Part 3

By those who commonly discourse of Heroic, and Dramatic Poetry, the Action, and the Fable seem not to be sufficiently distinguished. The Action is a great Achievement of some illustrious Person, attended with an important and memorable Event. The Fable is that Complication of Incidents, Episodes, and other Circumstances, which tend to the carrying on of the Action, or give Reasons for it, or at least embellish and adorn it. I make this Distinction; because Episodes are such, as are either absolutely necessary, or very requisite. Of the former sort is that long Narration of _Æneas_, I mean in the main Substance of it, which is the entire Subject of the Second, and Third Books. This perhaps will not by some be allowed to be an Episode; because, I think, it is not commonly called so: For that Word is generally appropriated to _Actions_, and therefore will be supposed not applicable to a _Narration_. But I think we shall speak more clearly; if by that Word we mean (as indeed the [7]Etymology of it imports) whatsoever is _adventitious_ to the grand Action of the Poem, connected to it, or inserted in it; whether it be it self an Action, or no. And there is Ground enough to distinguish This from the immediate, and direct Train, or Course of the main Action it self; and to shew what may, and may not, be called an Episode. For Example; The Sailing of the _Trojan_ Fleet from _Sicily_ in the First Book, it's Arrival there again at the Beginning of the Fifth, and it's Sailing from thence at the End of that Book; The Landing at _Cumæ_ in the Beginning of the Sixth; and in another Part of _Italy_, at the Beginning of the Seventh; The whole Operations of that Book, and so of all the rest, wherever the Heroe himself, or his Armies for him, either with or without his Presence, are directly engaged in the great Affair to be carry'd on, are, all of them, so many successive Parts of one, and the same Action (the great Action of the Poem) continued in a direct Line, and flowing in it's proper Channel. But where any Part comes under any one of the Bye-Characters above-mentioned, it is properly an Episode, whether it be an Action, or a Narration. The long Recital of Adventures in the Second and Third Books is not an _Action_, but it is _Necessary_: The Expedition of _Nisus_ and _Euryalus_ in the Ninth is not _Necessary_, but it is an _Action_: And Both are Episodes. Which brings us back to the Distinction before taken notice of, between Incidents and Episodes, and the several Kinds of the latter. All Episodes are Incidents; but it is not so on the Reverse. The Storm in the First Book, driving the Fleet on the Coast of _Carthage_, is an Incident, but not an Episode; because the Heroe himself, and the whole Body of his Forces, are concerned in it; and so it is a _direct_, not a _collateral_ Part of the main Action. But even Episodes (as I said) must carry on the main Action, or give Reasons for it, or at least embellish it: And therefore I said they are either _absolutely necessary_, or _very requisite_. The Narration in the Second and Third Books is not a _Part_ of the Action; but it _gives Reasons_ for it, and so is _Necessary_: The Adventures of _Nisus_ and _Euryalus_ in the Ninth Book, of _Mezentius_ in the Tenth, and of _Camilla_ in the Eleventh, are all _requisite_, but not _absolutely necessary_; and yet they are properly _Parts_ of the main Action, tho' _collateral_, not _direct_. The Loves of _Dido_ and _Æneas_ in the Fourth Book, the Sports at the Tomb of _Anchises_ in the Fifth, the Description of Hell in the Sixth, the Story of _Cacus_, and the Decorations of the Shield in the Eighth, are all supposed by some to be entirely ornamental, and no Parts of the main Action. And This perhaps they may imagine to be a great Point yielded to the Disadvantage of _Virgil_. Admitting it were so, _Homer_ would gain nothing by it; most of them being taken from him, and he having more of such _Excrescencies_, if they must be so called. But This in Reality is no reasonable Objection against either. The Episode of _Dido_ and _Æneas_ shall be considered in my Remarks upon the Fourth Book. The Descent into Hell is a direct Part of the Action; the Heroe going thither to consult his Father's Ghost concerning the Operations of the War, and the future Fate of Himself, and his Posterity (for _all_ Action, even in an Heroic Poem, does not consist in _Fighting_:) And it would be very strange, if, in a Work of such a Length, the Poet might not be allowed to take that Occasion, to describe the Regions thro' which his Heroe passed, and to make the noblest, and most surprizing Description that ever the World saw. The same may be said of the Casting, and Engraving of the Shield, which contains a considerable Part of the _Roman_ History; as does the Speech of _Anchises_ in the foregoing Division; both introduced with exquisite Art, and Judgment. For the rest; granting that they are purely ornamental; and that while the Poet is describing them, the Action stands still, as the Criticks express themselves: There let it stand, with all my heart, 'till _Virgil_ thinks fit to set it a going again. If the Action stands still, I am sure the Poem does not; and the Reader, I think, must be very phlegmatick, if his Spirits do. What if those Episodes are not Parts of the Action? They are Parts of the Poem, and with the greatest Skill inferred in it. What if they are not absolutely _necessary_? They are very _convenient_; and that is sufficient. For if we allow that they are entirely ornamental, we deny that they are impertinent, or superfluous; no Things in the World being more uniform, or more naturally and elegantly connected. Nor does _Virgil_ ever commit the Fault of those whom _Horace_ justly condemns; by whom

