Talk:Ars Poetica (Horace)

message: Can the claim that the ars poetica originates with Horace be referenced or qualified? I'm certainly no expert, but Aristotle's "Poetics" (which has also been less commonly translated as Ars Poetica) is writeen about 200 years earlier, and the Wikipedia entry on Aristotle (under Aesthetic Writings) says as much.
Can someone support the claim that Horace's Ars Poetica is written in circa 18 B.C.? I have here a Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics book by Niall Rudd, which states that the Ars poetica is written in c. 10 B.C.
Shanechan
: Aristotle's "Poetics" was indeed written over three hundred years before Horace's work (Aristotle died in 322 B.C.).  However, ars poetica means "art of poetry", and Horace was the first writer to approach poetry as a craft (not with just theory, as Aristotle did).  Therefore, I'd say its okay to give the credit to Horace.  
As far as the claim of the date, the Norton Anthology suggests 10 B.C., and that's the only date I can find elsewhere with any consistency.
I'd also like to pose a question.  Should Horace's ars poetica have its own page?  It seems to warrant one.  I think that a more detailed historical summary of the work, why Horace's views on poetry were different than Plato and Aristotle, as well as the ars poetica's impact on scholarship through the middle ages, would be beneficial.  I'm also thinking about adding some details on the decorum section; its only one line right now. DerelictDante (talk) 04:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronological Error? 

message: Its a bit obscure but a hip-hop group called No Bird Sing made a song titled 'Ars Poetica' in 2009, probably not as well respected as the other poets mentioned, but still worth mentioning as contemporary artists.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.118.226 (talk) 09:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? Is that your personal value judgment?173.72.63.150 (talk) 23:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Bird Sing 

message: In the "Horace" section, the words "ut pictura poesis" [as is painting so is poetry] are said to mean "…poetry, in its widest sense meaning 'imaginative texts,' merits the same careful interpretation that was in his day reserved for painting." This strikes me as being a personal opinion. I don’t think that it is generally agreed that Horace meant his words to mean that both poetry and painting have such a common characteristic. Deserving careful consideration is a quality that many things have in common: financial planning, naming children, travelling through dangerous lands, etc. etc. Also, why would painting merit careful consideration only in Horace’s "day" and not at other times? Maybe Horace meant that both poetry and painting should be pictorial and appeal to the visual imagination.Lestrade (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Meriting Careful interpretation

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Ars Poetica (Horace). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050209203746/http://www.english.emory.edu:80/DRAMA/ArsPoetica.html to http://www.english.emory.edu/DRAMA/ArsPoetica.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified