And Theocritus his verses are sometimes as sounding and his thoughts as high: for upon serious consideration I cannot mind what part of all the Heroicks is so strong and sounding as that Idyllium on Hercules λεοντοφονω in which Hercules himself tells Phyleus how he kill’d the Lyon whose Skin he wore: for, not to mention many, what can be greater than this expression.

Why should I instance in the διόσκουροι, which hath not one line below Heroick; the greatness of this is almost inexpressible.

And some other pieces are as strong as these, such is the Panegyrick on Ptolemy, Helen’s Epithalamium, and the Fight of young Hercules and the Snakes: now how is it likely that such Subjects should be fit for Pastorals, of which in my opinion, the same may be said which Ovid doth of his Cydippe.

For certainly Pastorals ought not to rise to the Majesty of Heroicks: but who on the other side dares reprehend such great and judicious Authors, whose very doing it is Authority enough? What shall I say of Virgil? who in his Sixth Eclogue hath put together allmost all the particulars of the fabulous Age; what is so high to which Silenus that Master of Mysterys doth not soar?

And afterward

So true, so certain ’tis, that nothing is so high and lofty to which Bucolicks may not successfully aspire. But if this be so, what will become of Macrobius, Georgius Valla, Julius Scaliger, Vossius, and the whole company of Grammarians? who all affirm that simplicity and meanness is so essential to Pastorals, that it ought to be confin’d to the State, Manners, Apprehension and even common phrases of Sheapards: for nothing can be said to be Pastoral, which is not accommodated to their condition; and for this Reason Nannius Alcmaritanus in my opinion is a trifler, who, in his comments on Virgils Eclogues, thinks that those sorts of Composures may now and then be lofty, and treat of great subjects: where he likewise divides the matter of Bucolicks, into Low, Middle, and High: and makes Virgil the Author of this Division, who in his Fourth Eclogue, (as he imagines) divides the matter of Bucolicks into Three sorts, and intimates this division by these three words: Bushes, Shrubs and Woods.

By Woods, as he fancys, as Virgil means high and stately Trees, so He would have a great and lofty Subject to to be implyed,such as he designed for the Consul: by Bushes, which are almost even with the ground, the meanest and lowest argument; and by Shrubs a Subject not so high as the one, nor so low as the other, as the thing it-self is, And therefore these lines

are thus to be understood, That if we choose high and sublime arguments, our work will be fit for the Patronage of a Consul, This is Nanniu’s interpretation of that place; too pedantial and subtle I’me affraid, for tis not credible that ever Virgil thought of reckoning great and lofty things amongst the Subjects of Bucolicks especially since

This certainly was a serious admonition, implyed by the twitching of his Ear, and I believe if he had continued in this former humor and not obey’d the smarting admonition. He had still felt it: so far was he from thinking Kings and Battels fit Themes for a Sheapards song: and this evidently shows that in Virgils opinion, contrary to Nanniu’s fancy, great things cannot in the least be comprehended within the subject matter of Pastorals; no, it must be low and humble, which Theocritus very happily expresseth by this word Βουκολιάσδην i. e. as the interpreters explain it, sing humble Strains.

Therefore let Pastoral never venture upon a lofty subject, let it not recede one jot from its proper matter, but be employ’d about Rustick affairs: such as are mean and humble in themselves; and such are the affairs of Shepherds, especially their Loves, but those must be pure and innocent; not disturb’d by vain suspitious jealousy, nor polluted by Rapes; The Rivals must not fight, and their emulations must be without quarrellings: such as Vida meant.

To these may be added sports, Jests, Gifts, and Presents; but not costly, such are yellow Apples, young stock-Doves, Milk, Flowers, and the like; all things must appear delightful and easy, nothing vitious and rough: A perfidious Pimp, a designing Jilt, a gripeing Usurer, a crafty factious Servant must have no room there, but every part must be full of the simplicity of the Golden-Age, and of that Candor which was then eminent: for as Juvenal affirms

Sometimes Funeral-Rites are the subject of an Eclogue, where the Shepherds scatter flowers on the Tomb, and sing Rustick Songs in honor of the Dead: Examples of this kind are left us by Virgil in his Daphnis, and Bion in his Adonis, and this hath nothing disagreeable to a Shepherd: In short whatever, the decorum being still preserv’d, can be done by a Sheapard, may be the Subject of a Pastoral.

