THE work of Horace, now under conſideration, has been ſo long known, and ſo generally received, by the name of The Art of Poetry, that I have, on account of that notoriety, ſubmitted this tranſlation to the Publick, under that title, rather than what I hold to be the true one, viz. Horace's EPISTLE TO THE PISOS. The Author of the Engliſh Commen⯑tary has adopted the ſame title, though directly re⯑pugnant to his own ſyſtem; and, I ſuppoſe, for the very ſame reaſon.

The title, in general a matter of indifference, is, in the preſent inſtance, of much conſequence. On the title Julius Scaliger founded his invidious, and injudicious, attack. De arte quaeres quid ſentiam. Quid? equidem quod DE ARTE, SINE ARTE traditâ. To ehe Title all the editors, and commentators, have [38] particularly adverted; commonly preferring the Epiſtolary Denomination, but, in contradiction to that preference, almoſt univerſally inſcribing the Epiſtle, the Art of Poetry. The conduct, however, of JASON DE NORES, a native of Cyprus, a learned and ingenious writer of the 16th century, is very remarkable. In the year 1553 he publiſhed at Ve⯑nice this work of Horace, accompanied with a com⯑mentary and notes, written in elegant Latin, in⯑ſcribing it, after Quintilian, Q. Horatii Flacci LIBER DE ARTE POETICA^*. The very next year, how⯑ever, he printed at Paris a ſecond edition, enriching his notes with many obſervations on Dante and Pe⯑trarch, and changing the title, after mature conſi⯑deration, to Q. Horatii Flacci EPISTOLA AD PISONES, de Arte Poeticâ. His motives for this change he aſ⯑ſigns in the following terms.

Deſprez, the Dauphin Editor, retains both titles, but ſays, inclining to the Epiſtolary, Attamen ARTEM POETICAM vix appellem cum Quintiliano et aliis: ma⯑lim vero EPISTOLAM nuncupare cum nonnullis eruditis. Monſieur Dacier inſcribes it, properly enough, agree⯑able to the idea of Porphyry, Q. Horatii Flacci DE ARTE POETICA LIBER; ſeu, EPISTOLA AD PI⯑SONES, PATREM, ET FILIOS.

Julius Scaliger certainly ſtands convicted of cri⯑tical malice by his poor cavil at the SUPPOSED title; [40] and has betrayed his ignorance of the eaſe and beauty of Epiſtolary method, as well as the moſt groſs miſ⯑apprehenſion, by his ridiculous analyſis of the work, reſolving it into thirty-ſix parts. He ſeems, how⯑ever, to have not ill conceived the genius of the poem, in ſaying that it reliſhed of SATIRE. This he has urged in many parts of his Poeticks, parti⯑cularly in the Dedicatory Epiſtle to his ſon, not omitting, however, his conſtant charge of Art with⯑out Art. Horatius ARTEM cum inſcripſit, ADEO SINE ULLA DOCET ARTE, UT SATYRAE PROPIUS TOTUM OPUS ILLUD ESSE VIDEATUR. This comes almoſt home to the opinion of the Author of the elegant commentaries on the two Epiſtles of Horace to the Piſos and to Auguſtus, as expreſſed in the Dedica⯑cation to the latter: With the recital of that opinion I ſhall conclude this long note. ‘"The genius of Rome was bold and elevated: but Criticiſm of any kind, was little cultivated, never profeſſed as an art, by this people. The ſpecimens we have of their ability in this way (of which the moſt elegant, beyond all diſpute, are the two epiſtles to Auguſtus and the Piſos) are ſlight occaſional at⯑tempts; made in the negligence of common ſenſe, and adapted to the peculiar exigencies of their own taſte and learning; and not by any means the re⯑gular [41] productions of art, profeſſedly bending itſelf to this work, and ambitious to give the laſt finiſh⯑ing to the critical ſyſtem."’

Tranſlated from Horace.] In that very entertain⯑ing and inſtructive publication, entitled An Eſſay on the Learning and Genius of Pope, the Critick recom⯑mends, as the propereſt poetical meaſure to render in Engliſh the Satires and Epiſtles of Horace, that kind of familiar blank verſe, uſed in a verſion of Terence, attempted ſome years ſince by the Author of this tranſlation. I am proud of the compliment; yet I have varied from the mode preſcribed: not be⯑cauſe Roſcommon has already given ſuch a verſion; or becauſe I think the ſatyrical hexameters of Horace leſs familiar than the irregular Iambicks of Terence. Engliſh Blank Verſe, like the Iambick of Greece and Rome, is peculiarly adapted to theatrical action and dialogue, as well as to the Epick, and the more elevated Didactick Poetry: but after the models left by DRYDEN and POPE, and in the face of the living example of JOHNSON, who ſhall venture to reject rhyme in the province of Satire and Epiſtle?

‘9.—TRUST ME, MY PISOS!] Credite Piſones!’

[42]Monſieur Dacier, at a very early period, feels the influence of the perſonal addreſs, that governs this Epiſtle. Remarking on this paſſage, he obſerves that Horace, anxious to inſpire the Piſos with a juſt taſte, ſays earneſtly Truſt me, my Piſos! Credite Pi⯑ſones! an expreſſion that betrays fear and diſtruſt, left the young Men ſhould fall into the dangerous error of bad poets, and injudicious criticks, who not only thought the want of unity of ſubject a pardon⯑able effect of Genius, but even the mark of a rich and luxuriant imagination. And although this Epiſtle, continues Monſieur Dacier, is addreſſed in⯑differently to Piſo the father, and his Sons, as ap⯑pears by v. 24 of the original, yet it is to the ſons in particular that theſe precepts are directed; a con⯑ſideration which reconciles the difference mentioned by Porphyry. Scribit ad Piſones, viros nobiles di⯑ſertoſque, patrem et filios; vel, ut alii volunt, AD PISONES FRATRES.

Deſprez, the Dauphin Editor, obſerves alſo, in the ſame ſtrain, Porro ſcribit Horatius ad patrem et filios Piſones, PRAESERTIM VERO AD HOS.

The family of the Piſos, to whom Horace ad⯑dreſſes this Epiſtle, were called Calpurnii, being [43] deſcended from Calpus, ſon of Numa Pompilius, whence he afterwards ſtyles them of the Pompilian Blood. Pompilius Sanguis!

‘10.—THE VOLUME SUCH,] LIBRUM perſimilem.’ Liber, obſerves Dacier, is a term applied to all li⯑terary productions, of whatever deſcription. This remark is undoubtedly juſt, confirms the ſentiments of Jaſon de Nores, and takes off the force of all the arguments founded on Quintilian's having ſtiled this Epiſtle LIBER de arte poeticâ.

Voſſius, ſpeaking of the cenſure of Scaliger, "de arte, ſine arte," ſubjoins ſed fallitur, cum [...] putat eſſe ab Horatio; qui inſcripſerat EPISTOLAM AD PISONES. Argumentum vero, ut in Epiſtolarum caeteris, ita in hâc etiam, ab aliis poſtea appoſitum fuit.

