Perhaps some may Reproach me, as Mr. _Corneille_ did all the precedent Commentators. _They have Explain'd_ Aristotle (says that great Man) _as Grammarians, or Philosophers, and not as Poets; because they had more of the Study, and Speculation, than Experience of the Theatre. The Reading them may make us more Learned, but can give us no further Insight, how we may succeed._ This Reproach is founded on this general Maxim, _That every one ought to be believ'd in his own Art._ It seems then, that those should not pretend to explain the Rules of Poesie, who never yet made Poems. The Principle is true, but the Consequence is not so, for before that is drawn, we must see to whom the Art of Poetry, and what it produc'd, does property belong. 'Tis not Poesie it self which is produced, for then it would have been, before it was. 'Tis Philosophy that brought it first into play, and consequently, it belongs to Philosophy, to give, and explain its Rules. This is so true, that _Aristotle_ made not these Rules as a Poet, but as a Philosopher: And if he made them as such, why may they not be explain'd that way too? And as it was not necessary to make _Dramatick_ Poems, to give Rules to that Art, so 'tis no more necessary that they should be made, to Explain those Rules. I don't know indeed, whether he who has made Pieces for the Theatre, is so proper to explain the Rules of this Art, as he that never did, for 'twould be a Miracle if one was not biass'd by self-Love, when the other is a dis-interested Judge, who has no other Aim, than discovering the Truth, and making it known. Mr. _Corneille_ himself may be an Example of this. All that he would Establish in his new Discourse of _Dramatick Poetry_, is less founded on Nature, than his own proper Interest. It appears by his own Words, that the design he had of defending what he had ventured on the Stage, obliged him to forsake _Aristotle's_ Rules, and to Establish new ones, which should be more favourable to himself; we shall see in the Remarks, whether they can bear the Test. 'Tis therefore no ways necessary to have made Poems, to prescribe Rules for Poesie, and yet much less to explain them. If it was so, I would say there were none, for of all those which have given any, I knew but one that was a Poet; _Horace_ himself never made an Epick Poem or a Tragedy, but to prescribe Rules for Poesie, as also to explain them; it is sufficient to know the Origine, and Scope of the Art Treated of; to have examin'd those Poems, which are the Basis and Foundation, to have made Reflections on what is agreeable, and disagreeable, and rightly to discover the Causes; this is the only necessary Knowledge I have endeavour'd to acquire, and Philosophy alone can lead me thither.