"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 ear
Of 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 arti
Tibicen, 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._