ARS POETICA

OR EPISTLE TO THE PISOS

THIS, the longest of Horace's poems, is found in nearly all мss. under the title Ars Poetica, which is also the name assigned to it by Quintilian and used by the commentator Porphyrio. Yet the composition is a letter rather than a formal treatise, and it is hard to believe that Horace himself is responsible for the conventional title. It has the discursive and occasionally personal tone of an Epistle, whereas it lacks the completeness, precision, and logical order of a well-constructed treatise. It must therefore be judged by the same standards as the other Epistles | and Sermones, and must be regarded as an expression of more or less random reflections, suggested by special circumstances, upon an art which peculiarly concerned one or more of the persons addressed. These are a father and two sons of the Piso family, but nobody knows with certainty what particular Pisos and there are many on record-they are.

Though the writer touches upon various kinds of poetry, yet as fully one-third of the whole poem is concerned with the drama, it is a plausible inference that one at least of the Pisos presumably the elder son (1. 366)—was about to write a play, perhaps one with an Homeric background (ll. 128, 129), and

b

possibly one conforming to the rules of the Greek satyric drama (11. 220 ff.). Thus the special interests of the Pisos may have determined Horace's choice of topics.

The following is a brief outline of the main subjects handled in the letter:

(a) A poem demands unity, to be secured by harmony and proportion, as well as a wise choice of subject and good diction. Metre and style must be appropriate to theme and to character. A good model will always be found in Homer (ll. 1-152).

(b) Dramatic poetry calls for special care-as to character drawing, propriety of representation, length of a play, number of actors, use of the chorus and its music, special features for the satyric type, verseforms, and employment of Greek models (11. 153294).

(c) A poet's qualifications include common sense, knowledge of character, adherence to high ideals, combination of the dulce with the utile, intellectual superiority, appreciation of the noble history and lofty mission of poetry, and above all a willingness to listen to and profit by impartial criticism (11. 295-476).

The following is a more detailed analysis :

In poetry as in painting there must be unity and simplicity (1-23). We poets must guard against extremes, and while avoiding one error must not fall into its opposite (24-31). A good sculptor pays careful attention to details, but at the same time makes sure that his work as a whole is successful (32-37).

A writer should confine himself to subjects within his power. He will then be at no loss for words and will follow a correct order, which will enable him to

say the right thing at the right moment (38-45). As to diction, he must be careful in his choice of language. He can, by means of a skilful combination, give a fresh tone to familiar terms, and he may even coin words in moderation as the old poets used to do. Like all other mortal things, words change and pass out of existence, for they are subject to the caprice of fashion (46-72).

The metres most fitting for the several types of verse were established by the great Greek poets, and we must follow them (73-85). So with the tone and style of the various kinds. In the drama, for example, the tragic and the comic are distinct, though occasionally they will overlap (86-98), for above all things a play must appeal to the feelings of an audience, and the language must be adapted to the characters impersonated. Where there is lack of such agreement, everybody will laugh in scorn (99-118).

Either follow tradition or invent a consistent story. Achilles, Medea, Orestes, and so on must be portrayed as they are known to us in Greek literature, while new characters must be handled with a consistency of their own (119-127). It is hard to deal with general notions, such as anger, greed, and cowardice, so as to individualize them for yourself and you, my friend Piso, are quite right to dramatize some Homeric theme, where the characters introduced have wellknown traits, rather than attempt something distinctly original. And yet, even in such public property as the Homeric epics you may win private rights by handling your material in an original fashion. Make a simple beginning, like that of the Odyssey, where the sequel becomes clearer and

increases in brilliancy. Homer indulges in no lengthy introduction, but hurries on with his narrative, omits what he cannot adorn, and never loses the thread Hof his story (128-152).

the

If you want your play to succeed, you must study strange, eventful history" of human life, and note the characteristics of the several ages of man, so that the different periods may not be confused (153-178). Events may be set forth in action or, less preferably, in narrative. The latter method, however, must be used in the case of revolting and incredible incidents (179-188).

Fran

A play should be in five acts. The deus ex machina should be employed only rarely, and there should never be more than three characters on the stage at one time (189-192). The Chorus should take a real part in the action; it should not sing anything irrelevant, and should promote the cause of morality and religion (193-201). As to the music, the flute was once a simple instrument, which accompanied the chorus, and was not expected to fill large theatres as nowadays. With the growth of wealth and luxury in the state, and the consequent deterioration in the taste and character of the audience, the music became more florid and sensational, the diction more artificial, and the sentiments more obscure and oracular (202-219).

The satyric drama, with its chorus of goat-footed fauns, which was devised for spectators in their lighter moods, naturally assumed a gay and frolicsome tone as compared with the serious tragedy from which it sprang, but this does not warrant a writer in permitting his gods and heroes to use vulgar speech, or on the other hand in allowing them to

indulge in ranting. There should be a happy mean between the language of tragedy and that of comedy. I would aim at a familiar style, so that anyone might think it easy to write in that fashion, but on trying would find out his mistake. The rustic fauns must not talk like city wits, nor yet use such coarse language that they will give offence to the better part of an audience (220-250).

As to metre, the iambic is strictly a rapid measure, so that a senarius is counted as a trimeter. But the older poets admitted the spondee so freely, that it obscured the rhythm and made it heavy. In fact, it is not every critic that can detect unmusical verses, and too much freedom has been allowed our native poets. Shall I presume on this or shall I write with caution? If I follow the latter course, I may avoid criticism, but I shall not win praise. The proper course is to study Greek models night and day. He who is conversant with them will see that our fathers' admiration for the rhythms, as well as the wit, of Plautus, was uncalled for (251-274).

Thespis, we are told, invented Tragedy, and Aeschylus perfected it. Old Attic Comedy, too, won no little renown until its licence had to be checked by law and its chorus was silenced (275-284). Our Roman poets, besides following the Greeks, were bold enough to invent forms of a national drama, and might have rivalled their masters, had they taken more pains. I beg you, my friends, to condemn every poem which has not been subjected to the finishing touch (285-294).

The idea that genius is allied to madness is carried so far that many would-be poets are slovenly in appearance and neglect their health. It is not worth