on the Epistle will appear
in the notes.