Now there may be more kinds of Subjects than Servius or Donatus allow, for they confine us to that Number which Virgil hath made use of, tho Minturnus in his second Book de Poetâ declares against this opinion: But as a glorious Heroick action must be the Subject of an Heroick Poem, so a Pastoral action of a Pastoral; at least it must be so turn’d and wrought, that it might appear to be the action of a Shepherd; which caution is very necessary to be observ’d, to clear a great many difficulties in this matter: for tho as the Interpreters assure us; most of Virgils Eclogues are about the Civil war, planting Colonys, the murder of the Emperor, and the like, which in themselves are too great and too lofty for humble Pastoral to reach, yet because they are accomodated to the Genius of Shepherds, may be the Subject of an Eclogue, for that sometimes will admit of Gods and Heroes so they appear like, and are shrouded under the Persons of Shepherds: But as for these matters which neither really are, nor are so wrought as to seem the actions of Shepherds, such are in Moschus’s Europa, Theocritus’s Epithalamium of Helen, and Virgil’s Pollio, to declare my opinion freely, I cannot think them to be fit Subjects for Bucolicks: And upon this account I suppose ’tis that Servius in his Comments on Virgil’s Bucoliks reckons only seven of Virgil’s ten Eclogues, and onely ten of Theocritus’s thirty, to be pure Pastorals, and Salmasius upon Solinus says, that amongst Theocritus’s Poems there are some which you may call what you please Beside Pastorals: and Heinsius in his Scholia upon Theocritus will allow but Ten of his Idylliums to be Bucoliks, 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 11. for all the rest are deficient either in matter or form, and from this number of pure pastoral Idylliums I am apt to think, that Theocritus seems to have made that Pipe, on which he tun’d his Pastorals and which he consecrated to Pan of ten Reeds, as Salmasius in his notes on Theocritus’s Pipe hath learnedly observed: in which two Verses always make one Reed of the Pipe, therefore all are so unequal, like the unequal Reeds of a Pipe, that if you put two equals together which make one Reed, the whole inequality consists in ten pairs; when in the common Pipes there were usually no more then seven Reeds, and this the less curious observers have heedlessly past by.

Some are of opinion that whatever is done in the Country, and in one word, every thing that hath nought of the City in it may be treated of in Pastorals; and that the discourse of Fishers, Plow-men, Reapers, Hunters, and the like, belong to this kind of Poetry: which according to the Rule that I have laid down cannot be true for, as I before hinted nothing but the action of a Shepherd can be the Subject of a Pastoral.

I shall not here enquire, tho it may seem proper, whether we can decently bring into an Eclogue Reapers, Vine-dressers, Gardners, Fowlers, Hunters, Fishers, or the like, whose lives for the most part are taken up with too much business and employment to have any vacant time for Songs, and idle Chat, which are more agreeable to the leisure of a Sheapards Life: for in a great many Rustick affairs, either the hardship and painful Labor will not admit a song, as in Plowing, or the solitude as in hunting, Fishing, Fowling, and the like; but of this I shall discourse more largely in another place.

Now ’tis not sufficient to make a Poem a true Pastoral, that the Subject of it is the action of a Shepherd, for in Hesiods ἔργα and Virgils Georgicks there are a great many things that belong to the employment of a Shepherd, yet none fancy they are Pastorals; from whence ’tis evident, that beside the matter, which we have defin’d to be the action of a Sheapard, there is a peculiar Form proper to this kind of Poetry by which ’tis distinguish’d from all others.

Of Poetry in General Socrates, as Plato tells us, would have Fable to be the Form: Aristotle Imitation: I shall not dispute what difference there is between these two, but only inquire whether Imitation be the Form of Pastoral: ’tis certain that Epick Poetry is differenc’t from Tragick only by the manner of imitation, for the latter imitates by action, and the former by bare narration: But Pastoral is the imitation of a Pastoral action either by bare narration, as in Virgil’s Alexis, and Theocritus’s 7th Idyllium, in which the Poet speaks all along in his own Person: or by action as in Virgil’s Tityrus, and the first of Theocritus, or by both mixt, as in the Second and Eleventh Idylliums, in which the Poet partly speaks in his own Person, and partly makes others speak, and I think the old Scholiast on Theocritus took an hint from these when he says, that Pastoral is a mixture made up of all sorts, for ’tis Narrative, Dramatick, and mixt, and Aristotle, tho obscurely, seems to hint in those words, In every one of the mentioned Arts there is Imitation, in some simple, in some mixt; now this latter being peculiar to Bucolicks makes its very form and Essence: and therefore Scaliger, in the 4th Chapter of his first Book of Poetry, reckons up three Species of Pastorals, the first hath but one Person, the second several, which sing alternately; the third is mixt of both the other: And the same observation is made by Heinsius in his Notes on Theocritus, for thus he very plainly to our purpose, the Character of Bucolicks is a mixture of all sorts of Characters, Dramatick, Narrative, or mixt: from all which ’tis very manifest that the manner of Imitation which is proper to Pastorals is the mixt: for in other kinds of Poetry ’tis one and simple, at least not so manifold; as in Tragedy Action: in Epick Poetry Narration.

