Lecture XXIX &c — Of Epic, or Heroic Poetry
We are, at length, by just Degrees, advanc’d to the last, as it is the best, and most perfect Kind of Poetry: And no Wonder we should finish our Dissertations here, where the utmost Bounds are set to human Compositions. What Scaliger said of Buchanan, tho’ in a Strain of excessive Flattery, when applied to a Man; may be justly true of a Thing, of Epic Poetry in particular:
Namque ad supremum perducta Poetica culmen
In te stat; nec quo progrediatur, habet.
Nature’s great Efforts can no farther tend,
Here fix’d her Pillars, all her Labours end.
For Mr. Rapin has very justly observ’d, An Epic, or Heroic Poem, properly so call’d, is, undoubtedly, the greatest Work which the Soul of Man is capable of performing. We have already observ’d, in our first Lecture, that all the other Branches of this divine Art are summ’d up, and included in this one: And in a Dissertation which I have written in another Language457, I have attempted to give a short Account of the Reason of it. What I have now to say upon this Subject, which is so much superior to all others, for the Excellence and Extent of it, is not so much as the Dignity of it deserves; because I have already enter’d into many Particulars, which belong to it, as the Nature of the Subject, I undertook to discuss, made it necessary; particularly, when I gave a View of Poetry in general, and the several particular Branches of it; when I treated of the Poetic Style, the Beauty of its Thoughts, or the Elegance and Sublimity of them, of the Drama in general, and Tragedy, a Species of it. For these Sorts of Poetry have many Things in common:
——Alterius sic
Altera poscit opem res, & conjurat amice.
And several Things, which have a Relation to this Subject, I have consider’d more at large elsewhere, in another458Language. What I mean, will, perhaps, be better understood in the Progress of this Discourse; for nothing, Gentlemen, can be more disagreeable to you and me, than a needless Repetition of the same Things, and saying what has been said a thousand Times over.
Mons. Bossu, a French Gentleman, and an excellent Critic, has given us a Discourse upon Epic Poetry, in his own Language, which is well known; a Treatise every Way worthy of the Applause which the Learned have bestow’d upon it. But it had been no Derogation to its Merit, if some Parts of it had been a little more concise: For the Author, how eminent soever for Penetration of Thought, Soundness of Judgment, and Variety of Erudition; seems to pursue his Observations too minutely, and gives us Distinctions without End. And too many Distinctions must obscure, rather than explain the Meaning of a Writer. An Epic, or Heroic Poem, may be thus defin’d: It is a Poem express’d in Narration, form’d upon a Story partly real, and partly feign’d; representing, in a sublime and flowing Style, some glorious and fortunate Action, that is distinguish’d by a Variety of great Events; to form the Morals, and inflame the Mind with the Love of heroic Virtue. This Definition is more regular in Form, and more comprehensive, as to the Matter of it, than Mons. Bossu’s: He, following the Method of his own Definition, divides his whole Work into six Books; the first treats of the Nature of an Epic Poem, which includes the Fable; the second, the Matter, or the Action of the Poem; the third, the Form, or the Narration; the fourth, the Moral, or the Characters of the Persons concern’d; the fifth, the Machinery, or the Appearance and Influence which the Gods have in it; the sixth, concludes with the Thoughts, and the Style.
He pursues each of these Articles at large, and discusses them with a great deal of Wit, Learning, and Judgment; but the Method he has chosen, seems not so proper. The Nature of the Thing defin’d contains all the Particulars of it, and therefore ought not to have been a distinct Branch of his Division, which should (as is usual) have been so form’d, as to have distinguish’d only three different Parts of the Definition, namely, the Matter, the Form, and the End: The Matter includes the Action and the Fable, under which are rang’d the Incidents, Episodes, Characters, Morals, and Machinery; the Form comprehends the Way, or Manner of the Narration, whether by the Poet himself, or by any of the Persons introduc’d, whose Discourses are related: To this Branch, likewise, belongs the moving of the Passions, the Descriptions, Discourses, Sentiments, Thoughts, Style, and Versification; and beside these, the Similes, Tropes, Figures, and, in short, all the Ornaments and Decorations of the Poem. The End is to improve our Morals, and increase our Virtue, which is of itself so plain and obvious, that there is no Occasion to say much about it.
