Part 9 (1/2)
”A Chorus, thus const.i.tuted, 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 const.i.tution of the fable. _Yet, with all his care, the ablest writer will sometimes find himself embarra.s.sed 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 pa.s.s 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_ G.o.d, _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 a.s.sembly of women_ keep a secret?” _D'ailleurs, peut on faire un si grand crime a 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 pa.s.sages 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 outree_, 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 recte sentire videtur Madius, dum putat potius_ in Romanorum luxuriam_ invectum horatium, quam_ de melodiae incremento _tracta.s.se_.
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 ear Of rusticks revelling o'er country cheer, A motley groupe; high, low; and froth, and sc.u.m, 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 pa.s.sage 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 pa.s.sage, 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 recte videtur sentire Madius, dum putat potius in Romanorum luxuriam invectum Horatium, quam de melodiae incremento tracta.s.se, c.u.m_ seipsum interpretans, _quid fibi voluerit per haec, luce clarius, ostendat,_
Tibia non ut nunc orichalco vincta, tubaeque AEmula. Et, Sic priscae motumque, & luxuriam addidit arti Tibicen, traxitque vagus per pulpita vestem: Sic etiam fidibus voces crevere feveris, Et tulit eloquium infolitum fecundia praeceps.