Chapter 7

Εἴπερ φρονεῖς εὖ δεσπόταις, γυνή τ’ ἔφυς.

which is beautifully contrived by the poet, to discriminate the two cases, and to intimate to us, that reasons of justice were now no longer to be pleaded.

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 thePorchorAcademy; 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.

202.Tibia non, ut nunc, orichalco, &c.] [from v. 202 to v. 220.] This 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 thefalserefinements 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 thetrue. This I collect, 1. Fromthe expression itself; which cannot, without violence, be understood in any other way. For, as to the wordslicentiaandpræceps, which have occasioned much of the difficulty, thefirstmeans afreer use, not alicentiousness, properly so called; and theotheronly 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. Fromthe 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. Fromthe 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 itsjudges. 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 ofwisemen; 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 aSneer, in passing, on what grave and philosophic men have observed of these refinements, which they constantly treat, asCorruptions. See note on v. 218. But the mixed auditories of these days, says the poet with his usualbadinage, were not sowise. ’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 theignorant 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 austerewisdom?

But the cast of the whole passage is, besides, such as favours the supposition of an intended Irony. Hence theTibia non, ut nunc, orichalco vincta, &c. delivered in the usual tone of declaimers againstmodern manners. Hence the epithets,frugi castusque verecundusque, to denote the quality of those who assisted, of old, at thesevirtuousentertainments. 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 termslicentia,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 futuriSortilegis non discrepuit sententia Delphis.

All this the reader sees is agreeable to the poet’sprescriptionelsewhere,

—Sermone opus est tristi, sæpejocoso.

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

Indoctus quid enimsaperet, &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 firstlowandsimple. Thefirst, as best agreeing to thestate of the stage, which required only a soft music to go along with, and assist the chorus; there being no large and crowded theatres tofillin those days. And thelatter, as suiting best to thestate 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 thisfreer harmonywas itself an abuse, a corruption of the severe andmoralmusic of ancient times. Alas! we were not as yet sowise, 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, infact, it was, “that theTibicen, 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 inactiveposture, added the grace of motion to his art. Just in the same manner, continues he, it happened to theLyre, i. e.the music in the chorus, which originally, as that of theTibia, 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 thestage music, of thesatyrs, and theGreek 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. TheTibiaat first wassimpleandrude—Thesatyrs nakedandbarbarous—andtheGreek tragedy itself deformed and shapelessin 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.]Chorushere means the whole dramatic performance, which was originally nothing else.

206.Utpote parvus, et frugi castusque verecundusque, &c.] M.Dacierfinds herefourcausesof the little regard the ancients had for plays[he should have said, of their being satisfied with theTibia, 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 simplicityof 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. Hisfourcauses are, in fact,then but two; which have been fully considered in note on v. 202.

211.Accessit numerisque modisque licentia major.] M.Daciertakeslicentia majorin a bad sense, as implyinglasciveté,a culpable and licentious refinement. But thelicence, here spoken of, with regard tonumbersandsounds, like that in another place, which respectswords[l. 51.] is one of those, which is allowed, whensumpta pudenter. The comparativemajor, which is apalliative, shews this; and is further justified by a like passage inCicero,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 entitledOrator, 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, thislicenceextendednumeris modisque, the former of which words will express thatlicence of metre, spoken of byCicero, and which is further explained v. 256,&c.where an account is given of the improvement of the Iambic verse.