Now I shall explain what sort of Fable; Manners, Thought, Expression, which four are necessary to constitute every kind of Poetry, are proper to this sort.

Concerning the Fable which Aristotle calls, σύνθεσιν τῶν πραγμάτων,

I have but one thing to say: this, as the Philosopher hints, as of all other sorts of Poetry, so of Pastoral is the very Soul. and therfore Socrates in Plato says, that in those Verses which he had made there was nothing wanting but the Fable: therefore Pastorals as other kinds of Poetry must have their Fable, if they will be Poetry: Thus in Virgil’s Silenus which contains the Stories of allmost the whole Fabulous Age, two Shepherds whom Silenus had often promis’d a Song, and as often deceived, seize upon him being drunk and asleep, and bind him with wreath’d Flowers; Ægle comes in and incourages the timorous youths, and stains his jolly red Face with Blackberries, Silenus laughs at their innocent contrivance, and desires to be unbound, and then with a premeditated Song satisfies the Nymph’s and Boys Curiosity; The incomparable Poet sings wonders, the Rocks rejoyce, the Vales eccho, and happy Eurotas as if Phœbus himself sang, hears all, and bids the Laurels that grow upon his Banks listen to, and learn the Song.

Thus every Eclogue or Idyllium must have its Fable, which must be the groundwork of the whole design, but it must not be perplext with sudden and unlookt for changes, as in Marinus’s Adonis: for that, tho the Fable be of a Shepherd, yet by reason of the strange Bombast under Plots, and wonderful occurences, cannot be accounted Pastoral; for that it might be agreeable to the Person it treats of, it must be plain and simple, such as Sophocles’s Ajax, in which there is not so much as one change of Fortune. As for the Manners, let that precept, which Horace lays down in his Epistle to the Pisones, be principally observed.

For this, as ’tis a rule relateing to Poetry in general, so it respects this kind also of which we are treating; and against this Tasso in his Amyntas, Bonarellus in his Phyllis, Guarinus in his Pastor Fido, Marinus in his Idylliums, and most of the Italians grievously offend, for they make their Shepherds too polite, and elegant, and cloth them with all the neatness of the Town, and Complement of the Court, which tho it may seem very pretty, yet amongst good Critics, let Veratus say what he will in their excuse, it cannot be allowed: For ’tis against Minturnus’s Opinion, who in his second Book de Poetâ says thus: Mean Persons are brought in, those in Comedy indeed more polite, those in Pastorals more unelegant, as suppos’d to lead a rude life in Solitude; and Jason Denor a Doctor of Padua takes notice of the same as a very absurd Error: Aristotle heretofore for a like fault reprehended the Megarensians, who observ’d no Decorum in their Theater, but brought in mean persons with a Train fit for a King and cloath’d a Cobler or Tinker in a Purple Robe: In vain doth Veratus in his Dispute against Jason Denor, to defend those elaborately exquisite discourses, and notable sublime sentences of his Pastor Fido, bring some lofty Idylliums of Theocritus, for those are not acknowledged to be Pastoral; Theocritus and Virgil must be consulted in this matter, the former designdly makes his Shepherds discourse in the Dorick i. e. the Rustick Dialect, sometimes scarce true Grammar; & the other studiously affects ignorance in the persons of his Shepherds, as Servius hath observ’d, and is evident in Melibæus, who makes Oaxes to be a River in Crete when ’tis in Mesopotamia: and both of them take this way that the Manners may the more exactly suit with the Persons they represent, who of themselves are rude and unpolisht: And this proves that they scandalously err, who make their Shepherds appear polite and elegant; nor can I imagine what Veratus who makes so much ado about the polite manners of the Arcadian Shepherds, would say to Polybius who tells us that Arcadians by reason of the Mountainousness of the Country and hardness of the weather, are very unsociable and austere.

