[Transcriber’s Note:
Characters preceded by a caret(^) are in superscript, and are enclosed
in curly brackets, i. e. {th}.
Italicised text delimited by underscores.
There are many special characters in this text that require a utf-8
compliant font. If you find characters that appear as a question mark
in a black box or a small rectangle with numbers in it, you should
check your reader’s default font. If you have a font installed with
SIL after the font name, you should use that one.]
THE
WORKS
OF
RICHARD HURD, D.D.
LORD BISHOP OF WORCESTER.
VOL. I.
Printed by J. Nichols and Son,
Red Lion Passage, Fleet Street, London.
[Illustration: The Right Reverend RICHARD HURD, D. D. Lord Bishop of
Worcester.
T. Gainsborough pinx. J. Hall sculp.
From the Original Picture in the Possession of her Majesty.
_Published March 1^{st}. 1811. by T. Cadell & W. Davies, Strand,
London._]
THE
WORKS
OF
RICHARD HURD, D. D.
LORD BISHOP OF WORCESTER.
IN EIGHT VOLUMES.
VOL. I.
[Illustration]
LONDON:
PRINTED FOR T. CADELL AND W. DAVIES, STRAND.
1811.
DATES
OF SOME OCCURRENCES
IN THE
LIFE OF THE AUTHOR.
_The following Particulars, in the Author’s own hand-writing,
and endorsed by him—“Some Occurrences in my Life. R. W.”—were
found amongst his papers after his decease._
DATES
_Of some Occurrences in my own Life_.
[Sidenote: A. D.]
[Sidenote: 1719-20]
Richard Hurd was born at Congreve, in the Parish of Penkrich, in the
County of Stafford, January 13, 1719-20.
He was the second of three children, all sons, of John and Hannah Hurd;
plain, honest, and good people; of whom he can truly say with the poet—
_Si natura juberet, &c._
They rented a considerable farm at Congreve, when he was born; but soon
after removed to a larger at Penford, about half way between Brewood
and Wolverhampton in the same County.
There being a good Grammar School at Brewood, he was educated there
under the Reverend Mr. Hillman, and, upon his death, under his
successor, the Reverend Mr. Budworth—both well qualified for their
office, and both very kind to him.
Mr. Budworth had been Master of the School at Rudgely; where he
continued two years after his election to Brewood, while the
School-house, which had been much neglected, was repairing. He was
therefore sent to Rudgely immediately on Mr. Budworth’s appointment to
Brewood, returned with him to this place, and continued under his care,
till he went to the University.
He must add one word more of his _second_ Master. He knew him well,
when he afterwards was of an age to judge of his merits. He had been a
scholar of the famous Mr. Blackwell of Derby, and afterwards bred at
Christ’s College in Cambridge, where he resided till he had taken his
M. A.’s degree. He understood Greek and Latin well, and had a true taste
of the best writers in those languages. He was, besides, a polite,
well-bred man, and singularly attentive to the _manners_, in every
sense of the word, of his scholars. He had a warm sense of virtue and
religion, and enforced both with a natural and taking eloquence. How
happy, to have had such a man, first, for his school-master, and then
for his friend.
[Sidenote: 1733]
Under so good direction, he was thought fit for the University, and was
accordingly admitted in Emanuel College, in Cambridge, October 3, 1733,
but did not go to reside there till a year or two afterwards.
In this college, he was happy in receiving the countenance, and in
being permitted to attend the Lectures, of that excellent Tutor, Mr.
Henry Hubbard, although he had been admitted under another person.
[Sidenote: 1738-9]
He took his B. A.’s degree in 1738-9.
[Sidenote: 1742]
He took his M. A.’s degree, and was elected fellow in 1742.
Was ordained Deacon, 13th of June that year in St. Paul’s Cathedral,
London, by Dr. Jos. Butler, Bishop of Bristol and Dean of St. Paul’s,
on Letters Dimissory from Dr. Gooch, Bishop of Norwich.
[Sidenote: 1744]
Was ordained Priest, 20 May 1744 in the Chapel of Gonville and Caius
College, Cambridge, by the Bishop of Norwich, Dr. Gooch.
[Sidenote: 1749]
He took his B. D.’s degree in 1749.
[Sidenote: 1750]
He published the same year Remarks on Mr. Weston’s book on the
_Rejection of Heathen Miracles_, and his Commentary on Horace’s _Ars
Poetica_; which last book introduced him to the acquaintance of Mr.
Warburton, by whose recommendation to the Bishop of London, Dr.
Sherlock, he was appointed Whitehall Preacher in May 1750.
[Sidenote: 1751]
He published the Commentary on the Epistle to Augustus in 1751.
[Sidenote: 1753]
—the new edition of both Comments, with Dedication to Mr. Warburton, in
1753.
[Sidenote: 1755]
—the Dissertation on the Delicacy of Friendship in 1755.
His Father died Nov. 27 this year, æt. 70.
[Sidenote: 1757]
He published the Remarks on Hume’s Natural History of Religion in 1757.
Was instituted this year, Feb. 16, to the Rectory of Thurcaston, in the
County of Leicester, on the presentation of Emanuel College.
[Sidenote: 1759]
He published Moral and Political Dialogues 1759.
[Sidenote: 1762]
He had the Sine-cure Rectory of Folkton, near Bridlington, Yorkshire,
given him by the Lord Chancellor (Earl of Northington) on the
recommendation of Mr. Allen, of Prior Park, near Bath, November 2, 1762.
He published the Letters on Chivalry and Romance this year.
[Sidenote: 1763]
—Dialogues on Foreign Travel in 1763.
[Sidenote: 1764]
And Letter to Dr. Leland of Dublin in 1764.
[Sidenote: 1765]
He was made Preacher of Lincoln’s Inn, on the recommendation of Mr.
Charles Yorke, &c. November 6, 1765.
[Sidenote: 1767]
Was collated to the Archdeaconry of Gloucester, on the death of Dr.
Geekie, by the Bishop, August 27, 1767.
[Sidenote: 1768]
Was appointed to open the Lecture of Bishop Warburton on Prophecy in
1768.
He took the degree of D. D. at Cambridge Commencement this year.
[Sidenote: 1772]
He published the Sermons on Prophecy in 1772.
[Sidenote: 1773]
His Mother died Feb. 27, 1773, æt. 88.
[Sidenote: 1775]
He was consecrated Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, the 12th of
February 1775.
[Sidenote: 1776]
He published the 1st Volume of Sermons preached at Lincoln’s Inn, 1776.
And was made Preceptor to the Prince of Wales and his brother Prince
Frederick, the 5th of June the same year.
Preached before the Lords, December 13, 1776, first Fast for the war.
[Sidenote: 1779]
He lost his old and best friend, Bishop Warburton, June 7th, 1779.
[Sidenote: 1780]
He published the 2d and 3d Volumes of Sermons in 1780.
These three Volumes were published at the desire of the Bench of
Lincoln’s Inn.
[Sidenote: 1781]
He was elected Member of the Royal Society of Gottingen, January 11,
1781.
The Bishop of Winchester [Dr. Thomas] died Tuesday, May 1, 1781.
Received a gracious letter from his Majesty the next morning, by a
special messenger from Windsor, with the offer of the See of Worcester,
in the room of Bishop North, to be translated to Winchester, and of the
Clerkship of the Closet, in the room of the late Bishop of Winchester.
On his arrival at Hartlebury Castle in July that year, resolved to put
the Castle into complete order, and to build a Library, which was much
wanted.
[Sidenote: 1782]
The Library was finished in 1782 and furnished with a collection of
books, late Bishop Warburton’s, and ordered by his Will to be sold, and
the value given to the Infirmary at Gloucester
[Sidenote: 1783]
To these, other considerable additions have been since made.
Archbishop Cornwallis died in 1783.
Had the offer of the Archbishoprick from his Majesty, with many
gracious expressions, and pressed to accept it; but humbly begged leave
to decline it, as a charge not suited to his temper and talents, and
much too heavy for him to sustain, especially in these times.
The King was pleased not to take offence at this freedom, and then to
enter with him into some confidential conversation on the subject. It
was offered to the Bishop of London, Dr. Lowth, and refused by him, as
was foreseen, on account of his ill health. It was then given to Dr.
Moore, Bishop of Bangor.
[Sidenote: 1784]
Added a considerable number of books to the new Library at Hartlebury
in 1784.
[Sidenote: 1785]
Confirmed Prince Edward [their Majesties’ 4th son] in the Chapel of
Windsor Castle, May 14th, 1785.
Added more books to the Library this year. And put the last hand (at
least he thinks so) to the Bishop of Gloucester’s Life, to be prefixed
to the new edition of his works now in the press.
Confirmed Princess Augusta [their Majesties’ second daughter] in the
Chapel of Windsor Castle, Dec. the 24th this year.
Preached in the Chapel the next day (Christmas day) and administered
the Sacrament to their Majesties and the Princess Royal and Princess
Augusta.