‘19.—OFT WORKS OF PROMISE LARGE, AND HIGH ATTEMPT.] Incaeptis gravibus plerumque, &c.’ Buckingham's Eſſay on Poetry, Roſcommon's Eſſay on Tranſlated Verſe, as well as the Satires, and Art Poetique of Boileau, and Pope's Eſſay on Criticiſm, abound with imitations of Horace. This paſſage of our Author ſeems to have given birth to the follow⯑ing lines of Buckingham.

The following lines of Pope may perhaps appear to bear a nearer reſemblance to this paſſage of Ho⯑race.

‘34.—SIMPLE BE ALL YOU EXECUTE, AND ONE!] Denique ſit quidvis ſimplex duntaxat & unum!’ Suppoſing for a moment that the elder Piſo had actually ſubmitted ſome poetical effort to the judgement of Horace, it is natural to con⯑clude that the work was, in our Poet's opinion, of the character deſcribed in the opening of this Epiſtle: ſtudded with brilliant thoughts, and adorned with flowery paſſages; but void of plan, inco⯑herent, [45] irregular, and on the whole lame and imperfect.

‘49.—Of th' Aemilian claſs.] Aemilium circa ludum’—literally, near the Aemilian School; al⯑luding to the Academy of Gladiators of Aemilius Lentulus, in whoſe neighbourhood lived many Ar⯑tiſts and Shopkeepers.

Pope has given a beautiful illuſtration of this thought.

‘56.—SELECT, ALL YE WHO WRITE, A SUBJECT FIT.] Sumite materiam, &c.’

This paſſage is well imitated by Roſcommon in his Eſſay on Tranſlated Verſe.

Stooping to Lyrick Lays, though not inapplicable to ſome of the lighter odes of Horace, is not deſcrip⯑tive of the general character of the Lyrick Muſe. Muſa dedit Fidibus Divos, &c.

Pope takes up the ſame thought in his Eſſay on Criticiſm.

‘71.—A cunning phraſe.] Callida junctura.’

Jaſon de Nores and many other interpreters agree that Horace here recommends, after Ariſtotle, the artful elevation of ſtyle by the uſe of common words in an uncommon ſenſe, producing at once an air of familiarity and magnificence. Some however con⯑fine the expreſſion, callida junctura, to ſignify com⯑pound words. The Author of the Engliſh Commen⯑tary adopts the firſt conſtruction; but conſiders the precept in both ſenſes, and illuſtrates each by many beautiful examples from the plays of Shakeſpeare. Theſe examples he has accompanied with much ele⯑gant and judicious obſervation, as the reader of [48] taſte will be convinced by the following ſhort ex⯑tracts.

‘76.—THE STRAIT-LAC'D CETHEGI.] CINC⯑TUTIS Cethegis.’ Jaſon De Nores differs, and I think very juſtly, from thoſe who interpret Cinctutis [49] to ſignify looſe, bare, or naked—EXERTOS & NUDOS. The plain ſenſe of the radical word cingo is directly oppoſite. The word cinctutis is here aſſumed to expreſs a ſeverity of manners by an alluſion to an antique gravity of dreſs; and the Poet, adds De Nores, very happily forms a new word himſelf, as a vindication and example of the licence he recom⯑mends. Cicero numbers M. Corn. Cethegus among the old Roman Orators; and Horace himſelf again refers to the Cethegi in his Epiſtle to Florus, and on the ſubject of the uſe of words.

This brilliant paſſage of Pope is quoted in this place by the author of the Engliſh Commentary, [50] who has alſo ſubjoined many excellent remarks on the revival of old words, worthy the particular atten⯑tion of thoſe who cultivate proſe as well as poetry, and ſhewing at large, that ‘"the riches of a language are actually increaſed by retaining its old words: and beſides, they have often a greater real weight and dignity, than thoſe of a more faſhionable caſt, which ſucceed to them. This needs no proof to ſuch as are verſed in the earlier writings of any language."—"The growing prevalency of a very different humour, firſt catched, as it ſhould ſeem, from our commerce with the French Models, and countenanced by the too ſcrupulous delicacy of SOME GOOD WRITERS AMONGST OURSELVES, had gone far towards unnerving the nobleſt modern language, and effeminating the public taſte."—"The rejection of old wards, as barbarous, and of many modern ones, "as unpolite," had ſo exhauſted the ſtrength and ſtores of our language, that it was high time for ſome maſter-hand to interpoſe, and ſend us for ſupplies to our old poets; which there is the higheſt authority for ſaying, no one ever deſpiſed, but for a reaſon, not very conſiſtent with his credit to avow; rudem eſſe omnino in noſtris poetis, aut INERTISSIMAE NEQUITIAE eſt, aut FASTI⯑DII [51] DELICATISSIMI.—Cic. de ſin. l. i. c. 2."’

‘AS BRANCHING WOODS, &c.] Ut ſilvae foliis, &c.’ Mr. Duncombe, in his tranſlation of our Author, concurs with Monſieur Dacier in obſerving that ‘"Horace ſeems here to have had in view that fine ſimilitude of Homer in the ſixth book of the Iliad, comparing the generations of men to the annual ſucceſſion of leaves."’

The tranſlator of Homer has himſelf compared words to leaves, but in another view, in his Eſſay on Criticiſm.

[52]In another part of the Eſſay he purſues the ſame train of thought with Horace, and riſes, I think, above his Maſter.

‘95.—WHETHER THE SEA, &c.] Sive recep⯑tus, &c.’

This may be underſtood of any harbour; but it is generally interpreted to refer to the Portus Julius, [53] a haven formed by letting in the ſea upon the Lu⯑crine Lake, and forming a junction between that and the Lake Avernus; a work, commenced by Julius Caeſar, and compleated by Auguſtus, or Agrippa under his auſpices. Regis opus! Both theſe lakes (ſays Martin) were in Campania: the former was deſtroyed by an earthquake; but the latter is the preſent Lago d'Averno. Strabo, the Geographer, who, as well as our Poet, was living at the time, aſcribes this work to Agrippa, and tells us that the Lucrine bay was ſeparated from the Tyrrhene ſea by a mound, ſaid to have been firſt made by Hercules, and reſtored by Agrippa. Philargyrius ſays that a ſtorm aroſe at the time of the execution of this great work, to which Virgil ſeems to refer in his mention of this Port, in the courſe of his Panegyrick on Italy in the ſecond Georgick.

‘98.—WHETHER THE MARSH, &c.] Steriliſve Palus.’

THE PONTINE MARSH, firſt drained by the Con⯑ſul Cornelius Cethegus; then, by Auguſtus; and many, many years after by Theodorick.

‘102.—OR IF THE RIVER, &c.] Seu curſum, &c.’ The courſe of the Tyber, changed by Auguſtus, to prevent inundations.

‘110.—FOR DEEDS OF KINGS, &c.] Res geſtae regumque, &c.’

The ingenious author of the Engliſh Commen⯑tary, to whom I have ſo often referred, and to whom I muſt continue to refer, has diſcovered particular taſte, judgement, and addreſs, in his explication of this part of the Epiſtle. It runs thus.

