Chapter IX: Part III (4)

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, 1. From _the expression itself_; which cannot, without violence, be understood in any other way. For, as to the words _licentia_ and _præceps_, 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. But what shall we say then to those lines,

_Indoctus quid enim saperet liberque laborum,
Rusticus urbano confusus, turpis honesto?_

which seem to imply a censure on these Improvements, as unworthy the approbation of _wise_ men; contrary to what I have just now supposed to be the scope of this whole passage.

On the strictest attention, I believe we are to understand them as a _Sneer_, in passing, on what grave and philosophic men have observed of these refinements, which they constantly treat, as _Corruptions_. See note on v. 218. But the mixed auditories of these days, says the poet with his usual _badinage_, were not so _wise_. ’Tis, as if he had said, “What I mention here as an improvement in dramatic music is, in the ideas and language of some grave men, an abuse and perversion of it to immoral purposes. It may be so: but consider, for what sorts of people these theatrical entertainments were designed: for the _ignorant clown and citizen, the plebeian and gentleman_, huddled together into one confused mass, and crowding to the theatre, on a holyday, for some relief from their ordinary toils and occupations. And alas, what do these men know, or consider of this austere _wisdom_?

But the cast of the whole passage is, besides, such as favours the supposition of an intended Irony. Hence the _Tibia non, ut nunc, orichalco vincta_, &c. delivered in the usual tone of declaimers against modern manners. Hence the epithets, _frugi castusque verecundusque_, to denote the quality of those who assisted, of old, at these _virtuous_ entertainments. And hence the enormity of that state of things, when the people were afterwards permitted to regale on holy days, _impune_. This intention too accounts for the terms _licentia_, _luxuries_, _facundia_, _præceps_, and others, which being of ambiguous interpretation, the poet purposely chose, to mimic, and humour, as it were, the objectors in their favourite language on this occasion. Till at last, impatient to continue the raillery any further, he concludes at once with an air of solemnity very proper to confound the impertinence of such criticism.

Utiliumque sagax rerum, et divina futuri
Sortilegis non discrepuit sententia Delphis.

All this the reader sees is agreeable to the poet’s _prescription_ elsewhere,

—Sermone opus est tristi, sæpe _jocoso_.

and indeed to his own _practice_ on an hundred occasions. So that on the whole there is little doubt of his intention in the lines,

Indoctus quid enim _saperet_, &c.

At least, in this view the poet, I am apt to think, will be found intelligible and even elegant. Whereas, on any other supposition of his numerous commentators, I cannot see that the verses before us (as they here stand) have either propriety or common sense.”

The interpretation then of this whole passage, from v. 202 to 220, will stand thus. “The Tibia, says the poet, was at first _low_ and _simple_. The _first_, as best agreeing to the _state of the stage_, which required only a soft music to go along with, and assist the chorus; there being no large and crowded theatres to _fill_ in those days. And the _latter_, as suiting best to the _state of the times_; whose simplicity and frugal manners exacted the severest temperance, as in every thing else, so, in their dramatic ornaments and decorations. But, when conquest had enlarged the territory, and widened the walls of Rome; and, in consequence thereof, a social spirit had dispelled that severity of manners, by the introduction of frequent festival solemnities; then, as was natural to expect, a freer and more varied harmony took place. Nor let it be objected that this _freer harmony_ was itself an abuse, a corruption of the severe and _moral_ music of ancient times. Alas! we were not as yet so _wise_, to see the inconveniencies 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? But, leaving the Philosopher to speculate at his ease, on this matter, thus, in _fact_, it was, “that the _Tibicen_, the musician, who played to the declamation in the acts, instead of the rude and simpler strain of the old times, gave a richness and variety of tone; and, instead of the old inactive posture, added the grace of motion to his art. Just in the same manner, continues he, it happened to the _Lyre_, i. e. _the music in the chorus_, which originally, as that of the _Tibia_, was severe and simple; but, by degrees, acquired a quicker and more expressive modulation, such as corresponded to the more elevated and passionate turn of the poet’s style, and the diviner enthusiasm of his sentiment.” All that is further wanting to support and justify this interpretation, will be found in the notes on particular passages.

* * * * *

203. TENUIS SIMPLEXQUE, &c.] It may here be observed of the manner, in which the poet hath chosen to deliver this whole part [from v. 202 to 295] that, besides its other uses, it tends directly to convey to his readers, and impress upon them in the strongest manner, the principal instruction, he has in view, and with which the epistle more expresly concludes, _viz. The uses and importance of a spirit of critical application_. For, in speaking of the _stage music_, of the _satyrs_, and the _Greek tragedy_ (all which come naturally in his way, and are very artfully connected) he chuses to deduce the account of each from its ruder and less polished original; tracing it through its several successive stages, and marking out to us the gradual polish and refinement, which it acquired from increasing diligence and correctness. The _Tibia_ at first was _simple_ and _rude_—The _satyrs naked_ and _barbarous_—and the _Greek tragedy itself deformed and shapeless_ in the cart of Thespis. Care and attention reformed each. It follows,

_Nil intentatum nostri liquere poetæ, &c._

_i. e._ our poets have not been wanting in their attempts to excel in these several particulars. What is necessary to their success is, _limæ labor et mora_. If the reader bear this in mind, it will help him to see the order and scope of this part more distinctly.