[Sidenote: 1786]
Preached before the Lords the 30th of January 1786.
His Majesty was pleased this year to bestow a prebend of Worcester
[vacant by the death of Dr. Young] on my Chaplain, Mr. Kilvert.
Preached before their Majesties and Royal Family in the Chapel of
Windsor Castle, and administered the Sacrament to them, on Christmas
day 1786.
[Sidenote: 1788]
In the end of February this year, 1788,
was published in seven volumes 4to a complete edition of the works of
Bishop Warburton. The _Life_ is omitted for the present.
March 13, 1788, a fine gold Medal was this day given me by his Majesty
at the Queen’s House.
The King’s head on one side. The Reverse was taken from a Seal of
mine[1], which his Majesty chanced to see, and approved.
The Die was cut by Mr. Burch, and the Medal designed for the annual
Prize-Dissertation on Theological Subjects in the University of
Gottingen.
[Sidenote: July 12.]
This summer the King came to Cheltenham to drink the waters, and
was attended by the Queen, the Princess Royal, and the Princesses
Augusta and Elizabeth. They arrived at Cheltenham in the evening of
Saturday July the 12th, and resided in a house of Earl Falconberg.
From Cheltenham they made excursions to several places in
Gloucestershire and Worcestershire, and were every where received
with joy by all ranks of people.
[Sidenote: Aug. 2]
On Saturday, August the second, They were pleased to visit Hartlebury,
at the distance of thirty-three miles, or more. The Duke of York
came from London to Cheltenham the day before, and was pleased to
come with them. They arrived at Hartlebury at half an hour past
eleven. Lord Courtoun, Mr. Digby (the Queen’s Vice-Chamberlain), Col.
Gwin (one of the King’s Equerries), the Countesses of Harcourt and
Courtoun, composed the suite. Their Majesties, after seeing the House,
breakfasted in the Library; and, when they had reposed themselves some
time, walked into the Garden, and took several turns on the Terrases,
especially the Green Terras in the Chapel Garden. Here they shewed
themselves to an immense croud of people, who flocked in from the
neighbourhood, and standing on the rising grounds in the Park, saw, and
were seen, to great advantage. The day being extremely bright, the shew
was agreeable and striking. About two o’clock, their Majesties, &c.
returned to Cheltenham.
[Sidenote: Aug. 5.]
On the Tuesday following, August the fifth, their Majesties, with the
three Princesses, arrived at 8 o’clock in the evening at the Bishop’s
Palace in Worcester, to attend the charitable meeting of the three
Quires of Worcester, Hereford, and Gloucester, for the benefit of the
widows and orphans of the poorer Clergy of those Dioceses; which had
been fixed, in consequence of the signification of the King’s intention
to honour that solemnity with his presence, for the 6th, 7th, and 8th
of that month.
The next morning a little before 10 o’clock, the King was pleased
to receive the compliments of the Clergy. The Bishop, in the name
of himself, Dean and Chapter and Clergy of the Church and Diocese,
addressed the King in the Great Hall, in a short speech[2], to which
his Majesty was pleased to return a gracious answer. He had then the
honour to address the Queen in a few words, to which a gracious reply
was made; and they had all the honour to kiss the King’s and Queen’s
hand.
Soon after 10, the Corporation, by their Recorder, the Earl of
Coventry, addressed and went through the same ceremony of kissing the
King’s hand. Then the King had a Levée in the Great Hall, which lasted
till 11, when their Majesties, &c. walked through the Court of the
Palace to the Cathedral, to attend divine Service and a Sermon. The
Apparitor General, 2 Sextons, 2 Virgers, and 8 Beadsmen, walked before
the King (as on great occasions they usually do before the Bishop);
the Lord in waiting (Earl of Oxford) on the King’s right hand, and the
Bishop in his lawn on the left. After the King, came the Queen and
Princesses, attended by the Countesses of Pembroke and Harcourt (Ladies
of the Bed-chamber), and the Countess of Courtown, and the rest of
their Suite. At the entrance of the Cathedral, their Majesties were
received by the Dean and Chapter in their Surplices and hoods, and
conducted to the foot of the stairs leading to their seat in a Gallery
prepared and richly furnished by the Stewards[3] for their use, at the
bottom of the Church near the West window.
The same ceremony was observed the two following days, on which they
heard sacred music, but without prayers or a sermon. On the last day
Aug. 8th, the King was pleased to give £.200 to the charity: and in the
evening attended a concert in the College Hall for the benefit of the
Stewards.
[Sidenote: Aug. 9]
On Saturday morning, Aug. 9th, the King and Queen, &c. returned to
Cheltenham.
During their Majesties’ stay at the Palace, they attended prayers in
the Chapel of the Palace every morning (except the first, when the
service was performed in the Church) which were read by the Bishop.
The King at parting was pleased to put into my hands for the poor of
the City £.50, and the Queen £.50 more; which I desired the Mayor (Mr.
Davis) to see distributed amongst them in a proper manner.
The King also left £.300 in my hands towards releasing the Debtors in
the County and City Jails.
During the three days at Worcester, the concourse of people of all
ranks was immense, and the joy universal. The weather was uncommonly
fine. And no accident of any kind interrupted the mutual satisfaction,
which was given, and received, on this occasion.
[Sidenote: Aug. 16]
On Saturday, August 16, the King and Royal Family left Cheltenham, and
returned that evening to Windsor.
[Sidenote: Nov. 1]
In the beginning of November following,
[Sidenote: 1789]
[Sidenote: Feb. 28]
the King was seized with that illness, which was so much lamented.
It continued till the end of February 1789, when his Majesty happily
recovered.
[Sidenote: Mar. 15]
Soon after I had his Majesty’s command to attend him at Kew; and on
March 15, I administered the Sacrament to his Majesty at Windsor in the
Chapel of the Castle, as also on Easter Sunday, April 12,
[Sidenote: April 12]
and preached both days.
At the Sacrament of March 15, the King was attended only by three or
four of his Gentlemen: On Easter-day, the Queen, Princess Royal, and
Princesses Augusta and Elizabeth, with several Lords and Gentlemen and
Ladies of the Court, attended the King to the Chapel, and received the
Sacrament with him.
[Sidenote: April 23]
On April 23 [St. George’s Day] a public thanksgiving for the King’s
recovery was appointed. His Majesty, the Queen, and Royal Family, with
the two Houses of Parliament, &c. went in procession to St. Paul’s. The
Bishop of London preached. I was not well enough to be there.
[Sidenote: 1790]
[Sidenote: May 28]
May 28, 1790, the Duke of Montagu died. He was a nobleman of singular
worth and virtue; of an exemplary life; and of the best principles
in Church and State. As Governor to the Prince of Wales and Prince
Frederick, he was very attentive to his charge, and executed that trust
with great propriety and dignity. The Preceptor was honoured with his
confidence: and there never was the least misunderstanding between
them; or so much as a difference of opinion as to the manner in which
the education of the Princes should be conducted.
In October 1790, I had the honour to receive from the King the present
of two fine full-length pictures of his Majesty and the Queen, copied
from those at the Queen’s House, St. James’s Park, painted by the late
Mr. Gainsborough.
These pictures are put up in the great Drawing-room at the Palace in
Worcester, and betwixt them, over the fire-place, is fixed an oval
tablet of white marble with the following Inscription in Gold Letters.
“Hospes,
Imagines, quas contemplaris,
Augustorum Principum,
Georgii III, et Charlottæ Conjugis,
Rex ipse
Richardo Episcopo Vigorniensi
Donavit,
1790.”
[Sidenote: 1791]
[Sidenote: Sept. 17]
My younger Brother, Mr. Thomas Hurd, of Birmingham, died on Saturday,
Sept. 17, 1791.
[Sidenote: 1792]
[Sidenote: Dec. 6]
My elder Brother, Mr. John Hurd, of Hatton, near Shifnal, died on
Thursday, December 6, 1792.
[Sidenote: 1793]
[Sidenote: March 20]
My noble and honoured friend, the Earl of Mansfield, died March 20,
1793.
[Sidenote: 1795]
[Sidenote: Jan. 19]
My old and much esteemed friend, Dr. Balguy, Prebendary and Archdeacon
of Winchester, died January 19, 1795.
[Sidenote: Feb. 24]
The Life of Bishop Warburton, which was sent to the press in Autumn
last, was not printed off till the end of January, nor published till
towards the end of February this year.
[Sidenote: Dec. 1]
Printed in the course of this year at the Kidderminster press a
Collection of Bishop Warburton’s Letters to me, to be published after
my death for the benefit of the Worcester Infirmary.—The edition
consisted of 250 Copies, 4to—was finished at the press in the
beginning of December.
[Sidenote: 1796]
[Sidenote: June 17 to 30]
In the Summer of 1796 visited my Diocese in person, I have great reason
to suppose for the last time; being in the 77th year of my age—_fiat
voluntas Dei!_
[Sidenote: Sept. 1]
Mrs. Stafford Smith, late Mrs. Warburton, died at Fladbury, September
1, 1796.
