In the original, Horace affumes the air and style of an affectionate teacher, admonishing and inftructing his young friends and pupils: but the following tranflation, together with the obfervations annexed, I address to You as my Mafters, from whom I look for found information, a well-grounded confirmation of my hypothefis, or a solution of my doubts, and a correction of my errors. It is almoft needlefs to obferve, that the Epiftle in queftion has very particularly exercifed the critical fagacity of the literary world; yet it is remarkable that, amidft the great variety of comments and decifions on the work, it has been almost universally confidered, except by one acute and learned writer of this country, as a loose, vague, and defultory compofition; a mass of fhining materials; like pearls unftrung, valuable indeed, but not displayed to advantage. Some have contended, with Scaliger at their head, that this pretended Art of Poetry is totally void of art; and that the very work, in which the beauty and excellence of Order (ORDINIS VIRTUS ET VENUS!) is ftrongly recommended, is in itself unconnected, confused, and immethodical, The ad vocates vocates for the writer have in great measure confeffed the charge, but pleaded, in excuse and vindication, the familiarity of an Epistle, and even the genius of Poetry, in which the formal divisions of a profaick treatise on the art would have been infupportable. They have alfo denied that Horace ever intended fuch a treatise, or that he ever gave to this Epiftle the title of the Art of Poetry; on which title the attacks of Scaliger, and his followers, are chiefly grounded. The title, however, is confeffedly as old as the age of Quintilian; and that the work itfelf has a perpetual reference to Poets and Poetry, is as evident, as that it is, from beginning to end, in its manner, style, addrefs, and form, perfectly Epiftolary. The learned and ingenious Critick diftinguished above, an early ornament to letters, and now a worthy dignitary of the church, leaving vain comments, and idle difputes on the title of the work, fagacioufly directed his researches to fcrutinize the work itself; properly endeavouring to trace and investigate from the compofition, the end and defign of the writer, and remembering the axiom of the Poet, to whom his friend had been appointed the commentator. In every work regard THE AUTHOR'S END! With this view of illuftrating and explaining Horace's Art of Poetry, this fhrewd and able writer, about thirty years ago, republished the original Epiftle, giving the text chiefly after Dr. Bentley, fubjoining an English Commentary and Notes, and prefixing an Introduction, from which I beg leave to transcribe moft part of the three first paragraphs. "It is agreed on all hands, that the antients are our masters in the art of compofition. Such of "their writings, therefore, as deliver inftructions "for the exercise of this art, must be of the highest “value. And, if any of them hath acquired a "credit, in this refpect, fuperior to the rest, it is, "perhaps, the following work: which the learned "have long fince confidered as a kind of summary of the rules of good writing; to be gotten by heart "by every young ftudent; and to whofe decifive "authority the greatest masters in tafte and compo"fition muft finally submit. દ "But the more unqueftioned the credit of this poem is, the more it will concern the publick, "that it be juftly and accurately understood. The "writer of these sheets then believed it might be of "ufe, * use, if he took fome pains to clear the sense, con"nect the method, and ascertain the scope and pur"pose, of this admired Epiftle. Others, he knew indeed, and fome of the firft fame for critical "learning, had been before him in his attempt. "Yet he did not find himself prevented by their labours; in which, befides innumerable leffer "faults, he, more especially, obferved two invete"rate errors, of fuch a fort, as must needs perplex "the genius, and diftrefs the learning, of any com❝mentator. The one of thefe refpects the SUBJECT; "the other, the METHOD of the Art of Poetry. It "will be neceffary to fay fomething upon each. ' i. That the Art of Poetry, at large, is not the * proper fubject of this piece, is so apparent, that "it hath not escaped the dulleft and least attentive "of its Criticks. For, however all the different "kinds of poetry might appear to enter into it, yet ἐσ every one faw, that some at least were very flightly confidered: whence the frequent attempts, the "artes et inftitutiones poetica, of writers, both at "home and abroad, to fupply its deficiencies. But, "though this truth was feen and confeffed, it un"luckily happened, that the fagacity of his numetrous Commentators went no further. They ftill "confidered B 4 "confidered this famous Epiftle as a collection, "though not a fyftem, of criticisms on poetry in ge"neral; with this conceffion, however, that the "ftage had evidently the largest share in it *. 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 ex"pected from so fatal a mistake on setting out, as the not feeing, that the proper and fole purpose of the Author, was, not to abridge the Greek • Criticks, whom he probably never thought of; < nor to amufe himself with compofing a fhort critical fyftem, 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 re"fers. 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 composed out "of the Greek Criticks, the labour and ingenuity "of Satyra hæc eft in fui fæculi poetas, PRAECIPUE vero in Romanum Drama. Baxter. |