leffer faults, he, more especially, observed two inveterate errors, of fuch a fort, as muft needs perplex the genius, and diftress the learning, of any commentator. The one of these respects the SUBJECT; the other, the METHOD of the Art of Poetry. It will be neceffary to fay fomething upon each.

1. That the Art of Poetry, at large, is not the proper fubject of this piece, is fo apparent, that it hath not escaped the dulleft and least attentive of its critics. For, however all the different kinds of poetry might appear to enter into it, yet every one faw, that fome at least were very flightly confidered: whence the frequent attempts, the artes et inftitutiones poetica, of writers both at home and abroad, to supply its deficiencies. But, though this truth was feen and confessed, it unluckily happened, that the faga city of his numerous commentators went no further. They ftill confidered this famous epiftle as a collection, though not a fyftem, of criticisms on poetry in general; with this conceffion however, that the stage had evidently the largest share in it [a]. Under the influence of this prejudice, feveral writers of name took upon them to comment and explain it and with the fuccefs, which was to be expected from fo fatal a mif,

:

[a] Satyra hæc eft in fui fæculi poetas, PRÆCIPUE vero in Romanum drama. Baxter.

5

take

take on fetting out, as the not feeing," that the રદ proper and fole purpose of the author, was, "not to abridge the Greek critics, whom he pro"bably never thought of; nor to amufe himself "With compofing a fhort critical system, for "the general use of poets, which every line of "it abfolutely confutes; but, fimply to criticize "the ROMAN DRAMA." For to this end, not the tenor of the work only, but, as will appear, every fingle precept in it, ultimately refers. The mischiefs of this original error have been long felt. It hath occafioned 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 compofed out of the Greek critics, the labour and ingenuity of its interpreters have been mifemployed in picking out authorities, which were not wanted, and in producing, or, more properly, by their ftudied refinements in creating, conformities, which were never defigned. Whence it hath come to pafs, that, inftead of investigating the order of the poet's own reflexions, and fcrutinizing the peculiar ftate of the Roman ftage (the methods, which common fenfe and common criticism would prefcribe) the world hath been naufeated with infipid lectures on Ariftotle and Phalereus; whofe folid fenfe hath

been fo attenuated and fubtilized by the delicate operation of French criticisin, as hath even gone fome way towards bringing the art itself into difrepute.

2. But the wrong explications of this poem have arifen, not from the mifconception of the fubject only, but from an inattention to the METHOD of it. The latter was, in part, the genuine confequence of the former. For, not suspecting an unity of defign in the subject, its interpreters never looked for, or could never find, a confiftency of difpofition in the method. And this was indeed the very block upon which HEINsius, and, before him, JULIUS SCALIGER, himfelf ftumbled. Thefe illuftrious critics, with all the force of genius, which is required to dif embarrass an involved fubject, and all the aids of learning, that can lend a ray to enlighten a dark one, have, notwithstanding, found themfelves utterly unable to unfold the order of this epiftle; infomuch, 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 tranfpofition.. The truth is, they were both in one common error, That the poet's purpofe had been to write a criticism of the art of poetry at large, and not,

[] Præf. in LIB. POET, et l. vi. p. 338.

as

as is here fhewn, of the Roman drama in particular. But there is fomething more to be observed, in the cafe 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 fimple mistake about the drift of the fubject, but, also, from a total inapprehension of the genuine charm and beauty of the epiftolary method. And, because I take this to be a principal cause of the wrong interpretations, that have been given of all the epiftles of Horace; and it is, in itself, a point of curious criticifin, of which little or nothing hath been faid 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 epiftle. By the FIRST I mean all those epiftles, whose end is to inftruct; whether the fubject be morals, politics, criticifm, or, in general, human life: by the LATTER, all those whofe end is to move; whether the occafion be love, friendship, jealousy, or other private diftreffes. If there are fome of a lighter kind in Horace, and other good writers, which seem not reducible to either of these two claffes, they are to be regarded only, as the triflings of their pen, and deferve not to be confidered as making a third and diftin&t fpecies of this poem. A 3

Now

Now these two kinds of the epiftle, as they differ widely from each other in their subject and end, fo do they likewise in their original: though both flourished at the fame time, and are both wholly Roman.

I. The former, or DIDACTIC epiftle, 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 fefcennine 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 fubjects, and in different measures. Common fenfe difclaiming the extravagance of this heterogeneous mixture, LUCILIUS advanced it, in its next step, to an unity of defign and metre; which was fo confiderable a change, that it procured him the high appellation of INVENTOR of this poem. Though, when I fay, that Lucilius introduced into fatire an unity of metre, I mean only, in the fame piece; for the meafure, in different fatires, appears to have been different. That the defign in him was one, I conclude, first, Because Horace exprefly informs us, that the form or kind. of writing in the fatires of Lucilius was ex

aly