[56]It is needleſs to inſiſt, that my hypotheſis will not allow me to concur entirely in the latter part of this extract; at leaſt in that latitude, to which the ſyſtem of the writer carries it: yet I perfectly agree with Mr. Duncombe, that the learned Critick, in his obſervation on this Epiſtle, ‘"has ſhewn in gene⯑ral, the connection and dependence of one part with another, in a clearer light than any other Commentator."’ His ſhrewd and delicate commen⯑tary is, indeed, a moſt elegant contraſt to the bar⯑barous analyſis of Scaliger, drawn up without the leaſt idea of poetical tranſition, and with the uncouth air of a mere dry logician, or dull grammarian. I think, however, the Order and Method, obſerved in this Epiſtle, is ſtricter than has yet been obſerved, and that the ſeries of rules is delivered with great re⯑gularity; NOT enlivened by digreſſions, but paſſing from one topick to another, by the moſt natural and eaſy tranſitions. The Author's diſcrimination of the different ſtiles of the ſeveral ſpecies of poetry, leads him, as has been already ſhewn, to conſider THE DICTION of the Drama, and its accommoda⯑tion to the circumſtances and character of the Speaker. A recapitulation of theſe circumſtances carries him to treat of the due management of characters already known, as well as of ſuſtaining thoſe that are entire⯑ly [57] original; to the firſt of which the Poet gives the preference, recommending known CHARACTERS, as well as known SUBJECTS: And on the mention of this joint preference, the Author leaves further con⯑ſideration of the DICTION, and ſlides into diſcourſe upon the FABLE, which he continues down to the 152d verſa.

Having diſpatched the FABLE, the Poet proceeds, and with ſome Solemnity of Order, to the conſide⯑ration of the CHARACTERS; not in regard to ſuit⯑able diction, for of that he has already ſpoken, but in reſpect to the manners; and, in this branch of his ſubject, he has as judiciouſly borrowed from the Rhe⯑toricks of Ariſtotle, as in the reſt of his Epiſtle from the Poeticks. He then directs, in its due place, the proper conduct of particular INCIDENTS of the fable; after which he treats of the CHORUS; from whence he naturally falls into the hiſtory of theatrical MU⯑SICK; which is, as naturally, ſucceeded by an ac⯑count of the Origin of the Drama itſelf, which the Poet commences, like his maſter Ariſtotle, even from the Dithyrambick Song, and carries it down [58] to the eſtabliſhment of the New Greek Comedy; from whence he paſſes eaſily and gracefully, to the ROMAN STAGE, acknowledging the merits of the Writers, but pointing out their defects, and aſſign⯑ing the cauſes. He then ſubjoins a few general ob⯑ſervations, and concludes his long diſcourſe on the DRAMA, having extended it to 275 lines. This diſcourſe, together with the reſult of all his reflec⯑tions on Poets and Poetry, he then applies in the moſt earneſt and perſonal manner to the ELDER PISO; and with a long and moſt pathetick peroration, if I may adopt an oratorical term, concludes the Epiſtle.

‘116.—THE ELEGY's SMALL SONG.] EXI⯑GUOS Elegos.’

Commentators differ concerning the import of this expreſſion—EXIGUOS Elegos; the Elegy's ſmall ſong. De Nores, Schrevelius, and Deſprez, think it refers to the humility of the elegiack ſtile and ſubjects, compared with epick or lyrick ſublimity. Monſieur Dacier rather thinks that Horace refers here, as in the words Verſibus impariter junctis, "Couplets unequal," to the uſe of the pentameter, or ſhort verſe, conſiſting of five feet, and joined to the hexameter, or long verſe, of ſix. This inequality [59] of the couplet Monſieur Dacier juſtly prefers to the two long Alexandrines of his own country, which ſets almoſt all the French poetry, Epick, Dramatick, Elegiack, or Satyrick, to the tune of Derry Down. In our language, the meaſures are more various, and more happily conceived. Our Elegy adopts not only unequal couplets, but alternate rhymes, which give a plaintive tone to the heroick meaſure, and are moſt happily uſed in Gray's beau⯑tiful Elegy in a Country Church yard.

‘135.—THY FEAST, THYESTES!] Coena Thyeſtae.’

The ſtory of Thyeſtes being of the moſt tragick nature, a banquet on his own children! is com⯑monly interpreted by the Criticks, as mentioned by Horace, in alluſion to Tragedy in general. The Author of the Engliſh Commentary, however, is of a different opinion, ſuppoſing, from a paſſage of Cicero, that the Poet means to glance at the Thyeſtes of Ennius, and to pay an oblique compliment to Varius, who had written a tragedy on the ſame ſub⯑ject.

The ſame learned Critick alſo takes it for granted, that the Tragedy of Telephus, and probably of Pe⯑leus, after mentioned, point at tragedies of Euripi⯑des, [60] on theſe ſubjects, tranſlated into Latin, and accommodated to the Roman Stage, without ſucceſs, by Ennius, Accius, or Noevius.

One of the Critick's notes on this part of the Epiſtle, treating on the uſe of pure poetry in the Drama, abounds with curious diſquiſition and refined criti⯑ciſm.

‘150.—They muſt have PASSION too.] DULCIA ſunto.’ The Poet, with great addreſs, includes THE SENTIMENTS under the conſideration of DICTION.

Buckingham has treated the ſubject of Dialogue very happily in his Eſſay on Poetry, glancing, but not ſervilely, at this part of Horace.

‘188.—And Oreſtes mad!] TRISTIS Oreſtes.’ Triſtis is not literally mad: but phrenzy is the gene⯑ral poetick and dramatick attribute of Oreſtes, to which Horace is by all the Commentators ſuppoſed to refer. Triſtis in its common acceptation would be too little diſcriminated from the FLEBILIS Ino.

‘203.—BE NOT YOUR OPENING FIERCE!] Nec ſic incipies.’ Moſt of the Criticks obſerve, that all theſe documents, deduced from the Epick, are in⯑tended, like the reduction of the Iliad into acts, as directions and admonitions to the Dramatick writer. Nam ſi in EPOPAEIA, quae gravitate omnia poematum genera praecellit, ait principium lene eſſe debere; quanto magis in TRAGOEDIA et COMOEDIA, idem videri de⯑bet? ſays de Nores. Praeceptum de initio grandiori evitando, quod tam EPICUS quam TRAGICUS cavere debet; ſays the Dauphin Editor. Il faut ſe ſouvenir qu' Horace applique à la Tragedie les regles du Poeme Epique. Car ſi ces debuts eclatans ſont ridicules dans la Poeme Epique, ils le ſont encore plus dans la Trage⯑die: ſays Dacier. The Author of the Engliſh Com⯑mentary makes the like obſervation, and uſes it to enforce his ſyſtem of the Epiſtle's being intended as a Criticiſm on the Roman Drama.

‘204.—Like the rude BALLAD-MONGER's chaunt of old.] Ut Scriptor CYCLICUS olim.]’ Scriptor CY⯑CLICUS [62] ſignifies an itinerant Rhymer travelling, like Shakeſpeare's Mad Tom, to wakes, and fairs, and market-towns. It is not preciſely known who was the Cyclick Poet here meant. Some have aſ⯑cribed the Character to Maevius, and Roſcommon has adopted that idea.

