230.--Man's several ages, &c.] _aetatis cujusque, &c._ Jason Demores
takes notice of the particular stress, that Horace lays on the due
discrimination 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 passage
in the _As you Like It_ of Shakespeare.
All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their _exits_ and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts:
His acts being seven ages. At first the infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms:
And then, the whining school-boy with his satchel,
And shining morning-face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school. And then, the lover;
Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress' eye-brow. Then, a soldier;
Full of strange oaths, and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel;
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the cannon's mouth. And then, the justice
In fair round belly, with good capon lin'd
With eyes severe, and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws and modern instances,
And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
Into the lean and flipper'd pantaloon,
With spectacles on nose, and pouch on side;
His youthful hose well sav'd, a world too wide
For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes,
And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness, and mere oblivion,
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.
_Animadverti_ a plerisque _hominis aetatem_ in septem divisam esse
partes, infantiam, pueritiam, adolescentiam, juventutem, virilitatem,
senectutem, & _ut ab illis dicitur_, decrepitatem. _In hâc verò parte
nihil de_ infantiae _moribus Horatius, cum nihil ea aetas praeter
vagitum habeat proprium, ideòque infantis persona minimè in scenâ induci
possit, quòd ipsas rerum voces reddere neque dum sciat, neque
valeat. Nihil de moribus item hujus aetatis, quam, si latinè licet_,
decrepitatem _vocabimus_, quae aetas quodammodo infantiae respondet:
_de_ juventute _autem_ & adolescentia _simul pertractat, quòd et
studiis, et naturâ, & voluntate, parum, aut nihil inter se differant.
Aristoteles etiam in libris ad Theodectem omisit_ & pueritiam, &
_meritò; cum minime apud pueros, vel de pueris sit orator habiturus
orationem. Ille enim ad hoc ex aetate personarum differentiam adhibet,
ut instituat oratorem, quomodo moratâ uti debeat oratione, id est, eorum
moribus, apud quos, & de quibus loquitur, accommodatâ._
It appears from hence, that it was _common_ for the writers of that
time, as well as Shakespeare's Jaques, to divide the life of Man into
seven ages, viz. _Infancy, Childhood, Puberty, Youth, Manhood, Old Age_,
and _Decrepitude_; "which last, (says Denores) in some sort answers to
Infancy," or, as Shakespeare expresses it, IS second childishness.
"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 divided 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 illustrious predecessors, by contriving to introduce, and
discriminate, _every one of_ the seven ages. This he has effected
by assigning station and character to some of the stages, which to
Aristotle and Horace appeared too similar to be distinguished from
each other. Thus puberty, youth, manhood, and old age, become under
Shakespeare's hand, _the_ lover, _the_ soldier, _the_ justice, and the
lean and flipper'd pantaloon; while the _natural qualities_ of the
infant, the boy, and the dotard, afford sufficient materials for
poetical description.
262.--_Thus_ years advancing _many comforts bring,
and_ flying _bear off many on their wing_.]
_Multa ferunt_ anni venientes _commoda secum,
multa_ recedentes _adimunt_.
Aristotle considers the powers of the body in a state of advancement
till the 35th year, and the faculties 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.
288.--_An actor's part_ the Chorus _should sustain_.] _Actoris partes_
Chorus, &c.
"See also _Aristotle_ [Greek*: oes. ooiaet. k. iae.] The judgment of two
such critics, and the practice of wise antiquity, concurring to
establish this precept concerning the Chorus, it should thenceforth, one
would think, have become a fundamental rule and maxim of the stage. And
so indeed it appeared to some few writers. The most admired of the
French tragic poets ventured to introduce it into two of his latter
plays, and with such success that, as one observes, _It should, in all
reason, have disabused his countrymen on this head: l'essai heureux de
M. Racine, qui les [choeurs] a fait revivre dans_ athalie _et dans
_esther_, devroit, il semble, nous avoir detrompez sur cet article._ [P.
Brumoi, vol. i. p. 105.] And, before him, our _Milton_, who, with his
other great talents, possessed a supreme knowledge of antiquity, was so
struck with its use and beauty, as to attempt to bring it into our
language. His _Sampson Agonistes_ was, as might be expected, a master-
piece. But even his credit hath not been sufficient to restore the
Chorus. Hear a late Professor of the art declaring, _De _Choro _nihil
disserui, quia non est essentialis dramati, atque à neotericis penitus_,
et, me judice, merito repudiatur. [Prael. Poet. vol. ii. p. 188.] Whence
it hath come to pass that the chorus hath been thus neglected is not now
the enquiry. But that this critic, and all such, are greatly out in
their judgments, when they presume to censure it in the ancients, must
appear (if we look no further) from the double use, insisted on by the
poet, For, 1. A _chorus _interposing, and bearing a part in the progress
of the action, gives the representation that _probability_, [Footnote:
_Quel avantage ne peut il [le poete] pas tirer d'une troupe d'acteurs,
qui remplissent sa scene, qui rendant plus sense la continuité de
l'action qui la sont paroitre VRAISEMBLABLE puisqu'il n'est pas naturel
qu'elle sa passe sans point. On ne sent que trop le vuide de notre
Théatre sans choeurs. &c. _[Les Théatre des Grècs. i. p. 105 ] and
striking resemblance of real life, which every man of sense perceives,
and _feels_ the want of upon our stage; a want, which nothing but such
an expedient as the chorus can possibly relieve. And, 2. The importance
of its other office [l. 196] to the _utility _of the representation, is
so great, that, in a moral view, nothing can compensate for this
deficiency. For it is necessary to the truth and decorum of characters,
that the _manners_, bad as well as good, be drawn in strong, vivid
colours; and to that end that immoral sentiments, forcibly expressed and
speciously maintained, be sometimes _imputed _to the speakers. Hence the
sound philosophy of the chorus will be constantly wanting, to rectify
the wrong conclusions of the audience, and prevent the ill impressions
that might otherwise be made upon it. Nor let any one say, that the
audience is well able to do this for itself: Euripides did not find even
an Athenian theatre so quick-sighted. The story is well known, [Sen. Ep.