_Purpureus, late qui splendeat, unus & alter Assuitur pannus----_

But the Foundation of all this wrong Criticism, is the Errour of reducing an Heroic Poem to the narrow Rules of the _Stage_. For tho' the Drama be, in some Respects, more perfect than the Epopée, in others it is inferiour. And it is not _Virgil_'s Fault, if we will not distinguish between the Building of a House, and of a City; or between that of a City, and of the Universe. In a Work of such an Extent as an Epic Poem, and all delivered in Narration, not represented by Action, these Interruptions of the main Business (especially when they are some of the most beautiful Parts of the Poem, as they always are in _Virgil_'s) are so far from being Improprieties, that they are Excellencies. This Variety is a Relief to the Mind of the Reader; who is more diverted by the alternate Rest, and Rapidity of the Action, than he would be by it's perpetual Motion. Nay the Mind is therefore the more in perpetual Motion, (tho' in several kinds of it) than if the Action really were so. For the Poem, as I observed, does not stand still, tho' the Action may.

If what I have discoursed upon Episodes be not in the usual, I think it is in the clearer way of Expressing; and as such I propose it to others. _Bossu_, in his excellent Treatise of Epic Poetry, has some nice Distinctions concerning them; which to me are more subtile, than perspicuous: But that, I am sensible, may be my Fault, not his. And yet he seems not to distinguish enough, when he says all Episodes are necessary Parts of the Action, and makes no Difference between Necessary, and Convenient. Nay he appears to be inconsistent[8] with himself upon this Head, and to mistake the Sense of _Aristotle_. To the Doctrine of which Philosopher I think my Account is more agreeable. For after he has represented the Action of the _Odyssée_ in a direct Line, as I have That of the _Æneis_; he immediately adds,[9] _This then is proper; the rest are Episodes_. By the Word _Proper_, I understand Immediately, and Directly Necessary. But he no where says that all Episodes are so in any Sense; but leaves that Matter at large. For tho' his _French_ Translators, _Bossu_, and _Dacier_ (which latter, I think, is in the same Errour with the former) use the same Word _Proper_, when apply'd to Episodes, as when apply'd to the main Action; yet the Words[10] in the Original are different. _Bossu_ argues, that the litteral Signification of the Word _Episode_, [something _adventitious_] cannot take place; because an Episode must not be _added_, or _superinduced_, but naturally _flow_, or _arise_ from the Subject. As if a new Person could not enter a Room to a Company already there assembled, without being impertinent: Surely his Coming may not only be proper, but necessary; tho' I confess it may not be necessary, and yet be proper: Which is the very thing I would say of Episodes. According to this, when _Virgil_ says in the Seventh Book,