The pompous exordium of Statius is well known, and the fragments of Ennius preſent us a moſt tre⯑mendous commencement of his Annals.

this is indeed

‘213.—Say, Muſe, the Man, &c.]’ Homer's opening of the Odyſſey. This rule is perhaps no where ſo chaſtely obſerved as in the Paradiſe Loſt. Homer's [...]! or, his [...]! or, Virgil's Arma virumque cano! are all boiſterous and vehement, in compariſon with the calmneſs and modeſty of Milton's meek approach,

‘217.—Antiphates, the Cyclops, &c.] Antipha⯑tem, Scyllamque, & cum Cyclope Charybdim.’ Sto⯑ries, that occur in the Odyſſey.

‘220.—With Diomed's return TO RUN YOU OUT OF BREATH.]’ I am ſurpriſed that my old friend and ſchool-fellow, Mr. Maty, did not per⯑ceive that the irregularity of this verſe was inten⯑tional. In other inſtances I have endeavoured to avail myſelf of his remarks.

‘220-21.—Diomed's return—the Double Egg.’

The return of Diomede is not mentioned by Ho⯑mer, but is ſaid to be the ſubject of a tedious Poem by Antimachus; and to Staſimus is aſcribed a Poem, called the Little Iliad, beginning with the nativity of Helen.

‘229.—Hear now!] TU, quid ego, &c.’

This invocation, ſays Dacier juſtly, is not ad⯑dreſſed to either of the Piſos, but to the Dramatick Writer generally.

‘231.—The Cloth GOES DOWN.]’ Aulaea manen⯑tis. This is tranſlated according to modern man⯑ners; for with the Antients, the Cloth was raised at the Concluſion of the Play. Thus in Virgil's Georgicks;

‘232.—Man's ſeveral ages, &c.] Aetatis cujuſ⯑que, &c.’ Jaſon De Nores takes notice of the parti⯑cular ſtreſs, that Horace lays on the due diſcrimina⯑tion of the ſeveral Ages, by the ſolemnity with which he introduces the mention of them: The ſame Critick ſubjoins a note alſo, which I ſhall tranſcribe, as it ſerves to illuſtrate a popular paſ⯑ſage in the As you Like It of Shakeſpeare.

It appears from hence, that it was common for the writers of that me, as well as Shakeſpeare's Jaques, to divide the life of man into SEVEN AGES, viz. In⯑fancy, Childhood, Puberty, Youth, Manhood, Old [67] Age, and Decrepitude; ‘"which laſt, (ſays De Nores) in ſome ſort anſwers to Infancy,"’ or, as Shakeſpere expreſſes it, IS SECOND CHILDISH⯑NESS.

‘"Before Shakeſpeare's time, ſays Warburton, ſeven acts was no unuſual diviſion of a play, ſo that there is a greater beauty than appears at firſt ſight in this image."’ Mr. Steevens, however, informs us that the plays of that early period were not di⯑vided into acts at all. It is moſt probable therefore that Shakeſpeare only copied the moral philoſophy (the Socraticae chartae) of his own day, adapting it, like Ariſtotle and Horace, to his own purpoſe; and. I think, with more felicity, than either of his il⯑luſtrious predeceſſors, by contriving to introduce, and diſcriminate every one of THE SEVEN AGES. This he has effected by aſſigning STATION and CHA⯑RACTER to ſome of the ſtages, which to Ariſtotle and Horace appeared too ſimilar to be diſtinguiſhed from each other. Thus PUBERTY, YOUTH, MAN⯑HOOD, and OLD AGE, become under Shakeſpeare's hand, the LOVER, the SOLDIER, the JUSTICE, and the lean and ſlipper'd PANTALOON; while the natu⯑tural qualities of the INFANT, the BOY, and the [68] DOTARD, afford ſufficient materials for poetical de⯑ſcription.

Ariſtotle conſiders the powers of the body in a ſtate of advancement till the 35th year, and the fa⯑culties of the mind progreſſively improving till the 49th; from which periods they ſeverally decline. On which circumſtance, applied to this paſſage of Horace, Jaſon De Nores elegantly remarks, Vita enim noſtra videtur ad VIRILITATEM uſque, quâ IN STATU poſita eſt, QUENDAM QUASI PONTEM aetatis ASCENDERE, ab eâque inde DESCENDERE. Whether Addiſon ever met with the commentary of De Nores, it is perhaps impoſſible to diſcover. But this idea of the ASCENT and DECLIVITY of the BRIDGE of HUMAN LIFE, ſtrongly reminds us of the delightful Viſion of MIRZA.

‘Medea's PARRICIDE.] Medea Tracidet.’ Profeſſed Criticks have objected to the word parricide, which [69] they conſider as confined to ſignify the murder of a parent. The expreſſion, however, is authoriſed and correct. Any horrible murder is branded, in the works of the beſt writers, by the name of Parricide. John's cruel diſpatch of his nephew Arthur drew on him the edict of Philip, attainting him of felony and parricide. The aſſaſſination of Henry the Fourth of France, by Ravaillac, is ſtigmatiſed by Monteſ⯑quieu, in his Lettres Perſannes, as a deteſtable PAR⯑RICIDE.

‘290.—An actor's part THE CHORUS ſhould ſuſtain.] Actoris partes CHORUS, &c.’

Though it is not my intention to agitate, in this place, the long diſputed queſtion concerning the ex⯑pediency, or inexpediency, of the CHORUS; yet I cannot diſmiſs the above note without ſome farther obſervation. In the firſt place then I cannot think that the judgment of two ſuch Crikicks as Ariſtotle and Horace, can be deciſively quoted, as concurring with the practice of wiſe antiquity, TO ESTABLISH THE CHORUS. Neither of theſe two Criticks have taken up the queſtion, each of them giving directions for the proper conduct of the CHORUS, conſidered as an eſtabliſhed and received part of Tragedy, and indeed [74] originally, as they both tell us, the whole of it, Ariſtotle, in his Poeticks, has hot ſaid much on the ſubject; and from the little he has ſaid, more arguments might perhaps be drawn, in favour of the omiſſion, than for the introduction of the CHORUS. It is true that he ſays, in his 4th chapter, that ‘"Tragedy, after many changes, pauſed, having gained its natural form^*:"’ This might, at firſt ſight, ſeem to include his approbation of the CHORUS, as well as of all the other parts of Tragedy then in uſe: but he himſelf expreſsly tells us in the very ſame chapter, that he had no ſuch meaning, ſaying, that ‘"to enquire whether Tragedy be perfect in its parts, either conſidered in itſelf, or with relation to the theatre, was foreign to his preſent pur⯑poſe^†."’ In the paſſage from which Horace has, in the verſes now before us, deſcribed the office, and laid down the duties of the CHORUS, the paſſage re⯑ferred to by the learned Critick, the words of Ari⯑ſtotle are not particularly favourable to the inſtitution, [71] or much calculated to recommend the uſe of it. For Ariſtotle there informs us, ‘"that Sopho⯑cles alone of all the Grecian writers, made the CHORUS conducive to the progreſs of the fable: not only even Euripides being culpable in this inſtance; but other writers, after the example of Agathon, introducing Odes as little to the pur⯑poſe, as if they had borrowed whole ſcenes from another play.^*"’