This is the application of what hath been said, in general, concerning the refinement of theatrical music to the case oftragedy. Some commentators say, and tocomedy. But in this they mistake, as will appear presently. M.Dacierhath, I know not what conceit about a comparison betwixt theRomanandGreekstage. 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: TheTibia, 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, entitledOrator,speaking of the negligence of the Roman writers, in respect ofnumbers, he observes,that there were even many passages in their tragedies, which, unless theTibiaplayed 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 fromThyestes, a tragedy ofEnnius; and, as appears from the measure, taken out of one of the acts. It is clear then, that theTibiawas certainly used in thedeclamationof tragedy. But now the song of the tragic chorus, being of the nature of the ode, of course requiredFides, 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, theTibicen, 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. ByFidibusthen is necessarily understoodthe instrument peculiarly used in it. Not that it need be said that theTibiawas 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 thelyrewas 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 theTibia, the music of the acts; and, 2. toFides, 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 thoughTibiamight be allowed to stand for comedy, as opposed toTragœdia, [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,Fidescould not determinately enough, and in contradistinction toTibia, 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 thetragic 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 thatquicker movement, andricher modulationof the new music; the peculiar defects of theoldbeing, 1. That it moved too slowly, and, 2. That it had no compass or variety of notes. It was thatmovement, 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 theactor, whose peculiar office it was, but theminstrelhimself, 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 isbecoming,graceful, andmajestic; 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, andintroducing 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 acensureorencomium, according as the preceding state of the thing spoken of waswrong, orright. Much the same may be concluded ofpræceps; itsliteralsense is a degree ofmotionin any thing above what it had before. This may beexcessive, or otherwise, as it chances: When applied tothe bleak East wind, dispersing a flight of bees, and dashing them on the stream,

si forte morantesSparserit, aut præceps Neptuno immerserit Eurus.Virg. Georg. iv. 29.

the epithet impliesexcess; but when spoken of thegentle South, whose strongest gale is but sufficient to drive the willing ship to port, [Æn. vii. 410.]Præcipiti delata Noto, it then only expressesdue measure.

As for the criticism from Quintilian, who opposespræcipitiatosublimibus, it is doubly impertinent: 1. As the sense is necessarily fixed by its opposition tosublimibus: and 2. As the word is here used, not as implyingmotion, butheight, in which view its sense isabsolute, and always denotesexcess.

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 highlyencomiastic, 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 theformerhave chiefly treated the subject in amoralorpoliticalview, 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 thoseencomiasts, applauds, as we find, the practice of Ægypt, insuffering no change of her poetry, but continuing, to his time, her fondness for theSongs 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 herSaliar verseswould 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 thelatter, 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 eumModorum flexionibustorqueant!For theseveritas jucundaof the music, to which Livius’s plays were set, it may be tolerably guessed from hence, that he was thefirstwho brought awritten 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 theflexiones 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 theeffect, but thecauseof 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.]Sententiais properlyan 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 condemnAcciusandSeneca, how shall we defendSophoclesandEuripides?” An ingenious18modern 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 thismediumfor 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 goodsense of such people always delighting to shew itself in sententious or proverbial γνῶμαι, or observations. Their character, like that of the clown in Shakespear, isto 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 thephilosopher, 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 tostrike, 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.Schoolsandpedantry,moralsandausterity, were not so essentially connected, in their combinations of ideas, as they have been since; and a sensiblemoral truth might have fallen from any mouth, without disgracing it. Nay, which is very remarkable, the veryscholia, 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 thesemoralsongs, 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 Horace19.

Ἀρετὰ πολύμοχθε γένει βροτείῳ,Θήραμα κάλλιστον βίῳ.Σᾶς πέρι, Παρθένε, μορφᾶςΚαὶ 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 ἩρακλέηςΛήδας τε κοῦροι πόλλ’ ἀνέτλασαν,Ἔργοις σὰν ἀγορεύοντες δύναμιν.Σοῖς τε πόθοις ἈχιλλεὺςΑἴας τ’ αἴδαο δόμους ἦλθον·Σᾶς δ’ ἕνεκα φιλίου μορφᾶςἈταρνέως ἔντροφοςἈελίου χήρωσεν αὐγάς.Τοίγαρ ἀοίδιμον ἔργοις,Ἀθάνατόν τε μιν αὐξήσουσι μοῦσαι,Μναμοσύνας θύγατρες,Διὸς ξενίου σέβας αὔξουσαιΦιλίας τε γέρας βεβαίου20.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 descendsThy rich ambrosial show’r;A show’r, that gold, that parents far transcends,Or, sleep’s soft-soothing pow’r.III.By theeAlcidessoar’d to fame,Thy influenceLeda’stwins proclaim;Heroes for thee have dauntless trodThe 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 praiseOf friendship and of friendly Jove) shall shineWith ever-living rays.