* * * * *

204. ASPIRARE ET ADESSE CHORIS, &c.] _Chorus_ here means the whole dramatic performance, which was originally nothing else.

* * * * *

206. UTPOTE PARVUS, ET FRUGI CASTUSQUE VERECUNDUSQUE, &c.] M. _Dacier_ finds here _four_ causes _of the little regard the ancients had for plays_ [he should have said, of their being satisfied with the _Tibia_, all rude and simple as is here described] _la premiere, que le peuple Romain étoit encore alors en petit nombre: la seconde, qu’il étoit sage: la troisiéme, qu’il étoit chaste, c’est à dire pieux: et la quatriéme, qu’il étoit modeste_. But the three last epithets are synonymous, all of them expressing what, though he took three guesses for it, he had the ill fortune to miss at last, _that plainness and simplicity_ of character, _that frugal reserve and moderation in the use of any thing_, which so essentially belongs to rude minds, uninstructed in the arts of life. His _four_ causes are, in fact, then but two; which have been fully considered in note on v. 202.

* * * * *

211. ACCESSIT NUMERISQUE MODISQUE LICENTIA MAJOR.] M. _Dacier_ takes _licentia major_ in a bad sense, as implying _lasciveté_, _a culpable and licentious refinement_. But the _licence_, here spoken of, with regard to _numbers_ and _sounds_, like that in another place, which respects _words_ [l. 51.] is one of those, which is allowed, when _sumpta pudenter_. The comparative _major_, which is a _palliative_, shews this; and is further justified by a like passage in _Cicero_, _De Oratore_ [l. iii. c. 48.] where speaking of this very licence in poetry, he observes, that out of the Heroic and Iambic measure, which were at first strictly observed, there arose by degrees the Anapæst, _procerior quidam numerus, et ille licentior et divitior Dithyrambus_; evidently not condemning this change, but opposing it to the rigorous and confined measure of the elder poets. But the expression itself occurs in the piece entitled _Orator_, in which, comparing the freedoms of the poetical and oratorial style, _in ea_ [i. e. _poetica_] says he, _licentiam statuo majorem esse, quam in nobis, faciendorum jungendorumque verborum_. The poet says, this _licence_ extended _numeris modisque_, the former of which words will express that _licence of metre_, spoken of by _Cicero_, and which is further explained v. 256, _&c._ where an account is given of the improvement of the Iambic verse.

* * * * *

214. SIC PRISCAE, — — — ARTI
TIBICEN, &c.
SIC ETIAM 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 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 succinere_, 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. l. ii. 7.] _quæ 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_: _quæ, nisi cum Tibicen accesserit, orationi sint solutæ simillima_. One of these passages is expresly 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 ancients. For, 1. the lyre, we are told, [Cic. De Leg. ii. 9. & 15.] and is agreed on all hands, was an instrument of the Roman 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. lxxxiv.] and in Julius Pollux [l. iv. 15. § 107.] ’Tis 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 l. 100. respect this species of the drama only. The application of what he had said concerning music, is then most naturally made, 1. 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 _Tragœdia_, [as in fact, we find it in l. ii. Ep. 1. 98.] that being the only instrument employed in it; yet, in speaking expresly 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 time.

* * * * *

214. SIC PRISCAE MOTUMQUE ET LUXURIEM.] These two words are employed to express that _quicker movement_, and _richer modulation_ of the new music; the peculiar defects of the _old_ being, 1. That it moved too slowly, and, 2. That it had no compass or variety of notes. It was that _movement_, that velocity and vehemence of the music, which Roscius required to have slackened in his old age.

* * * * *

215. 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 ancients 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, beforementioned; but is further collected from the name, usually given to it, which was Ἐμμέλεια. 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.

* * * * *

216. SIC ETIAM FIDIBUS VOCES, &c.] He is here speaking of the great improvement in the tragic chorus, after the Roman conquests, when the Latin writers began to enquire

_Quid Sophocles et Thespis et Æschylus utile ferrent_.

This improvement consisted, 1. In a more instructive moral sentiment: 2. In a more sublime and animated expression; which of course produced, 3. A greater vehemence in the declamation: to which conformed, 4. A more numerous and rapid music. All these particulars are here expressed, but, as the reason of the thing required, in an inverted order. The music of the lyre (that being his subject, and introducing the rest) being placed first; the declamation, as attending that, next; the language, _facundia_, that is, the subject of the declamation, next; and the sentiment, _sententia_, the ground and basis of the language, last.