Now as too much neatness in Pastoral is not to be allow’d, so rusticity (I do not mean that which Plato, in his Third Book of a Commonwealth, mentions which is but a part of a down right honesty) but Clownish stupidity, such as Theophrastus, in his Character of a Rustick, describes; or that disagreeable unfashionable roughness which Horace mentions in his Epistle to Lollius, must not in my opinion be endur’d: On this side Mantuan errs extreamly, and is intolerably absur’d, who makes Shepherds blockishly sottish, and insufferably rude: And a certain Interpreter blames Theocritus for the same thing, who in some mens opinion sometimes keeps too close to the Clown, and is rustick and uncouth; But this may be very well excus’d because the Age in which he sang was not as polite as now.

But that every Part may be suitable to a Shepherd, we must consult unstain’d, uncorrupted Nature; so that the manners might not be too Clownish nor too Caurtly: And this mean may be easily observed if the manners of our Shepherds be represented according to the Genius of the golden Age, in which, if Guarinus may be believ’d, every man follow’d that employment: And Nannius in the Preface to his Comments on Virgil’s Bucolicks is of the same opinion, for he requires that the manners might represent the Golden Age: and this was the reason that Virgil himself in his Pollio describes that Age, which he knew very well was proper to Bucolicks: For in the whole course of a Shepherds life there can be no form more excellent than that which was the practise of the Golden Age; And this may serve to moderate and temper the affections that must be exprest in this sort of Poetry, and sufficiently declare the whole Essence of it, which in short must be taken from the nature of a Shepherds life to which a Courtly dress is not agreeable.

That the Thought may be commendable, it must be suitable to the manners; as those must be plain and pure that must be so too: nor must contain any, deep, exquisite, or elaborate fancies: And against this the Italians offend, who continually hunt after smart witty sayings, very foolishly in my opinion; for in the Country, where all things should be full of plainess and simplicity who would paint or endeavor to be gawdy when such appearances would be very disagreeable and offend? Pontanus in this matter hath said very well, The Thought must not be to exquisite and witty, the Comparisons obvious and common, such as the State of Persons and Things require: Yet tho too scrupulous a Curiosity in Ornament ought to be rejected, yet lest the Thought be cold and flat, it must have some quickness of Passion, as in these.

And again,

The Sense must not be long, copious, and continued, ForPastoral is weak, and not able to hold out; but of this more when I come to lay down rules for its Composure: But tho it ought to imitate Comedy in its common way of discourse, yet it must not chose old Comedy for its pattern, for that is too impudent, and licentiously abusive: Let it be free and modest, honest and ingenuous, and that will make it agreeable to the Golden Age.

Let the Expression be plain and easy, but elegant and neat, and the purest which the language will afford; Pontanus upon Virgils Bucolicks gives the very same rule, In Bucolicks the Expression must be humble, nearer common discourse than otherwise, not very Spirituous and vivid, yet such as shows life and strength: Tis certain that Virgil in his Bucolicks useth the same words which Tully did in the Forum or the Senate; and Tityrus beneath his shady Beech speaks as pure and good Latin as Augustus in his Palace, as Modicius in his Apology for Virgil hath excellently observ’d: This rule, ’tis true; Theocritus hath not so strictly follow’d, whose Rustick and Pastoral Muse, as Quintilian phraseth it, not only is affraid to appear in the Forum, but the City, and for the very same thing an Alexandrian flouts the Syracucusian Weomen in the Fifteenth Idyllium of Theocritus, for when they, being then in the City, spoke the Dorick Dialect, the delicate Citizen could not endure it, and found fault with their distastful, as he thought, pronunciation: and his reflection was very smart.

So intolerable did that broad way of pronunciation, tho exactly fit for a Clowns discourse, seem to a Citizen: and hence Probus observes that ’twas much harder for the Latines to write Pastorals than for the Greeks; because the Latines had not some Dialects peculiar to the Country, and others to the City, as the Greeks had; Besides the Latine Language, as Quintilian hath observ’d, is not capable of the neatness which is necessary to Bucolicks, no, that is the peculiar priviledge of the Greeks: We cannot, says he, be so low, they exceed us in subtlety, and in propriety they are at more certainty than We: and again, in pat and close Expressions we cannot reach the Greeks: And, if we believe Tully, Greek is much more fit for Ornament than Latin for it hath much more of that neatness, and ravishing delightfulness, which Bucolicks necessarily require.

