Monsieur Bossu's Treatise of the Epick Poem/Chapter 12
CHAP. XII.
Horace's Thoughts of the Epick Fable.
'TIS time now to join Aristotle and Horace to Homer and Virgil, and to see whether the Thoughts and Precepts of our two Masters about the Nature of the Epick Fable agree with the Practice of our two Poets. We will begin with Horace.
As for the Word Fable there is no difficulty in it; he gives it to the [1]Dramatick, he gives it to the Epick Poem, and in plain Terms calls the [2]Iliad a Fable. The business is to know what he means by this Word, and what in his Opinion the Epick Fable is.
If it be granted that this kind of Fable is of the same Nature with those of Æsop, as we just now observed: Then we cannot say that an Epopéa is the Panegyrick of a Hero; of whom is rehearsed some illustrious Action or other; nor that the Epick Fable is only the Disposition of the different Parts of that Action, and of the several Fictions with which 'tis garnished.
Three Things may clear up this difficulty: The first is the Choice and Imposition of the Names, which are given to the Personages of the Fable: The second is the Design which the Poet has of teaching Morality under an Allegory: And the third is the Virtue and Excellency of the chief Personage.
The First is most decisive: For if the Action be feigned, and the Fable prepared before the Poet has so much as thought of the Name he is to give to his chief Personage; without doubt he does not undertake the Elogy of any particular Man. But we do not find that Horace has concerned himself in the business of imposing Names: Therefore we refer this to the following Chapter, where we shall enquire into the Opinion of Aristotle.
The Point about Morality is expresly in Horace. This Critick is entirely for the way I proposed. He says * That Homer lays down admirable Instructions for the Conduct of Humane Life, and herein prefers the Iliad and the Odyssei's to the Writings of the most excellent Philosophers. This is self-evident, and having said as much already, we wave saying any more about it: The Reader may consult his Epistle to Lollius.
But what signifies it (may some one say) if Homer had a mind to lay down Instructions of Morality? This does not himder, but he might have made choice of a Hero whom he might have praised, and this Elogy rightly managed might be a Fable. He was willing then to praise Achilles and Ʋlysses as Xenophon did his Cyrus. Is not this plainly the Design of Virgil? And if Homer was less successful, ought we not to pardon the Imperfection of these first Ages, which did not furnish him with those great Ideas of Vertue, and those perfect Heroes which after-Ages did produce?
The Hero of Virgil is indeed a true Hero in Morality as well as Poetry; and represents to Kings a compleat Model of all the Vertues which conspire to make a great Prince. This might have given that Idea of the Epick Fable, which we are now examining. For the Aeneid is better read and understood than the Iliad. And Men are easily perswaded, that the Design of these less known Pieces is the same with that which they are so well acquainted with. Besides, this Judgment is backed by that noble Idea Men commonly conceive of the Valour of Achilles, and of the consummated Prudence of Ʋlysses. These are almost the two only Things which the generality of the World are acquainted with in the Greek Poems: Which may have induced them to believe that the Fables of Homer are the Panegyricks of Achilles and Ulysses.
But if Horace, of whom we now speak, had been of this Mind; and if he had believed that the Design of an Epick Poem, should be to establish the Merit of a Hero, and to propose him to others as a Model of Perfection; it necessarily follows, that either this great Critick was not well acquainted with considerable Defects in the Heroes of Homer, or else that he did not think Homer was a good Pattern to imitate.
Yet we see he knew the one, and believed the other. He knew no Vertue in Achilles, nor any Action that deserved Praise. On the contrary, he says, That in all the Iliad, both in the Grecians Camp, and in the City of Troy, there was nothing to be seen but Sedition, Treachery, Villainy, Lust, and Passion: And he never commends Achilles, neither for his Valour, nor for his killing Hector, nor for any thing else he did against the Trojans.
Yet 'tis evident what an esteem he has for Homer; and that he carped at no Faults of his but * Peccadilloes. He would have every one, that has a mind to be a Poet,† have Homer before him night and day: And he proposes the Achilles of Homer with all the Vices, and all the Defects he imputes to him, as a great Exemplar for others to follow. ‡ He would have him be cholerick, inexorable, one who knows nothing of Justice, but has all his Reason at his Sword's Point.
'Tis true, to these Qualities he has joined Vigilancy and Zeal to carry on an Enterprize. But these Qualities being in their own Nature indifferent, have nothing that is good, but in Persons duly accomplished as was Scipio. In wicked Persons they are pernicious Vices, as in Catiline, who made no other use of them but to oppress his Country. 'Tis then in this last sence that Horace ascribes them to Achilles, since he would have him be represented, as unjust and passionate.
In †Ʋlysses he did discover an Example of Vertue: But since, in truth, he does equally commend Homer, for giving us in his two Poems an Example of Vertue, and an Example of Vice, should we not conclude, that the good or bad Qualities of the chief Personages, are not at all necessary nor essential to the Epick Fable; and that Horace never thought the Epopéa was an Elogy of an Hero?
That which the Iliad and the Odysseis have in common, is, that each of them is a Moral Instruction disguised under the Allegories of an Action. This is what Horace discovers in them; and by Consequence each of them, in the Opinion of this Critick, is a Fable, and such a one as we described it.