115.] that when this painter of the _manners _was obliged, by the rules
of his art, and the character to be sustained, to put a run of bold
sentiments in the mouth of one of his persons, the people instantly took
fire, charging the poet with the _imputed _villainy, as though it had
been his _own_. Now if such an audience could so easily misinterpret an
attention to the truth of character into the real doctrine of the poet,
and this too, when a Chorus was at hand to correct and disabuse their
judgments, what must be the case, when the _whole _is left to the
sagacity and penetration of the people? The wiser sort, it is true, have
little need of this information. Yet the reflexions of sober sense on
the course and occurrences of the representation, clothed in the noblest
dress of poetry, and enforced by the joint powers of harmony and action
(which is the true character of the Chorus) might make it, even to such,
a no unpleasant or unprofitable entertainment. But these two are a small
part of the uses of the chorus; which in every light is seen so
important to the truth, decorum, and dignity of the tragic scene, that
the modern stage, which hath not thought proper to adopt it, is even,
with the advantage of, sometimes, the justest moral painting and
sublimest imagery, but a very faint shadow of the old; as must needs
appear to those who have looked into the ancient models, or, diverting
themselves of modern prejudices, are disposed to consult the dictates of
plain sense. For the use of such, I once designed to have drawn into one
view the several important benefits arising to the drama from the
observance of this rule, but have the pleasure to find myself prevented
by a sensible dissertation of a good French writer, which the reader
will find in the VIII tom. of the History of the Academy of Inscriptions
end Belles Lettres.--Or, it may be sufficient to refer the English
reader to the late tragedies of Elfrida and Caractacus; which do honour
to modern poetry, and are a better apology, than any I could make, for
the ancient Chorus.----Notes on the Art of Poetry.
Though it is not my intention to agitate, in this place, the long
disputed question concerning the expediency, 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 Criticks_ 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
originally, as they both tell us, _the whole_ of it. Aristotle, in his
Poeticks, has not 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:"_ [Greek transliteration: 'pollha': moiazolas
metazalousa ae tragodia epausto, hepei hesche taen heauiaes phusin]. 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 purpose." [Greek: To men oun epischopein,
eiapa echei aedae hae tragodia tois ikanos, ae ou, auto te kath auto
krinomenon, kai pros ta theatra, allos logos.]
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 referred to by the learned Critick, the words of Aristotle are
not particularly favourable to the institution, or much calculated to
recommend the use of it. For Aristotle there informs us, "that Sophocles
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 purpose, as if they had borrowed whole scenes from
another play."
[Greek: Kai ton chorus de ena dei upolazein tan upochriton. Kai morion
einai tch olch, chai sunagonis*e mae osper par Euripidae, all osper
para Sophochlei. Tois de loipois ta didomena mallon ta muthch, ae allaes
Tragadias esi di o emzolima adchoi, protch arxanto Agrathonos tch
toichtch Kai tch diaphsrei, ae aemzot ma adein, ae raesin ex allch eis
allo armotteen, ae eteitodion oleos [per. poiaet. ch. iii.]]
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 as recommendation of it. As to _the probability given
to the representation, by CHORUS interposing and bearing a part in the
action;_ the Publick, who have lately in a troop of singers assembled on
the stage, as a Chorus, during the whole of presentations of Elfrida
and Caractacus, are 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
speakers; the story told, to enforce its use for this purpose, conveys
a proof of its efficacy. To give due force to sentiments, as well as to
direct their proper tendency, depends on 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, consider, 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 necessary, our Dramas,
like those of the antients, should be rendered wholly _musical_; the
_Dancers _also will then claim their place, and the pretentions of
Vestris and Noverre may be admitted as _classical_. Such a spectacle,
if not more _natural_ than the modern, 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!_
290.--_Chaunting no Odes between the acts, that seem_
unapt, _or _foreign _to the _general theme.]
_Nec quid medios, &c._
On this passage the author of the English Commentary thus remarks. "How
necessary this advice 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, consonant to its true end and character."
The learned Critick seems here to believe, and the plays under the name
of Seneca in some measure 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?