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?
It is said by Mr. Dryden[12], and others, that Homer's Moral is more Noble than Virgil's; but for what Reason I know not. The Quarrel of Achilles and Agamemnon teaches us the ill Consequences of Discord in a State; and the Story of the Dogs, the Sheep, and the Wolf, in Æsop's Fables, does the same.[13] This indeed is a very good Lesson; but it seems too narrow, and particular, to be the Grand Moral of an Heroic Poem. It is proper, if you please, to be inserted in such a Work; and many more as important as This are interspersed up and down, and mentioned among other Things, both in That of Virgil, and in Those of Homer. But how much more noble, extensive, and truly Heroic a Moral is This; That Piety to God, and Justice and Goodness to Men, together with true Valour, both Active, and Passive, (not such as consists in Strength, Intrepidity, and Fierceness only, which is the Courage of a Tyger, not of a Man) will engage Heaven on our Sides, and make both Prince, and People, victorious, flourishing, and happy? And This is the Moral of the Æneis, properly so called. For tho' Virgil had plainly another End in view, which was to conciliate the Affections of the Roman People to the new Government of Augustus Cæsar; upon which Bossu, and after him Mr. Dryden, have largely, and excellently discoursed: Yet this is rather of a Political, than of a Moral Nature. Mr. Pope seeming to acknowledge that the Moral of the Æneis is preferable to That of the Iliad, only says that the same Arguments upon which that Preference is grounded might set the Odyssée above the Æneis. But as he does not give Reasons for that Assertion, it will be sufficient to say, that there seems to me to be at least as much Morality in Virgil's Poem, as in the Odyssée it self; and that particularly in the Characters of the Heroes, Æneas as much excels Ulysses in Piety, as Achilles does Æneas in rapid Valour. And for Virtue in general, the Point between the two Heroes last mentioned is entirely yielded by every Body in favour of Virgil's; the very Moral of the Iliad requiring that it's Heroe should be immoral. But sure it is more artful and entertaining, as well as useful and instructive, to have the Moral of the Poem so cast and contrived, that the principal Person in it may be good and virtuous, as well as great and brave. It will be said, Homer could not avoid that Inconvenience; Achilles having a known Character before: It may be so; and I am glad of that Excuse: But still so it is; and it would have been better, if it had been otherwise. Or if you will have it as Mr. Pope puts it, (less, I think, to Homer's Advantage) He did not design to do otherwise: "They blame him (says he) for not doing what he never designed: As because Achilles is not as good, and perfect a Prince as Æneas, when the very Moral of his Poem required a contrary Character." I wish then his Design had been different: Because if it had, it would have been better. If a Man does ill; is it an Answer to say, He designed to do so? The Account which Horace gives of Achilles is a very true one:
Impiger, iracundus, inexorabilis, acer;
Jura negat sibi nata, nihil non arrogat armis.
Heroic Virtues, no doubt! An admirable Character of a Demi-god!
But who will contend that the Grecian Poet is comparable to the Roman, in his exquisite Understanding of humane Nature, and particularly in his Art of moving the Passions? Which is one of the most distinguishing Characters of a Poet, and in which he peculiarly triumphs and glories. I mention only the fourth Æneid, (tho' an hundred other Instances might be mentioned) and desire That Book alone may be matched in this respect by all Homer's Works put together. And yet I am not unmindful of several excellent pathetical Passages in both those immortal Poems.