[Sidenote: 1797]
[Sidenote: April 5]
Mr. Mason died at Aston, April 5, 1797. He was one of my oldest and
most respected friends. How few of this description now remain!
[Sidenote: 1799]
[Sidenote: Jan. 24]
By God’s great mercy enter this day [24 Jan. 1799] into my 80th year.
Ps. xc. 10. But see, 1 Cor. xv. 22. Rom. viii. 18. 1 Pet. i. 3-5. Χάρις
τῷ Θεῷ ἐπὶ τῇ ἀνεκδιηγήτῳ αὐτοῦ δωρεᾷ. 2 Cor. ix. 15.
[Sidenote: May 27 to June 14]
It pleased God that I was able this Summer to confirm over all parts of
my Diocese.
[Sidenote: 1800]
[Sidenote: June 6 to 17]
And to visit my Diocese in person once more in June 1800.—L. D.
[Sidenote: 1801]
[Sidenote: May 16]
Lost my old and worthy friend Dr. Heberden, in the 91st or 92nd year of
his age, May 16, 1801.
[Sidenote: 1802]
[Sidenote: June 15]
Consecrated, on Tuesday the 15th of June, 1802, the new Church and
Church-yard of Lower Eatington, near Shipston, in Warwickshire.
[Sidenote: Aug. 5]
My most deserving, unhappy, friend, Dr. William Arnald, died at
Leicester, August 5, 1802.
[Sidenote: 1803]
[Sidenote: May 31 to June 3]
Visited my Diocese by Commission—Commissioners, Dr. Arnold, my
Chancellor, and Dr. Evans, Archdeacon.
[Sidenote: 1804]
[Sidenote: July 25]
St. James’ day, July 25, 1804, held an Ordination in Hartlebury
Chapel—3 Deacons, 5 Priests—the last I can expect to undertake.
[Sidenote: 1805]
[Sidenote:
March 27
28
29
]
Confirmations by the Bishop of Chester (Dr. Majendie.)
March 27, Stratford.
28, Bromsgrove.
29, Hales Owen.
[Sidenote:
June 14
15
17
]
—by the Bishop of Hereford (Dr. Cornwall.)
June 14, Worcester
15, Pershore
17, Kidderminster
[Sidenote: 1806]
Visited my Diocese this year by Commission—
Commissioners,
The Chancellor and Archdeacon.
Warwick May 26.
Worcester 28.
Kidderminster 30.
Pershore 31.
[Sidenote: 1807]
[Sidenote: Sept. 26]
1807, Sept. 26. The Prince of Wales visited Lady Downshire, at
Ombersley Court this month. I was too infirm to wait upon him either at
Ombersley or Worcester; but his Royal Highness was pleased to call at
Hartlebury, on Saturday the 26th of this month, attended by his brother
the Duke of Sussex, and Lord Lake, and staid with me above an hour.
[Sidenote: 1808]
1808, April 23. Granted a Commission to the Bishop of Chester,
(Dr. Majendie,) to consecrate the new Chapel and burying-ground at
Red-Ditch, in the parish of Tardebig; which was performed this day,
Thursday, April 21, 1808, the proper officers of the Court, and two of
my Chaplains attending.
* * * * *
To this short narrative (the last paragraph of which was written by the
Author only five weeks before his death) little more will be added.
So late as the first Sunday in February before his death, though then
declining in health and strength, he was able to attend his Parish
Church, and to receive the Sacrament. Free from any painful or acute
disorder, he gradually became weaker, but his faculties continued
perfect. After a few days confinement to his bed, he expired in his
sleep, on Saturday morning, May 28, 1808; having completed four months
beyond his eighty-eighth year. He was buried in Hartlebury Church-yard,
according to his own directions.
He had been Bishop of Worcester for almost twenty-seven years: a longer
period than any Bishop of that See since the Reformation.
GENERAL CONTENTS.
VOL. I. and II.
CRITICAL WORKS.
VOL. I. Q. Horatii Flacci Epistolae ad Pisones, et Augustum: _With
an English Commentary and Notes_.
VOL. II. CRITICAL DISSERTATIONS.
_On the Idea of Universal Poetry._
_On the Provinces of Dramatic Poetry._
_On Poetical Imitation._
_On the Marks of Imitation._
VOL. III. and IV.
MORAL AND POLITICAL DIALOGUES.
VOL. III. _On Sincerity in the Commerce of the World._
_On Retirement._
_On the Age of Queen Elizabeth._
_On the Constitution of the English Government._
VOL. IV. _On the Constitution of the English Government._
_On the Uses of Foreign Travel._
_And_
LETTERS _on Chivalry and Romance_.
VOL. V. VI. VII. and VIII.
THEOLOGICAL WORKS.
VOL. V. SERMONS _introductory to the study of the Prophecies_.
_With an Appendix;_
_Containing an anonymous Letter to the Author of these
Sermons, and his Answer to it._
VOL. VI. SERMONS _preached at Lincoln’s Inn_.
VOL. VII. SERMONS _preached at Lincoln’s Inn_.
VOL. VIII. SERMONS _on public Occasions_.
CHARGES _to the Clergy_.
_And_
_An Appendix;_
_Containing Controversial Tracts on different subjects and
occasions._
CRITICAL WORKS.
VOL. I.
Q. HORATII FLACCI
EPISTOLAE
AD
PISONES,
ET
AUGUSTUM:
WITH AN ENGLISH
COMMENTARY AND NOTES:
TO WHICH ARE ADDED
CRITICAL DISSERTATIONS.
CONTENTS.
VOL. I.
INTRODUCTION,
_On Epistolary Writing_.
EPISTOLA AD PISONES:
_With an English Commentary and Notes_.
EPISTOLA AD AUGUSTUM:
_With an English Commentary and Notes_.
VOL. II.
DISSERTATION I.
_On the Idea of Universal Poetry._
DISSERTATION II.
_On the Provinces of Dramatic Poetry._
DISSERTATION III.
_On Poetical Imitation._
DISSERTATION IV.
_On the Marks of Imitation._
CONTENTS OF THE FIRST VOLUME.
INTRODUCTION,
_On Epistolary Writing_. 13
EPISTOLA AD PISONES:
_With an English Commentary and Notes_. 27
EPISTOLA AD AUGUSTUM:
_With an English Commentary and Notes_. 279
TO
SIR EDWARD LITTLETON, BART.
DEAR SIR,
Having reviewed these Sheets with some care, I beg leave to put them
into your hands, as a testimony of the respect I bear you; and, for the
time that such things may have the fortune to live, as a monument of
our friendship.
You see, by the turn of this address, you have nothing to fear from
that offensive adulation, which has so much dishonoured Letters. You
and I have lived together on other terms. And I should be ashamed to
offer you even such a trifle as this, in a manner that would give you a
right to think meanly of its author.
Your extreme delicacy allows me to say nothing of my obligations, which
otherwise would demand my warmest acknowledgements. For your constant
favour has followed me in all ways, in which you could contrive to
express it. And indeed I have never known any man more sensible to the
good offices of his friends, and even to their good intentions, or
more disposed, by every proper method, to acknowledge them. But you
much over-rate the little services, which it has been in my power to
render to you. I had the honour to be intrusted with a part of your
education, and it was my duty to contribute all I could to the success
of it. But the task was easy and pleasant. I had only to cultivate that
good sense, and those generous virtues, which you brought with you to
the University, and which had already grown up to some maturity under
the care of a man, to whom we had both of us been extremely obliged;
and who possessed every talent of a perfect institutor of youth in
a degree, which, I believe, has been rarely found in any of that
profession, since the days of _Quinctilian_.
I wish this small tribute of respect, in which I know how cordially
you join with me, could be any honour to the memory of an excellent
person[4], who loved us both, and was less known, in his life-time,
from that obscure situation to which the caprice of fortune oft
condemns the most accomplished characters, than his highest merit
deserved.
It was to cherish and improve that taste of polite letters, which his
early care had instilled into you, that you required me to explain to
you the following exquisite piece of the best poet. I recollect with
pleasure how welcome this slight essay then was to you; and am secure
of the kind reception you will now give to it; improved, as I think
it is, in some respects, and presented to you in this public way.—I
was going to say, how much you benefited by this poet (the fittest of
all others, for the study of a gentleman) in your acquaintance with
his _moral_, as well as critical writings; and how successfully you
applied yourself to every other part of learning, which was thought
proper for you—But I remember my engagements with you, and will not
hazard your displeasure by saying too much. It is enough for me to add,
that I truly respect and honour you; and that, for the rest, I indulge
in those hopes, which every one, who knows you, entertains from the
excellence of your nature, from the hereditary honour of your family,
and from an education in which you have been trained to the study of
the best things.