On the whole therefore; whatever may be the merits, or advantages of the CHORUS, I cannot think that the judgment of Ariſtotle or Horace can be adduced in recommendation of it. As to the PRO⯑BABILITY given to the repreſentation, by the CHORUS interpoſing and bearing a part in the action; the Pub⯑lick, who have lately ſeen a troop of ſingers aſſembled on the ſtage, as a CHORUS, during the whole re⯑preſentations of ELFRIDA and CARACTACUS, are [72] competent to decide for themſelves, how far ſuch an expedient, gives a more ſtriking reſemblance of human life, than the common uſage of our Drama. As to its importance in a moral view, to correct the evil impreſſion of vicious ſentiments, imputed to the ſpeak⯑ers; the ſtory told, to enforce its uſe for this pur⯑poſe, conveys a proof of its inefficacy. To give due force to ſentiments, as well as to direct their proper tendency, ariſes from the ſkill and addreſs of the Poet, independent of the CHORUS.

Monſieur Dacier, as well as the author of the above note, cenſures the modern ſtage for having rejected the CHORUS, and having loſt thereby at leaſt half its probability, and its GREATEST ORNAMENT; ſo that our Tragedy is but a very faint ſhadow of the OLD. Learned Criticks, however, do not, perhaps, con⯑ſider, that if it be expedient to revive the CHORUS, all the other parts of the Antient Tragedy muſt be revived along with it. Ariſtotle mentions MUSICK as one of the ſix parts of Tragedy, and Horace no ſooner introduces the CHORUS, but he proceeds to the PIPE and LYRE. If a CHORUS be really ne⯑ceſſary, our Dramas, like thoſe of the Antients, ſhould be rendered wholly muſical; the Dancers alſo will then claim their place, and the pretenſions of [73] Veſtris and Noverre muſt be admitted as claſſical. Such a ſpectacle, if not more natural than the mo⯑dern, would at leaſt be conſiſtent; but to introduce a groupe of ſpectatorial actors, SPEAKING in one part of the Drama, and SINGING in another, is as ſtrange and incoherent a medley, and full as unclaſſical, as the dialogue and airs of the BEGGAR's OPERA!

On this paſſage the author of the Engliſh Com⯑mentary thus remarks. ‘"How neceſſary this ad⯑vice might be to the writers of the Auguſtan age cannot certainly appear; but, if the practice of Seneca may give room for ſuſpicion, it ſhould ſeem to have been much wanted; in whom I ſcarcely believe there is ONE SINGLE INSTANCE, of the CHORUS being employed in a manner, conſo⯑nant to its true end and character."’

The learned Critick ſeems here to believe, and the plays under the name of Seneca in ſome meaſure [74] warrant the concluſion, that the CHORUS of the Roman Stage was not calculated to anſwer the ends of its inſtitution. Ariſtotle has told us juſt the ſame thing, with an exception in favour of Sophocles, of the Grecian Drama. And are ſuch ſurmiſes, or ſuch information, likely to ſtrengthen our prejudices on behalf of the CHORUS, or to inflame our deſires for its revival?

‘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.

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.

One of the cenſurers of Euripides, whoſe opinion is controverted in the above note, is Monſieur Da⯑cier; 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 Co⯑rinthian women (the CHORUS) being free, properly deſert the intereſts of Creon, and keep Medea's ſe⯑crets, for the ſake of juſtice, according to their cuſtom. Dacier, however, urges an inſtance of their infidelity [78] in the Ion of Euripides, where they betray the ſecret of Xuthus to Creuſa, which the French Critick de⯑fends on account of their attachment to their miſ⯑treſs; and adds, that the rule of Horace, like other rules, is proved by the exception. ‘"Beſides (con⯑tinues the Critick in the true ſpirit of French gal⯑lantry) ſhould we ſo heavily accuſe the Poet for not having made an aſſembly of women KEEP A SE⯑CRET?"’ 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 leav⯑ing them to the fury of Thoas, to which they muſt have been expoſed, but for the intervention of Mi⯑nerva.

On the whole, it appears that the moral importance of the CHORUS muſt be conſidered with ſome limita⯑tions: 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.’

The above interpretation of this part of the Epiſtle is, in my opinion, extremely juſt, and exactly cor⯑reſponds with the explication of De Nores, who cen⯑ſures 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 l. 100 of this verſion) conſider the Poet's notice of the Pipe and Lyre, as a digreſſion, notwithſtanding it includes a ſhort hiſ⯑tory of the rude ſimplicity of the Muſick in th [...] earlier ages of Rome, and of its ſubſequent improve⯑ments. 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 [81] 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 con⯑nection pointed out by the author of the Engliſh Commentary.

Theſe lines, rather breaking in upon the continuity of the hiſtory of theatrical muſick, create ſome ob⯑ſcurity, which has given birth to various interpreta⯑tions. 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 inter⯑prets 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, [82] 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 ex⯑planation 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 au⯑dience 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 re⯑proof of Madius for having, like Dacier, ſuppoſed the Poet to cenſure the improvements that he mani⯑feſtly meant to commend.

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

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 this perplexed paſſage, to have carried theſe two lines of Horace four lines back, and to have inſerted them immediately after the 207th verſe.

The Engliſh reader, who wiſhes to try the expe⯑riment, is deſired to read the four lines, that compoſe my verſion, immediately after the 309th line,

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 ſup⯑poſing it to begin, 55 lines further in the Epiſtle, on the mention of Theſpis; whom Horace as clear⯑ly, 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 fol⯑lowing notes; only obſerving in 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, [91] as well as forcibly, connects with his ſubject, taking occaſion to ſpeak incidentally of other branches of the Drama, particularly THE SATYRS, and the OLD COMEDY.

This learned note, I think, ſets out with a miſ⯑apprehenſion of the meaning of Horace, by involv⯑ing 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 in⯑troduction 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 [95] 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 con⯑text, do the words of Horace tell us, ‘"that the re⯑preſentation 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 direc⯑tions, 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 ſollicitude to prevent their broad mirth from contaminating its dignity or purity.

The CYCLOPS of Euripides, the only SATYRICK DRAMA extant, written at a much later period, than [96] 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 CY⯑CLOPS, 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 dra⯑matick 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 pro⯑ceeded to more regular Dramas, diverſifying their ſerious ſcenes, like the SATYRICK POETS, with lu⯑dicrous repreſentations. This deſire of variety was one cauſe of the irregularity, as well as extraordi⯑nary length of their pieces; of which, I believe, they never gave above one at the ſame time of repre⯑ſentation. Farce is, in point of age, as well as rank, but a younger brother of the Theatre.

[97]Other Criticks have taken the text of Horace in the ſame ſenſe, that I have here conſidered it.

The diſtinction made by De Nores of the SATYRS not making a part of the Tragedy, but barely ap⯑pearing between the acts, can only ſignify, that the Tragick and Comick Scenes were kept apart from each other. This is plain from his ſaying 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 Chaunt of the CHORUS; and, otherwiſe, according to modern ideas, forming but one act, without any interruption of the per⯑formance.

