Chapter III: Part 3

_Animadverti_ a plerisque _hominis aetatem_ in septem divisam esse partes, infantiam, pueritiam, adolescentiam, juventutem, virilitatem, senectutem, & _ut ab illis dicitur_, decrepitatem. _In hâc verò parte nihil de_ infantiae _moribus Horatius, cum nihil ea aetas praeter vagitum habeat proprium, ideòque infantis persona minimè in scenâ induci possit, quòd ipsas rerum voces reddere neque dum sciat, neque valeat. Nihil de moribus item hujus aetatis, quam, si latinè licet_, decrepitatem _vocabimus_, quae aetas quodammodo infantiae respondet: _de_ juventute _autem_ & adolescentia _simul pertractat, quòd et studiis, et naturâ, & voluntate, parum, aut nihil inter se differant. Aristoteles etiam in libris ad Theodectem omisit_ & pueritiam, & _meritò; cum minime apud pueros, vel de pueris sit orator habiturus orationem. Ille enim ad hoc ex aetate personarum differentiam adhibet, ut instituat oratorem, quomodo moratâ uti debeat oratione, id est, eorum moribus, apud quos, & de quibus loquitur, accommodatâ._

It appears from hence, that it was _common_ for the writers of that time, as well as Shakespeare's Jaques, to divide the life of Man into seven ages, viz. _Infancy, Childhood, Puberty, Youth, Manhood, Old Age_, and _Decrepitude_; "which last, (says Denores) in some sort answers to Infancy," or, as Shakespeare expresses it, IS second childishness.

"Before Shakespeare's time," says Warburton, "_seven acts_ was no unusual division of a play, so that there is a greater beauty than appears at first sight in this image." Mr. Steevens, however, informs us that the plays of that early period were not divided into acts at all. It is most probable therefore that Shakespeare only copied the moral philosophy (the _Socraticae chartae_) of his own day, adapting it, like Aristotle and Horace, to his own purpose; and, I think, with more felicity, than either of his illustrious predecessors, by contriving to introduce, and discriminate, _every one of_ the seven ages. This he has effected by assigning station and character to some of the stages, which to Aristotle and Horace appeared too similar to be distinguished from each other. Thus puberty, youth, manhood, and old age, become under Shakespeare's hand, _the_ lover, _the_ soldier, _the_ justice, and the lean and flipper'd pantaloon; while the _natural qualities_ of the infant, the boy, and the dotard, afford sufficient materials for poetical description.

262.--_Thus_ years advancing _many comforts bring,
and_ flying _bear off many on their wing_.]

_Multa ferunt_ anni venientes _commoda secum,
multa_ recedentes _adimunt_.

Aristotle considers the powers of the body in a state of advancement till the 35th year, and the faculties of the mind progressively improving till the 49th; from which periods they severally decline. On which circumstance, applied to this passage of Horace, Jason de Nores elegantly remarks, _Vita enim nostra videtur ad_ virilitatem _usque, quâ_ in statu _posita est_, quendam quasi pontem _aetatis_ ascendere, _ab eâque inde_ descendere. Whether Addison ever met with the commentary of De Nores, it is perhaps impossible to discover. But this idea of _the_ ascent _and_ declivity _of the_ bridge _of_ human life, strongly reminds us of the delightful _vision of_ mirza.

288.--_An actor's part_ the Chorus _should sustain_.] _Actoris partes_ Chorus, &c.

"See also _Aristotle_ [Greek*: oes. ooiaet. k. iae.] The judgment of two such critics, and the practice of wise antiquity, concurring to establish this precept concerning the Chorus, it should thenceforth, one would think, have become a fundamental rule and maxim of the stage. And so indeed it appeared to some few writers. The most admired of the French tragic poets ventured to introduce it into two of his latter plays, and with such success that, as one observes, _It should, in all reason, have disabused his countrymen on this head: l'essai heureux de M. Racine, qui les [choeurs] a fait revivre dans_ athalie _et dans _esther_, devroit, il semble, nous avoir detrompez sur cet article._ [P. Brumoi, vol. i. p. 105.] And, before him, our _Milton_, who, with his other great talents, possessed a supreme knowledge of antiquity, was so struck with its use and beauty, as to attempt to bring it into our language. His _Sampson Agonistes_ was, as might be expected, a master- piece. But even his credit hath not been sufficient to restore the Chorus. Hear a late Professor of the art declaring, _De _Choro _nihil disserui, quia non est essentialis dramati, atque à neotericis penitus_, et, me judice, merito repudiatur. [Prael. Poet. vol. ii. p. 188.] Whence it hath come to pass that the chorus hath been thus neglected is not now the enquiry. But that this critic, and all such, are greatly out in their judgments, when they presume to censure it in the ancients, must appear (if we look no further) from the double use, insisted on by the poet, For, 1. A _chorus _interposing, and bearing a part in the progress of the action, gives the representation that _probability_, [Footnote: _Quel avantage ne peut il [le poete] pas tirer d'une troupe d'acteurs, qui remplissent sa scene, qui rendant plus sense la continuité de l'action qui la sont paroitre VRAISEMBLABLE puisqu'il n'est pas naturel qu'elle sa passe sans point. On ne sent que trop le vuide de notre Théatre sans choeurs. &c. _[Les Théatre des Grècs. i. p. 105 ] and striking resemblance of real life, which every man of sense perceives, and _feels_ the want of upon our stage; a want, which nothing but such an expedient as the chorus can possibly relieve. And, 2. The importance of its other office [l. 196] to the _utility _of the representation, is so great, that, in a moral view, nothing can compensate for this deficiency. For it is necessary to the truth and decorum of characters, that the _manners_, bad as well as good, be drawn in strong, vivid colours; and to that end that immoral sentiments, forcibly expressed and speciously maintained, be sometimes _imputed _to the speakers. Hence the sound philosophy of the chorus will be constantly wanting, to rectify the wrong conclusions of the audience, and prevent the ill impressions that might otherwise be made upon it. Nor let any one say, that the audience is well able to do this for itself: Euripides did not find even an Athenian theatre so quick-sighted. The story is well known, [Sen. Ep. 115.] that when this painter of the _manners _was obliged, by the rules of his art, and the character to be sustained, to put a run of bold sentiments in the mouth of one of his persons, the people instantly took fire, charging the poet with the _imputed _villainy, as though it had been his _own_. Now if such an audience could so easily misinterpret an attention to the truth of character into the real doctrine of the poet, and this too, when a Chorus was at hand to correct and disabuse their judgments, what must be the case, when the _whole _is left to the sagacity and penetration of the people? The wiser sort, it is true, have little need of this information. Yet the reflexions of sober sense on the course and occurrences of the representation, clothed in the noblest dress of poetry, and enforced by the joint powers of harmony and action (which is the true character of the Chorus) might make it, even to such, a no unpleasant or unprofitable entertainment. But these two are a small part of the uses of the chorus; which in every light is seen so important to the truth, decorum, and dignity of the tragic scene, that the modern stage, which hath not thought proper to adopt it, is even, with the advantage of, sometimes, the justest moral painting and sublimest imagery, but a very faint shadow of the old; as must needs appear to those who have looked into the ancient models, or, diverting themselves of modern prejudices, are disposed to consult the dictates of plain sense. For the use of such, I once designed to have drawn into one view the several important benefits arising to the drama from the observance of this rule, but have the pleasure to find myself prevented by a sensible dissertation of a good French writer, which the reader will find in the VIII tom. of the History of the Academy of Inscriptions end Belles Lettres.--Or, it may be sufficient to refer the English reader to the late tragedies of Elfrida and Caractacus; which do honour to modern poetry, and are a better apology, than any I could make, for the ancient Chorus.----Notes on the Art of Poetry.