I thought it requisite just to mention the several Parts of Epic Poetry, tho’ I do not design to enlarge upon all of them: Because, in the Course of these Lectures, I have already touch’d upon several of them, as they fell in with Arguments of the same Kind; many of them have been particularly consider’d, viz. the Action, and the Fable, (for these are almost the very same, both in Epic and Dramatic Poetry) the Morals, Characters, the different Kinds of Narration, the Passions, Descriptions, Sentiments, the Sublimity of Style and Thought, the Versification, Comparisons, Tropes, Figures, and all the other Embellishments of Poetry: What remains, therefore, is only to offer some scatter’d Observations upon those Heads, which relate more especially to Epic Poetry, with such Remarks, as have not yet been taken Notice of. And, after all, this will look more like the Gleanings, than the Harvest. When I have done this, I propose to translate one Chapter of Bossu where he explains the Nature and Origine of Epic Poetry. It is a short one, but remarkable for its Elegance and Perspicuity. And, lastly, I shall add some Reflections upon the most celebrated Writers of Epic Poetry, both ancient and modern.
Aristotle, in his Book of Poetry, the only one that is now left, has allotted only two Chapters for the Consideration of Epic separately; tho’ he often mentions it, in shewing the Relation it bears to Tragedy: The Reason of which is very evident, because most of what he said of the one, might be applied to the other; and therefore, in those two Chapters, he has done very little more than adjust the Rules of the Drama to Epic Poetry, observing, all along, that Distinction between these two Sons of Poetry, which the Nature of them required; and interspersing, now and then, the Praises of Homer. I might (if you would excuse the Comparison) say the same Thing of these Dissertations, which is one Reason why I have not treated this Subject more at large.
There is the same Difference between the Fable and the Action, both in Epic and Tragic Poetry, namely, the Action is an Achievement of some eminent Person, which produc’d some great and memorable Event. The Fable is the Complication of all those Incidents, Episodes, and other Circumstances, which promote the Action, and carry it to its proper Period, or else which serve to illustrate, or to embellish and adorn it. Episodes are either absolutely necessary, or very requisite: All Episodes are not Incidents459, tho’ all Incidents are Episodes; because some Incidents are not adventitious to the Action, (which, as the Etymology of the Word implies, is essential to an Episode) but make up the very Form and Series of it: Or (to use a more harsh and inelegant Expression) they are not collateral, but direct Parts of it; these, and many other Particulars of this Sort, for the Reason so often mention’d, will not be enlarg’d upon at present.
The Action, in Epic Poetry, must, of Necessity, be one, as well as in Tragedy; tho’ it may, and ought to be more comprehensive. As to the Place of Action, there is no confining it to any certain Bounds; Epic has certainly a much larger Range than Tragedy; but the more it keeps within Compass, the more perfect and entire the Action seems to be. Aristotle expressly says, that as to Time, there is no fixing it to any determin’d Period. Homer’s Iliad does not contain above the Space of forty-seven Days460; the Odyssee (as Bossu461, and, after him, Dacier, are of Opinion) takes up eight Years, and six Months; the Æneid almost seven Years. But, in this Point, these great Criticks seem not to have made so just a Determination; for not every Thing that is related by the Poet, or the Persons he has introduc’d, makes, strictly speaking, a Part of the Action, but that, only, which is perform’d by the Hero, and his Associates, from that Place, where you enter upon the Poem, to the Conclusion of it. For Instance; the Action of the Æneid, in a strict and proper Sense, does not begin at the building of the wooden Horse:
—Fracti bello, fatisque repulsi. Æn. II. 13.
But from the Time that Æneas set Sail from one of the Ports of Sicily:
Vix è conspectu Siculæ telluris in altum. I. 38.
And taking the Question in this View, Mons. Segrais, in the Preface to his admirable French Translation of the Æneid, has demonstrated, that the Action of that divine Poem falls within the Compass of one Year. And we may observe almost the same Thing of Homer’s Odyssee.
I think Dacier has mistaken the Meaning of Aristotle in another Place, tho’ there, also, he follows Bossu; and that is, with Regard to the Actions or Adventures of the Persons. Epic (says that Philosopher) is μιμησιϛ σπουδαιων, which Dacier translates thus; the Imitation of the Actions of illustrious Persons, not of illustrious Actions. And perhaps that is not amiss: But I cannot be of his Opinion, when he declares, that if the Persons are illustrious, it is of no great Moment, whether the Actions are so, or not. He very justly affirms, that the most glorious Actions of private Men are not a proper Subject for an Heroic Poem; but then the other Point must be given against him, that it is necessary, that not the Person only, but the Action, should be illustrious. All the Actions, even of Alexander or Cæsar, Achilles or Æneas, are surely not proper for Epic. I agree, therefore, that Aristotle must be understood to mean the Actions of Heroes; but then he would also imply, the Actions of Heroes, as Heroes. And, no doubt, Horace was of the same Opinion, (tho’ Dacier brings him in as an Evidence on his Side) when he says,
i.e. considering them as Kings and Generals; for the Words immediately following, which Dacier takes no Notice of, are,
——& tristia bella.