Theſe antient SATYRICK SONGS, with which the antient Tragedians endeavoured to enliven the Di⯑thyrambicks, gave riſe to two different ſpecies of poetry. Their rude jeſts and petulant raillery en⯑gendered the Satire; and their ſylvan character pro⯑duced the Paſtoral.

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 Aeſ⯑chylus."’

Here, however, he allows, though in ſubdued phraſe, that ‘"though this be certain, and the diſpute [101] concerning that point thereby determined, yet it is to be noted, that he purpoſely deſcribes the Satyr. IN ITS RUDE 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 con⯑ſtitution 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 ori⯑ginal 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 GRA⯑VITATE, 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 ac⯑ceptation of the word INCOLUMIS, but, in my opi⯑nion, leſs elegant and forcible than the common in⯑terpretation.

[102]The line of the Ode referred to,

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

The Dauphin Editor interprets it,

Schrevelius, to the ſame effect, explains it,

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

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 INCONTESTABLE⯑MENT qu'il y avoit des Satyres; yet thinks that Ho⯑race 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, [103] 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.

The Commentators have given various explana⯑tions of this precept. De Nores interprets it to ſig⯑nify 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 SA⯑TYRICK.

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 prin⯑cipal ſubject and character of both; on which occa⯑ſion, (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 ſtyle, as well as meaſure, ſhould be peculiar to itſelf, equally diſtant from Tragedy and Farce.

[104]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 borne a part in THE PRECEDING TRAGEDY; a practice, which Horace, I ſuppoſe, intended, by this hint, to re⯑commend as moſt regular."’

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

On the whole, ſuppoſing the SATYRICK Piece to be Tragi-Comick, as Dacier himſelf ſeems half in⯑clined to believe, the precept of Horace only re⯑commends 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 il⯑luſtrate the rule of Horace by a brilliant example from the ſerio-comick HISTORIES of the Sovereign of our Drama. The example to which I point, is the [105] 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 cha⯑racter, 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 Beau⯑mont and Fletcher, had prevailed on our ſtage, it is ſurpriſing that our progreſs to pure Tragedy and Co⯑medy, ſhould have been interrupted, or diſturbed, by the regular monſter of TRAGI-COMEDY, nurſed by Southerne and Dryden.

The author of the Engliſh Commentary propoſes a conjectural emendation of Horace's text—HONO⯑RATA inſtead of INORNATA—and accompanied with a new and elevated ſenſe aſſigned to the word DOMI⯑NANTIA. This laſt word is interpreted in the ſame manner by De Nores. Moſt other Commentators explain it to ſignify common words, obſerving its ana⯑logy to the Greek term [...]. The ſame expreſſion [106] prevails in our tongue—a REIGNING word, a REIGN⯑ING 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.

‘352.—Davus may jeſt, &c.—Davuſne loqua⯑tur, &c.’

It ſhould ſeem from hence, that the common cha⯑racters of Comedy, as well as the Gods and Heroes of Tragedy, had place in the SATYRICK DRAMA, cultivated in the days of Horace. Of the manner in which the antient writers ſuſtained the part of Silenus, we may judge from the CYCLOPS of Eu⯑ripides, and the PASTORALS of Virgil.

Voſſius attempts to ſhew from ſome lines of this part of the Epiſtle, [Ne quicumque Deus, &c.] that the SATYRS were ſubjoined to the Tragick ſcenes, not incorporated with them: and yet at the ſame mo⯑ment he tells us, and with apparent approbation, that DIOMEDES quotes our Poet to prove that they [107] were BLENDED WITH EACH OTHER: ſimul ut ſpectator, INTER RES TRAGICAS, SERIASQUE, SATYRORUM QUOQUE JOCIS, & LUSIBUS, delectaretur.

I cannot more ſatisfactorily conclude all that I have to urge, on the ſubject of the SATYRICK DRAMA, as here deſcribed by Horace, than by one more ſhort extract from the notes of the ingenious author of the Engliſh Commentary, to the ſubſtance of which extract I give the moſt full aſſent.

Horace having, after the example of his maſter Ariſtotle, ſlightly mentioned the firſt riſe of Tragedy in the form of a CHORAL SONG, ſubjoining an ac⯑count of the SATYRICK CHORUS, that was ſoon (MOX etiam) combined with it, proceeds to ſpeak particularly of the Iambick verſe, which he has be⯑fore mentioned generally, as the meaſure beſt ac⯑commodated to the Drama. In this inſtance, how⯑ever, the Poet has treſpaſſed againſt the order and method obſerved by his philoſophical guide; and by that treſpaſs broken the thread of his hiſtory of the Drama, which has added to the difficulty and ob⯑ſcurity of this part of his Epiſtle. Ariſtotle does not ſpeak of the MEASURE, till he has brought Tra⯑gedy, through all its progreſſive ſtages, from the Dithyrambicks, down to its eſtabliſhment by Aeſ⯑chylus and Sophocles. If the reader would judge of the poetical beauty, as well as logical preciſion, of ſuch an arrangement, let him transfer this ſection of the Epiſtle [beginning, in the original at v. 251. and ending at 274,] to the end of the 284th line; by which tranſpoſition, or I am much miſtaken, he will [109] not only diſembarraſs this hiſtorical part of it, rela⯑tive to the Graecian ſtage, but will paſs by a much eaſier, and more elegant, tranſition, to the Poet's application of the narrative to the Roman Drama.

The Engliſh reader, inclined to make the expe⯑riment, muſt take the lines of the tranſlation from v. 268. to v. 403, both incluſive, and inſert them⯑after v. 420.

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

Pope has imitated and illuſtrated this paſſage.

It is ſurpriſing that Dacier, who, in a controverſial note, in refutation of Heinſius, has ſo properly re⯑marked Horace's adherence to Ariſtotle, ſhould not have obſerved that his hiſtory of the Drama opens and proceeds nearly in the ſame order. Ariſtotle in⯑deed does not name Theſpis, but we cannot but in⯑clude his improvements among the changes, to which the Critick refers, before Tragedy acquired a per⯑manent form under Aeſchylus. Theſpis ſeems not only to have embodied the CHORUS, but to have pro⯑vided a theatrical apparatus for an itinerant exhibition; to have furniſhed diſguiſes for his performers, and to have broken the continuity of the CHORUS by an Interlocutor; to whom Aeſchylus adding another per⯑ſonage, thereby firſt created DRAMATICK DIA⯑LOGUE; while at the ſame time by a further diminu⯑tion of the CHORUS, by improving the dreſſes of the actors, and drawing them from their travelling waggon to a fixt ſtage, he created a regular theatre.

[111]It appears then that neither Horace, nor Ariſtotle, aſcribe the origin of Tragedy to THESPIS. The Poet firſt mentions the rude beginning of Tragedy, (carmen tragicum) the GOAT-SONG; he then ſpeaks of the Satyrick Chorus, ſoon after interwoven with it; and then proceeds to the improvements of theſe Bacchic Feſtivities, by Theſpis, and Aeſchylus; though their perfection and final eſtabliſhment is aſ⯑cribed by Ariſtotle to Sophocles.