_Et tulit eloquium insolitum facundia præceps._

literally, “A vehemence and rapidity of language produced an unusual vehemence and rapidity of elocution in the declaimer!” This “rapidity of language,” is exactly the same, as that Cicero speaks of in Democritus and Plato, [_Orat._ 638. _Elz._] which, because of its quick and rapid movement, _quod incitatius feratur_, some critics thought to be poetical. _Unaccustomed_, we may observe, is indifferently a _censure_ or _encomium_, according as the preceding state of the thing spoken of was _wrong_, or _right_. Much the same may be concluded of _præceps_; its _literal_ sense is a degree of _motion_ in any thing above what it had before. This may be _excessive_, or otherwise, as it chances: When applied to _the bleak East wind, dispersing a flight of bees, and dashing them on the stream_,

_si forte morantes
Sparserit, aut præceps Neptuno immerserit Eurus_.
Virg. Georg. iv. 29.

the epithet implies _excess_; but when spoken of the _gentle South, whose strongest gale is but sufficient to drive the willing ship to port_, [Æn. vii. 410.] _Præcipiti delata Noto_, it then only expresses _due measure_.

As for the criticism from Quintilian, who opposes _præcipitia_ to _sublimibus_, it is doubly impertinent: 1. As the sense is necessarily fixed by its opposition to _sublimibus_: and 2. As the word is here used, not as implying _motion_, but _height_, in which view its sense is _absolute_, and always denotes _excess_.

* * * * *

218. UTILIUMQUE SAGAX RERUM, ET DIVINA FUTURI, SORTILEGIS NON DISCREPUIT SENTENTIA DELPHIS.] It is amazing that these two lines should ever have been misunderstood as a censure, the import of them being highly _encomiastic_, yet with great exactness declaring the specific boast and excellence of the chorus; which lay, as Heinsius hath well observed, 1. In inculcating important moral lessons; and 2. In delivering useful presages and monitions concerning future conduct, with an almost oracular prudence and authority.

SIC PRISCAE — — — — ARTI.

What hath chiefly misled the Critics in their explanation of this place, I suspect to have been the frequent encomiums on the severity of the ancient music, by the Greek and Latin writers. Though here they seem to have overlooked two very material considerations: 1. That the _former_ have chiefly treated the subject in a _moral_ or _political_ view, and therefore preferred the ancient music only as it was conceived to influence the public manners. For this reason Plato, one of the chief of those _encomiasts_, applauds, as we find, the practice of Ægypt, in suffering no change of her poetry, but continuing, to his time, her fondness for the _Songs of Isis_ [De Leg. l. ii. sub. init.] which just as much infers the perfection of those songs, considered in a critical view, as Rome’s sticking to her _Saliar verses_ would have shewn those poor, obscure orisons to have exceeded the regular odes and artificial compositions of Horace. And it was this kind of criticism which, as I suppose, the poet intended to expose in the famous verses, which I explain in note on v. 202. 2. That the _latter_, the principal of them at least, who talk in the same strain, lived under the Emperors; in whose time, indeed, music had undergone a miserable prostitution, _being broken_, as one of the best of those writers complains, _into an effeminate and impure delicacy_—_In scenis effeminata et impudicis modis fracta_, [Quint. I. l. x.] As to the times in question, I know but of one passage, which clearly and expresly condemns the music then in vogue; and that will admit of some alleviation from its being found in a treatise concerning laws. The passage I mean is in Cicero, [De Leg. l. ii. 15.] who, following Plato in his high-flown principles of legislation, exclames, _Illa quæ solebant quondam compleri severitate jucunda Livianis et Nævianis modis; nunc ut eadem exultent, cervices oculosque pariter eum_ MODORUM FLEXIONIBUS _torqueant!_ For the _severitas jucunda_ of the music, to which Livius’s plays were set, it may be tolerably guessed from hence, that he was the _first_ who brought a written Play upon the stage; _i. e._ the first writer whose plays were acted to a regular and precomposed music. And it is not, we know, very usual for the first essays in any art to be perfect. It should seem then, that the _flexiones modorum_, as opposed to the plainness of the old music, are here condemned, not so much in the view of a critic, estimating the true state of the stage; but, as was hinted, of a legislator, treading in the steps of Plato. Though indeed I have no doubt, that the music in those times was much changed, and had even suffered some degree of corruption. This I infer, not so much from any express authorities that have occurred, as from the general state of those times, which were degenerating apace into the worst morals, the sure fore-runners of a corrupt and vitiated music; for, though it may indeed, in its turn, and doubtless does, when established, contribute much to help on the public depravity, yet that depravity itself is originally not the _effect_, but the _cause_ of a bad music; as is more than hinted to be Cicero’s real opinion in the place referred to, where, observing that the manners of many Greek states had kept pace with their music, he adds, that they had undergone this change, _Aut hac dulcedine corruptelaque depravati, ut quidam putant; aut cum severitas eorum ob alia vitia cecidisset, tum fuit in auribus animisque mutatis etiam huic mutationi locus_. [Leg. ii. 15.] But be this as it will, Horace, as we have seen, is no way concerned in the dispute about the ancient music.