What Bossu further advances463 in Support of his Opinion, is of no great Moment, viz. that the little Enmities in the Iliad, and in the Odyssey the Return of an Exile into his Country, are Actions equally suitable to private Men and Heroes. I confess, (and so does he) that Æneas’s restoring his Country, as it were, and laying the Foundation of a new Kingdom; are much more heroical: But even those above-mention’d, as they are set off by Homer, with their heroical Circumstances, could not but have been great, tho’ they had been done by private Men. In the Iliad, indeed, and more especially in the Odyssey, some Things are related below the Majesty of Epic; as for Instance, what the Poet tells us of Ulysses’s Herdsman and Swineherd; which Ovid has thought fit to copy in Penelope’s Epistle to that Chief:
464 Hoc faciunt custosque boum, longævaque nutrix,
Tertius immundæ cura fidelis haræ.
Thus the old Nurse, the Hind, and Hogherd pray,
True Servants all, and faithful in their Way.
Rhymer.
These, I own, are not represented as the Actions of the Hero himself; but still are unworthy to be mention’d in an Heroic Poem. The Simplicity of ancient Times is alledg’d, in Excuse for Things of this Nature; and, for my Part, I am willing to admit it: But, certainly, let the Men live in what Age you please, they stood in Need of some Excuse. Virgil has nothing of this Kind; who has a much better Right than Homer to that Encomium of Horace465,
——Qui nil molitur inepte.
Throughout the Æneid there is nothing mean, nothing dishonourable, nothing that is not truly heroic. As to the forming of a Hero, he is not to be represented adorn’d with every Virtue, as a Character entirely perfect, because there is no such Thing in Nature; but he may advance as near as possible to that Perfection. Ulysses and Æneas, indeed, are at no great Distance from it; but what Sort of a Hero is Achilles!
466 Impiger, iracundus, inexorabilis, acer,
Jura negat sibi nata, nihil non arrogat armis.
Impatient, rash, inexorable, proud,
Scorning all Judges, and all Laws, but Arms.
Roscommon.
These are heroical Virtues, no doubt! an admirable Image of a Demi-god! But more of this in another Place.
There are two Things which chiefly distinguish Epic from Tragedy, the Manner of the Representation, and the Event, or Catastrophe. As to the former, it is certain, that Tragedy is form’d upon Action, and Epic upon Narration. For what Aristotle says of Epic,467 ὁτι δει τουϛ μυθουϛ καθαπερ ἑν ταιϛ τραγωδιαιϛ συνισταναι δραματικουϛ, that the Fable, as in Tragedy, ought to be dramatical, it is plain, from the very Words, must be understood of the Fable, which ought to be active, i.e. lively, full of Motion, and growing warmer, as it comes nearer the Conclusion; and has no Relation to the Form, or Manner of representing, or imitating, which, as every Body knows, in Heroic Poetry is, and always was, narrative, and not dramatic.