DACIER very properly renders this paſſage, On dit que Theſpis fut le premier qui inventa UNE ESPECI DE TRAGEDIE AUPARAVANT INCONNUE AUX GRECS. ‘"Theſpis is ſaid to be the firſt inventor of a ſpecies of Tragedy, before unknown to the Greeks."’

Boileau ſeems to have conſidered this part of the Epiſtle in the ſame light, that I have endeavoured to place it.

If Dacier be miſtaken in this inſtance, his miſtake is common to all the Commentators; not one of whom, the learned and ingenious author of the above note excepted, has been able to extract from theſe words any marks of Horace's predilection in favour of a CHORUS, or cenſure of "its culpable omiſſion" in Comedy. De Nores expreſſes the general ſenſe of the Criticks on this paſſage.

What Horace himſelf ſays on a ſimilar occaſion, of the ſuppreſſion of the Feſcennine verſes, in the [114] Epiſtle to Auguſtus, is perhaps the beſt comment on this paſſage.

The author of the Engliſh Commentary has a note on this paſſage, replete with fine taſte, and ſound criticiſm.

[119]The author of the Eſſay on the Writings and Ge⯑nius of Pope elegantly enforces a like opinion, and obſerves that Milton left a liſt of thirty-three ſub⯑jects for Tragedy, all taken from the Engliſh An⯑nals.

THE GOWN (Toga) being the common Roman habit, ſignifies Comedy; and THE INWOVEN PURPLE (praetexta) being appropriated to the higher orders, refers to Tragedy. Togatae was alſo uſed as a general term to denote all plays, in which the habits, man⯑ners, and arguments were ROMAN; thoſe, of which the cuſtoms and ſubjects were GRAECIAN, like the Comedies of Terence, were called Palliatae.

The Engliſh Commentary exhibits a very juſt and correct analyſis of this portion of the Epiſtle, but [120] neither here, nor in any other part of it, obſerves the earneſtneſs with which the Poet, on every new topick, addreſſes his diſcourſe to the Piſos; a practice, that has not paſſed unnoticed by other Commenta⯑tors. On this paſſage De Nores writes thus.

De Nores has a comment on this paſſage; but the ambiguity of the Latin relative renders it uncertain, how far the Critick applies particularly to the Piſos, except by the Apoſtrophe taken notice of in the laſt note. His words are theſe. Niſi horum DEMOCRI⯑TICORUM opinionem Horatius hoc in loco refutaſſet, fruſtra de poeticâ facultate IN HAC AD PISONES EPIS⯑TOLA praecepta literis tradidiſſet, cùm arte ipſâ repudi⯑atâ, AB HIS tantummodo inſaniae & furori daretur locus.

Lycinus was not only, as appears from Horace, an eminent Barber; but ſaid, by ſome, to have been created a Senator by Auguſtus, on account of his enmity to Pompey.

This precept ſeeming, at firſt ſight, liable to be interpreted as recommending perſonal imitations, De Nores, Dacier, and the Author of the Engliſh Com⯑mentary, all concur to inculcate the principles of Plato, Ariſtotle, and Cicero, ſhewing that the truth of repreſentation (verae voces) muſt be derived from an imitation of general nature, not from copying indi⯑viduals. Mankind, however, being a mere collection of individuals, it is impoſſible for the Poet, not to found his obſervations on particular objects; and his chief [122] ſkill ſeems to conſiſt in the happy addreſs, with which he is able to generalize his ideas, and to ſink the likeneſs of the individual in the reſemblance of uni⯑verſal nature. A great Poet, and a great Painter, have each illuſtrated this doctrine moſt happily; and with their obſervations I ſhall conclude this note.

‘482.—ALBIN's HOPEFUL.] Filius ALBINI.’

Albinus was ſaid to be a rich Uſurer. All that is neceſſary to explain this paſſage to the Engliſh reader, is to obſerve, that the Roman Pound conſiſted of TWELVE Ounces.

The antients, for the better preſervation of their manuſcripts, rubbed them with the juice of Cedar, and kept them in caſes of Cypreſs.

[125]Alluding moſt probably to ſome Drama of the time, exhibiting ſo monſtrous and horrible an in⯑cident.

‘506.—THE SOSII.]’ Roman bookſellers.

‘525.—CHAERILUS.]’ A wretched poet, who ce⯑lebrated the actions, and was diſtinguiſhed by the patronage, of Alexander.

‘529.—IF HOMER SEEM TO NOD, OR CHANCE TO DREAM.]’

It may not be diſagreeable to the reader to ſee what two poets of our own country have ſaid on this ſubject.

Here ends, in my opinion, the didactick part of this Epiſtle; and it is remarkable that it concludes, as it begun, with a reference to the Analogy be⯑tween Poetry and Painting. The arts are indeed congenial, and the ſame general principles govern both. Artiſts might collect many uſeful hints from this Epiſtle. The Lectures of the Preſident of the Royal Academy are not merely accommodated to the ſtudy of Painters; but Poets may refine their taſte, and derive the moſt valuable inſtruction, from the peruſal of thoſe judicious and elegant diſ⯑courſes.

We are now arrived at that portion of the Epiſtle, which I muſt confeſs I am ſurpriſed, that any Com⯑mentator ever paſt, without obſerving the peculiar language and conduct of the Poet. There is a kind of awful affection in his manner, wonderfully cal⯑culated to move our feelings and excite our atten⯑tion. The DIDACTICK and the EPISTOLARY ſtile were never more happily blended. The Poet aſſumes the air of a father adviſing his ſon, rather than of a teacher inſtructing his pupils. Many Criticks have thrown out a curſory obſervation or two, as it were extorted from them by the pointed expreſſions of the Poet: but none of them, that I have conſulted, have attempted to aſſign any reaſon, why Horace, having cloſed his particular precepts, addreſſes all the re⯑mainder of his Epiſtle, on the nature and expediency of Poetical purſuits, to the ELDER PISO only. I have endeavoured to give the moſt natural reaſon for this conduct; a reaſon which, if I am not deceived, renders the whole of the Epiſtle intereſting, as well as clear and conſiſtent; a reaſon which I am the more inclined to think ſubſtantial, as it confirms in great meaſure the ſyſtem of the Author of the Engliſh [128] Commentary, only ſhewing the reflections on the Drama in THIS EPISTLE, as well as in THE EPISTLE TO AUGUSTUS, to be incidental, rather than the prin⯑cipal ſubject, and main deſign, of the Poet.

Jaſon De Nores, in this inſtance, as in moſt others, has paid more attention to his Author, than the reſt of the Commentators. His note is as follows.

The Poet, with great delicacy, throws in a com⯑pliment to theſe diſtinguiſhed characters of his time, for their ſeveral eminence in their profeſſion. Meſ⯑ſala is more than once mentioned as the friend and patron of Horace.

The pecuniary qualification for the Equeſtrian Order. Cenſus equeſtrem ſummam nummorum.

Horace, says Dacier, here addreſſes the ELDER PISO, as a man of mature years and underſtanding; and he begins with panegyrick, rather than advice, in order to ſoften the precepts he is about to lay down to him.