_Hos_ super advenit _Volsca de gente Camilla;_

That Heroine is a mere Intruder; and her Story afterwards in the Eleventh Book is no _Episode_. In short, it matters not whether we say those Incidents _flow_, or _arise from_ the Subject; or are _added_, and _connected to it_; or _inserted_, and _interwoven with_ it: If they are _natural_, and _proper Parts_ of the _Poem_, That is sufficient; all the rest is a Dispute about Words, and of no Importance, or Significancy. However it be, I think I cannot better represent the several sorts of Episodes which I have mentioned, than by an Instance nearly ally'd to my Subject; I mean that of a General making a Campaign. All the important Undertakings, and Performances of Himself, or the Gross of his Army, or Both, in pursuance of the Design proposed, are direct Parts of the main Action; and so far the Campaign, and the Poem agree even in Terms. If he sitting in his Tent either gives, or hears, the Recital of something past, the Knowledge of which is absolutely necessary to the Prosecution of his Enterprize; This indeed is not Action: But still it was said to be absolutely necessary in order to the Prosecution of his Enterprize. And so is that Narration of _Æneas_ in the Second, and Third Books, in order to the carrying on of the Action, and to shew the Reason of it. This in War would not be called an Episode; but it is so in Poetry. Should the same General detach a Part of his Army upon a particular Expedition; and the Commander of that Body behave himself with uncommon Gallantry, and attempt something very extraordinary, and to be distinguished in History; whether he succeeded in that Attempt or not: This would indeed be a Part of the Campaign; but perhaps not a necessary one; because the Campaign might have subsisted, and have been successful, or unsuccessful, with it, or without it. Such are the Episodes of _Nisus_ and _Euryalus_; of _Mezentius_; and of _Camilla_. The Case of the same General's being for some time diverted from Action by an Amour, or some such Incident, shall be considered in my Remarks upon the Fourth Book. But should he in Time of Inaction, tho' the Campaign still continued, entertain his Officers and Soldiers with warlike Sports and Recreations; or hear the Relation of some memorable Adventure, in the Place where he encamped (like the Adventure of _Hercules_, and _Cacus_) tho' no way concerning his own Affairs: These indeed would not be Parts of the Action of his Campaign; but still might be very properly recorded in History, and afford great Delight to the Reader; who would by no Means be offended either with the General, or the Historian; nor think the History of that Campaign to be less of a Piece, because the warlike Operations were for some Time suspended. For we must still remember, that tho' an Epic Poem be widely different from History in many Circumstances; yet it is more nearly ally'd to it, than any Dramatic Piece whatsoever. The learned Reader, I fear, will think I might have troubled him with fewer Words upon this Subject, but such Readers I presume not to instruct: What I have said may not perhaps be altogether unuseful to Those who are less conversant in these Matters: To acquaint them with which, nothing can contribute more, than clear Ideas annexed to the Words, _Action_, _Fable_, _Incident_, and _Episode_: All which (especially the last) are ill understood by many, who yet use them with the greatest Freedom and Familiarity.