* * * * *

219. SENTENTIA DELPHIS.] _Sententia_ is properly _an aphorism taken from life, briefly representing either what is, or what ought to be the conduct of it_: _Oratio sumpta de vita, quæ aut quid sit, aut quid esse oporteat, in vita, breviter ostendit_. [Ad Herenn. Rhet. l. iv.] These aphorisms are here mentioned, as constituting the peculiar praise and beauty of the chorus. This is finely observed, and was intended to convey an oblique censure on the practice of those poets, who stuff out every part of the drama alike with moral sentences, not considering, that the only proper receptacle of them is the chorus, where indeed they have an extreme propriety; it being the peculiar office and character of the chorus to moralize. In the course of the action they should rarely be used; and that for the plain reason assigned by the author, just quoted, [for the rule holds on the stage, as well as at the bar] _Ut rei actores, non vivendi præceptores, esse videamur_. That there was some ground for this reproof of the Roman drama, is collected from the few remaining fragments of the old Latin plays, which have much of this sententious cast, and from what Quintilian expresly tells us of the old Latin poets, whose fame, it seems, was principally raised upon this merit. _Tragœdiæ scriptores, Accius et Pacuvius, clarissimi gravitate sententiarum, &c._ [l. x. c. 1.] To how intolerable an extreme this humour of moralizing in plays was afterwards carried, Seneca has given us an example.

But here a question will be started, “Why then did the Greeks moralize so much, or, if we condemn _Accius_ and _Seneca_, how shall we defend _Sophocles_ and _Euripides_?” An ingenious[18] modern hath taken some pains to satisfy this difficulty, and in part, I think, hath succeeded. His solution, in brief, is, “That the moral and political aphorisms of the Greek stage generally contained some apt and interesting allusion to the state of public affairs, which was easily catched by a quick, intelligent auditory; and not a dry, affected moral, without further meaning, as for the most part was that of the Latins.” This account is not a little confirmed by particular instances of such acknowledged allusions, as well as from reflexions on the genius and government of the Athenians, at large. But this, though it goes some way, does not fully extricate the matter. The truth is, these sentences are too thick sown in the Greek writers, to be fully accounted for from the single consideration of their democratical views. Not to observe, that the very choice of this _medium_ for the conveyance of their political applications, presupposes the prior acknowledged use and authority of it. I would then account for it in the following manner.

I. In the virtuous simplicity of less polished times, this spirit of moralizing is very prevalent; the good sense of such people always delighting to shew itself in sententious or proverbial γνῶμαι, or observations. Their character, like that of the clown in Shakespear, is _to be very swift and sententious_. [As you like it, Act v. sc. 1.] This is obvious to common experience, and was long since observed by the _philosopher_, οἱ ἄγροικοι μάλιστα γνωμοτύποι εἰσὶ, καὶ ῥᾳδίως ἀποφάινονται, [Arist. Rhet. l. ii. c. 21.] an observation, which of itself accounts for the practice of the elder poets in Greece, as in all other nations. A custom, thus introduced, is not easily laid aside, especially when the oracular cast of these sentences, so fitted to _strike_, and the moral views of writers themselves (which was more particularly true of the old dramatists) concurred to favour this taste. But, 2. there was added to this, more especially in the age of Sophocles and Euripides, a general prevailing fondness for moral wisdom, which seems to have made the fashionable study of men of all ranks in those days; when schools of philosophy were resorted to for recreation as well as instruction, and a knowledge in morals was the supreme accomplishment in vogue: The fruit of these philosophical conferences would naturally shew itself in certain brief, sententious conclusions, which would neither contradict the fashion, nor, it seems, offend against the ease and gaiety of conversation in those times. _Schools_ and _pedantry_, _morals_ and _austerity_, were not so essentially connected, in their combinations of ideas, as they have been since; and a sensible moral truth might have fallen from any mouth, without disgracing it. Nay, which is very remarkable, the very _scholia_, as they were called, or drinking catches of the Greeks, were seasoned with this moral turn; the sallies of pleasantry, which escaped them in their freest hours, being tempered for the most part, by some strokes of this national sobriety. “During the course of their entertainments, says Athenæus, [l. xv. c. 14.] they loved to hear, from some wise and prudent person, an agreeable song: and those songs were held by them most agreeable, which contained exhortations to virtue, or other instructions relative to their conduct in life.”

And to give the reader a taste of these _moral_ songs, I will take leave to present him with a very fine one, written by no less a person than Aristotle himself; and the rather, as I have it in my power to present him, at the same time, with an elegant translation of it. But its best recommendation will be that it comes from the same hand which has so agreeably entertained us of late with some spirited imitations of Horace[19].