They differ, also, in the Event, or Conclusion. In Tragedy, the Conclusion is generally unfortunate, but never so in Epic; the Reasons of which Rule are, First, The Examples of Homer, and Virgil, who are, and ought te be our Guides, and Masters; even Achilles, the Hero of the Poem as he is, tho’ very undeservedly, comes off with Success; and much more should Ulysses and Æneas. In this Particular these Writers have been universally follow’d by all, who wou’d be thought Epic Writers; for which Reason, Statius (as Bossu has observ’d) rather chose to break the Unity of the Action, than make his Thebais end unfortunately, after the miserable Fratricide of Eteocles and Polynices. And not only the Authority of these Poets, but the very Reason of the Thing, supplies us with Arguments for this Rule. First, Altho’ in Tragedy (where the Action is much shorter, more simple, and finish’d, as it were, at a Heat) an unfortunate Conclusion may be so far from displeasing, that it may be agreeable to the Audience; yet in Epic, after such a Series and Variety of Adventures, after sustaining so many, and so great Difficulties, the Reader must be out of Humour with the Poet, unless the whole should conclude happily at last. 2dly, The chief End of Tragedy is, to purge the Passions, especially those of Terror and Pity, by a short and brisk Emotion; but the Design of Epic Poetry is, by more slow and leisurely Operations, to remove bad Habits, and restore good ones; to subdue Vice, and recommend Virtue; which would be done with a very ill Grace, if the Hero of the Poem, or the Prince endu’d with heroic Virtue, (for such he either is, or ought to be) should come to a deplorable End. 3dly, An Epic Poem, properly so call’d, is, and always must be written in Honour of the Country, or the Religion of the Author; between which, and the Hero, there is a near Relation; and therefore he ought to come off in Triumph at last. Bossu inclines to this Opinion, nay, expressly determines, that this is the truer Conduct. I have ventur’d to advance a Step further, being of Opinion, for the Reasons now alledg’d, it is not only proper, but essential to Heroic Poetry; and, in Consequence of that Opinion, have made a happy Conclusion Part of the Definition. The two Differences, therefore, that we spoke of, between Tragedy and Epic, are (as the Schools term it) specific Differences, the others are only accidental; those are Differences in Nature, these only in Degree, Extent, or Greatness.
Thirtieth Lecture.
The Moderns seem to mistake that Part of Epic and Tragedy which contains the το θαυμασον, or the wonderful, confounding the wonderful with the improbable, and using those two Words promiscuously. If it was really so, the το θαυμασον would always be faulty; for that is always faulty, which is improbable. These poetical Prodigies would be improbable, if they were represented to be perform’d by any human Power: But the Case is quite different. The Divine Power, and the Agency of the Gods, make all this agreeable to Reason. Thus, in Homer, that the Horses should speak; and, in Virgil, that the Myrtle Roots should drop Blood, is wonderful, but not improbable: For our most ingenious Translator of Homer seems to be mistaken, when he asserts, that these were perform’d without the Interposal of the Gods. As to the latter, Virgil468 expresly declares it to be a Prodigy:
Horrendum, & dictu video mirabile monstrum.
And a little after,
469 ——Nymphas venerabat agrestes,
Gradivumque Patrem, Geticis qui præsidet arvis,
Rite secundarent visus, omenque levarent.
I implore the rural Nymphs,
And Mars, who o’er the Getic Field presides,
The Omen to avert, and grant Success.
But plainer still, in what follows:
As to Homer, he, in express Terms, asserts, that Juno made the Horse speak471:
Αυδηεντα δο εθηκε θεα λευκωλεν Ἡρη.
Then, strange to tell, (so Juno will’d) he broke
Eternal Silence, and portentous spoke.
Pope.
In such Cases as these, whatsoever is possible, is probable: If you determine otherwise, Poetry is depriv’d of one of its best Ornaments, its greatest Fund of Surprize. And the same Observation extends to some Parts of the wonderful, which are not accounted for by a divine Power: As in the Instance of Polyphemus, and the other Cyclops, in Homer and Virgil. That there were really Giants, is an Opinion, which not only the Ancients believ’d, but the Scriptures have confirm’d: But whether such Giants were ever in Being, as are there describ’d, is a Point of no Moment. Therefore Virgil’s Description of Polyphemus is very injudiciously censur’d by some Criticks:
472 ——Graditurque per æquor
Jam medium, nec dum fluctus latera ardua tinxit.
Then stalk’d along
Thro’ the mid Ocean; nor did yet the Waves
Tinge his tall Sides.
And afterwards:
473 Clamorem immensum tollit; quo pontus, & omnes.
Intramuere undæ, penitusque exterrita tellus
Italiæ, curvisque immugiit Ætna cavernis.
He rais’d a hideous Yell; at which the Sea
Trembled, and all its Waves: Italia quak’d;
And Ætna bellow’d thro’ its winding Caves.
This is so far from being improbable, or carrying the Hyperbole too far, that nothing can be more elegant and sublime; especially if we consider the Nature of Fear, which always enlarges what is great, and raises a Train of Horrors upon one another. It is, indeed, very hyperbolical; but the Nature of the Thing describ’d, not only excuses, but demands that Boldness. I own Homer has a few Examples of the improbable; and there is one Instance of this Kind in Virgil; I mean where Camilla is describ’d in those most elegant Verses,
474 Illa vel intactæ segetis per summa volaret
Gramina, nec teneras cursu læsisset aristas;
Aut mare per medium fluctu suspensa tumenti
Ferret iter, celeres neque tingeret æquore plantas.