Yet of Pastoral, with whose Nature we are not very well acquainted, what that Form is which the Greeks call the Character, is not very easy to determine; yet that we may come to some certainty, we must stick to our former observation, viz. that Pastoral belongs properly to the Golden Age: For as Tully in his Treatise de Oratore says, in all our disputes the Subject is to be measur’d by the most perfect of that kind, and Synesius in his Encomium on Baldness hints the very same, when he tells us that Poetry fashions its subject as Men imagine it should be, and not as really it is: πρὸς δόξαν, οὐ πρὸς ἀλήθειαν: Now the Life of a Shepherd, that it might be rais’d to the highest perfection, is to be referr’d to the manners and age of the world whilst yet innocent, and such as the Fables have describ’d it: And as Simplicity was the principal vertue of that Age, so it ought to be the peculiar Grace, and as it were Character of Bucolicks: in which the Fable, Manners, Thought, and Expression ought to be full of the most innocent simplicity imaginable: for as Innocence in Life, so purity and simplicity in discourse was the Glory of that Age: So as gravity to Epicks, Sweetness to Lyricks, Humor to Comedy, softness to Elegies and smartness to Epigrams, so simplicity to Pastorals is proper; and one upon Theocritus says, that the Idea of his Bucolicks is in every part pure, and in all that belongs to simplicity very happy: Such is this of Virgil, unwholsome to us Singers is the shade

Than which in my opinion nothing can be more simply; nothing more rustically said; and this is the reason I suppose why Macrobius says that this kind of Poetry is creeping and upon mean subjects; and why too Virgils Tityrus lying under his shady Beech displeaseth some; Excellent Criticks indeed, whom I wish a little more sense, that they might not really be, what they would not seem to be, Ridiculous: Theocritus excells Virgil in this, of whom Modicius says, Theocritus deserves the greatest commendation for his happy imitation of the simplicity of his Shepherds, Virgil hath mixt Allegories, and some other things which contain too much learning, and deepness of Thought for Persons of so mean a Quality: Yet here I must obviate their mistake who fancy that this sort of Poetry, because in it self low and simple, is the proper work of mean Wits, and not the most sublime and excellent perfections: For as I think there be can nothing more elegant than easy naked simplicity, so likewise nothing can require more strength of Wit, and greater pains; and he must be of a great and clear judgment, who attempts Pastoral, and comes of with Honor. For there is no part of Poetry that requires more spirit, for if any part is not close and well compacted the whole Fabrick will be ruin’d, and the matter, in it self humble, must creep; unless it is held up by the strength and vigor of the Expression.

Another qualification and excellence of Pastoral is to imitate Timanthes’s Art, of whom Pliny writes thus; Timanthes was very Ingenious, in all his peices more was to be understood than the Colours express’d, and tho his Art was very extraordinary yet his Fancy exceeded it: In this Virgil is peculiarly happy, but others, especially raw unexperienced Writers, if they are to describe a Rainbow, or a River, pour out their whole stock, and are unable to contain: Now ’tis properly requisite to a Pastoral that there should be a great deal coucht in a few words, and every thing it says should be so short, and so close, as if its chiefest excellence was to be spareing in Expression: such is that of Virgil;

How short is that? how concise? and yet how full of sense in the same Eclogue.

And the like you may every where meet with, as

and in the second Eclogue,

This Grace Virgil learn’d from Theocritus, allmost most all whose Periods; especially in the third Idyllium, have no conjunction to connect them, that the sense might be more close, and the Affection vehement and strong: as in this

And in the third Eclogue.

And any one may find a great many of the like in Theocritus and Virgil, if with a leisurely delight he nicely examines their delicate Composures: And this I account the greatest grace in Pastorals, which in my opinion those that write Pastorals do not sufficiently observe: ’tis true Ours (the French) and the Italian language is to babling to endure it; This is the Rock on which those that write Pastorals in their Mother tongue are usually split, But the Italians are inevitably lost; who having store of Wit, a very subtle invention and flowing fancy, cannot contain; everything that comes into their mind must be poured out, nor are they able to endure the least restraint: as is evident from Marinus’s Idylliums, and a great many of that nation who have ventur’d on such composures; For unless there are many stops and breakings off in the series of a Pastoral, it can neither be pleasing nor artificial: And in my Opinion Virgil excells Theocritus in this, for Virgil is neither so continued, nor so long as Theocritus; who indulges too much the garrulity of his Greek; nay even in those things which he expresseth he is more close, and more cautiously conceals that part which ought to be dissembled: And this I am sure is a most admirable part of Eloquence; as Tully in his Epistle to Atticus says, ’tis rare to speak Eloquently, but more rare to be eloquently silent: And this unskillful Criticks are not acquainted with, and therefore are wont oftner to find fault with that which is not fitly exprest, than commend that which is prudently conceal’d: I could heap up a great many more things to this purpose, but I see no need of such a trouble, since no man can rationally doubt of the goodness of my Observation. Therefore, in short, let him that writes Pastorals think brevity, if it doth not obscure his sense, to be the greatest grace which he can attain.

