325 Fabula, nullius veneris, fine pondere et arte, 320 COMMENTARY. to 323] that, where it has remarkably prevailed, the fuccefs of a play hath fometimes been fecured by it, without one fingle excellence or recommendation befides. II. He fhews [from 1. 323 to 333] another caufe of their incorrectnefs and want of fuccefs, in any degree, anfwering to that of the Greek writers, to have been the low and illiberal education of the Roman youth; who, while the Greeks were taught to open all their mind to glory, were cramped in their genius by the ruft of gain, and, by the early infusion of such fordid principles, became unable to project a great defign, or with any care and maftery to complete it. III. A third impediment to their fuccefs in poetry [from 1. 333 to 346] was their inattention to the en tire Aut fimul et jocunda et idonea dicere vitae. COMMENTARY. tire fcope and purpose of it, while they contented themfelves with the attainment of one only of the two great ends, which are propofed by it. For the double defign of poetry being to inftruct and pleafe, the full aim and glory of the art cannot be attained without uniting them both: that is, inftructing so as to please, and pleasing so as to inftruct. Under either head of inftruction and entertainment the poet, with great addrefs, infinuates the main art of each kind of writing, which confifts, 1. in inftructive or didactic poetry [from 335 to 338] in the concifeness of the precept: and, 2. in works of fancy and entertainment [1. 338 to 341] in probability of fiction. But both thefe [1. 341 to 347] must concur in a just piece. But here the bad poet objects the difficulty of the terms, impofed upon him, and that, if the critic looked Sunt delicta tamen, quibus ignoviffe velimus: Nam neque chorda fonum reddit, quem volt manus et mens; Pofcentique gravem perfaepe remittit acutum:349 COMMENTARY. looked for all thefe requifites, and exacted them with rigour, it would be impoffible to fatisfy him: at least it was more likely to difcourage, than quicken, as he propofed, the diligence of writers. To this the reply is [from 1. 347 to 360] that he was not fo fevere, as to exact a faultlefs and perfect piece: that fome inaccuracies and faults of less moment would escape the most cautious and guarded writer; and that, as he fhould contemn a piece, that was generally bad, notwithstanding a few beauties, he could, on the contrary, admire a work, that was generally good, notwithstanding a few faults. Nay, he goes on [from 1. 360 to 366] to obferve in favour of writers, against their too rigorous cenfurers, that what were often called Ut pictura, poëfis: erit quae, fi propius ftes, dictum Tolle memor: certis medium et tolerabile rebus Recte concedi: confultus juris, et actor Caufarum mediocris; abest virtute diferti Meffallae, nec fcit quantum Cafcellius Aulus; COMMENTARY. 379 called faults, were really not fo: that fome parts of a poem ought to be less fhining, or lefs finished, than others; according to the light, they were placed in, or the distance, from which they were viewed; and that, ferving only to connect and lead to others of greater confequence, it was fufficient if they pleafed once, or did not displease, provided that thofe others would please on every review. All this is faid agreeably to nature, which does not allow every part of a fubject, to be equally fufceptible of ornament; and to the end of poetry, which cannot fo well be attained, without an inequality. The allufions to painting, which the poet ufes, give this truth the happiest illuftration. Having thus made all the reasonable allowances, which a writer could expect, he goes on to inforce the general inftruction of this part, viz. a diligence in writing, by fhewing [from 1. 366 to 379] that a me diocrity, Sed tamen in pretio est: mediocribus effe poëtis Non homines, non Dî, non conceffere columnae. Ut gratas inter menfas fymphonia difcors, paver Et craffum unguentum, et Sardo cum melle pa- COMMENTARY. diocrity, however tolerable, or even commendable, it might be in other arts, would never be allowed in this: for which he affigns this very obvious and juft reafon; that, as the main end of poetry is to please, if it did not reach that point (which it could not do by ftopping ever fo little on this fide excellence) it was, like indifferent mufic, indifferent perfumes, or any other indifferent thing, which we can do without, and whofe end fhould be to please, offenfive and difagreeable, and for want of being very good, abfolutely and infufferably bad. This reflexion leads him with great advantage [from 1. 379 to 391] to the general conclufion in view, viz. that as none but excellent poetry will be allowed, it fhould be a warning to writers, how they engage in it without abilities; or publish without severe and frequent correction. But to ftimulate the poet, who, notwithstanding the allowances |