I am,
DEAR SIR,
Your most faithful and
most obedient Servant,
R. HURD.
EMAN. COLL. CAMB.
June 21, 1757.
INTRODUCTION.
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 public, 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 sort, 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 critics. 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 poeticæ_, 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[5]. 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 critics,
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 critics, 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 genuin consequence of
the _former_. For, not suspecting an unity of design in the subject,
its 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,
stumbled. These illustrious critics, 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[6], 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. But there is something more to be observed, in
the case of HEINSIUS. For, as will be made appear in the notes on
particular places, this critic did not pervert the order of the piece,
from a simple mistake about the drift of the subject, but, also, from a
total inapprehension of the genuin charm and beauty of the _epistolary
method_. And, because I take this to be a principal cause of the wrong
interpretations, that have been given of all the epistles of Horace;
and it is, in itself, a point of curious criticism, of which little or
nothing hath been said by any good writer, I will take the liberty to
enlarge upon it.
THE EPISTLE, however various in its appearances, is, in fact, but of
_two_ kinds; _one_ of which may be called the DIDACTIC; the _other_,
the ELEGIAC epistle. By the FIRST I mean all those epistles, whose
end is to _instruct_; whether the subject be _morals_, _politics_,
_criticism_, or, in general, _human life_: by the LATTER, all those,
whose end is to _move_; whether the occasion be _love_, _friendship_,
_jealousy_, or other private distresses. If there are some of a lighter
kind in Horace, and other good writers, which seem not reducible to
either of these two classes, they are to be regarded only, as the
triflings of their pen, and deserve not to be considered, as making a
_third_ and distinct species of this poem.
Now these two kinds of the _epistle_, as they differ widely from each
other in their _subject_ and _end_, so do they likewise in their
_original_: though both _flourished_ at the same time, and are both
wholly _Roman_.
I. The former, or DIDACTIC epistle, was, in fact, the true and proper
offspring of the SATIRE. It will be worth while to reflect how this
happened. _Satire_, in its origin, I mean in the rude _fescennine
farce_, from which the idea of this poem was taken was a mere
extemporaneous jumble of mirth and ill-nature. ENNIUS, who had the
honour of introducing it under its new name, without doubt, civilized
both, yet left it without form or method; it being only, in his hands,
a rhapsody of poems on different subjects, and in different measures.
Common sense disclaiming the extravagance of this heterogeneous
mixture, LUCILIUS advanced it, in its next step, to an unity of
_design_ and _metre_; which was so considerable a change, that it
procured him the high appellation of INVENTOR of this poem. Though,
when I say, that Lucilius introduced into satire _an unity of metre_, I
mean only, in _the same piece_; for the measure, in different satires,
appears to have been different. That the _design_ in him was _one_, I
conclude, _first_, Because Horace expresly informs us, that _the form
or kind of writing_ in the satires of Lucilius was exactly the same
with _that_ in his own; in which no one will pretend, that there is
the least appearance of that rhapsodical, detached form, which made
the character of the _old satire_. But, _principally_, because, on
any other supposition, it does not appear, what could give Lucilius a
claim to that high appellation of INVENTOR of this poem. That he was
the _first_, who copied the manner of the _old comedy_ in satire, could
never be sufficient for this purpose. For all, that he derived into it
from thence, was, as Quinctilian speaks, _libertas atque inde acerbitas
et abunde salis_. It sharpened his _invective_, and polished his
_wit_, that is, it improved the _air_, but did not alter the _form_
of the satire. As little can a right to this title be pleaded from
the _uniformity of measure_, which he introduced into it. For _this_,
without an _unity of design_, is so far from being an alteration for
the better, that it even heightens the absurdity; it being surely more
reasonable to adapt different measures to different subjects, than
to treat a number of inconnected and quite different subjects in the
_same_ measure. When therefore Horace tells us, that Lucilius was the
_Inventor_ of the satire, it must needs be understood, that he was the
FIRST, who, from its former confused state, reduced it into a regular
consistent poem, respecting one main _end_, as well as observing one
_measure_. Little now remained for HORACE but to polish and refine. His
only material alteration was, that he appropriated to the satire ONE,
that is, the heroic metre.
From this short history of the satire we collect, 1. that its
design was _one_: And 2. we learn, what was the general form of its
composition. For, arising out of a loose, disjointed, miscellany,
its method, when most regular, would be free and unconstrained;
nature demanding some chain of connexion, and a respect to its origin
requiring that connexion to be slight and somewhat concealed. But its
_aim_, as well as origin, exacted this careless method. For being, as
Diomedes observes, _archææ comœdiæ charactere compositum_, “professedly
written after the manner of the old comedy,” it was of course to
admit the familiarity of the comic muse; whose genius is averse from
all constraint of _order_, save that only which a natural, successive
train of thinking unavoidably draws along with it. And this, by the
way, accounts for the dialogue air, so frequent in the Roman satire,
as likewise for the looser numbers which appeared so essential to the
grace of it. It was in learned allusion to this comic genius of the
satire, that Mr. Pope hath justly characterized it in the following
manner:
“Horace still charms with graceful negligence,
“And, without method, TALKS us into sense.”
2. It being now seen, what was the real form of the _satire_, nothing,
it is plain, was wanting, but the application of a particular
address, to constitute the _didactic epistle_: the structure of this
poem, as prescribed by the laws of nature and good sense, being in
nothing different from that of the _other_. For here 1. an _unity_
of subject or design is indispensably necessary, the freedom of a
miscellaneous matter being permitted only to the familiar letter. And
2. not professing _formally_ to instruct (which alone justifies the
severity of strict method) but, when of the gravest kind, in the way of
address only to _insinuate_ instruction, it naturally takes an air of
negligence and inconnexion, such as we have before seen essential to
the satire. All which is greatly confirmed by the testimony of _one_,
who could not be uninformed in these matters. In addressing his friend
on the object of his studies, he says,
_sive
Liventem_ satiram _nigra rubigine turpes,
Seu tua_ NON ALIA _splendescat_ epistola CURA.
[Stat. lib. i. Sylv. Tiburt. M. V.]
plainly intimating, that the rules and labour of composition were
exactly the same in these two poems. Though the critics on Statius,
not apprehending this identity, or exact correspondence between the
_satire_ and _epistle_, have unnecessarily, and without warrant,
altered the text, in this place, from ALIA into ALTA.
3. The general form and structure of _this_ epistle being thus clearly
understood, it will now be easy, in few words, to deduce the peculiar
laws of its composition.
And 1. it cannot wholly divest itself of all method: For, having
only one point in view, it must of course pursue it by some kind of
connexion. The progress of the mind in rational thinking requires, that
the chain be never broken entirely, even in its freest excursions.
2. As there must needs be a _connexion_, so _that connexion_ will best
answer its end and the purpose of the writer, which, whilst it leads,
by a sure train of thinking, to the conclusion in view, conceals itself
all the while, and leaves to the reader the satisfaction of supplying
the intermediate links, and joining together, in his own mind, what
is left in a seeming posture of neglect and inconnexion. The art of
furnishing this gratification, so respectful to the sagacity of the
reader, without putting him to the trouble of a painful investigation,
is what constitutes the supreme charm and beauty of EPISTOLARY METHOD.
II. What hath hitherto been advanced respects chiefly the _didactic_
form. It remains to say something of that other _species_ of the
epistle, the ELEGIAC; which, as I observed, had quite another
_original_. For this apparently sprung up from what is properly called
the _Elegy_: a poem of very antient Greek extraction: naturally arising
from the plaintive, querulous humour of mankind; which, under the
pressure of any grief, is impatient to break forth into wailings and
tender expostulations, and finds a kind of relief in indulging and
giving a loose to that flow of sorrow, which it hath not strength or
resolution wholly[7] to restrain. This is the account of the _Elegy_
in its proper Greek form; a negligent, inconnected, abrupt species of
writing, perfectly suited to an indolent disposition and passionate
heart. Such was OVID’S; who, taking advantage of this character of the
elegy, contrived[8] a new kind of poetry, without the expence of much
invention, or labour to himself. For, collecting, as it were, those
scattered hints, which composed the elegy, and directing them to one
principal view; and superadding a personal address, he became the
author of what is here styled the _Elegiac_ epistle; beautiful models
of which we have in his HEROIDES, and the _Epistles from_ PONTUS.
We see then the difference of _this_ from the _didactic_ form. They
have both one principal end and point in view. But the _Didactic_,
being of a cooler and more sedate turn, pursues its design uniformly
and connects easily. The _Elegiac_, on the contrary, whose end is
_emotion_, not _instruction_, hath all the abruptness of irregular
disordered passion. It catches at remote and distant hints, and starts
at once into a digressive train of thinking, which it requires some
degree of enthusiasm in the reader to follow.