She o’er the Tops of untouch’d Corn wou’d fly,
Skimming along, nor hurt the tender Grain;
Or run, supported on a swelling Wave,
Thro’ the mid Sea, nor tinge her nimble Feet.
The Lines are exceeding beautiful, and therefore the more is the Pity that the Thing is impossible.
In my Definition of Epic Poetry, I inserted this Clause, that it must be form’d upon a Story partly real, and partly fictitious: For both these are equally necessary. In Tragedy, which is so much shorter, the Performance may not only be excusable, but commendable, tho’ the whole Fable should be fictitious: But in a long Work, such as an Heroic Poem is, the Reader will be tir’d, unless he has the Pleasure of finding some Truth interwoven with the Fable. Besides, an Heroic Poet writes, or ought to write after the Examples of Homer and Virgil, in Honour of the Country he belongs to, or the Religion he professes; and then it must be necessary that he should have some Regard to popular Opinions, or true History. This is requisite, at least to the well-being, if not the very being of an Heroic Poem.
Little need be said about the Machinery, which, among the ancient Heathens, was the Agency of their false Gods, and of Angels and Demons among us Christians; its Beauty and Magnificence being well known. The Dignity of an Heroic Poem would scarce be kept up without it, especially since the το θαυμαστον or the Marvellous, depends upon it. I shall say no more, but refer the Reader to the fifth Chapter of Bossu.
The Versification of Heroic Poetry is what no Body is a Stranger to, which, among the Greeks and Romans consisted of Hexameters. This Kind of Verse is so peculiar to Epic, that when it is us’d upon other Occasions, it is commonly call’d Heroic Verse. It is needless to observe how numerous, and sublime, and beautiful, in all Respects, it is, and how much it has tended to ennoble those Languages: Our English Verse comes nearest to it, both in Gravity and Majesty, but at how great Distance? which yet, is, at least, both in Strength and Energy, far superior to the French and Italian.
I have made these few scatter’d Reflections upon Heroic Poetry, and propose to add no more, at present, for a Reason I have hinted before. As to the Nature and Origin of it, I shall only offer the following clear and succinct Account from the second Chapter of the first Book of the learned Bossu.
“The most considerable Difference my Subject presents me with, between the Style of the Ancients and Moderns, is, that our Way of Speaking is plain, proper, and without Circumlocution; whereas theirs was full of Mysteries and Allegories: The Truth was generally conceal’d under those ingenious Inventions, which, for their Excellence, are call’d Fables, or Sayings; as if there was as much Difference between those fabulous Discourses of the Wife, and the ordinary Language of the Vulgar, as there is between the Language proper to Men, and the Sounds which Beasts use, to express their Passions and Sensations.
“The first Use of Fables was to speak of the divine Nature, according to the Notions they had of it. This sublime Subject caused the first Poets to be styl’d Divines, and Poetry the Language of the the Gods. They divided the divine Attributes, as it were, into so many Persons, because the Weakness of the Human Mind could not well conceive or explain so much Power and Action in a Simplicity so great and indivisible, as that of God is. And perhaps they were jealous of the Advantages they receiv’d from such excellent and refin’d Learning, which they thought the vulgar Part of Mankind were not worthy of.
“They could not tell us of the Operations of this Almighty Cause, without speaking, at the same Time, of its Effects: So to Divinity they added Physiology, and treated of it in the same Manner, without quitting the Umbrages of their allegorical Expressions.
“But Man being the chief, and most noble of all the Effects which God produc’d, and nothing being so proper, or so useful to Poets, as this Subject, they added it to the former, and treated of Morality in the same Way that they did of Divinity and Physicks. And from Morality thus discours’d of, Art has form’d that Kind of Poem and Fable which we call Epic.
“The Poets did the same Thing in Morality, which the Divines did in Theology. That infinite Variety in the divine Actions and Operations, so much above our Understanding, forc’d them, as it were, upon dividing the single Idea of the one, and uncompounded divine Essence, into several Persons, under the Names of Jupiter, Juno, Neptune, and the rest: On the contrary, the Nature of Moral Philosophy being such as never lays down Rules for any particular Thing, has oblig’d the Epic Poets to unite in one single idea, in one and the same Person, and into one Action, which appear’d extraordinary, all that look’d like it in different Persons, and in different Actions, which might be thus contain’d as so many Species under their Genus.