Ἀρετὰ πολύμοχθε γένει βροτείῳ,
Θήραμα κάλλιστον βίῳ.
Σᾶς πέρι, Παρθένε, μορφᾶς
Καὶ θανεῖν ζηλωτὸς ἐν Ἑλλάδι πότμος,
Καὶ πόνους τλῆναι μαλεροὺς ἀκάμαντας.
Τοῖον ἐπὶ φρένα βάλλεις καρπὸν εἰς ἀθάνατον,
Χρυσοῦ τε κρέσσω καὶ γονέων,
Μαλακαυγητοῖό θ’ ὕπνου.
Σοῦ δ’ ἕνεκ’ ἐκ Διὸς Ἡρακλέης
Λήδας τε κοῦροι πόλλ’ ἀνέτλασαν,
Ἔργοις σὰν ἀγορεύοντες δύναμιν.
Σοῖς τε πόθοις Ἀχιλλεὺς
Αἴας τ’ αἴδαο δόμους ἦλθον·
Σᾶς δ’ ἕνεκα φιλίου μορφᾶς
Ἀταρνέως ἔντροφος
Ἀελίου χήρωσεν αὐγάς.
Τοίγαρ ἀοίδιμον ἔργοις,
Ἀθάνατόν τε μιν αὐξήσουσι μοῦσαι,
Μναμοσύνας θύγατρες,
Διὸς ξενίου σέβας αὔξουσαι
Φιλίας τε γέρας βεβαίου[20].

I.
Hail, Virtue! Goddess! sov’reign Good,
By man’s bold race with pain pursu’d!
Where’er thou dart’st thy radiant eye,
Greece sees her sons with transport fly;
Danger before thee disappears,
And death’s dark frown no terror wears.

II.
So full into the breast of man descends
Thy rich ambrosial show’r;
A show’r, that gold, that parents far transcends,
Or, sleep’s soft-soothing pow’r.

III.
By thee ALCIDES soar’d to fame,
Thy influence LEDA’S twins proclaim;
Heroes for thee have dauntless trod
The dreary paths of hell’s abode;
Fir’d by thy form, all beamy bright,
Atarneus’ nursling left the light.

IV.
His deeds, his social love (so will the nine,
Proud to spread wide the praise
Of friendship and of friendly Jove) shall shine
With ever-living rays.

This moralizing humour, so prevalent in those times, is, I dare be confident, the true source of the sententious cast of the Greek dramatic writers, as well as of that sober air of moral, which, to the no small disgust of modern writers, is spread over all their poets. Not but there would be some difference in those poets themselves, and in proportion as they had been more or less conversant in the Academy, would be their relish of this moral mode; as is clearly seen in the case of Euripides, that philosopher of the stage, as the Athenians called him, and who is characterized by Quinctilian, as _sententiis densus, et in iis, quæ a sapientibus tradita sunt, pæne ipsis par_. [L. x. c. 1.] Yet still the fashion was so general, that no commerce of the world could avoid, or wholly get clear of it; and therefore Sophocles, though his engagements in the state kept him at a greater distance from the schools, had yet his share of this philosophical humour. Now this apology for the practice of the Greek poets doth by no means extend to the Roman; Philosophy having been very late, and never generally, the taste of Rome.

Cicero says, _Philosophia quidem tantum abest ut proinde, ac de hominum est vitâ merita, laudetur, ut a plerisque neglecta, a multis etiam vituperetur_. In another place he tells us, that in his time Aristotle was not much known, or read, even by the philosophers themselves. [_Cic. Top. sub init._]

And, though in the age of Seneca, _Sentences_, we know, were much in use, yet the cast and turn of them evidently shew them to have been the affectation of the lettered _few_, and not the _general_ mode and practice of the time. For the quaintness, in which Seneca’s aphorisms are dressed, manifestly speaks the labour and artifice of the closet, and is just the reverse of that easy, simple expression, which cloaths them in the Greek poets, thus demonstrating their familiar currency in common life. Under any other circumstances than these, the practice, as was observed, must be unquestionably faulty; except only in the chorus, where for the reason before given, it may always, with good advantage, be employed.

* * * * *

220. CARMINE QUI TRAGICO, &c.] The connexion with v. 201, from whence the poet had digressed, is worth observing. The digression had been taken up in describing the improved state of dramatic music; the application of which to the case of tragedy, brings him round again to his subject, the tragic chorus; to which alone, as hath been observed, the two last lines refer. This too is the finest preparation of what follows. For to have passed on directly from the _tibia_ to the _satyrs_, had been abrupt and inartificial; but from _tragedy_, the transition is easy, the _satyrs_ being a species of the tragic drama. That it was so accounted may be seen from the following passage in Ovid,

_Est et in obscænos deflexa tragædia risus,
Multaque præteriti verba pudoris habet_.
Trist. l. ii. v. 409.