Though it is not my intention to agitate, in this place, the long disputed question concerning the expediency, or inexpediency, of the Chorus, yet I cannot dismiss the above note without some farther observation. In the first place then I cannot think that _the judgment of two such Criticks_ as Aristotle and Horace, can be decisively quoted, _as concurring with the practice of wise antiquity,_ to establish the chorus. Neither of these _two Criticks_ have taken up the question, each of them giving directions for the proper conduct of _the Chorus,_ considered as an established and received part of Tragedy, and indeed originally, as they both tell us, _the whole_ of it. Aristotle, in his Poeticks, has not said much on the subject and from the little he has said, more arguments might perhaps be drawn, in favour of the omission, than for the introduction of _the Chorus._ It is true that he says, in his 4th chapter, that "Tragedy, after many changes, paused, _having gained its natural form:"_ [Greek transliteration: 'pollha': moiazolas metazalousa ae tragodia epausto, hepei hesche taen heauiaes phusin]. This might, at first sight, seem to include his approbation of the Chorus, as well as of all the other parts of Tragedy then in use: but he himself expressly tells us in the very same chapter, that he had no such meaning, saying, that "to enquire whether Tragedy be perfect in its parts, either considered in itself, or with relation to the theatre, was foreign to his present purpose." [Greek: To men oun epischopein, eiapa echei aedae hae tragodia tois ikanos, ae ou, auto te kath auto krinomenon, kai pros ta theatra, allos logos.]

In the passage from which Horace has, in the verses now before us, described the office, and laid down the duties of the CHORUS, the passage referred to by the learned Critick, the words of Aristotle are not particularly favourable to the institution, or much calculated to recommend the use of it. For Aristotle there informs us, "that Sophocles alone of all the Grecian writers, made _the_ CHORUS conducive to the progress of the fable: not only even Euripides being culpable in this instance; but other writers, after the example of Agathon, introducing Odes as little to the purpose, as if they had borrowed whole scenes from another play."

[Greek: Kai ton chorus de ena dei upolazein tan upochriton. Kai morion einai tch olch, chai sunagonis*e mae osper par Euripidae, all osper para Sophochlei. Tois de loipois ta didomena mallon ta muthch, ae allaes Tragadias esi di o emzolima adchoi, protch arxanto Agrathonos tch toichtch Kai tch diaphsrei, ae aemzot ma adein, ae raesin ex allch eis allo armotteen, ae eteitodion oleos [per. poiaet. ch. iii.]]

On the whole therefore, whatever may be the merits, or advantages of _the_ CHORUS, I cannot think that the judgment of Aristotle or Horace can be adduced as recommendation of it. As to _the probability given to the representation, by CHORUS interposing and bearing a part in the action;_ the Publick, who have lately in a troop of singers assembled on the stage, as a Chorus, during the whole of presentations of Elfrida and Caractacus, are competent to decide for themselves, how far such an expedient, gives a more _striking resemblance of human life,_ than the common usage of our Drama. As to its importance in a _moral_ view, to correct the evil impression of vicious sentiments, _imputed_ to the speakers; the story told, to enforce its use for this purpose, conveys a proof of its efficacy. To give due force to sentiments, as well as to direct their proper tendency, depends on the skill and address of the Poet, independent of _the_ Chorus,

Monsieur Dacier, as well as the author of the above note, censures the modern stage for having rejected the Chorus, and having lost thereby _at least half its probability, and its_ greatest ornament; so that our Tragedy is _but a very faint shadow of the_ old. Learned Criticks, however, do not, perhaps, consider, that if it be expedient to revive _the_ Chorus, all the other parts of the antient Tragedy must be revived along with it. Aristotle mentions Musick as one of the six parts of Tragedy, and Horace no sooner introduces _the_ CHORUS, but he proceeds to _the _pipe _and _lyre. If a Chorus be really necessary, our Dramas, like those of the antients, should be rendered wholly _musical_; the _Dancers _also will then claim their place, and the pretentions of Vestris and Noverre may be admitted as _classical_. Such a spectacle, if not more _natural_ than the modern, would at least be consistent; but to introduce a groupe of _spectatorial actors_, speaking in one part of the Drama, and singing in another, is as strange and incoherent a medley, and full as _unclassical_, as the dialogue and airs of _The Beggar's Opera!_

290.--_Chaunting no Odes between the acts, that seem_
unapt, _or _foreign _to the _general theme.]