“Therefore, when Aristotle says475, φιλοσφωτερον, και σπουδαιοτερον ποιησιϛ ιστοριαϛ ισιν, That Poetry is more philosophical, and more serious, than History, he says this, not so much to magnify the Excellence of this Art, as to explain the Nature of it. Poetry, says he, teaches Morality, not by a bare Recital, as an Historian, who tells us what Alcibiades did, or suffer’d, (which is Aristotle’s own Instance;) but by proposing all that a Person, let the Poet call him by what Name he pleases, ought either necessarily, or most probably to have said, or done, upon such an Occasion. It is in this Manner, that it lays down either the unhappy Consequences of ill-judg’d Designs, and wicked Actions; or else the Rewards of good Actions, and the Satisfaction one receives from a Design form’d by Virtue, and conducted by Prudence. Thus in Epic, according to Aristotle, let the Names be what they will, yet the Persons and the Actions are feign’d, allegorical, and universal, not historical and particular.476 Ἡ μεν Ποιησιϛ μαλλον τακαθολου ἡ δ’ ιστορια τα καου ἑκαστον; λεγει, i.e. Poetry represents Things rather in general, but History in particular. Horace is likewise of the same Mind, who is not satisfy’d with saying, that Poets teach Morality full as well as Philosophers; but prefers Homer to all of them:
477 Qui quid sit pulchrum, quid turpe, quid utile, quid non,
Plenius, ac melius Chrysippo, & Crantore dicit.
Who has what’s base, what’s decent, just and good,
Clearer than Crantor, or Chrysippus show’d.
Creech.
“The Reason why Poets excel Philosophers in this Respect is, that every Sort of Poem is an Imitation. Now Imitation is extremely natural, and pleases every Body; and therefore nothing is more likely to engage the Passions, and the Attention, of an Audience. Besides, Imitation is Instruction by Examples, and Examples are the most proper Methods of Persuasion; because they prove that such or such a Thing is feasible. In short, Imitation is so much the Essence of Poetry, that the Art it self, as Aristotle informs us, owes its very Original to it. And Horace recommends it very particularly to the Poet, which he is forming:
478 Respicere exemplar vitæ, morumque, jubebo
Doctum imitatorem, & veras hinc ducere voces.
Those are the likeliest Copies, which are drawn
By th’ Original of Human Life.
Roscommon.
“But tho’ the Poets become moral Philosophers, they do not cease to be Divines; on the contrary, the Morality they treat of, does indispensably oblige them to have a Vein of Theology run thro’ all their Works: Because the Knowledge, the Fear, and the Love of God, in a Word, Piety and Religion are the chief, and most solid Foundations or the other Virtues, and of all Morality.
The Presence of the Deity, and the Superintendence which so august a Cause has over the Action, obliges the Poet to represent this Action as great, important, and manag’d by Kings and Princes. Hence Horace:
To write of great Commanders, and of Kings.
Roscommon.
Upon the same Account he is oblig’d to think and speak in an elevated Way, above the Vulgar, and in a Style that may, in some Measure, keep up the Character of the divine Persons he introduces. To this End serves the poetical and figurative Expression, and the Majesty of Heroic Verse. As Horace again:
480 —Cui mens divinior atque os
Magna sonaturum, des nominis hujus honorem.
No, he alone can claim that Name, that writes
With Fancy high, and bold and daring Flights.
Creech.
“But all this being divine and marvellous, may quite ruin all Probability, without which an Action is not likely to persuade. Therefore the Poet should take special Care, as to this Point, since his chief Business is to instruct Men, and form them to Virtue.
“To all this the Poets are oblig’d, by the very Nature of these Things, which they propose for the Subjects of their Poems and Instructions. The Manner of teaching them usefully and methodically, has likewise oblig’d them to add several other Rules.
“Epic Poetry is directed to the Morals and the Habits, rather than the Passions. These rise on a sudden, and their Heat is soon over; but the Habits are more calm, and come on, and go off more leisurely: Therefore the Epic Action cannot be contain’d in one single Day, as the Dramatic. It must have a longer, and more just Space allow’d it, than the Action of Tragedy, which is directed to the Passions.
“This Distinction makes Tragedy and Epic differ very much: The Violence of Tragedy requires a great deal more lively and brisk Representation than a bare Recital. It is all Action, the Poet never speaks, as he does in Epic, where there are no Actors.