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 descendsThy rich ambrosial show’r;A show’r, that gold, that parents far transcends,Or, sleep’s soft-soothing pow’r.

III.By theeAlcidessoar’d to fame,Thy influenceLeda’stwins proclaim;Heroes for thee have dauntless trodThe 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 praiseOf friendship and of friendly Jove) shall shineWith 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, assententiis 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 thereforeSophocles, 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 letteredfew, and not thegeneralmode 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 thetibiato thesatyrs, had been abrupt and inartificial; but fromtragedy, the transition is easy, thesatyrsbeing 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 thetragedy, here referred to, cannot be the regular Roman tragedy.Thathe 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 theGreekdrama only, the Atellane was ever regarded as a species, not of tragedy, but comedy: The authority of Donatus is very express; “Comædiarumformæ 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:” andsatyric, not that satyrs were introduced in them, but, according to Diomedes, from their being “argumentis dictisquesimilessatyricis 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 oftragedy; 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, inthe 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 thesatyrs;” and indeed the nature of the thing, as well as the testimony of all antiquity, shews it to be impossible. For thesatyrhere 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 calledsatyric, 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 ofBacchus, with rude songs, and uncouth dances; and had little resemblance to that, which was afterwards calledsatyric; which, except that it retained the chorus of satyrs, and turnedupon 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 ofSatyri, 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 aRomanauditory, v. 248. make it evident that he had, in fact, the practice of his own stage in view. It hath, however, been questioned, whether bySatyriwe are to understand the proper GreekSatyrs, or the LatinAtellanefable, which, in the main of its character, very much resembled that drama. If the authority of Diomedes be any thing, theformermust 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, wereSatyrs, and accordingly delivers rules for the regulation of their characters. As to theAtellane, according to the way in which Vossius reads the words of Diomedes, the characters wereOscan,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 itshould seem from a passage in Strabo, [Lib. v. 233.] the language of theOsciwas 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, theAtellane, which was of great authority and constant use at Rome, and yet say so much of another, theSatyrs, 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 forSatyrsis to be considered only as an improvement of the oldAtellane, and not the introduction of an intirely new drama. In every other respect the precepts here given for the regulation of theSatyrsare such as would equally serve to improve theAtellane. The probable reason why the poet chose to insist so much on this alteration, or rather why he laboured so strenuously tosupportit, will be given in its place. In themean time supposing his view to have been this of countenancing the introduction ofsatyric personsinto the Atellane (and that they were, in fact, introduced, we learn from an express authority21) 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, etnovitate inventi a se operiscommendabilem.” L. ii. c. ix. For the age he is speaking of is that ofSylla. But the authorities for the high antiquity of the Atellane fable are so express, that, when Pomponius is called theInventorof 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 thehonour of it. The improvements made by Lucilius in Satire have been taken notice of in theIntroduction. 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 fromAtella, a town of theOsciin Campania; and that the Dialect of that people was constantly andonlyused 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 Ρωμαίοις· ὧστε καὶ ποιήματα σκηνοβατεῖσθαι κατά τινα ἀγῶνα πάτριον καὶ μιμολογεῖσθαι. L. v. 233.

TheOscanlanguage, 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 theRoman 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 ofInventor, as applied to Pomponius, we must conclude that he was thefirstperson who set this example of composing Atellane plays in the vulgar dialect: which took so much that he was even followedin 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 theSENSIBUS CELEBRISof Paterculus22. 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, theantiquein 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 afterwardsreformedits barbarities, and brought it on the Stage in aRomandress; which together were thought so great improvements, thatlater writers speak of him as theInventorof this Poem. But to return to our proper subject, theGreek 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, tofix 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 inn.on v. 203. Hence the propriety of the wordnudavit, 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 theSatyr, he calls himasper, i. e. rude and petulant; and even adds, that his jests were intemperate, and without theleast mixture of gravity. For thus, upon the authority of a very ingenious and learned critic, I explaneincolumi gravitate, i. e. rejecting every thing serious, biddingfarewell, as we say,to all gravity. Thus [L. iii. O. 5.]

Back to Index Next