_Nec quid medios, &c._

On this passage the author of the English Commentary thus remarks. "How necessary this advice might be to the writers of the Augustan age cannot certainly appear; but, if the practice of Seneca may give room for suspicion, it should seem to have been much wanted; in whom I scarcely believe _there is_ one single instance, _of the _Chorus being employed in a manner, consonant to its true end and character."

The learned Critick seems here to believe, and the plays under the name of Seneca in some measure warrant the conclusion, that _the _Chorus of the Roman Stage was not calculated to answer the ends of its institution. Aristotle has told us just the same thing, with an exception in favour of Sophocles, of the Grecian Drama. And are such surmises, or such information, likely to strengthen our prejudices on behalf of _the _CHORUS, or to inflame our desires for its revival?

292.----LET IT TO VIRTUE PROVE A GUIDE AND FRIEND.]

_Ille bonis saveatque, &c._

"_The Chorus_," says the poet, "_is to take the side of the good and virtuous_, i. e. is always to sustain a moral character. But this will need some explanation and restriction. To conceive aright of its office, we must suppose the _Chorus _to be a number of persons, by some probable cause assembled together, as witnesses and spectators of the great action of the drama. Such persons, as they cannot be wholly uninterested in what passes before them, will very naturally bear some share in the representation. This will principally consist in declaring their sentiments, and indulging their reflexions freely on the several events and mistresses as they shall arise. Thus we see the _moral_, attributed to the Chorus, will be no other than the dictates of plain sense; such as must be obvious to every thinking observer of the action, who is under the influence of no peculiar partialities from _affection_ or _interest_. Though even these may be supposed in cases, where the character, towards which they _draw_, is represented as virtuous."

"A Chorus, thus constituted, must always, it is evident, take the part of virtue; because this is the natural and almost necessary determination of mankind, in all ages and nations, when acting freely and unconstrained." _Notes on the Art of Poetry._

297.--FAITHFUL AND SECRET.]--_Ille tegat commissa._

On this _nice part_ of the duty of _the_ CHORUS the author of the English Commentary thus remarks.

"This important advice is not always easy to be followed. Much indeed will depend on the choice of the subject, and the artful constitution of the fable. _Yet, with all his care, the ablest writer will sometimes find himself embarrassed by the_ Chorus. i would here be understood to speak chiefly of the moderns. For the antients, though it has not been attended to, had some peculiar advantages over us in this respect, resulting from the principles and practices of those times. For, as it hath been observed of the ancient epic Muse, that she borrowed much of her state and dignity from the false _theology_ of the pagan world, so, I think, it may be justly said of the ancient tragic, that she has derived great advantages of probability from its mistaken _moral_. If there be truth in this reflection, it will help to justify some of the ancient choirs, that have been most objected to by the moderns."

After two examples from Euripides; in one of which the trusty CHORUS conceals the premeditated _suicide_ of Phaedra; and in the other abets Medea's intended _murder of her children_, both which are most ably vindicated by the Critick; the note concludes in these words.

"In sum, though these acts of severe avenging justice might not be according to the express letter of the laws, or the more refined conclusions of the PORCH or ACADEMY; yet there is no doubt, that they were, in the general account, esteemed fit and reasonable. And, it is to be observed, in order to pass a right judgment on the ancient Chorus, that, though in virtue of their office, they were obliged universally to sustain a moral character; yet this moral was rather political and popular, than strictly legal or philosophic. Which is also founded on good reason. The scope and end of the ancient theatre being to serve the interests of virtue and society, on the principles and sentiments, already spread and admitted amongst the people, and not to correct old errors, and instruct them in philosophic truth."

One of the censurers of Euripides, whose opinion is controverted in the above note, is Monsieur Dacier; who condemns _the_ CHORUS in this instance, as not only violating their _moral_ office, but _transgressing the laws_ of Nature _and of_ God, _by a fidelity_; so vicious _and_ criminal, _that these women_, [_the_ Chorus!] _ought to fly away in the Car of Medea, to escape the punishment due to them_. The Annotator above, agrees with the Greek Scholiast, that _the Corinthian women (the_ Chorus) _being free_, properly desert the interests of Creon, and keep Medea's secrets, _for the sake of justice_, according to their custom. Dacier, however, urges an instance of their _infidelity_ in the ION of Euripides, where they betray the secret of Xuthus to Creusa, which the French Critick defends on account of their attachment to their mistress; and adds, that the rule of Horace, like other rules, is proved by the exception. "Besides (continues the Critick in the true spirit of French gallantry) should we so heavily accuse the Poet for not having made _an assembly of women_ keep a secret?" _D'ailleurs, peut on faire un si grand crime à un poete, de n'avoir pas fait en sorte qu'une troupe de femmes garde un secret?_ He then concludes his note with blaming Euripides for the perfidy of Iphigenia at Tauris, who abandons these faithful guardians of her secret, by flying alone with Orestes, and leaving them to the fury of Thoas, to which they must have been exposed, but for the intervention of Minerva.

On the whole, it appears that the _moral importance_ of _the_ CHORUS must be considered _with some limitations_: or, at least, that _the_ CHORUS is as liable to be misused and misapplied, as any part of modern Tragedy.

300.--_The_ pipe _of old_.]--_Tibi, non ut nunc, &c._

"This, says the author of the English Commentary, is one of those many passages in the epistle, about which the critics have said a great deal, without explaining any thing. In support of what I mean to offer, as the true interpretation, I observe,

"That the poet's intention certainly was not to censure the _false_ refinements of their stage-music; but, in a short digressive history (such as the didactic form will sometimes require) to describe the rise and progress of the _true_. This I collect, I. From _the expression itself_; which cannot, without violence, be understood in any other way. For, as to the words _licentia_ and _praeceps_, which have occasioned much of the difficulty, the _first_ means a _freer use_, not a _licentiousness_, properly so called; and the _other_ only expresses a vehemence and rapidity of language, naturally productive of a quicker elocution, such as must of course attend the more numerous harmony of the lyre:--not, as M. Dacier translates it, _une eloquence temeraire et outrée_, an extravagant straining and affectation of style. 2. From _the reason of the thing_; which makes it incredible, that the music of the theatre should then be most complete, when the times were barbarous, and entertainments of this kind little encouraged or understood. 3. From _the character of that music itself_; for the rudeness of which, Horace, in effect, apologizes in defending it only on the score of the imperfect state of the stage, and the simplicity of its judges."