The explication of De Nores is much to the ſame effect, as well as that of many other Commen⯑tators.

This, ſays Dacier, was ſome time afterwards actually the caſe, if we may believe the old Scho⯑liaſt, who writes that this PISO compoſed Tragedies.

‘570.—METIUS.]’ A great Critick; and ſaid to be appointed by Auguſtus as a Judge, to appre⯑ciate the merit of literary performances. His name [130] and office are, on other occaſions, mentioned and recognized by Horace.

This precept, which, like many others in the Epiſtle, is rather retailed, than invented, by Horace, has been thought by ſome Criticks rather extrava⯑gant; but it acquires in this place, as addreſſed to the ELDER PISO, a concealed archneſs, very agree⯑able to the Poet's ſtyle and manner. Pope has ap⯑plied the precept with much humour, but with more open raillery than ſuited the writer's purpoſe in this Epiſtle.

VIDA, in his Poeticks, after the ſtrongeſt cen⯑ſure of careleſſneſs and precipitation, concludes with a caution againſt too exceſſive an attention to cor⯑rectneſs, too frequent reviſals, and too long delay of publication. The paſſage is as elegant as judi⯑cious.

‘597.—TYRTAEUS.]’ An ancient Poet, who is ſaid to have been given to the Spartans as a General by the Oracle, and to have animated the Troops by his Verſes to ſuch a degree, as to be the means of their triumph over the Meſſenians, after two defeats: [132] to which Roſcommon alludes in his Eſſay on Tranſlated Verſe.

Some fragments of his works are ſtill extant. They are written in the Elegiac meaſure; yet the ſenſe is not, as in other Poets, always bound in by the Couplet; but often breaks out into the ſucceed⯑ing verſe; a practice, that certainly gives variety and animation to the meaſure; and which has been ſucceſsfully imitated in the rhyme of our own lan⯑guage by Dryden, and other good writers.

The author of the Engliſh Commentary agrees, that this noble encomium on Poetry is addreſſed to the Piſos. All other Commentators apply it, as ſurely the text warrants, to the ELDER PISO. In a long controverſial note on this paſſage, the learned Critick abovementioned alſo explains the text thus. [133] ‘"In fact, this whole paſſage [from et vitae, &c. to cantor Apollo] obliquely glances at the two ſorts of poetry, peculiarly cultivated by himſelf, and is an indirect apology for his own choice of them. For 1. vitae monſtrata via eſt, is the character of his Sermones. And 2. all the reſt of his Odes,"—"I muſt add, the very terms of the Apology ſo expreſsly define and characterize Lyrick Poetry, that it is ſomething ſtrange, it ſhould have eſcaped vulgar notice."’ There is much ingenuity in this interpretation, and it is ſupported with much learning and ability; yet I cannot think that Ho⯑race meant to conclude this fine encomium, on the dignity and excellence of the Art of Poetry, by a partial reference to the two particular ſpecies of it, that had been the objects of his own attention. The MUSE, and APOLLO, were the avowed patrons and inſpirers of Poetry in general, whether Epick, Dramatick, Civil, Moral, or Religious; all of which are enumerated by Horace in the courſe of his panegyrick, and referred to in the concluſion of it, that PISO might not for a moment think himſelf degraded by his attention to poetry.

In writing precepts for poetry to young perſons, this queſtion could not be forgotten. Horace there⯑fore, to prevent the Piſos from falling into a fatal error, by too much confidence in their Genius, aſ⯑ſerts moſt decidedly, that Nature and Art muſt both conſpire to form a Poet. DACIER.

[135]The Duke of Buckingham has taken up this ſubject very happily.

‘626.—As the ſly hawker, &c.]’ Various Com⯑mentators concur in marking the perſonal application of this paſſage.

In what ſenſe Roſcommon, the Tranſlator of this Epiſtle, underſtood this paſſage, the following lines from another of his works will teſtify.

‘630.—But if he keeps a table, &c.—Si vero eſt, unctum, &c.’

‘"Here (ſays Dacier) the Poet pays, en paſſant, a very natural and delicate compliment to the Piſos."’ The drift of the Poet is evident, but I cannot diſ⯑cover the compliment.

‘657.—QUINTILIUS.]’ ‘The Poet Quintilius Va⯑rus, the relation and intimate friend of Virgil and Horace; of whom the latter lamented his death in a pathetick and beautiful Ode, ſtill extant in his works. Quintilius appears to have been ſome time dead, at the time of our Poet's writing this Epiſtle. DACIER.’

It particularly ſuited Horace to paint the ſevere and rigid judge of compoſition. Pope's plan ad⯑mitted ſofter colours in his draught of a true Critick.

‘"Horace, (ſays Dacier) diverts himſelf with de⯑ſcribing the folly of a Poet, whom his flatterers have driven mad."’ To whom the caution againſt flatterers was addreſſed, has before been obſerved by Dacier. This deſcription therefore, growing immediately out of that caution, muſt be conſidered as addreſſed to THE ELDER PISO.

This is but a cold conceit, not much in the uſual manner of Horace.

[140]The BIDENTAL was a place that had been ſtruck with lightning, and afterwards expiated by the erection of an altar and the ſacrifice of ſheep; hoſtiis BIDENTIBUS; from which it took its name. The removal or diſturbance of this ſacred monu⯑ment was deemed ſacrilege; and the attempt, a ſup⯑poſed judgment from heaven, as a puniſhment for ſome heavy crime.

The Engliſh Commentary introduces the explica⯑tion of the laſt hundred and eleven lines of this Epiſtle, the lines which, I think, determine the ſcope and intention of the whole, in the following manner.

‘"Having made all the reaſonable allowances which a writer could expect, he (Horace) goes on to enforce the general inſtruction of this part, viz. A DILIGENCE IN WRITING, by ſhewing [from l. 366 to 379] that a mediocrity, however tolerable, or even commendable, it might be in other arts, would never be allowed in this."—[141] "This reflexion leads him with great advantage [from l. 379 to 391] to the general concluſion in view, viz. that as none but excellent poetry will be allowed, it ſhould be a warning to writers, HOW THEY ENGAGE IN IT WITHOUT ABILITIES; OR PUBLISH WITHOUT SEVERE AND FREQUENT CORRECTION."’

If the learned Critick here means that ‘"the ge⯑neral inſtruction of this part, viz. A DILIGENCE IN WRITING, is chiefly inculcated, for the ſake of the general concluſion in view, a warning to writers, HOW THEY ENGAGE IN POETRY WITH⯑OUT ABILITIES, OR PUBLISH WITHOUT SEVERE AND FREQUENT CORRECTION;"’ if, I ſay, a diſ⯑ſuaſive from unadviſed attempts, and precipitate pub⯑lication, is conceived to be the main purpoſe and deſign of the Poet, we perfectly agree concerning this laſt, and important portion of the Epiſtle: with this addition, however, on my part, that ſuch a diſ⯑ſuaſive is not merely general, but immediately and perſonally directed and applied to the ELDER PISO; and that too in the ſtrongeſt terms that words can afford, and with a kind of affectionate earneſtneſs, particularly expreſſive of the Poet's deſire to awaken and arreſt his young friend's attention.