For the _tragedy_, here referred to, cannot be the regular Roman tragedy. _That_ he had distinctly considered before, and, besides, it in no age admitted, much less in this, of which we are speaking, so intolerable a mixture. As little can it be understood of the proper Atellane fable, for besides that Ovid is here considering the _Greek_ drama only, the Atellane was ever regarded as a species, not of tragedy, but comedy: The authority of Donatus is very express; “_Comædiarum_ formæ sunt tres: Palliatæ, Togatæ, _Atellanæ_, salibus et jocis compositæ, quæ in se non habent nisi vetustam elegantiam.” [Prol. in Terent.] And Athenæus [l. vi.] speaking of some pieces of this sort, which L. Sylla had composed, calls them σατυρικὰς κωμῳδίας, satyric comedies; _comedies_, because, ss Donatus says, “salibus et jocis compositæ:” and _satyric_, not that satyrs were introduced in them, but, according to Diomedes, from their being “argumentis dictisque _similes_ satyricis fabulis Græcis.” Of what then can Ovid be understood to speak, but the true satyric piece, which was always esteemed, and, as appears from the Cyclops, in fact is, what Demetrius [περὶ ἑρμηνείας] elegantly calls it, τραγῳδία παιζούση, a lighter kind of _tragedy_; the very name, which Horace, as well as Ovid in this place, gives to it? But this is further clear from the instance quoted by Ovid, of this loose tragedy; for he proceeds:

_Nec nocet autori, mollem qui fecit Achillem,
Infregisse suis fortia facta modis_.

which well agrees to the idea of a satyric piece, and, as Vossius takes notice, seems to be the very same subject, which Athenæus and others tell us, Sophocles had work’d into a satyric tragedy, under the title of Ἀχιλλέως ἐρασταί.

* * * * *

221. MOX ETIAM, &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 satyric, as I have hitherto done, of the tragic, and comic drama, to the numerous dissertators on the ancient stage; and above all, in 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 it will be impossible, in any tolerable manner, to explane 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 _satyrs_;” and indeed the nature of the thing, as well as the testimony of all antiquity, shews it to be impossible. For the _satyr_ here spoken of, is, in all respects, a regular drama, and therefore could not be of earlier date, than the times of Æschylus, when the constitution of the drama was first formed. ’Tis true indeed, there was a kind of entertainment of much greater antiquity, which by the ancients is sometimes called _satyric_, out of which (as Aristotle assures us) tragedy itself arose, ἡ δὲ τραγῳδία, διὰ τὸ ἐκ σατυρικοῦ μεταβαλεῖν, ὀψὲ ἀπεσεμνώθη, [περ. ποιητ. κ. δ.] But then this was nothing but a chorus of satyrs [Athenæus, l. xiv.] celebrating the festivals of _Bacchus_, with rude songs, and uncouth dances; and had little resemblance to that, which was afterwards called _satyric_; 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 appears from the turn of the poet’s whole criticism upon it. Particularly, his address to the Pisos, v. 235. and his observation of the offence which a loose dialogue in this drama would give to a _Roman_ auditory, v. 248. make it evident that he had, in fact, the practice of his own stage in view. It hath, however, been questioned, whether by _Satyri_ we are to understand the proper Greek _Satyrs_, or the Latin _Atellane_ fable, which, in the main of its character, very much resembled that drama. If the authority of Diomedes be any thing, the _former_ must be the truth, for he expresly asserts, “that the Satyric and Atellane pieces, though similar in the general cast of their composition, differed in this essential point, that the persons in the former were satyrs, in the other, not.” [L. iii. c. De poëm. gen.] Now the poet expresly tells us, the Persons in the drama he is here describing, were _Satyrs_, and accordingly delivers rules for the regulation of their characters. As to the _Atellane_, according to the way in which Vossius reads the words of Diomedes, the characters were _Oscan_, _personæ Oscæ_, which is very probable, not so much for the reasons assign’d by this Critic (for they are indeed very frivolous) but because, as it should seem from a passage in Strabo, [Lib. v. 233.] the language of the OSCI was used in these Atellanes, and therefore common sense would require, that the persons also introduced should be Oscan. The difficulty is to know how it happened that, in a work written purposely to reform the Roman stage, the poet should say nothing of one species, the _Atellane_, which was of great authority and constant use at Rome, and yet say so much of another, the _Satyrs_, which was properly a Greek entertainment and certainly much less cultivated by the Roman poets. The plain solution of the matter, is, that, when now the Romans were become acquainted with the Greek models, and had applied themselves to the imitation of them, these Oscan characters were exchanged for the Greek satyrs, which they before resembled in the main parts of their character; and which appear, on other occasions, to have been no strangers at Rome; as we collect from the Sileni and Satyrs making a part (as Dionysius relates it) in their triumphal processions. So that this change of the Oscan persons for _Satyrs_ is to be considered only as an improvement of the old _Atellane_, and not the introduction of an intirely new drama. In every other respect the precepts here given for the regulation of the _Satyrs_ are such as would equally serve to improve the _Atellane_. The probable reason why the poet chose to insist so much on this alteration, or rather why he laboured so strenuously to _support_ it, will be given in its place. In the mean time supposing his view to have been this of countenancing the introduction of _satyric persons_ into the Atellane (and that they were, in fact, introduced, we learn from an express authority[21]) every thing said on the subject will not only be pertinent and agreeable to what is here taught to be the general tenor of the epistle, but will be seen to have an address and contrivance, which will very much illustrate this whole part, and recommend it to the exact reader.