Now why Bucolicks should require such Brevity, and be so essentially sparing in Expression, I see no other reason but this: It loves Simplicity so much that it must be averse to that Pomp and Ostentation which Epick Poetry must show, for that must be copious and flowing, in every part smooth, and equal to it self: But Pastoral must dissemble, and hide even that which it would show, like Damon’s Galatea, who flies then when she most desires to be discovered.

And this doth not proceed from any malitious ill-natur’d Coyness, as some imagine, but from an ingenuous modesty and bashfulness, which usually accompanies, and is a proof of Simplicity: Tis very rare, says Pliny, to find a man so exquisitely skillful, as to be able to show those Features in a Picture which he hides, and I think it to be so difficult a task, that none but the most excellent Wits can attempt it with success: For small Wits usually abound with a multitude of words.

The third Grace of Bucolicks is Neatness, which contains all the taking prettiness and sweetness of Expression, and whatsoever is call’d the Delicacies of the more delightful and pleasing Muses: This the Rural Muses bestow’d on Virgil, as Horace in the tenth Satyr of his first Book says,

Which Fabius takes to signify the most taking neatness and most exquisite Elegance imaginable: For thus he explains this place, in which he agrees with Tully, who in his Third Book de Oratore, says, the Atticks are Facetious i.e. elegant: Tho the common Interpreters of these words are not of the same mind: But if by Facetious Horace had meant jesting, and such as is design’d to make men laugh, and apply’d that to Virgil, nothing could have been more ridiculous; ’tis the design of Comedy to raise laughter, but Eclogue should only delight, and charm by its takeing prettiness: All ravishing Delicacies of Thought, all sweetness of Expression, all that Salt from which Venus, as the Poets Fable, rose; are so essential to this kind of Poetry, that it cannot endure any thing that is scurillous, malitiously biteing, or ridiculous: There must be nothing in it but Hony, Milk, Roses, Violets, and the like sweetness, so that when you read you might think that you are in Adonis’s Gardens, as the Greeks speak, i.e. in the most pleasant place imaginable: For since the subject of Eclogue must be mean and unsurprizing, unless it maintains purity and neatness of Expression, it cannot please.

Therefore it must do as Tully says his friend Atticus did, who entertaining his acquaintance with Leeks and Onions, pleas’d them all very well, because he had them serv’d up in wicker Chargers, and clean Baskets; So let an Eclogue serve up its fruits and flowers with some, tho no costly imbellishment, such as may answer to the wicker Chargers, and Baskets; which may be provided at a cheap rate, and are agreeable to the Country: yet, (and this rule if you aim at exact simplicity, can never be too nicely observ’d,) you must most carefully avoid all paint and gawdiness of Expression, and, (which of all sorts of Elegancies is the most difficult to be avoided) you must take the greatest care that no scrupulous trimness, or artificial fineness appear: For, as Quintilian teaches, in some cases diligence and care most most troublesomly perverse; and when things are most sweet they are next to loathsome and many times degenerate: Therefore as in Weomen a careless dress becomes some extreamly. Thus Pastoral, that it might not be uncomely, ought sometimes to be negligent, or the finess of its ornaments ought not to appear and lye open to every bodies view: so that it ought to affect a studied carelessness, and design’d negligence: And that this may be, all gawdiness of Dress, such as Paint and Curls, all artificial shining is to be despis’d, but in the mean time care must be taken that the Expression be bright and simply clean, not filthy and disgustful, but such as is varnisht with Wit and Fancy: Now to perfect this, Nature is chiefly to be lookt upon, (for nothing that is disagreeable to Nature can please) yet that will hardly prevail naked, by it self, and without the polishing of Art.

Then there are three things in which, as in its parts, the whole Character of a Pastoral is contain’d: Simplicity of Thought and expression: Shortness of Periods full of sense and spirit: and the Delicacy of a most elegant ravishing unaffected neatness.

Next I will enquire in to the Efficient, and then into the Final Cause of Pastorals.

Aristotle assigns two efficient Causes of Poetry, The natural desire of Imitation in Man whom he calls the most imitative Creature; and Pleasure consequent to that Imitation: Which indeed are the Remote Causes, but the Immediate are Art and Nature; Now according to the differences of Genius’s several Species of Poetry have been introduced. For as the Philosopher hath observ’d, διεσπάθη κατὰ τὰ οἰκεῖα ἤθη ἡ ποίησις Thus those that were lofty imitated great and Illustrious; those that were low spirited and groveling mean Actions: And every one, according to the various inclination of his Nature, follow’d this or that sort of Poetry: This the Philosopher expresly affirms, And Dio Chrysostomus says of Homer that he received from the Gods a Nature fit for all sorts of Verse: but this is an happiness which none partake but, as he in the same place intimates, Godlike minds.