Further than this it is not material to my present design to pursue
this subject. More exact ideas of the form and constitution of this
epistle, must be sought in that best example of it, the natural Roman
poet. It may only be observed of the different qualities, necessary to
those, who aspire to excel in these _two_ species: that, as the _one_
would make an impression on the _heart_, it can only do this by means
of an exquisite _sensibility of nature and elegance of mind_; and that
the _other_, attempting in the most inoffensive manner, to inform
the _head_, must demand, to the full accomplishment of its purpose,
_superior good sense_, _the widest knowledge of life_, and, above all,
_the politeness of a consummate address_. That the _former_ was the
characteristic of OVID’S genius hath been observed, and is well known.
How far the _latter_ description agrees to HORACE can be no secret to
those of his readers who have any share, or conception of these talents
themselves. But matters of this _nicer_ kind are properly the objects,
not of _criticism_, but of _sentiment_. Let it suffice then to examine
the poet’s practice, so far only, as we are enabled to judge of it by
the standard of the preceding rules.
III. These rules are reducible to _three_. 1. _that there be an unity
in the subject_. 2. _a connexion in the method_: and 3. _that such
connexion be easy_. All which I suppose to have been religiously
observed in the poet’s conduct of _this_, _i. e._ the _didactic_
epistle. For,
1. The _subject_ of each epistle is one: that is, one single point is
prosecuted through the whole piece, notwithstanding that the address
of the poet, and the delicacy of the subject may sometimes lead him
through a devious tract to it. Had his interpreters attended to this
practice, so consonant to the rule of nature before explained, they
could never have found _an art of poetry_ in the epistle, we are about
to examine.
2. This one point, however it hath not been seen[9], is constantly
pursued by an uniform, consistent _method_; which is never more
artificial, than when least apparent to a careless, inattentive reader.
This should have stimulated his learned critics to seek the connexion
of the poet’s own ideas, when they magisterially set themselves to
transpose or vilify his method.
3. This method is every where sufficiently _clear and obvious_;
proceeding if not in the strictest forms of _disposition_, yet, in an
easy, elegant progress, one hint arising out of another, and insensibly
giving occasion to succeeding ones, just as the cooler genius of this
_kind_ required. This, lastly, should have prevented those, who have
taken upon themselves to criticize _the art of poetry_ by the laws of
_this_ poem, from concealing their ignorance of its real views under
the cover of such abrupt and violent transitions, as might better agree
to the impassioned _elegy_, than to the sedate _didactic epistle_.
To set this three-fold character, in the fullest light, before the view
of the reader, I have attempted to explain the _Epistle to the Pisos_,
in the way of continued commentary upon it. And that the coherence of
the several parts may be the more distinctly seen, the Commentary is
rendered as concise as possible; some of the finer and less obvious
connexions being more carefully observed and drawn out in the notes.
For the _kind_ of interpretation itself, it must be allowed, of all
others, the fittest to throw light upon a difficult and obscure
subject, and, above all, to convey an exact idea of the scope and order
of any work. It hath, accordingly, been so considered by several of the
foreign, particularly the ITALIAN, critics; who have essayed long since
to illustrate, in this way, the very piece before us. But the _success_
of these foreigners is, I am sensible, a slender recommendation of
their _method_. I chuse therefore to rest on the _single_ authority of
a great author, who, in his _edition_ of our English Horace, the _best_
that ever was given of any classic, hath now retrieved and established
the full credit of it. What was the amusement of his pen, becomes
indeed, the _labour_ of inferior writers. Yet, on these unequal terms,
it can be no discredit to have aimed at some resemblance of one of the
least of those _merits_, which shed their united honours on the name of
the illustrious _friend_ and _commentator of_ Mr. POPE.
Q. HORATII FLACCI
ARS POETICA
EPISTOLA AD PISONES.
Humano capiti cervicem pictor equinam
Jungere si velit, et varias inducere plumas
Undique collatis membris, ut turpiter atrum
Desinat in piscem mulier formosa superne;
Spectatum admissi risum teneatis amici? 5
Credite, Pisones, isti tabulae fore librum
Persimilem, cujus, velut aegri somnia, vanae
Fingentur species; ut nec pes, nec caput uni
Reddatur formae. Pictoribus atque poetis
Quidlibet audendi semper fuit aequa potestas: 10
Scimus, et hanc veniam petimusque damusque vicissim:
Sed non ut placidis coëant inmitia; non ut
Serpentes avibus geminentur, tigribus agni.
Inceptis gravibus plerumque et magna professis
Purpureus, late qui splendeat, unus et alter 15
Adsuitur pannus: cum lucus, et ara Dianae,
Et properantis aquae per amoenos ambitus agros,
Aut flumen Rhenum, aut pluvius describitur arcus.
Sed nunc non erat his locus: et fortasse cupressum
Scis simulare: quid hoc, si fractis enatat exspes 20
Navibus, aere dato qui pingitur? amphora coepit
Institui, currente rota, cur urceus exit?
Denique sit quidvis; simplex dumtaxat et unum.
Maxima pars vatum, pater et juvenes patre digni,
Decipimur specie recti. Brevis esse laboro, 25
Obscurus fio: sectantem lenia nervi
Deficiunt animique: professus grandia turget:
Serpit humi tutus nimium timidusque procellae:
Qui variare cupit rem prodigialiter unam,
Delphinum silvis adpingit, fluctibus aprum. 30
In vitium ducit culpae fuga, si caret arte.
Aemilium circa ludum faber, unus et unguis
Exprimet, et mollis imitabitur aere capillos;
Infelix operis, summa: quia ponere totum
Nesciet. hunc ego me, si quid componere curem, 35
Non magis esse velim; quam naso vivere pravo,
Spectandum nigris oculis nigroque capillo.
Sumite materiam vestris, qui scribitis, aequam
Viribus; et versate diu, quid ferre recusent,
Quid valeant humeri. cui lecta potenter erit res, 40
Nec facundia deseret hunc, nec lucides ordo.
Ordinis haec virtus erit et venus, aut ego fallor;
Ut jam nunc dicat, jam nunc debentia dici
Pleraque differat et praesens in tempus omittat.
Hoc amet, hoc spernat, promissi carminis auctor. 45
In verbis etiam tenuis cautusque serendis;
Dixeris egregie, notum si callida verbum
Reddiderit junctura novum; si forte necesse est
Indiciis monstrare recentibus abdita rerum;
Fingere cinctutis non exaudita Cethegis 50
Continget: dabiturque licentia sumta pudenter.
Et nova factaque nuper habebunt verba fidem; si
Graeco fonte cadent, parce detorta, quid autem:
Caecilio Plautoque dabit Romanus, ademtum
Virgilio Varioque? ego cur adquirere pauca, 55
Si possum, invideor? quum lingua Catonis et Enni
Sermonem patrium ditaverit, et nova rerum
Nomina protulerit. licuit, semperque licebit
Signatum praesente nota procudere nummum.
Ut silvis folia privos mutantur in annos; 60
Prima cadunt: ita verborum vetus interit aetas,
Et juvenum ritu florent modo nata vigentque.
Debemur morti nos, nostraque: sive receptus
Terra Neptunus classis Aquilonibus arcet,
Regis opus; sterilisve palus prius aptaque remis 65
Vicinas urbis alit, et grave sentit aratrum:
Seu cursum mutavit iniquum frugibus amnis,
Doctus iter melius: mortalia cuncta peribunt:
Nedum sermonum stet honos, et gratia vivax.
Multa renascentur, quae jam cecidere; cadentque, 70
Quae nunc sunt in honore vocabula: si volet usus,
Quem penes arbitrium est, et jus, et norma loquendi.
Res gestae regumque ducumque, et tristia bella,
Quo scribi possent numero, monstravit Homerus.
Versibus inpariter junctis querimonia primum, 75
Post etiam inclusa est voti sententia compos.
Quis tamen exiguos elegos emiserit auctor,
Grammatici certant, et adhuc sub judice lis est.
Archilochum proprio rabies armavit iambo.
Hunc socci cepere pedem grandesque cothurni, 80
Alternis aptum sermonibus, et popularis
Vincentem strepitus, et natum rebus agendis.
Musa dedit fidibus Divos, puerosque Deorum,
Et pugilem victorem, et equum certamine primum,
Et juvenum curas, et libera vina referre. 85
Descriptas servare vices operumque colores,
Cur ego, si nequeo ignoroque, poeta salutor?
Cur nescire, pudens prave, quam discere malo?
Versibus exponi tragicis res comica non volt:
Indignatur item privatis ac prope socco 90
Dignis carminibus narrari coena Thyestae.
Singula quaeque locum teneant sortita decentem.
Interdum tamen et vocem comoedia tollit,
Iratusque Chremes tumido dilitigat ore.
Et tragicus plerumque dolet sermone pedestri. 95
Telephus aut Peleus, cum pauper et exul uterque,
Projicit ampullas et sesquipedalia verba,
Si curat cor spectantis tetigisse querela.
