The works of Horace : with English notes, critical and ... - Cristo Raul

EPISTLE TO THE PISOS.
This celebrated work of Horace, comtHOTiIy called the Ars Poetica, u
jsually considered as a separate and insulated composltioD, bnt may be
more properly regarded as the tbird epistle of tbe present book, since*
like tbe otbers, it is chiefly critical, and addressed to tbe Fisoa in an epistolary
form. These friends of the aatbor were a father and two sons, ^he
father was a senator, of considerable note and distTingnisbed talents, who
was consul in 739. He was a man of pleasure, who. passed bis eTemng:B
at table, and slept till noon ; bat be possessed such capacity for businesa,
Ibat the remainder of tbe day sufficed for the dispatch of those important
affairs with> which he was snccessively intrusted, by Augustus and Xibs-
iius. Of the sons little is accurately known, and there seems no reason
why a formal treatise on tbe art of poetry should have been addreBsed
either to tbem or to the father. As the subjects of Horace's epistles, however,
have generally some reference to tbe situation and circnmstances
of tbe individuals w;th whose names they are inscribed^ it has been conjectured
that this work was composed at ^he desire ,of Piso, tbe father, la
order to dissuade his elder son from indulging his inclination for writing
poetry, for which he was probably bat ill qualified, by exposing the ignominy
of had poets, and by pointing oat tbe difficulties of tbe art, which
oar aatbor, accordingly, has displayed under tbe semblance of instructing
him in its precepts. This, conjectore, first formed by Wieland and adopted
by Colman, is chiefly founded on the argument that Horace, having
concluded all that he bad to say on the history and progress of poetry, and
general precepts of tbe art, addresses the remainder of tbe epistle, on the
nature, expediency, and difficulty of poetical pursuits, to tbe elder of tbe
brothers alone, who, according to this theory, either meditated or bad ac-
taally written a poetical work, probably a tragedy, which Horace wishes
to dissuade bim from completing and publishing
' "O majorjuvenum, guemvis et voce paterna," &c. [v. 366, seqq.).
It has been much disputed whether Horace, in writing the present work,
intended to deliver instructions on the whole art of poetry, and criticisms
on poets in general, or if his observations be applicable only to certain departments
ofpoetry, and poets of a particular period. Tbe opinion of tbe
most ancient scholiasts on Horace, as Acron and Forpbyrion, weui, that it
comprehended precepta on tbe art in general, hut that these had been collected
from the ^orkg of Aristotle, Neoptolemus of Pares, and other
Greek critics, and had been strung together by the Latin poet in such a
manner as to fomi a medley of rules without any systematic plan or arrangement.
This notion was adopted by the commentators who flonrisbed
after the revival of literatare, as Hobortellus, Jason de Nores, and the
elder Scaliger, who concurred in treating it as a loose, vague, and desultory
composition ; and this opinion continued to prevail in Prance as late
as tbe time of Dacier. Otbers have conceived that the epistle under consideration
comprises a complete system of poetry, and flatter themselvei
: