It should seem from hence, that the common characters 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 Euripides, 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 moment
he tells us, and with apparent approbation, that Diomedes quotes
our Poet to prove that they 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. "The Greek Drama, we know, had its origin from the loose,
licentious raillery of the rout of Bacchus, indulging to themselves the
freest follies of taunt and invective, as would best suit to lawless
natures, inspirited by festal mirth, and made extravagant by wine. Hence
arose, and with a character answering to this original, the _Satiric
Drama_; the spirit of which was afterwards, in good measure, revived
and continued in the Old Comedy, and itself preferred, though with
considerable alteration in the form, through all the several periods of
the Greek stage; even when Tragedy, which arose out of it, was brought
to its last perfection."
368.--_To a short syllable, a long subjoin'd, Forms an _IAMBICK FOOT.]
_Syllaba longa, brevi subjetta, vocatur Iambus._
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 account of _the_ Satyrick Chorus, that was _soon_ (mox
_etiam_) combined with it, proceeds to speak particularly of the Iambick
verse, which he has before mentioned generally, as the measure best
accommodated to the Drama. In this instance, however, 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 obscurity of this part of
his Epistle. Aristotle does not speak of _the_ Measure, till he
has brought Tragedy, through all its progressive stages, from the
Dithyrambicks, down to its establishment by Aeschylus 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 not only disembarrass this historical part of it,
relative to the Grascian 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 experiment, must take the lines
of the translation from v. 268. to v. 403, both inclusive, and insert
them after v. 418.
_In shameful silence loft the pow'r to wound._
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 insinuates, was used _the_ Capering
_Tetrameter_, and, as the Grammarians observe, _Trisyllabicks_.