Non satis est pulchra esse poëmata; dulcia sunto,
Et quocunque volent, animum auditoris agunto. 100
Ut ridentibus adrident, ita flentibus adflent
Humani voltus. si vis me flere, dolendum est
Primum ipsi tibi: tunc tua me infortunia laedent.
Telephe, vel Peleu, male si mandata loqueris,
Aut dormitabo, aut ridebo. tristia moestum 105
Voltum verba decent; iratum, plena minarum;
Ludentem, lasciva; severum, seria dictu.
Format enim Natura prius nos intus ad omnem
Fortunarum habitum; juvat, aut inpellit ad iram,
Aut ad humum moerore gravi deducit, et angit: 110
Post effert animi motus interprete lingua.
Si dicentis erunt fortunis absona dicta,
Romani tollent equitesque patresque cachinnum.
Intererit multum, Divusne loquatur, an heros;
Maturusne senex, an adhuc florente juventa 115
Fervidus; et matrona potens, an sedula nutrix;
Mercatorne vagus, cultorne virentis agelli;
Colchus, an Assyrius; Thebis nutritus, an Argis.
Aut famam sequere, aut sibi convenientia finge,
Scriptor. Homereum si forte reponis Achillem; 120
Impiger, iracundus, inexorabilis, acer,
Jura neget sibi nata, nihil non arroget armis.
Sit Medea ferox invictaque, flebilis Ino,
Perfidus Ixion, Io vaga, tristis Orestes.
Si quid inexpertum scenae conmittis, et audes 125
Personam formare novam; servetur ad imum
Qualis ab incepto processerit, et sibi constet.
Difficile est proprie communia dicere: tuque
Rectius Iliacum carmen deducis in actus,
Quàm si proferres ignota indictaque primus. 130
Publica materies privati juris erit, si
Non circa vilem patulumque moraberis orbem;
Nec verbum verbo curabis reddere fidus
Interpres; nec desilies imitator in artum,
Unde pedem proferre pudor vetet aut operis lex. 135
Nec sic incipies, ut scriptor cyclicus olim:
FORTUNAM PRIAMI CANTABO, ET NOBILE BELLUM.
Quid dignum tanto feret hic promissor hiatu?
Parturiunt montes: nascetur ridiculus mus.
Quanto rectius hic, qui nîl molitur inepte! 140
DIC MIHI, MUSA, VIRUM, CAPTAE POST MOENIA TROJAE,
QUI MORES HOMINUM MULTORUM VIDIT ET URBIS.
Non fumum ex fulgore, sed ex fumo dare lucem
Cogitat, ut speciosa dehinc miracula promat,
Antiphaten, Scyllamque, et cum Cyclope Charybdin. 145
Nec reditum Diomedis ab interitu Meleagri,
Nec gemino bellum Trojanum orditur ab ovo:
Semper ad eventum festinat; et in medias res,
Non secus ac notas, auditorem rapit; et quae
Desperat tractata nitescere posse, relinquit: 150
Atque ita mentitur, sic veris falsa remiscet,
Primo ne medium, medio ne discrepet imum.
Tu, quid ego et populus mecum desideret, audi;
Si fautoris eges aulaea manentis, et usque
Sessuri, donec cantor, Vos plaudite, dicat: 155
Aetatis cujusque notandi sunt tibi mores,
Mobilibusque decor naturis dandus et annis.
Reddere qui voces jam scit puer, et pede certo
Signat humum; gestit paribus colludere, et iram
Colligit ac ponit temere, et mutatur in horas. 160
Inberbus juvenis, tandem custode remoto,
Gaudet equis canibusque et aprici gramine campi;
Cereus in vitium flecti, monitoribus asper,
Utilium tardus provisor, prodigus aeris,
Sublimis, cupidusque, et amata relinquere pernix. 165
Conversis studiis, aetas animusque virilis
Quaerit opes et amicitias, inservit honori;
Conmisisse cavet quod mox mutare laboret.
Multa senem circumveniunt incommoda; vel quod
Quaerit, et inventis miser abstinet, ac timet uti; 170
Vel quòd res omnis timide gelideque ministrat,
Dilator, spe lentus, iners, pavidusque futuri;
Difficilis, querulus, laudator temporis acti
Se puero, castigator, censorque minorum.
Multa ferunt anni venientes commoda secum, 175
Multa recedentes adimunt: ne forte seniles
Mandentur juveni partes, pueroque viriles.
Semper in adjunctis aevoque morabimur aptis.
Aut agitur res in scenis, aut acta refertur:
Segnius inritant animos demissa per aurem, 180
Quam quae sunt oculis subjecta fidelibus, et quae
Ipse sibi tradit spectator. non tamen intus
Digna geri promes in scenam: multaque tolles
Ex oculis, quae mox narret facundia praesens:
Ne pueros coram populo Medea trucidet; 185
Aut humana palam coquat exta nefarius Atreus;
Aut in avem Procne vertatur, Cadmus in anguem.
Quodcunque ostendis mihi sic, incredulus odi.
Neve minor, neu sit quinto productior actu
Fabula, quae posci volt, et spectata reponi. 190
Nec Deus intersit, nisi dignus vindice nodus
Inciderit: nec quarta loqui persona laboret.
Actoris partes chorus, officiumque virile
Defendat: neu quid medios intercinat actus,
Quod non proposito conducat et haereat apte. 195
Ille bonis faveatque et consilietur amice,
Et regat iratos, et amet pacare tumentis:
Ille dapes laudet mensae brevis, ille salubrem
Justitiam, legesque, et apertis otia portis:
Ille tegat conmissa; Deosque precetur et oret, 200
Ut redeat miseris, abeat fortuna superbis.
Tibia non, ut nunc, orichalco juncta, tubaeque
Aemula; sed tenuis, simplexque foramine pauco,
Aspirare et adesse choris erat utilis, atque
Nondum spissa nimis conplere sedilia flatu: 205
Quo sane populus numerabilis, utpote parvus
Et frugi castusque verecundusque coibat.
Postquam coepit agros extendere victor, et urbem
Laxior amplecti murus, vinoque diurno
Placari Genius festis inpune diebus; 210
Accessit numerisque modisque licentia major.
Indoctus quid enim saperet liberque laborum,
Rusticus urbano confusus, turpis honesto?
Sic priscae motumque et luxuriem addidit arti
Tibicen, traxitque vagus per pulpita vestem: 215
Sic etiam fidibus voces crevere severis,
Et tulit eloquium insolitum facundia praeceps;
Utiliumque sagax rerum, et divina futuri,
Sortilegis non discrepuit sententia Delphis.
Carmine qui tragico vilem certavit ob hircum, 220
Mox etiam agrestis Satyros nudavit, et asper
Incolumi gravitate jocum tentavit: eo quod
Inlecebris erat et grata novitate morandus
Spectator functusque sacris, et potus, et exlex.
Verum ita risores, ita commendare dicacis 225
Conveniet Satyros, ita vertere seria ludo;
Ne quicunque Deus, quicunque adhibebitur heros
Regali conspectus in auro nuper et ostro,
Migret in obscuras humili sermone tabernas:
Aut, dum vitat humum, nubes et inania captet. 230
Effutire levis indigna tragoedia versus,
Ut festis matrona moveri jussa diebus,
Intererit Satyris paulum pudibunda protervis.
Non ego inornata et dominantia nomina solum
Verbaque, Pisones, Satyrorum scriptor amabo: 235
Nec sic enitar tragico differre colori;
Ut nihil intersit, Davusne loquatur et audax
Pythias emuncto lucrata Simone talentum;
An custos famulusque Dei Silenus alumni.
Ex noto fictum carmen sequar: ut sibi quivis 240
Speret idem; sudet multum, frustraque laboret
Ausus idem: tantum series juncturaque pollet:
Tantum de medio sumtis accedit honoris.
Silvis deducti caveant, me judice, Fauni,
Ne velut innati triviis, ac pene forenses, 245
Aut nimium teneris juvenentur versibus umquam,
Aut inmunda crepent ignominiosaque dicta.
Offenduntur enim, quibus est equus, et pater, et res;
Nec, si quid fricti ciceris probat et nucis emtor,
Aequis accipiunt animis, donantve corona. 250
Syllaba longa brevi subjecta, vocatur Iambus,
Pes citus: unde etiam Trimetris adcrescere jussit
Nomen Iambeis, cum senos redderet ictus
Primus ad extremum similis sibi: non ita pridem,
Tardior ut paulo graviorque veniret ad auris, 255
Spondeos stabilis in jura paterna recepit
Commodus et patiens: non ut de sede secunda
Cederet, aut quarta socialiter. Hic et in Accî
Nobilibus Trimetris apparet rarus, et Ennî.
In scenam missus cum magno pondere versus, 260
Aut operae celeris nimium curaque carentis,
Aut ignoratae premit artis crimine turpi.
Non quivis videt immodulata poëmata judex:
Et data Romanis venia est indigna poetis.
