The Art of Poetry: an Epistle to the Pisos

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

297.—FAITHFUL AND SECRET.]—Ille tegat commissa.

On this nice part of the duty of the CHORUS the author of the English Commentary thus remarks.

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

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

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

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

On the whole, it appears that the moral importance of the CHORUS must be considered with some limitations: or, at least, that the CHORUS is as liable to be misused and misapplied, as any part of modern Tragedy.

300.—The pipe of old.]—Tibi, non ut nunc, &c.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Et frugi, castus, verecundusque coibat.

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

With modest mirth indulg'd their sober taste.

318.—The Piper, grown luxuriant in his art.]

320.—Now too, its powers increas'd, The Lyre severe.]

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

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

319.—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.