“But if, in this Respect, Epic is inferior to Tragedy, yet it is superior both to Philosophy and History; because it is a great deal more active than bare Philosophy, and the Recitals of History: And tho’ it does not, like Tragedy, represent the Action to the Eyes of the Spectators, yet it ought, more frequently than History, to break off the Narration, by intermixing the Speeches of the Persons represented. This Aristotle directs, when he says, that the Narration of Epic ought to be dramatic, i.e. active.” [I differ from the learned Author in the Meaning of this Passage, and agree with Dacier, as I said before: But it is a Matter of no great Moment. The Speeches of the Persons may be included in this Rule of Aristotle’s; but it seems more applicable to the Fable, which is the Matter of the Poem, than to the Form, which is the Way of representing it. But Bossu adds,]
“Epic has, likewise, its Passions, which give it no small Advantage over Philosophy and History; but in this it is still inferior to Tragedy: For tho’ it has a Mixture of all the Passions, yet Joy and Admiration are the most essential to it. These, indeed, contribute most towards the making us wise Men: Admiration and Curiosity are the Cause of Sciences; and nothing engages the Mind so forcibly as Pleasure; so that these two Passions must never be wanting in a Work invented with a View to teach us what we are indispensably oblig’d to know.
“To conclude: Because Precepts ought to be concise, that they may be more easily understood, and more strongly retain’d in the Memory; and because nothing can be more effectual to this Purpose than the proposing one single Idea, and collecting all Things so well together, that they may be present to the Mind at once; the Poets have reduc’d all to one single Action, under one and the same Design, and in a Body whose Members and Parts should be homogeneous. Hence arise two of Horace’s Rules: The one,
481 Quicquid præcipies, esto brevis, ut cito dicta
Percipiant animi dociles, teneantque fideles.
Let all your Precepts be succinct and clear,
That ready Wits may comprehend them soon.
Roscom.
the other,
Be what you will, so you be still the same.
Roscom.
This is Bossu’s Account of the Origin and Nature of Epic Poetry.
Thirty-first Lecture.
Under this Head there is very little Room to make any Comparison between the Ancients and the Moderns; for these latter Ages have scarce produc’d any Thing that deserves the Name of an Epic Poem. We know our Countryman, Mr. Dryden’s Judgment, about a Poem of Chaucer’s, truly beautiful, indeed, and worthy of Praise; namely, that it was not only equal, but even superior to the Iliad and Æneid: But we know, likewise, that his Opinion was not always the most accurate, nor form’d upon the severest Rules of Criticism. What was in Hand, was generally most in Esteem; if it was uppermost in his Thoughts, it was so in his Judgment too. I am sure, the Opinion is too monstrous to deserve a serious Refutation. But even among the Ancients themselves, if you except Homer and Virgil, you will scarce find one that is truly an Epic Poet. The heroic Laurels are due to them only; nor has the World produc’d two more such Heroes, no, nor one. How far a Comparison is to be made between this immortal Pair, and what, in my Opinion, is to be determin’d, with Regard to their different Merits, I have declar’d at large in another Place483, and given some Reasons for my Sentiments; namely, that Virgil is much indebted to Homer; but that Homer’s Works are inferior to Virgil’s.
The Poems of Lucan and Silius Italicus, are rather historical, than heroic; their Actions are real, not fictitious; particular, not universal: But partake, in some Measure, of the Nature of Epic; as they are Poems of a considerable Length, express’d in Narration, and written in Heroic Verse; each of them have their Heroes; the Thoughts and Language are sublime, or they would have us think so, and there are some Degrees of Fiction interwoven with Truth. They are reducible, therefore, to this Class, and their Authors have a Right to be mention’d in it. Lucan, however liable to Censure in some Things, is, upon the whole, far from being a mean Writer, and deserves a very considerable Character. He is sometimes harsh, and over-stoical; sometimes cold, and too nearly allied to Prose; and, again, on the other Hand, he is swelling, bombast, and affects a Way of Expression ridiculously lofty; and yet, in many Things, very elegant and sublime, and full of an heroic Spirit. As to Silius Italicus, Pliny, in one of his Epistles484, has given the following Character: Scribebat carmina majore cura, quam ingenio. Virgilii natalem, religiosius quam suum, celebrabat; Neapoli maxime, ubi monumentum ejus adire, ut templum, solebat “He wrote Verses with more Pains, than Genius; he observ’d Virgil’s Birth-Day more religiously than his own, especially at Naples, where he us’d to frequent his Monument as if it had been a Temple.” And since he lov’d Virgil so passionately, that he almost ador’d him, it is strange he should not have come nearer to his Style. The same may be said of Lucan. How much unlike to Virgil’s! It is, also, as evident, that Statius rather admir’d Virgil than imitated him. He therefore says very justly,
But what follows is not so well:
Sed longe sequere, & vestigia semper adora.
