The work of Horace, now under consideration, has been so long known, and
so generally received, by the name of The Art of Poetry, that I have, on
account of that notoriety, submitted this translation to the Publick,
under that title, rather than what I hold to be the true one, viz.
Horace's Epistle to The Pisos. The Author of the English Commentary has
adopted the same title, though directly repugnant to his own system;
and, I suppose, for the very same reason.
The title, in general a matter of indifference, is, in the present
instance, of much consequence. On the title Julius Scaliger founded his
invidious, and injudicious, attack. De arte quares quid sentiam. Quid?
eqvidem quod de arte, sine arte traditâ. To the Title all the editors,
and commentators, have particularly adverted; commonly preferring the
Epistolary Denomination, but, in contradiction to that preference,
almost universally inscribing the Epistle, the Art of Poetry. The
conduct, however, of Jason De Nores, a native of Cyprus, a learned and
ingenious writer of the 16th century, is very remarkable. In the year
1553 he published at Venice this work of Horace, accompanied with a
commentary and notes, written in elegant Latin, inscribing it, after
Quintilian, Q. Horatii Flacci Liber De Arte Poetica. [Foot note: I think
it right to mention that I have never seen the 1st edition, published
at Venice. With a copy of the second edition, printed in Paris, I was
favoured by Dr. Warton of Winchester.] The very-next year, however,
he printed at Paris a second edition, enriching his notes with many
observations on Dante and Petrarch, and changing the title, after mature
consideration, to _Q. Horatii Flacii_ EPISTOLA AD PISONES, _de Arte
Poeticâ._ His motives for this change he assigns in the following terms.
_Quare adductum me primum sciant ad inscriptionem operis immutandam non
levioribus de causis,& quod formam epistolae, non autem libri, in quo
praecepta tradantur, vel ex ipso principio prae se ferat, & quod in
vetustis exemplaribus Epistolarum libros subsequatur, & quad etiam summi
et praestantissimi homines ita sentiant, & quod minimè nobis obstet
Quintiliani testimonium, ut nonnullis videtur. Nam si librum appellat
Quintilianus, non est cur non possit inter epistolas enumerari, cum et
illae ab Horatio in libros digestae fuerint. Quod vero DE ARTE POETICA
idem Quintilianus adjangat, nihil commaveor, cum et in epistolis
praecepta de aliquâ re tradi possint, ab eodemque in omnibus penè, et
in iis ad Scaevam & Lollium praecipuè jam factum videatur, in quibus
breviter eos instituit, qua ratione apud majores facile versarentur._
Desprez, the Dauphin Editor, retains both titles, but says, inclining to
the Epistolary, _Attamen artem poeticam vix appellem cum Quintiliano et
aliis: malim vero epistolam nuncupare cum nonnullis eruditis._ Monsieur
Dacier inscribes it, properly enough, agreable to the idea of Porphyry,
Q. Horatii Flacci DE ARTE POETICA LIBER; feu, EPISTOLA AD PISONES,
patrem, et filios._
Julius Scaliger certainly stands convicted of critical malice by his
poor cavil at _the supposed title_; and has betrayed his ignorance of
the ease and beauty of Epistolary method, as well as the most gross
misapprehension, by his ridiculous analysis of the work, resolving it
into thirty-six parts. He seems, however, to have not ill conceived the
genius of the poem, in saying that _it relished satire_. This he has
urged in many parts of his Poeticks, particularly in the Dedicatory
Epistle to his son, not omitting, however, his constant charge of _Art
without Art_. Horatius artem cum inscripsit, adeo sine ulla docet arte,
ut satyrae propius totum opus illud esse videatur. This comes almost
home to the opinion of the Author of the elegant commentaries on the two
Epistles of Horace to the Pisos and to Augustus, as expressed in the
Dedication to the latter: With the recital of that opinion I shall
conclude this long note. "The genius of Rome was bold and elevated: but
Criticism of any kind, was little cultivated, never professed as an
_art_, by this people. The specimens we have of their ability in this
way (of which the most elegant, beyond all dispute, are the two epistles
to _Augustus_ and the _Pisos_) _are slight occasional attempts_, made in
the negligence of common sense, _and adapted to the peculiar exigencies
of their own taste and learning_; and not by any means the regular
productions of _art_, professedly bending itself to this work, and
ambitious to give the last finishing to the critical system."
[_Translated from Horace._] In that very entertaining and instructive
publication, entitled _An Essay on the Learning and Genius of Pope_,
the Critick recommends, as the properest poetical measure to render in
English the Satires and Epistles of Horace, that kind of familiar blank
verse, used in a version of Terence, attempted some years since by the
Author of this translation. I am proud of the compliment; yet I have
varied from the mode prescribed: not because Roscommon has already given
such a version; or because I think the satyrical hexameters of Horace
less familiar than the irregular lambicks of Terence. English Blank
Verse, like the lambick of Greece and Rome, is peculiarly adapted to
theatrical action and dialogue, as well as to the Epick, and the more
elevated Didactick Poetry: but after the models left by Dryden and Pope,
and in the face of the living example of Johnson, who shall venture to
reject rhime in the province of Satire and Epistle?