Idcircone vager, scribamque licenter? ut omnis 265
Visuros peccata putem mea; tutas et intra
Spem veniae cautus? vitavi denique culpam,
Non laudem merui. Vos exemplaria Graeca
Nocturna versate manu, versate diurna.
At vestri proavi Plautinos et numeros et 270
Laudavere sales; nimium patienter utrumque
(Ne dicam stulte) mirati: si modo ego et vos
Scimus inurbanum lepido seponere dicto,
Legitimumque sonum digitis callemus et aure.
Ignotum tragicae genus invenisse Camenae 275
Dicitur, et plaustris vexisse poëmata Thespis
Qui canerent agerentque, peruncti faecibus ora.
Post hunc personae pallaeque repertor honestae
Aeschylos et modicis instravit pulpita tignis,
Et docuit magnumque loqui, nitique cothurno. 280
Successit vetus his Comoedia, non sine multa
Laude: sed in vitium libertas excidit, et vim
Dignam lege regi: lex est accepta; chorusque
Turpiter obticuit, sublato jure nocendi.
Nil intentatum nostri liquere poëtae: 285
Nec minimum meruere decus, vestigia Graeca
Ausi deserere, et celebrare domestica facta,
Vel qui Praetextas, vel qui docuere Togatas.
Nec virtute foret clarisve potentius armis,
Quam lingua, Latium; si non offenderet unum- 290
Quemque poëtarum limae labor et mora. Vos, ô
Pompilius sanguis, carmen reprehendite, quod non
Multa dies et multa litura coërcuit, atque
Praesectum decies non castigavit ad unguem.
Ingenium misera quia fortunatius arte 295
Credit, et excludit sanos Helicone poëtas
Democritus; bona pars non unguis ponere curat,
Non barbam: secreta petit loca, balnea vitat.
Nanciscetur enim pretium nomenque poëtae,
Si tribus Anticyris caput insanabile numquam 300
Tonsori Licino conmiserit. O ego laevus,
Qui purgor bilem sub verni temporis horam?
Non alius faceret meliora poëmata: verum
Nil tanti est. ergo fungar vice cotis, acutum
Reddere quae ferrum valet, exsors ipsa secandi. 305
Munus et officium, nil scribens ipse, docebo;
Unde parentur opes: quid alat formetque poëtam;
Quid deceat, quid non; quo virtus, quo ferat error.
Scribendi recte, sapere est et principium et fons.
Rem tibi Socraticae poterunt ostendere chartae: 310
Verbaque provisam rem non invita sequentur.
Qui didicit patriae quid debeat, et quid amicis;
Quo sit amore parens, quo frater amandus et hospes;
Quod sit conscripti, quod judicis officium; quae
Partes in bellum missi ducis; ille profecto 315
Reddere personae scit convenientia cuique.
Respicere exemplar vitae morumque jubebo
Doctum imitatorem, et vivas hinc ducere voces.
Interdum speciosa locis, morataque recte
Fabula, nullius veneris, sine pondere et arte, 320
Valdius oblectat populum, meliusque moratur,
Quam versus inopes rerum, nugaeque canorae.
Graiis ingenium, Graiis dedit ore rotundo
Musa loqui, praeter laudem, nullius avaris.
Romani pueri longis rationibus assem 325
Discunt in partis centum diducere. Dicas
Filius Albini, si de quincunce remota est
Uncia, quid superet, poterat dixisse, triens? Eu!
Rem poteris servare tuam. Redit uncia: quid fit?
Semis. An haec animos aerugo et cura peculî 330
Cum semel inbuerit, speramus carmina fingi
Posse linenda cedro, et levi servanda cupresso?
Aut prodesse volunt, aut delectare poëtae;
Aut simul et jocunda et idonea dicere vitae.
Quicquid praecipies, esto brevis: ut cito dicta 335
Percipiant animi dociles, teneantque fideles.
[Omne supervacuum pleno de pectore manat.]
Ficta voluptatis causa sint proxima veris:
Ne, quodcumque volet, poscat sibi fabula credi;
Neu pransae Lamiae vivum puerum extrahat alvo. 340
Centuriae seniorum agitant expertia frugis:
Celsi praetereunt austera poëmata Ramnes.
Omne tulit punctum, qui miscuit utile dulci,
Lectorem delectando, pariterque monendo.
Hic meret aera liber Sosiis, hic et mare transit, 345
Et longum noto scriptori prorogat aevum.
Sunt delicta tamen, quibus ignovisse velimus:
Nam neque chorda sonum reddit, quem volt manus et mens;
Poscentique gravem persaepe remittit acutum:
Nee semper feriet, quodcumque minabitur, arcus. 350
Verum ubi plura nitent in carmine, non ego paucis
Offendar maculis, quas aut incuria fudit,
Aut humana parum cavit natura. quid ergo est?
Ut scriptor si peccat idem librarius usque,
Quamvis est monitus, venia caret; ut citharoedus 355
Ridetur, chorda qui semper oberrat eadem:
Sic mihi qui multum cessat, fit Choerilos ille,
Quem bis terve bonum, cum risu miror; et idem
Indignor, quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus.
Verum operi longo fas est obrepere somnum. 360
Ut pictura, poësis: erit quae, si propius stes,
Te capiat magis; et quaedam, si longius abstes:
Haec amat obscurum; volet haec sub luce videri,
Judicis argutum quae non formidat acumen:
Haec placuit semel; haec decies repetita placebit. 365
O major juvenum, quamvis et voce paterna
Fingeris ad rectum, et per te sapis; hoc tibi dictum
Tolle memor: certis medium et tolerabile rebus
Recte concedi: consultus juris, et actor
Causarum mediocris; abest virtute diserti 370
Messallae, nec scit quantum Cascellius Aulus;
Sed tamen in pretio est: mediocribus esse poëtis
Non homines, non Dî, non concessere columnae.
Ut gratas inter mensas symphonia discors,
Et crassum unguentum, et Sardo cum melle papaver 375
Offendunt; poterat duci quia coena sine istis:
Sic animis natum inventumque poëma juvandis,
Si paulum summo decessit, vergit ad imum.
Ludere qui nescit, campestribus abstinet armis;
Indoctusque pilae, discive, trochive, quiescit; 380
Ne spissae risum tollant inpune coronae:
Qui nescit versus, tamen audet fingere. Quid nî?
Liber et ingenuus; praesertim census equestrem
Summam nummorum, vitioque remotus ab omni.
Tu nihil invita dices faciesve Minerva: 385
Id tibi judicium est, ea mens, si quid tamen olim
Scripseris, in Maecî descendat judicis auris,
Et patris, et nostras; nonumque prematur in annum,
Membranis intus positis. Delere licebit
Quod non edideris: nescit vox missa reverti. 390
Silvestris homines sacer interpresque Deorum
Caedibus et victu foedo deterruit Orpheus;
Dictus ob hoc lenire tigris rabidosque leones.
Dictus et Amphion, Thebanae conditor arcis,
Saxa movere sono testudinis, et prece blanda 395
Ducere quo vellet. fuit haec sapientia quondam,
Publica privatis secernere, sacra profanis;
Concubitu prohibere vago; dare jura maritis;
Oppida moliri; leges incidere ligno.
Sic honor et nomen divinis vatibus atque 400
Carminibus venit. post hos insignis Homerus
Tyrtaeusque mares animos in Martia bella
Versibus exacuit. dictae per carmina sortes,
Et vitae monstrata via est, et gratia regum
Pieriis tentata modis, ludusque repertus, 405
Et longorum operum finis; ne forte pudori
Sit tibi Musa lyrae solers, et cantor Apollo.
Natura fieret laudabile carmen, an arte,
Quaesitum est. Ego nec studium sine divite vena,
Nec rude quid possit video ingenium: alterius sic 410
Altera poscit opem res, et conjurat amice.
Qui studet optatam cursu contingere metam,
Multa tulit fecitque puer; sudavit et alsit;
Abstinuit venere et vino. qui Pythia cantat
Tibicen, didicit prius, extimuitque magistrum. 415
Nec satis est dixisse, Ego mira poëmata pango:
Occupet extremum scabies: mihi turpe relinqui est,
Et, quod non didici, sane nescire fateri.
Ut praeco, ad merces turbam qui cogit emendas;
Adsentatores jubet ad lucrum ire poëta 420
Dives agris, dives positis in foenore nummis.
Si vero est, unctum qui recte ponere possit,
Et spondere levi pro paupere, et eripere artis
Litibus inplicitum; mirabor, si sciet inter-
Noscere mendacem verumque beatus amicum. 425
Tu seu donaris seu quid donare voles cui;
Nolito ad versus tibi factos ducere plenum
Laetitiae; clamabit enim, Pulchre, bene, recte!
Pallescet: super his etiam stillabit amicis
Ex oculis rorem; saliet; tundet pede terram. 430
Ut qui conducti plorant in funere, dicunt
Et faciunt prope plura dolentibus ex animo: sic
Derisor vero plus laudatore movetur.
Reges dicuntur multis urguere culullis,
Et torquere mero quem perspexisse laborant 435
An sit amicitia dignus. si carmina condes,
Nunquam te fallant animi sub volpe latentes.
Quintilio si quid recitares: Corrige sodes
Hoc, aiebat, et hoc. melius te posse negares,
Bis terque expertum frustra? delere jubebat, 440
Et male ter natos incudi reddere versus.
Si defendere delictum, quam vertere, malles;
Nullum ultra verbum, aut operam insumebat inanem,
Quin sine rivali teque et tua solus amares.
Vir bonus et prudens versus reprehendet inertis; 445
Culpabit duros; incomptis adlinet atrum
Transverso calamo signum; ambitiosa recidet
Ornamenta; parum claris lucem dare coget;
Arguet ambigue dictum; mutanda notabit;
Fiet Aristarchus; non dicet, Cur ego amicum 450
Offendam in nugis? Hae nugae seria ducent
In mala derisum semel, exceptumque sinistre.
Ut mala quem scabies aut morbus regius urguet,
Aut fanaticus error, et iracunda Diana;
Vesanum tetigisse timent fugiuntque poëtam, 455
Qui sapiunt: agitant pueri, incautique sequuntur.
Hic, dum sublimis versus ructatur, et errat,
Si veluti merulis intentus decidit auceps
In puteum, foveamve; licet, Succurrite, longum
Clamet, io cives: non sit qui tollere curet. 460
Si curet quis opem ferre, et demittere funem;
Quî scis, an prudens huc se projecerit, atque
Servari nolit? dicam: Siculique poëtae
Narrabo interitum. Deus inmortalis haberi
Dum cupit Empedocles, ardentem frigidus Aetnam 465
Insiluit. sit jus, liceatque perire poëtis.
Invitum qui servat, idem facit occidenti.
Nec semel hoc fecit; nec si retractus erit jam,
Fiet homo, et ponet famosae mortis amorem.
Nec satis adparet, cur versus factitet; utrum 470
Minxerit in patrios cineres, an triste bidental
Moverit incestus: certe furit, ac velut ursus
Objectos caveae valuit si frangere clathros,
Indoctum doctumque fugat recitator acerbus.
Quem vero arripuit, tenet, occiditque legendo, 475
Non missura cutem, nisi plena cruoris, hirudo.
COMMENTARY.
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 v. 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 negligence, essential to the epistolary
form.
II. The main body of the epistle [from v. 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 v. 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 order to enter fully
into it, it will be necessary to trace the poet, attentively, through
the elegant connexions of his own method.
PART I.
GENERAL REFLEXIONS ON POETRY.
The epistle begins [to v. 9] with that general and fundamental precept
_of preserving an unity in the subject and the disposition of the
piece_. This is further explained by defining the use, and fixing the
character of _poetic licence_ [from v. 9 to 13] which unskilful writers
often plead in defence of their transgressions against the law of
UNITY. To v. 23 is considered and exposed that particular violation of
_uniformity_, into which young poets especially, under the impulse of a
warm imagination, are apt to run, arising from frequent and ill-timed
descriptions. These, however beautiful in themselves, and with whatever
mastery they may be executed, yet, if foreign to the subject, and
incongruous to the place, where they stand, are extremely impertinent:
a caution, the more necessary, as the fault itself wears the appearance
of a _virtue_, and so writers [from v. 23 to 25] come to transgress the
_rule of right_ from their very ambition to observe it. There are two
cases, in which this _ambition_ remarkably misleads us. The _first_
is when it tempts us to push an _acknowledged beauty_ too far. Great
beauties are always in the confines of great faults; and therefore, by
affecting superior excellence, we are easily carried into absurdity.
Thus [from v. 25 to 30] _brevity_ is often _obscurity_; _sublimity_,
_bombast_; _caution_, _coolness_; and, to come round to the point, a
fondness for _varying and diversifying a subject_, by means of episodes
and descriptions, such as are mentioned above [v. 15] will often betray
a writer into that capital error of violating the _unity_ of his piece.
For, though variety be a real excellence under the conduct of true
judgment, yet, when affected beyond the bounds of probability, and
brought in solely to _strike_ and _surprize_, it becomes unseasonable
and absurd. The several episodes or descriptions, intended to give that
variety, may be inserted in improper places; and then the absurdity is
as great, as that of the painter, who, according to the illustration of
v. 19, 20, should introduce a cypress into a sea-piece, or, according
to the illustration of the present verse, who paints a dolphin in a
wood, or a boar in the sea.
2. Another instance, in which we are misled by an _ambition of
attaining to what is right_, is, when, through an excessive fear of
committing faults, we disqualify ourselves for the just execution of a
_whole_, or of such _particulars_, as are susceptible of real beauty.
For not the affectation of superior excellencies only, but even
_In vitium ducit_ culpae fuga, _si caret arte_.
This is aptly illustrated by the case of a sculptor. An over-scrupulous
diligence to finish single and trivial parts in a statue, which, when
most exact, are only not faulty, leaves him utterly incapable of doing
justice to the more important members, and, above all, of designing and
completing a _whole_ with any degree of perfection. But this latter
is commonly the defect of a minute genius; who, having taken in hand
a design, which he is by no means able to execute, naturally applies
himself to labour and finish those parts, which he finds are within
his power. It is of consequence therefore [from v. 38 to 40] for every
writer to be well acquainted with the nature and extent of his own
talents: and to be careful to chuse a subject, which is, in all its
parts, proportioned to his strength and ability. Besides, from such an
attentive survey of his subject, and of his capacity to treat it, he
will also derive these further advantages [v. 41] 1. That he cannot be
wanting in a proper fund of matter, wherewith to inlarge under every
head: nor, 2. can he fail, by such a well-weighed choice, to dispose of
his subject in the best and most convenient method. Especially, as to
the latter, which is the principal benefit, he will perceive [to v. 45]
where it will be useful to preserve, and where to change, the natural
order of his subject, as may best serve to answer the ends of poetry.
Thus far some general reflexions concerning _poetical distribution_;
principally, as it may be affected by false notions, 1. Of _poetic
licence_ [v. 10] and, 2. Of _poetic perfection_ [v. 25]. But the same
causes will equally affect the _language_, as _method_, of poetry. To
these then are properly subjoined some directions about the _use of
words_. Now this particular depending so entirely on what is out of the
reach of rule, as the fashion of the age, the taste of the writer, and
his knowledge of the language, in which he writes, the poet only gives
directions about _new words_: or, since every language is necessarily
imperfect, about the _coining of such words_, as the writer’s necessity
or convenience may demand. And here, after having prescribed [l. 46]
a great _caution_ and _sparingness_ in the thing itself, he observes,
1. [to l. 49] That where it ought to be done, the better and less
offensive way will be, not to coin a _word_ entirely new (for this
is ever a task of some envy) but, by means of an ingenious and happy
position of a well-known word, in respect of some others, to give it a
new air, and cast. Or, if it be necessary to _coin new words_, as it
will be in subjects of an abstruse nature, and especially such, as were
never before treated in the language, that then, 2. [to l. 54] this
liberty is very allowable; but that the reception of them will be more
easy, if we derive them gently, and without too much violence, from
their proper source, that is, from a language, as the Greek, already
known, and approved. And, to obviate the prejudices of over-scrupulous
critics on this head, he goes on [from l. 54 to l. 73] in a vein of
popular illustration, to alledge, in favour of this liberty, the
examples of antient writers, and the vague, unsteady nature of language
itself.
From these reflexions on poetry, at large, he proceeds now to
_particulars_: the most obvious of which being the different _forms
and measures_ of poetic composition, he considers, in this view [from
v. 75 to 86] the four great species of poetry, to which all others may
be reduced, _the Epic_, _Elegiac_, _Dramatic_, and _Lyric_. But the
distinction of the _measures_ to be observed in the several species
of poetry is so obvious, that there can scarcely be any mistake about
them. The difficulty is to know [from v. 86 to 89] how far, each may
partake of the _spirit_ of other, without destroying that _natural
and necessary difference_, which ought to subsist betwixt them all.
To explane this, which is a point of great nicety, he considers [from
v. 89 to 99] the case of dramatic poetry; the two species of which
are as distinct from each other, as any two can be, and yet there are
times, when the features of the one will be allowed to resemble those
of the other. For, 1. Comedy, in the passionate parts, will admit of
a tragic elevation: and, 2. Tragedy, in its soft distressful scenes,
condescends to the ease of familiar conversation. But the poet had a
further view in chusing this instance. For he gets by this means into
the main of his subject, which was dramatic poetry, and, by the most
delicate transition imaginable, proceeds [from l. 89 to 323] to deliver
a series of rules, interspersed with historical accounts, and enlivened
by digressions, for the regulation and improvement of the ROMAN STAGE.