But before I quit this subject of the Atellane fable it will be proper to observe, That when I every where speak of it, as of early original, and ancient use on the Roman stage, I am not unmindful that Velleius Paterculus speaks of Pomponius as the Inventor of this Poem; which, if taken in the strict sense, will bring the date of it very low. “Sane non ignoremus eâdem ætate fuisse Pomponium, sensibus celebrem, verbis rudem, et _novitate inventi a se operis_ commendabilem.” L. ii. c. ix. For the age he is speaking of is that of SYLLA. But the authorities for the high antiquity of the Atellane fable are so express, that, when Pomponius is called the _Inventor_ of it, it is but as Horace calls Lucilius the Inventor of the Roman Satire. That is, he made so considerable a change in the form and conduct of this poem, as to run away with all the honour of it. The improvements made by Lucilius in Satire have been taken notice of in the _Introduction_. And it happens that a curious passage in Athenæus will let us into the Improvements made by Pomponius in the Atellanes.

But first we are to understand that this sort of entertainment, as the name speaks, was imported to Rome from ATELLA, a town of the OSCI in Campania; and that the Dialect of that people was constantly and _only_ used in it, even when the Osci themselves had ceased to be a people. This we learn from Strabo. ΟΣΚΩΝ ἐκλελοιπότων, ἡ διάλεκτος μένει παρὰ τοῖς Ῥωμαίοις· ὧστε καὶ ποιήματα σκηνοβατεῖσθαι κατά τινα ἀγῶνα πάτριον καὶ μιμολογεῖσθαι. L. v. 233.

The OSCAN language, we see, was made use of in the Atellane plays, just as the Welsh, or some Provincial Dialect, is often employed in our Comedies.

But now we learn from Athenæus that L. Sylla writ some of these Atellanes in the ROMAN LANGUAGE. ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ γραφεῖσαι σατυρικαὶ κωμῳδίαι ΤΗΙ ΠΑΤΡΩΩΙ ΦΩΝΗΙ. [L. vi. p. 261. Ed. Casaub.] The difficulty then clears up. For the Pomponius whom Velleius speaks of was contemporary with L. Sylla. So that to give any propriety to the term of _Inventor_, as applied to Pomponius, we must conclude that he was the _first_ person who set this example of composing Atellane plays in the vulgar dialect: which took so much that he was even followed in this practice by the Roman General. This account of the matter perfectly suits with the encomium given to Pomponius. He would naturally, on such an alteration, endeavour to give this buffoon sort of Comedy a more rational cast: And this reform of itself would entitle him to great honour. Hence the SENSIBUS CELEBRIS of Paterculus[22]. But to preserve some sort of resemblance (which the people would look for) to the old Atellane, and not to strip it of all the pleasantry arising from the barbarous dialect, he affected, it seems, the _antique_ in the turn of his expression. Hence the other part of his character (which in the politer age of Paterculus grew offensive to nice judges) VERBIS RUDIS.

The conclusion is, That the Atellane Fable was in its first rude form and Oscan Dialect of ancient use at Rome, where it was admitted, as Strabo speaks, ΚΑΤΑ ΤΙΝΑ ΑΓΩΝΑ ΠΑΤΡΙΟΝ: That Pomponius afterwards _reformed_ its barbarities, and brought it on the Stage in a _Roman_ dress; which together were thought so great improvements, that later writers speak of him as the INVENTOR of this Poem. But to return to our proper subject, the _Greek Satyrs_.

III. For the absolute merit of these satyrs, 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._ v. 223.] apologized in its favour, that the double character of the satyrs 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 ancients 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 Shakespear; _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.]

* * * * *

221. AGRESTIS SATYROS, &c.] It hath been shewn, that the poet could not intend, in these lines, to _fix the origin of the satyric drama_. But, though this be certain, and the dispute concerning that point be thereby determined, yet is it 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 satyric piece, before Æschylus had, by his regular constitution of the drama, introduced it, under a very different form on the stage. The reason of this conduct is given in _n._ on v. 203. Hence the propriety of the word _nudavit_, which Lambin rightly interprets, _nudos introduxit Satyros_, the poet hereby expressing the monstrous indecorum of this entertainment in its first unimproved state. Alluding also to this ancient character of the _Satyr_, 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 explane _incolumi gravitate_, i. e. rejecting every thing serious, bidding _farewell_, as we say, _to all gravity_. Thus [L. iii. O. 5.]