Not to mention other kinds of Poetry, what particular Genius is requir’d to Pastoral I think, is evident from the foregoing Discourse, for as every part of it ought to be full of simple and inartificial neatness, so it requires a Wit naturally neat and pleasant, born to delight and ravish, which are the qualifications certainly of a great and most excellent Nature: For whatsoever in any kind is delicate and elegant, that is usually most excellent: And such a Genius that hath a sprightfulness of Nature, and is well instructed by the rules of Art, is fit to attempt Pastorals.

Of the end of Pastorals tis not so easy to give an account: For as to the end of Poetry in General: The Enemies of Poets run out into a large common place, and loudly tell us that Poetry is frivolous and unprofitable. Excellent men! that love profit perchance, but have no regard for Honesty and Goodness; who do not know that all excellent Arts sprang from Poetry at first.

For tis Poetry that like a chast unspotted Virgin, shews men the way, and the means to live happily, who afterward are deprav’d by the immodest precepts of vitiated and impudent Philosophy. For every body knows, that the Epick sets before us the highest example of the Bravest man; the Tragedian regulates the Affections of the Mind; the Lyrick reforms Manners, or sings the Praises of Gods, and Heroes; so that there’s no part of Poetry but hath it’s proper end, and profits.

But grant all this true, Pastoral can make no such pretence: if you sing a Hero, you excite mens minds to imitate his Actions, and notable Exploits; but how can Bucolicks apply these or the like advantages to its self? He that reads Heroick Poems, learns what is the vertue of a Hero, and wishes to be like him; but he that reads Pastorals, neither learns how to feed sheep, nor wishes himself a shepherd: And a great deal more to this purpose you may see in Modicius, as Pontanus cites him in his Notes on Virgil’s Eclogues.

But when tis the end of Comedy, as Jerom in his Epistle to Furia says, to know the Humors of Men, and to describe them; and Demea in Terence intimates the same thing,

so that our Humors and Conversations may be better’d, and improv’d; why may not Pastoral be allow’d the same Priviledge, and be admitted to regulate and improve a Shepherd’s life by its Bucolicks? For since tis a product of the Golden Age, it will shew the most innocent manners of the most ancient Simplicity, how plain and honest, and how free from all varnish, and deceit, to more degenerate, and worse times: And certainly for this tis commendable in its kind, since its design in drawing the image of a Country and Shepherd’s life, is to teach Honesty, Candor, and Simplicity, which are the vertues of private men; as Epicks teach the highest Fortitude, and Prudence, and Conduct, which are the vertues of Generals, and Kings. And tis necessary to Government, that as there is one kind of Poetry to instruct the Citizens, there should be another to fashion the manners of the Rusticks: which if Pastoral, as it does, did not do, yet would it not be altogether frivolous, and idle, since by its taking prettinesses it can delight, and please. It can scarce be imagin’d, how much the most flourishing times of the Roman Common-wealth, in which Virgil wrote, grew better and brisker by the use of Pastoral: with it were Augustus, Mecænas, Asinius Pollio, Alphenus Varus, Cornelius Gallus, the most admired Wits of that happy Age, wonderfully pleas’d; for whatever is sweet, and ravishing, is contain’d in this sweetest kind of Poetry. But if we must slight every thing, from which no profit is to be hop’d, all pleasures of the Eye and Ear are presently to be laid aside; and those excellent Arts, Musick, and Painting, with which the best men use to be delighted, are presently to be left off. Nor is it indeed credible, that so many excellent Wits, as have devoted themselves to Poetry, would ever have medled with it, if it had been so empty, idle, and frivolous, as some ridiculously morose imagine; who forsooth are better pleas’d with the severity of Philosophy, and her harsh, deform’d impropriety of Expressions. But the judgments of such men are the most contemptible in the world; for when by Poetry mens minds are fashioned to generous Humors, Kindness, and the like: those must needs be strangers to all those good qualites, who hate, or proclaim Poetry to be frivolous, and useless.

The Third PART.

Rules for writing Pastorals.