The above interpretation of this part of the Epistle is, in my opinion, extremely just, and exactly corresponds with the explication of De Nores, who censures Madius for an error similar to that of Dacier. _Non rectè sentire videtur Madius, dum putat potius_ in Romanorum luxuriam_ invectum horatium, quam_ de melodiae incremento _tractasse_.

The musick, having always been a necessary appendage to _the_ Chorus, I cannot (as has already been hinted in the note on I. 100 of this version) confider the Poet's notice of the Pipe and Lyre, as a _digression_, notwithstanding it includes a short history of the rude simplicity of the Musick in the earlier ages of Rome, and of its subsequent improvements. _The_ Chorus too, being originally _the whole_, as well as afterwards a legitimate _part_ of Tragedy, the Poet naturally traces the Drama from its origin to its most perfect state in Greece; and afterwards compares its progress and improvements with the Theatre of his own country. Such is, I think, the natural and easy _method_ pursued by Horace; though it differs in some measure from the _order_ and _connection_ pointed out by the author of the English Commentary.

314.--For what, alas! could the unpractis'd ear
Of rusticks revelling o'er country cheer,
A motley groupe; high, low; and froth, and scum,
Distinguish but shrill squeak, and dronish hum?
--_Indoctus quid enim saperet, liberque laborum,
Rusticus urbano confusus, turpis honesto?_

These lines, rather breaking in upon the continuity of the history of theatrical musick, _create_ some obscurity, which has given birth, to various interpretations. The author of the English Commentary, who always endeavours to dive to the very bottom of his subject, understands this couplet of Horace as a _sneer_ on those grave philosophers, who considered these _refinements_ of the musick as _corruptions_. He interprets the passage at large, and explains the above two lines in these words. "Nor let it be objected than this _freer harmony_ was itself an abuse, a corruption of the severe and _moral_ musick of antient times. Alas! we were not as yet so _wise_, to see the inconveniences of this improvement. And how should we, considering the nature and end of these theatrical entertainments, and the sort of men of which our theatres were made up?"

This interpretation is ingenious; but Jason De Nores gives, I think, a more easy and unforced explanation of this difficult passage, by supposing it to refer (by way of _parenthesis_) to what had just been said of the original rude simplicity of the Roman theatrical musick, which, says the Poet, was at least as polished and refined as the taste of the audience. This De Nores urges in two several notes, both which I shall submit to the reader, leaving it to him to determine how far I am to be justified in having adapted my version to his interpretation.

The first of these notes contains at large his reproof of Madius for having, like Dacier, supposed the Poet to censure the improvements that he manifestly meant to commend.

_Quare non recté videtur sentire Madius, dum putat potius in Romanorum luxuriam invectum Horatium, quàm de melodiae incremento tractasse, cùm_ seipsum interpretans, _quid fibi voluerit per haec, luce clarius, ostendat,_

Tibia non ut nunc orichalco vincta, tubaeque AEmula. Et,
Sic priscae motumque, & luxuriam addidit arti
Tibicen, traxitque vagus per pulpita vestem:
Sic etiam fidibus voces crevere feveris,
Et tulit eloquium infolitum fecundia praeceps.

_Ad quid enim tam longâ digressione extra, rem propositam in Romanos inveberetur, cùm de iis nihil alîud dicat, quàm eos genio ac valuptatibus indulgere: cum potius_ veteres Romanos insimulare videatur ionorantiae, quod ignoraverint soni et musices venustatem et jucunditatem, illa priori scilicet incondita et rudi admodum contenti, _dum ait_; Indoctus quid enim saperet, liberque laborum, Rusticus urbano confusus, turpis honesto?

The other note is expressly applied by way of comment on this passage itself.

[Indoctus quidenim saperet?] Reddit rationem quasiper digressionem, occurrens tacitae objectioni quare antea apud Romanos musica melodia parva aut nulla pene fuerat: quia, inquit, indocti ignarique rerum omnium veteres illi nondum poterant judicare de melodia, utpote apud eos re novâ, atque inufitatâ, neque illius jucunditatem degustare, quibus verbis imperitiam eorum, rusticatatemque demonstrat.

Upon the whole De Nores appears to me to have given the true sense of the passage. I am no friend to licentious transpositions, or arbitrary variations, of an author's text; yet I confess, I was strongly tempted, in order to elucidate his perplexed passage, to have carried these two lines of Horace four lines back, and to have inserted them immediately after the 207th verse.

_Et frugi, castus, verecundusque coibat._

The English reader, who wishes to try the experiment, is desired to read the four lines, that compose my version, immediately after the 307th line,

_With modest mirth indulg'd their sober taste._

3l8.--The Piper, _grown luxuriant in his art._]

320.--_Now too, its powers increas'd_, The Lyre severe.]

Sic priscae--arti
tibicen, &c.
sic fidibus, &c.

"This is the application of what hath been said, in general, concerning the refinement of theatrical music to the case of _tragedy_. Some commentators say, and to _comedy._ But in this they mistake, as will appear presently. M. _Dacier_ hath I know not what conceit about a comparison betwixt the _Roman_ and _Greek_ stage. His reason is, _that the lyre was used in the Greek chorus, as appears, he says, from Sophocles himself playing upon this instrument himself in one of his tragedies._ And was it not used too in the Roman chorus, as appears from Nero's playing upon it in several tragedies? But the learned critic did not apprehend this matter. Indeed from the caution, with which his guides, the dealers in antiquities, always touch this point, it should seem, that they too had no very clear conceptions of it. The case I take to have been this: The _tibia_, as being most proper to accompany the declamation of the acts, _cantanti fuccinere_, was constantly employed, as well in the Roman tragedy as comedy. This appears from many authorities. I mention only two from Cicero. _Quam multa_ [Acad. 1. ii. 7.] _quae nos fugiunt in cantu, exaudiunt in eo genere exercitati: Qui, primo inflatu Tibicinis, Antiopam esse aiunt aut Andromacham, cum nos ne suspicemur quidem_. The other is still more express. In his piece entitled _Orator_, speaking of the negligence of the Roman writers, in respect of _numbers_, he observes, _that there were even many passages in their tragedies, which, unless the_ TIBIA _played to them, could not be distinguished from mere prose: quae, nisi cum Tibicen accesserit, orationi sint solutae simillima._ One of these passages is expressly quoted from _Thyestes_, a tragedy of _Ennius_; and, as appears from the measure, taken out of one of the acts. It is clear then, that the _tibia_ was certainly used in the _declamation_ of tragedy. But now the song of the tragic chorus, being of the nature of the ode, of course required _fides_, the lyre, the peculiar and appropriated instrument of the lyric muse. And this is clearly collected, if not from express testimonies; yet from some occasional hints dropt by the antients. For, 1. the lyre, we are told, [Cic. De Leg. ii. 9. & 15.] and is agreed on all hands, was an instrument of the Romon theatre; but it was not employed in comedy, This we certainly know from the short accounts of the music prefixed to Terence's plays. 2. Further, the _tibicen_, as we saw, accompanied the declamation of the acts in tragedy. It remains then, that the proper place of the lyre was, where one should naturally look for it, in the songs of the chorus; but we need not go further than this very passage for a proof. It is unquestionable, that the poet is here speaking of the chorus only; the following lines not admitting any other possible interpretation. By _fidibus_ then is necessarily understood the instrument peculiarly used in it. Not that it need be said that the _tibia_ was never used in the chorus. The contrary seems expressed in a passage of Seneca, [Ep. ixxxiv.] and in Julius Pollux [1. iv. 15. § 107.] It is sufficient, if the _lyre_ was used solely, or principally, in it at this time. In this view, the whole digression is more pertinent, and connects better. The poet had before been speaking of tragedy. All his directions, from 1. 100, respect this species of the drama only. The application of what he had said concerning music, is then most naturally made, I. to the _tibia_, the music of the acts; and, 2. to _fides_, that of the choir: thus confining himself, as the tenor of this part required, to tragedy only. Hence is seen the mistake, not only of M. Dacier, whose comment is in every view insupportable; but, as was hinted, of Heinsius, Lambin, and others, who, with more probability, explained this of the Roman comedy and tragedy. For, though _tibia_ might be allowed to stand for comedy, as opposed to _tragoedia_, [as in fact, we find it in 1. ii. Ep. I. 98,] that being the only instrument employed in it; yet, in speaking expressly of the music of the stage, _fides_ could not determinately enough, and in contradistinction to _tibia_, denote that of tragedy, it being an instrument used solely, or principally, in the chorus; of which, the context shews, he alone speaks. It is further to be observed, that, in the application here made, besides the music, the poet takes in the other improvements of the tragic chorus, these happening, as from the nature of the thing they would do, at the same tine. _Notes on the Art of Poetry._

3l9.--with dance and flowing vest embellishes his part.]

_Traxitque vagus per pulpita vestem._

"This expresses not only the improvement arising from the ornament of proper dresses, but from the grace of motion: not only the _actor_, whose peculiar office it was, but the _minstrel_ himself, as appears from hence, conforming his gesture in some sort to the music.

"Of the use and propriety of these gestures, or dances, it will not be easy for us, who see no such things attempted on the modern stage, to form any very clear or exact notions. What we cannot doubt of is, 1. That the several theatrical dances of the antients were strictly conformable to the genius of the different species of composition, to which they were applied. 2. That, therefore, the tragic dance, which more especially accompanied the Chorus, must have been expressive of the highest gravity and decorum, tending to inspire ideas of what is _becoming, graceful, and majestic;_ in which view we cannot but perceive the important assistance it must needs lend to virtue, and how greatly it must contribute to set all her graces and attractions in the fairest light. 3. This idea of the ancient tragic dance, is not solely formed upon our knowledge of the conformity before-mentioned; but is further collected from the name usually given to it, which was [Greek transliteration: Emmeleia] This word cannot well be translated into our language; but expresses all that grace and concinnity of motion, which the dignity of the choral song required. 4. Lastly, it must give us a very high notion of the moral effect of this dance, when we find the severe Plato admitting it into his commonwealth. _Notes on the Art of Poetry._"

326--he who the prize, a filthy goat, to gain,
at first contended in the tragick strain.
_Carmine qui tragico, vilem certavit ob bircum._

If I am not greatly deceived, all the Editors, and Commentators on this Epistle, have failed to observe, that the _historical_ part of it, relative to the Graecian Drama, commences at this verse; all of them supposing it to begin, 55 lines further in the Epistle, on the mention of Thespis; whom Horace as early, as correctly, describes to be the first _improver_, not _inventor_ of Tragedy, _whose_ original he marks _here._ Much confusion has, I think, arisen from this oversight, as I shall endeavour to explain in the following notes; only observing this place, that the Poet, having spoken particularly of all the parts of Tragedy, now enters with the strictest _order_, and greatest propriety, into its general history, which, by his strictures on the chorus, he most elegantly, as well as forcibly, connects with his subject, taking occasion to speak _incidentally_ of other branches of the Drama, particularly the satyre, and the Old Comedy

323--_Soon too--tho' rude, the graver mood unbroke,_
Stript the rought satyrs, _and essay'd a joke.
Mox etiam_ agrestes saytros, &c.

"It is not the intention of these notes to retail the accounts of others. I must therefore refer the reader, for whatever concerns the history of the satiric, as I have hitherto done of the tragic and comic drama, to the numerous dissertators on the ancient stage; and, above all, so the case before us, to the learned Casaubon; from whom all that hath been said to any purpose, by modern writers, hath been taken. Only it will be proper to observe one or two particulars, which have been greatly misunderstood, and without which if will be impossible, in any tolerable manner, to explain what follows.

"I. The design of the poet, in these lines, is not to fix the origin of the satyric piece, in ascribing the invention of it to Thespis. This hath been concluded, without the least warrant from his own words, which barely tell us, 'that the representation of tragedy was in elder Greece followed by the _satires;_' and indeed the nature of the thing, as well as the testimony of all antiquity, shews it to be impossible. For the _satire_ here spoken of is, in all respects, a regular drama, and therefore could not be of earlier date than the times of Aeschylus, when the constitution of the drama was first formed. It is true indeed, there was a kind of entertainment of much greater antiquity, which by the antients is sometimes called _satyric,_ out of which (as Aristotle assures us) tragedy itself arose, [Greek: *illegible] But then this was nothing but a chorus of satyrs [Athenaeus, 1. xiv.] celebrating the festivals of _Bacchus,_ with rude songs and uncouth dances; and had little resemblance to that which was afterwards called _satiric;_ which, except that it retained the chorus of satyrs, and turned upon some subject relative to Bacchus, was of a quite different structure, and, in every respect, as regular a composition as tragedy itself."

"II. There is no doubt but the poem, here distinguished by the name of satyri, was in actual use on the Roman stage. This appeals from the turn of the poet's whole criticism upon it. Particularly, his address to the Pisos, 1. 235 and his observation of the offence which a loose dialogue in this drama would give to a _Roman_ auditory, 1. 248, make it evident that he had, in fact, the practice of his own stage in view."

"III. For the absolute merit of these satires, the reader will judge of it himself by comparing the Cyclops, the only piece of this kind remaining to us from antiquity, with the rules here delivered by Horace. Only it may be observed, in addition to what the reader will find elsewhere [_n._ 1. 223.] apologized in its favour, that the double, character of the satires admirably fitted it, as well for a sensible entertainment to the wise, as for the sport and diversion of the vulgar. For, while the grotesque appearance and jesting vein of these fantastic personages amused the one, the other saw much further; and considered them, at the same time, as replete with science, and informed by a spirit of the most abstruse wisdom. Hence important lessons of civil prudence, interesting allusions to public affairs, or a high, refined moral, might, with the highest probability, be insinuated, under the slight cover of a rustic simplicity. And from this instructive cast, which from its nature must be very obscure, if not impenetrable, to us at this day, was, I doubt not, derived the principal pleasure which the antients found in this species of the drama. If the modern reader would conceive any thing of the nature and degree of this pleasure, he may in part guess at it, from reflecting on the entertainment he himself receives from the characters of the clowns in Shakespeare; _who_, as the poet himself hath characterized them, _use their folly, like a stalking horse, and, under the presentation of that, shoot their wit._" [_As you like it._]--_Notes on the Art of Poetry._ [Footnote: This, and all the extracts, which are quoted, _Notes on the Art of Poetry_, are taken from the author of the English Commentary. ]

This learned note, I think, sets out with a misapprehension of the meaning of Horace, by involving his _instructions_ on the Satyrick drama, with his account of its _Origin_. Nor does he, in the most distant manner, insinuate, tho' Dacier has asserted the same thing, that _the_ satyrs owed their first introduction to _Thespis_; but relates, that the very Poets, who contended in _the Goat-Song_, to which tragedy owes its name, finding it too solemn and severe an entertainment for their rude holiday audience, interspersed the grave strains of tragedy with comick and _satyrical_ Interludes, producing thereby a kind of medley, something congenial to what has appeared on our own stage, under the name of Tragi-comedy. Nor, if I am able to read and comprehend the context, so the words of Horace tell us, "that the representation of Tragedy was, in 'elder Greece,' _followed_ by _the_ satyrs." The Satyrs composed a part of the Tragedy in its infancy, as well as in the days of Horace, if his own words may be quoted as authority. On any other construction, his directions, concerning* the conduct of the _God_ or _Hero_ of the piece, are scarcely reconcilable to common sense; and it is almost impossible to mark their being incorporated with the Tragedy, in more expressive terms or images, than by his solicitude to prevent their broad mirth from contaminating its dignity or purity._Essutire leves indigna_ tragaedia _versus ut sestis matrona moveri jussa diebus,_ intererit satyris _paulum pudibunda_ protervis.

_The_ cyclops of Euripides, the only Satyrick drama extant, written at a much later period, than that of which Horace speaks in this place, cannot, I think, convey to us a very exact idea of _the Tragick Pastorals_, whose _origin_ he here describes. _The_ cyclops, scarce exceeding 700 lines, might be played, according to the idea of some criticks, after another performance: but that cannot, without the greatest violence to the text, be supposed of the Satyrick piece here mentioned by Horace. The idea of _farces_, or _after-pieces_, tho' an inferior branch of the Drama, is, in fact, among the refinements of an improved age. The writers of an early period throw their dramatick materials, serious and ludicrous, into one mass; which the critical chymistry of succeeding times separates and refines. The modern stage, like the antient, owed its birth to the ceremonies of Religion. From _Mysteries_ and _Moralities_, it proceeded to more regular Dramas, diversifying their serious scenes, like _the_ Satyrick poets, with ludicrous representations. This desire of _variety_ was one cause of the agrestes satyros. _Hos autem loco chori introductor intelligit, non, us quidam volunt, in ipsa tragoedia, cum praesertim dicat factum, ut grata novitate detinerentur spectatores: quod inter unum & alterum actum sit, chori loco. in tragoedia enim ipsa, cum flebilis, severa, ac gravis sit, non requiritur bujusmodi locorum, ludorumque levitas, quae tamen inter medios actus tolerari potest, & boc est quod ait, incolumi gravitate. Ea enim quae funt, quaeve dicuntur inter medios actus, extra tragordiam esse intelligentur, neque imminuunt tragoedioe gravi*tem._--DE NORES.

The distinction made by _De Nores_ of _the satyrs_ not making a part of the tragedy, but barely appearing between the acts, can only signify, that the Tragick and Comick Scenes were kept apart from each other. This is plain from his laying that they held the place of the Chorus; not sustaining their continued part in the tragick dialogue, but filling their chief office of singing between the acts. The antient Tragedy was one continued representation, divided into acts by the Chant of _the CHORUS_; and, otherwise, according to modern ideas, forming _but one act_, without any interruption of the performance.

These antient Satyrick songs, with which the antient Tragedians endeavoured to enliven the Dithyrambicks, gave rise to two different species of poetry. Their rude jests and petulant raillery engendered _the Satire_; and their sylvan character produced _the Pastoral_.

328.--THO' RUDE, THE GRAVER MOOD UNBROKE--
Stript the rough Satyrs, and ESSAYED A JOKE

--Agrestes Satyros nudavis, & asper,
INCOLUMI GRAVITATE, jocum tentavit.

"It hath been shewn, that the poet could not intend, in these lines, to _fix the origin of the satiric drama_. But, though this be certain, and the dispute concerning that point be thereby determined, yet it is to be noted, that he purposely describes the satire in its ruder and less polished form; glancing even at some barbarities, which deform the Bacchic chorus; which was properly the satiric piece, before Aeschylus had, by his regular constitution of the drama, introduced it under a very different form on the stage. The reason of this conduit is given in _n._ on l. 203. Hence the propriety of the word _nudavit_, which Lambin rightly interprets, _nudos introduxit satyres,_ the poet hereby expressing the monstrous indecorum of this entertainment in its first unimproved state. Alluding also to this ancient character of the _satire,_ he calls him _asper,_ i.e. rude and petulant; and even adds, that his jests were intemperate, and _without the least mixture of gravity._ For thus, upon the authority of a very ingenious and learned critic, I explain _incolumi gravitate,_ i. e. rejecting every thing serious, bidding _farewell,_ as we may say, _to all gravity._ Thus [L. in. O. 5.].

_Incolumi Jove et urbe Româ:_

i.e. bidding farewell to Jupiter [Capitolinus] and Rome; agreeably to what is said just before,

_Anciliorum et neminis et togae
OBLITUS, aeternaeque Vestae._

or, as salvus is used more remarkably in Martial [I. v. 10.]

_Ennius est lectus salvo tibi, Roma, Marone:
Et sua riserunt secula Maeonidem._

"_Farewell, all gravity, is as remote from the original sense of the words _fare well,_ as _incolumi gravitate_ from that of _incolumis, or salvo Morona_ from that of _salvas._"

Notes on the Art of Poetry.

The beginning of this note does not, I think, perfectly accord with what has been urged by the same Critick in the note immediately preceding; He there observed, that the "satyr here spoken of, is, _in all respects,_ a regular Drama, and therefore _could not be of earlier date,_ than the times of Aeschylus.

Here, however, he allows, though in subdued phrase, that, "though this be certain, and the dispute concerning that point thereby determined,_ yet it is to be noted, _that he purposely describes the satyr_ in its ruder and less polished form; _glancing even at some barbarities, which deform_ the bacchic chorus; which was properly the Satyrick piece, _before_ Aeschylus had, by his regular constitution of the Drama, introduced it, _under a very different form,_ on the stage." In a subsequent note, the same learned Critick also says, that "the connecting particle, _verum, [verum ita risores, &c.]_ expresses the opposition intended between the _original satyr_ and that which the Poet approves." In both these passages the ingenious Commentator seems, from the mere influence of the context, to approach to the interpretation that I have hazarded of this passage, avowedly one of the most obscure parts of the Epistle. The explanation of the words incolumi gravitate, in the latter part of the above note, though favourable to the system of the English Commentary, is not only contrary to the construction of all other interpreters, and, I believe, unwarranted by any acceptation of the word _incolumis,_ but, in my opinion, less elegant and forcible than the common interpretation.

The line of the Ode referred to,

INCOLUMI _Jove, et urbe Româ?_

was never received in the sense, which the learned Critick assigns to it.

The Dauphin Editor interprets it,
STANTE _urbe, & Capitolino Jove Romanos protegente._
Schrevelius, to the same effect, explains it,
SALVO _Capitolio, quae Jovis erat sedes._

These interpretations, as they are certainly the most obvious, seem also to be most consonant to the plain sense of the Poet.

330.--_For holiday spectators, flush'd and wild,
With new conceits and mummeries were beguil'd.
Quippe erat_ ILLECEBRIS, _&c._

Monsieur Dacier, though he allows that "all that is here said by Horace proves _incontestibly_, that the Satyrick Piece had possession of the Roman stage;" _tout ce qu' Horace dit icy prouve_ incontestablement _qu'il y avoit des Satyres_; yet thinks that Horace lavished all these instructions on them, chiefly for the sake of the atellane fables. The author of the English Commentary is of the same opinion, and labours the point very assiduously. I cannot, however, discover, in any part of Horace's discourse on _the_ satyrs, one expression glancing towards _the_ atellanes, though their oscan peculiarities might easily have been marked, so as not to be mistaken.

335.--_That_ GOD _or_ HERO _of the lofty scene,
May not, &c.
Ne quicumque_ DEUS, _&c._

The Commentators have given various explanations of this precept. _De Nores_ interprets it to signify _that the same actor, who represented a God or Hero in the_ Tragick _part of the Drama, must not be employed to represent a Faun or Sylvan in the_ Satyrick. _Dacier has a strange conceit concerning the joint performance of a _Tragedy_ and _Atellane_ at one time, the same God or Hero being represented as the principal subject and character of both; on which occasion, (says he) the Poet recommends to the author not to debase the God, or Hero of _the_ Tragedy, by sinking his language and manners too low in _the_ atellane; whose stile, as well as measure, should be peculiar to itself, equally distant from Tragedy and Farce.

The author of the English Commentary tells us, that "Gods and Heroes were introduced as well into the _Satyrick_ as _Tragick_ Drama, and often the very same Gods and Heroes, which had born a part in THE PRECEDING TRAGEDY; a practice, which Horace, I suppose, intended, by this hint, to recommend as most regular."

The two short notes of Schrevelius, in my opinion, more clearly explain the sense of Horace, and are in these words.

_Poema serium, jocis_ Satyricis _ita_ commiscere--_ne seilicet is, qui paulo ante_ DEI _instar aut_ herois _in scenam fuit introductus, postea lacernosus prodeat._

On the whole, supposing _the_ Satyrick _Piece_ to be _Tragi-Comick_, as Dacier himself seems half inclined to believe, the precept of Horace only recommends to the author so to support his principal personage, that his behaviour in the Satyrick scenes shall not debase the character he has sustained in the TRAGICK. No specimen remaining of the Roman Satyrick Piece, I may be permitted to illustrate the rule of Horace by a brilliant example from the _seroi-comick_ Histories of the Sovereign of our Drama. The example to which I point, is the character of _the_ Prince _of_ Wales, in the two Parts of _Henry the Fourth_, Such a natural and beautiful decorum is maintained in the display of that character, that the _Prince_ is as discoverable in the loose scenes with Falstaff and his associates, as in the Presence Chamber, or the closet. after _the natural_, though mixt dramas, of Shakespear, and Beaumont and Fletcher, had prevailed on our stage, it is surprising that our progress to _pure_ Tragedy and Comedy, should have been interrupted, or disturbed, by _the regular monster of_ Tragi-comedy, nursed by Southerne and Dryden.

346.--LET ME NOT, PISOS, IN THE SYLVIAN SCENE, USE ABJECT TERMS ALONE, AND PHRASES MEAN]

_Non ego_ INORNATA & DOMINANTIA, &c.

The author of the English Commentary proposes a conjectural emendation of Horace's text--honodrata instead of inornata--and accompanied with a new and elevated sense assigned to the word dominantia. This last word is interpreted in the same manner by _de Nores_. Most other Commentators explain it to signify _common words_, observing its analogy to the Greek term [Greek: kuria]. The same expression prevails in our own tongue--_a_ reigning _word_, _a reigning _fashion_, &c. the general cast of _the_ satyr, seems to render a caution against a lofty stile not very necessary; yet it must be acknowledged that such a caution is given by the Poet, exclusive of the above proposed variation.

_Ne quicumque_ DEUS------
_Migret in obscuras_ HUMILI SERMONE _tabernas_,
_Aut dum vitat humum_, NUBES & INANIA CAPTET.

350.--_Davus may jest, &c.]--Davusne loquatur, &c._

It should seem from hence, that the common characters of Comedy, as well as the Gods and Heroes of Tragedy, had place in _the_ Satyrick Drama, cultivated in the days of Horace. Of the manner in which the antient writers sustained the part of Silenus, we may judge from _the_ CYCLOPS of Euripides, and _the_ Pastorals of Virgil.

Vossius attempts to shew from some lines of this part of the Epistle, [_Ne quicumque Deus, &c._] that _the_ satyrs were _subjoined_ to the Tragick scenes, not _incorporated_ with them: and yet at the same moment he tells us, and with apparent approbation, that Diomedes quotes our Poet to prove that they were blended with each other: _simul ut spectator_, inter res tragicas, seriasque, satyrorum quoque jocis, & lusibus, _delectaretur_.

I cannot more satisfactorily conclude all that I have to urge, on the subject of the Satyrick Drama, as here described by Horace, than by one more short extract from the notes of the ingenious author of the English Commentary, to the substance of which extract I give the most full assent. "The Greek Drama, we know, had its origin from the loose, licentious raillery of the rout of Bacchus, indulging to themselves the freest follies of taunt and invective, as would best suit to lawless natures, inspirited by festal mirth, and made extravagant by wine. Hence arose, and with a character answering to this original, the _Satiric Drama_; the spirit of which was afterwards, in good measure, revived and continued in the Old Comedy, and itself preferred, though with considerable alteration in the form, through all the several periods of the Greek stage; even when Tragedy, which arose out of it, was brought to its last perfection."

368.--_To a short syllable, a long subjoin'd, Forms an _IAMBICK FOOT.]
_Syllaba longa, brevi subjetta, vocatur Iambus._

Horace having, after the example of his master Aristotle, slightly mentioned the first rise of Tragedy in the form of _a_ Choral Song, subjoining an account of _the_ Satyrick Chorus, that was _soon_ (mox _etiam_) combined with it, proceeds to speak particularly of the Iambick verse, which he has before mentioned generally, as the measure best accommodated to the Drama. In this instance, however, the Poet has trespassed against _the order and method_ observed by his philosophical guide; and by that trespass broken the thread of his history of the Drama, which has added to the difficulty and obscurity of this part of his Epistle. Aristotle does not speak of _the_ Measure, till he has brought Tragedy, through all its progressive stages, from the Dithyrambicks, down to its establishment by Aeschylus and Sophocles. If the reader would judge of the _poetical beauty_, as well as _logical precision_, of such an arrangement, let him transfer this section of the Epistle [beginning, in the original at v. 251. and ending at 274.] to the end of the 284th line; by which transposition, or I am much mistaken, he will not only disembarrass this historical part of it, relative to the Grascian stage, but will pass by a much easier, and more elegant, transition, to the Poet's application of the narrative to the Roman Drama,

The English reader, inclined to make the experiment, must take the lines of the translation from v. 268. to v. 403, both inclusive, and insert them after v. 418.

_In shameful silence loft the pow'r to wound._

It is further to be observed that this detail on _the_ IAMBICK is not, with strict propriety, annext to a critical history of _the_ SATYR, in which, as Aristotle insinuates insinuates, was used _the_ Capering _Tetrameter_, and, as the Grammarians observe, _Trisyllabicks_.

394.--PISOS! BE GRAECIAN MODELS, &c.]

Pope has imitated and illustrated this passage.

Be Homer's works your study and delight,
Read them by day, and meditate by night;
Thence form your judgment, thence your maxims bring,
And trace the Muses upwards to their spring.
Still with itself compar'd, his text peruse!
And let your comment be the Mantuan Muse!

_Essay on Criticism._

404.--A KIND OF TRAGICK ODE, UNKNOWN BEFORE,
THESPIS, 'TIS SAID, INVENTED FIRST.
IGNOTUM _Tragicae_ GENUS INVENISSE _Camaenae_
_Dicitur, &c._