_Incolumi Jove et urbe Roma;_

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

_Anciliorum et nominis et togæ_
OBLITUS, _æternæque Vestæ_.

or, as SALVUS is used still more remarkably in Martial [10. l. v.]

_Ennius est lectus_ SALVO _tibi, Roma, Marone:
Et sua riserunt secula Mæonidem._

_Farewell, all gravity_, is as remote from the original sense of the words _fare well_, as _incolumi gravitate_ from that of _incolumis_, or _salvo Marone_ from that of _salvus_.

* * * * *

223. INLECEBRIS ERAT ET GRATA NOVITATE MORANDUS SPECTATOR—] The poet gives us in these words the reason, why such gross Ribaldry, as we know the Atellanes consisted of, was endured by the politest age of Rome. Scenical representations, being then intended, not, as in our days, for the entertainment of the better sort, but on certain great solemnities, indifferently for the diversion of the whole city, it became necessary to consult the taste of the multitude, as well as of those, _quibus est equus, et pater et res_.

And this reason is surely sufficient to vindicate the poet from the censure of a late critic, who has fallen upon this part of the epistle with no mercy. “The poet, says he, spends a great number of verses about these satyrs; but the subject itself is unworthy his pen. He, who could not bear the elegant mimes of Laberius, that he should think this farcical and obscene trash, worth his peculiar notice, is somewhat strange.” I doubt not, it appeared so to this writer, who neither considered the peculiar necessity of the satyric piece, nor attended to the poet’s purpose and drift in this epistle. The former is the more extraordinary, because he hath told us, and rightly too, “that, to content the people, the satyric was superadded to the tragic drama.” And he quotes a passage from Diomedes, which gives the same account, _Satyros induxerunt ludendi causa jocandique, simul ut spectator inter res tragicas seriasque satyrorum quoque jocis et ludis delectaretur_. Should not this have taught him, that what was so requisite to content the people, might deserve some notice from the poet? This _farcical trash_ was chiefly calculated for those, who without the _enticement of so agreeable a change_ in the entertainment of the day, would not have had patience to sit out the tragedy; which being intended for the gratification of the better sort, _urbani et honesti_, they, in their turn, required to be diverted in the only way, which was to the level of their taste, that of farce and pleasantry. And this I dare be confident, so great a patron of liberty, as this writer, will agree with me in thinking to be but reasonable in a free state; which ought to make some provision for the _few_, that may chance, even under such advantages, to want a truly critical spirit. I hold then, that Horace acted, not only in the character of a good critic, but of a prudent man, and good citizen, in attempting to refine, what it had not been equitable, or was not in his power, wholly to remove. But 2. the learned critic as little attended to the drift of the epistle, as to the important use and necessity of the satyric drama. He must otherwise have seen, that, in an essay to improve and regulate the Roman theatre (which is the sole purpose of it) the poet’s business was to take it, as it then stood, and to confine himself to such defects and abuses, as he found most likely to admit a correction, and not, as visionary projectors use, to propose a thorough reform of the public taste in every instance. The _Atellanes_ had actual possession of the stage, and, from their antiquity, and other prejudices in their favour, as well as from the very design and end of their theatrical entertainments, would be sure to keep it. What had the poet then, in these circumstances, to do but, in pursuance of his main design, to encourage a reformation of that entertainment, which he was not at liberty absolutely, and under every shape, to reject. This he judged might most conveniently be done by adopting the Greek _Satyrs_ instead of their own _Oscan_ characters. With this change, though the Atellanes might not, perhaps, be altogether to his own taste, yet he hoped to render it a tolerable entertainment to the better sort. And this, in fact, it might have been by following the directions here given; part of which were intended to free it from that _obscene and farcical trash_, which appears to have been no less offensive to the poet, than to this critic.

As for the so much applauded _mimes_, they had not, it is probable, at this time gained a footing on the stage, sufficient to entitle them to so much consideration. This was a new upstart species of the drama, which, though it had the common good-fortune of absurd novelties, to take with the great; yet was generally disapproved by men of better taste, and better morals. Cicero had passed a severe censure upon it in one of his epistles, [Ad famil. ix. 16.] which intimates, that it was of a more buffoon and ridiculous composition, than their Atellanes; whose place it began to be the fashion to supply with this ribaldry. And we collect the same thing from what Ovid observes of it in apology for the looseness of his own verses,

_Quid si scripsissem_ MIMOS _obscœna jocantes,
Qui semper vetiti crimen amoris habent?_

_Nec satis incestis temerari vocibus_ aures,
_Assuescunt_ oculi _multa pudenda pati_.
Trist. l. ii. v. 497.