IN delivering Rules for writing Pastorals, I shall not point to the streams, which to look after argues a small creeping Genius, but lead you to the fountains. But first I must tell you, how difficult it is to write Pastorals, which many seem not sufficiently to understand: For since its matter is low, and humble, it seems to have nothing that is troublesome, and difficult. But this is a great mistake, for, as Horace says of Comedy, "It is by so much the more difficult, by how much the less pardonable are the mistakes committed in its composure": and the same is to be thought of every thing, whose end is to please, and delight. For whatsoever is contriv’d for pleasure, and not necessarily requir’d, unless it be exquisite, must be nauseous, and distastful; as at a Supper, scraping Musick, thick Oyntment, or the like, because the Entertainment might have been without all these; For the sweetest things, and most delicious, are most apt to satiate; for tho the sense may sometimes be pleas’d, yet it presently disgusts that which is luscious, and, as Lucretius phraseth it,

Beside, since Pastoral is of that nature, that it cannot endure too much negligence, nor too scrupulous diligence, it must be very difficult to be compos’d, especially since the expression must be neat, but not too exquisite, and fine: It must have a simple native beauty, but not too mean; it must have all sorts of delicacies, and surprizing fancies, yet not be flowing, and luxuriant. And certainly, to hit all these excellencies is difficult enough, since Wit, whose nature it is to pour it self forth, must rather be restrain’d than indulg’d; and that force of the Mind, which of it self is so ready to run on, must be checkt, and bridled: Which cannot be easily perform’d by any, but those who have a very good Judgment, and practically skill’d in Arts, and Sciences: And lastly, a neat, and as it were a happy Wit; not that curious sort, I mean, which Petronius allows Horace, lest too much Art should take off the Beauty of the Simplicity. And therefore I would not have any one undertake this task, that is not very polite by Nature, and very much at leisure. For what is more hard than to be always in the Country, and yet never to be Clownish? to sing of mean, and trivial matters, yet not trivially, and meanly? to pipe on a slender Reed, and yet keep the sound from being harsh, and squeaking? to make every thing sweet, yet never satiate? And this I thought necessary to premise, in order to the better laying down of such Rules as I design. For the naked simplicity both of the Matter and Expression of a Pastoral, upon bare Contemplation, might seem easily to be hit, but upon trial ’twill be found a very hard task: Nor was the difficulty to be dissembled, lest Ignorance should betray some into a rash attempt. Now I must come to the very Rules; for as nothing excellent can be brought to perfection without Nature, (for Art unassisted by that, is vain, and ineffectual,) so there is no Nature so excellent, and happy, which by its own strength, and without Art and Use can make any thing excellent, and great.

But tis hard to give Rules for that, for which there have been none already given; for where there are no footsteps nor path to direct, I cannot tell how any one can be certain of his way. Yet in this difficulty I will follow Aristotle’s Example, who being to lay down Rules concerning Epicks, propos’d Homer as a Pattern, from whom he deduc’d the whole Art: So I will gather from Theocritus and Virgil, those Fathers of Pastoral, what I shall deliver on this account. For all the Rules that are to be given of any Art, are to be given of it as excellent, and perfect, and therefore ought to be taken from them in whom it is so.

The first Rule shall be about the Matter, which is either the Action of a Shepherd, or contriv’d and fitted to the Genius of a Shepherd; for tho Pastoral is simple, and bashful, yet it will entertain lofty subjects, if it can be permitted to turn and fashion them to its own proper Circumstances, and Humor: which tho Theocritus hath never done, but kept close to pastoral simplicity, yet Virgil hath happily attempted; of whom almost the same Character might be given, which Quintilian bestow’d on Stesichorus, who with his Harp bore up the most weighty subjects of Epick Poetry; for Virgil sang great and lofty things to his Oaten Reed, but yet suited to the Humor of a Shepherd, for every thing that is not agreeable to that, cannot belong to Pastoral: of its own nature it cannot treat of lofty and great matters.

Therefore let Pastoral be smooth and soft, not noisy and bombast; lest whilst it raiseth its voice, and opens its mouth, it meet with the same fate that, they say, an Italian Shepherd did, who having a very large mouth, and a very strong breath, brake his Pipe as often as he blow’d it. This is a great fault in one that writes Pastorals: for if his words are too sounding, or his sense too strong, he must be absurd, because indecently loud. And this is not the rule of an unskilful impertinent Adviser, but rather of a very excellent Master in this Art; for Phoebus twitcht Virgil by the Ear, and warn’d him to forbear great Subjects: but if it ventures upon such, it may be allow’d to use some short Invocations, and, as Epicks do, modestly implore the assistance of a Muse. This Virgil doth in his Pollio, which is a Composure of an unusual loftiness: