Obrázky na stránke
PDF
ePub

allow the reasoning of Lucretius; and it would perhaps be an easier task to translate well the Art of Poetry of Horace, than to preserve the grace, the spirit, and the elegance of the original, in rendering many of his satires.

Dryden observes, in apology for the style of Persius, that when he wrote, the Latin language was more corrupted than in the time of Juvenal, and consequently of Horace. But ought not Dryden to have known that Persius wrote before Juvenal? Besides, it cannot be supposed that the Latin language had lost very much of its purity in the time of either of these poets. Persius was born about eighteen years after the death of Augustus Cæsar; and Juvenal began to flourish about eighty years after the same period. But the silver age of Roman eloquence was remarkable, rather for the decline of taste, than for the corruption of language. The fault seems to have been fastidious delicacy; for refinement, when it becomes excessive, is not less hurtful to good writing, than the very coarseness and rudeness which it would avoid. Quintilian, indeed, complains, that barbarisms were

gaining ground; and in some degree authorizes Dryden's observation, by remarking that Persius had employed one word without much attention to the purity of its Latinity. But it is well known, that new expressions had been frequently employed by the best Latin authors. Cicero introduced many words from the Greek, in his philosophical works, which are models of eloquence. Horace, the purest of the Roman poets, contends for the admission of new words. Virgil employs several words in a sense peculiar to himself, as is remarked by Aurelius Victor. The Latinity of Livy has not escaped without censure; and though his style is better, his language is not purer than that of Tacitus. This last admirable writer offends only by the affected conciseness of his manner, which does not possess the simplicity required in history. Even Seneca himself, amidst the glare of his false eloquence, is guilty of incorrectness in taste, rather than of impurity in language. True indeed it is, that when taste is corrupted, language generally declines; but it is not the want of refinement, which can be imputed as a

fault to most of the authors, who wrote immediately subsequent to the Augustan age.

A learned critic contends, that Persius brought satiric poetry to perfection, inasmuch as he was the first who treated only of one subject in each of his satires. Unity of subject, adds he, is as essential to satire, as unity of fable to tragedy.

I am doubtful if this be either true with respect to fact, or just with respect to criticism. Horace certainly does not violate the unity of subject, for example, in his first satire; and Persius can hardly be said to have preserved it in his sixth. In the fifth likewise, the most excellent of his satires, Persius cannot claim much praise for preserving the unity of subject, as he commences with some severe strictures upon bombast poets, and concludes with a dissertation upon liberty, as it was understood by the Stoics.

But is this critic right, in thinking that unity of subject is conformable to the nature, or consistent with the original plan of satire? Let us very briefly retrace the history of this species of poetry, and afterwards examine the justice of this opinion.

During the early ages of Rome the Fescennine verses, and the songs of the Salii, were probably the only poetical compositions known to the Romans. The Fescennine verses were generally sung, or recited, at the annual celebration of the feast of Saturn, and upon other occasions of public rejoicing.

But the Tuscans were at this time the most esteemed for their poetical productions of any people of Italy; and the Romans having instituted scenic representations, in order to appease the anger of the gods after a pestilence, hired some players from Tuscany, to assist at these exhibitions. As the language of the Tuscans was not understood at Rome, they confined themselves to pantomime, and by their looks and gestures, full of expression, spoke to the heart and to the passions, with the energy of a thousand tongues.

The Romans soon caught the art, which they admired. In the year 514 of Rome, Livius Andronicus performed several pieces of his own, and added the interest of dialogue to the graces of action. Previous to this era, the poems recited in

public were known by the name of Satira. Many disputes have arisen on the derivation of this word. According to Diomedes the grammarian, it may be derived, either à Satyris, because it abounds with immodest and ridiculous things, such as might be said and done by those representing satyrs on the stage; or from satura lanx, a full dish, in which the various first fruits of the year were anciently offered to the gods.

If satire be entirely a Roman poem, as is asserted both by Horace and Quintilian; the latter is evidently the juster derivation. It is then perhaps only necessary to admit this fact, to be convinced that satire was originally considered as a mixed and motley kind of composition-an olla, in which subjects were introduced with little attention to order or method.

If, indeed, arrangement or regularity had been thought essential to this species of composition, Horace would not have shewn himself so deficient in that lucid order which he recommends in his Art of Poetry. But the truth was, that he considered variety as essential to satire. The dish was not

« PredošláPokračovať »