Now if my Opinion be not received, I hope my avowed Ignorance will at least be excused; while I confess, that tho' I very clearly apprehend the Settling of the _Trojan_ Colony in _Italy_ to be the Action of the _Æneis_; and the Return of _Ulysses_ to be the Action of the _Odyssée_: yet I do not so well understand how the Anger of _Achilles_ comes to be called the Action of the _Iliad_. For besides that Anger is a Passion, not an Action: And if you mean the immediate Effect of that Anger, not the Anger it self; Standing still, and doing nothing (which was the Consequence of that Heroe's Resentment) can as little be called an Action as the Other; I say, not to insist upon This, tho' it is by no means so trivial a Nicety as some may suppose; the Anger of _Achilles_ is not the _main Subject_ of the Poem, nor the chief Hinge upon which it turns. The Action of it seems to be the Conquest of _Troy_; the Fable, the _Trojan_ War; and the Anger of _Achilles_, an important Incident, serving to aggrandize the Heroe, and consequently the Action, and to render them more illustrious; as also at the same time to convey that useful Moral, concerning the fatal Effects of Discord and Contention. It will be said, that what I have mentioned is not the Action of the Poem, because _Homer_ has not proposed it as such: But may it not be as well replied, that _it is_ the Action of the Poem; and therefore he _should have_ proposed it as such? For what is the Action, appears from the Stress and Turn of the Work, not from the Title or Exordium; from the End, not from the Beginning: And of This the Readers are to judge, as well as of any thing else. Did not _Homer_ then know the Action of his own Poem? Yes questionless; but he did not mention it in his Proposition; which may possibly be chargeable upon him as an Errour: He mentions the most important Incident, but omits the Action. Had the Exordium set forth the Defeat of the _Trojans_, and the Destruction of _Troy_, with such a Clause as this, "Tho' that great Event was suspended by the fatal Anger of _Achilles_, Ἠ μύρι' Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε' ἔθηκε, and so on, as it now stands; it would, in my humble Opinion, have been more unexceptionable than it is at present. But I beg Pardon for even seeming to pretend to correct _Homer_; and speak This with all possible Submission. It is true, the Conquest of _Troy_ is not compleated in the _Iliad_; no more is the Settlement of the _Trojans_ by the Building of the Heroe's City in the _Æneis_: But _Hector_ is killed in the one; as _Turnus_ is in the other; and the Consequences of Both are very visible. I acknowledge indeed, that those of the former are not so near in view as those of the latter. But tho' _Virgil_ in his _Æneis_, and _Homer_ himself in his _Odyssée_, inform us that the Death of _Hector_ was not the immediate Cause of the Destruction of _Troy_; the War continuing with great Obstinacy for a considerable time after that Heroe's Death; as the Stratagem of the Wooden Horse was the immediate Cause of that City's Destruction; And tho' _Homer_ confines the direct Action of his _Iliad_ only to a Part of the _Trojan_ War: Yet he takes in the Whole from the Amour of _Paris_ and _Helen_ to the Burning of the Town, by way of Narration, and by way of Prophecy; which Artifice, next to Fiction, is the most proper Character of Epick Poetry, as distinguished from History. For the Invention of This, we are (at least so far as we know) solely obliged to _Homer_: And for This alone, if he had done nothing else, he would have merited that immortal Glory, which for This, and for a thousand other Excellencies, he now most justly possesses.

