Chapter 7

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

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

_Traxitque vagus per pulpita vestem._

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_Incolumi Jove et urbe Româ:_

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

_Anciliorum et neminis et togae OBLITUS, aeternaeque Vestae._

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

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

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

Notes on the Art of Poetry.

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

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

The line of the Ode referred to,

INCOLUMI _Jove, et urbe Româ?_

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_Non ego_ INORNATA & DOMINANTIA, &c.

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

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

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