and every book into several cantos, imitating the scenes which compose
our acts.

But this, I think, is rather a play in narration, as I may call it,
than an heroic poem. If at least you will not prefer the opinion of a
single man to the practice of the most excellent authors, both of
ancient and latter ages. I am no admirer of quotations; but you shall
hear, if you please, one of the ancients delivering his judgment on
this question; it is Petronius Arbiter, the most elegant, and one of
the most judicious authors of the Latin tongue; who, after he had
given many admirable rules for the structure and beauties of an epic
poem, concludes all in these following words:--

_"Non enim res gestæ versibus comprehendendæ sunt, quod longe melius
historici faciunt: sed, per ambages deorumque ministeria,
præcipitanaus est liber spiritus, ut potius furentis animi vaticinatio
appareat, quam religiosæ orationis, sub testibus, fides."_

In which sentence, and his own essay of a poem, which immediately he
gives you, it is thought he taxes Lucan, who followed too much the
truth of history, crowded sentences together, was too full of points,
and too often offered at somewhat which had more of the sting of an
epigram, than of the dignity and state of an heroic poem. Lucan used
not much the help of his heathen deities: There was neither the
ministry of the gods, nor the precipitation of the soul, nor the fury
of a prophet (of which my author speaks), in his _Pharsalia_; he
treats you more like a philosopher than a poet, and instructs you in
verse, with what he had been taught by his uncle Seneca in prose. In
one word, he walks soberly afoot, when he might fly. Yet Lucan is not
always this religious historian. The oracle of Appius and the