Art of Poetry an Epistle to the Pisos | Page 4

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