The Shortness of the Time, and the Simplicity of the Action, are Circumstances which, in the Opinion of some, give the _Iliad_ a great Advantage over the _Æneis_. The first mentioned would be no such Advantage; if what _Ruæus_ says were true; that the _Iliad_ takes up a Year: For Monsieur _Segrais_ has made it plain to a Demonstration, that the _Æneis_ takes up no more. But I wonder _Ruæus_ should affirm That of the _Iliad_; when it is manifest that the whole Action includes no more than forty seven Days. As to the Simplicity, or Singleness of which; if That be the Action which I apprehend, (for, out of Deference to the commonly received Opinion, I do not insist upon it) the Action is more complex, than it is generally supposed. But admitting that in the _Iliad_ the Action is more simple, as well as the Time shorter, than in the _Æneis_: Doubtless a single Action is better than a complicated one, _as such_; or in other Words, it is better, if it can be made equally entertaining. But there is the Difficulty: And for that Reason, it is a Question not yet decided, whether, even in Pieces for the Theatre, complicated Actions, all things considered, be not, generally speaking, preferable to single ones. And there is yet more Reason to prefer the former in an Epic Poem; which is of a far wider Extent, and partakes the Nature of History in some Respects, as well as of the Drama in others. "_Virgil_ (says Mr. _Pope_[11]) for want of so warm a Genius [as _Homer_'s] aided himself by taking in a more extensive Subject, as well as a greater Length of Time; and contracted the Design of both _Homer_'s Poems into one, which is yet but a fourth Part as large as his." The supposed Coolness of _Virgil_'s Genius shall be considered hereafter. At present I acknowledge he took what he thought proper out of the _Iliad_ and _Odyssée_, tho' he did not take his _Design_ from either; and his first six Books resemble the _Odyssée_, as the last six do the _Iliad_: And his one Poem, 'tis granted, is in Number of Books no more than a Quarter of _Homer_'s two. But in This the Advantage seems to be on his Side. For there is, if I do not greatly miscalculate, as much important Matter, and as great a Variety of Incidents, in _Virgil_'s Twelve, as in _Homer_'s Forty eight. And yet is _Virgil_'s Poem too much crouded, and the Matter too thick? I think not. Are not _Homer_'s, on the contrary, too lean? and is not the Matter too thinly spred? I think it is. When I say a greater Number of Incidents; I do not mean more Men killed, more Battles fought, more Speeches spoke, and the like: Those are not Incidents; and I own _Homer_ has many more of them than _Virgil_. Mr. _Pope_ admires the Variety of _Homer_'s Battles for this Reason, that tho' they are so numerous they are not tedious. This is _extraordinary_ indeed, if it be _true_: But whether a Thing be tedious or not, is Matter of Experience, rather than of Judgment; and so every particular Person must speak as he finds. Upon his Multitude of Speeches, the most ingenious Gentleman above-mentioned, (who was certainly _born a Poet_, if ever Man was) has this Remark: "It is hardly credible, in a Work of such a Length, how small a Number of Lines are employed in Narration. In _Virgil_ the Dramatic Part is less in proportion to the Narrative." It is so; and even in proportion to the different Length of their Works, _Homer_ has undoubtedly more Speeches than _Virgil_; too many, in my humble Opinion. _Homer_ has not enough of the Narrative Part; but _Virgil_ has enough of the Dramatic; if it must be so called. For, by the way, (tho' I very well remember that _Aristotle_ applies this Word to the Epopée, and have elsewhere taken notice of it, and have observed from Monsieur _Dacier_, that he uses it in a different Sense from This of which we are now speaking) I do not understand why Speech-making in an Heroic Poem must be called _Dramatic_; and by virtue of that Name pass for a Beauty. The Drama indeed consists wholly of Speeches; but then they are spoken by the Persons themselves, who are actually introduced and represented; not related and recited by the Author as spoken by others, as they always are in an Epic Poem. _Those_ are both agreeable, and necessary; _These_, if they take up far the greatest Part of the Work, being inserted by the everlasting Repetition of those introducing, and closing interlocutory Tags, Κaί μιν φωνήσας, Τόν δ' αὖτε προσέειπε, Ὣς ἔφατ', Τὸν δ' ἀπαμειβόμενος, _&c._ are apt to tire the Reader; nor does the Word _Dramatic_ at all lessen the Disgust which they give him. I am aware too, that setting aside the Word _Dramatic_, _Aristotle_ expresly declares for a Multitude of Speeches, and little Narration in Epic Poetry: But then I beg Leave once for all to make a Remark upon this Subject, which may be applied to some others; That _Aristotle_'s Precepts are formed upon _Homer_'s Practice; no _other_ Heroic Poet having _then_ appeared in the World. But since the Case is now quite altered, to give _Homer_ the Preference to _Virgil_ upon Rules entirely drawn from his own Practice, would be _begging the Question_ even in the Judgment of _Aristotle_ as a Logician, whatever might be his Opinion as a Critick. Not but that, after all, a far greater Part even of _Virgil_'s Poem is employed in Speeches, than one would imagine without a _very close Attention_: If I may judge of others by my self, we are deceived by him in this Particular, (so exquisite is his Art) and even after frequent Readings do not ordinarily take notice that there are so many Speeches in his _Æneis_ as there really are: An infallible Sign that they are excellent in themselves, and most skilfully introduced and connected. I agree that in an Epic Poem they ought to be _very numerous_; tho' I do not ground that Opinion upon the Reason which _Aristotle_ assigns; _viz._ That otherwise a Poet would not be an _Imitator_. For is there no _Imitation_ but in _Speeches_? What are _Descriptions_?

By more Incidents then I do not mean (as I said) more Men killed, more Battles fought, more Speeches spoke; but more memorable and surprizing Events. Take these Poems therefore purely as Romances; and consider them only with regard to the History, and Facts contained in them, the Plots, the Actions, Turns, and Events; That of _Virgil_ is more copious, full, various, and surprizing, and every way more entertaining, than Those of _Homer_. Then is there any Comparison between the Subjects of the Poems? Between the Anger of _Achilles_, (if That be the Subject of the _Iliad_) and the Return of _Ulysses_ in Those of the Greek Poet; and the Founding of _Rome_, and the Glory of the _Romans_ in That of the Latin one?