For this, with an Appearance of Modesty, insinuates, that he follow’d Virgil: But at how great a Distance! with what unequal Steps! How unlike is his Way of Writing, and Thinking! But even Statius is not without his Beauties, tho’ his Poem is not properly Epic; for the Heroes of his Thebais are too much upon a Level, no one is superior to the rest; and, besides, there are two Actions, one unfortunate; and the other happy. Tasso is, indeed, truly heroic, and has justly attain’d no small Esteem. But, to pass by other Particulars, he is too full of Magic, Enchantments, Machinery, and aerial Personages. Of the same Fault our Countryman Spencer is still more remarkably guilty, who treads almost perpetually upon enchanted Ground, and the greatest Part of whose Characters are Fairies, Ghosts, Magicians and Giants. He is all over Allegory, pursues not one Action but several, and such as have so little Relation to each other, that it is difficult to see any Connection. But, in other Respects, this most ingenious Writer was born a Poet, if any one ever was. If we consider his Versification, and especially his Copiousness of Invention, he is justly celebrated, among the Poets of the first Class.
If Milton did not write an Heroic Poem, properly so call’d, yet he certainly wrote an excellent one, such as deserves, or rather is above all Commendation. He is no slavish Imitator of Homer and Virgil, he opens a Way entirely new, and entirely his own: In Fruitfulness of Invention, Sublimity of Genius, in the Weight and Lustre of his Thoughts and Words, and, lastly, in the Perfection of his Judgment, he is, perhaps, equal to either of them, tho’ he wrote in a Language much inferior to both theirs, especially Homer’s; and is particularly much less correct than Virgil. Let other Moderns imitate Milton, by imitating Homer and Virgil less: Let them improve and form themselves, as much as possible, by their Genius, their Judgment, and their Way of Writing and Thinking: To do this, is to imitate; but to transcribe their Poems, or, at least, a great Part of them, into their own, is not Copying, but Stealing.
486 Nec circa vilem, patulumque moraberis orbem
Nec verbum verbo curabis reddere, fidus
Interpres.
Nor think it essential to an Heroic Poem, to describe the Anger of some great General, the Return of a King into his own Country, a Colony transplanted from one Region to another, the Description of Æolia, and the Winds, the solemn Celebration of Funeral Games, a Descent into Hell, or a Hero furnish’d with celestial Armour: But rather avoid these, and many other Subjects, which are treated of by Homer and Virgil; and for that very Reason, because they are so. Whoever attempts an Heroic Poem, must form a new Plan, and guard against the Stroke of Horace’s Satire:
Let him strike out with that noble and daring Spirit of Lucretius;
488 Avia Pieridum peragro loca, nullius ante
Trita solo; juvat integros accedere fontes,
Atque haurire; juvatque novos decerpere flores,
Insignemque meo capiti petere inde coronam,
Unde prius nulli velarunt tempora Musæ.
I feel, I rising feel poetic Heats,
And now inspir’d, trace o’er the Muses Seats,
Untrodden yet: ’Tis sweet to visit first
Untouch’d and Virgin Streams, and quench my Thirst.
I joy to crop fresh Flow’rs, and get a Crown,
For new and rare Inventions of my own.
So noble, great, and gen’rous, the Design,}
That none of all the mighty tuneful Nine}
E’er grac’d a Head with Laurels like to mine.}
Creech.
Besides the Writers I have mention’d, there are many others of an heroical Genius, tho’ they never wrote an Heroic Poem. Among the Latius, Claudian, a Writer of the middle Age, is the most eminent; upon whose Beauties and Defects I have already made a few Observations: And among those of our own Country, the late Mr. Dryden; besides others now alive, who, for that Reason, cannot so well be mention’d without Offence.
Notes
462 Res gestæ regumque, ducumque.
470 Monstra deum refero.
479 Res gestæ regumque, ducumque.
482 Denique sit quod vis simplex duntaxat, & unum.”
485 —Nec tu divinam Æneida tenta.
487 O imitatores, servum pecus.