66

prefly afferts, "that the fatiric and Attelane "pieces, though fimilar in the general caft of "their compofition, differed in this effential point, that the perfons in the former were "fatyrs, in the other; not." [L. iii. c. De poëm. gen.] Now the poet exprefly tells us the perfons in the drama he is here describing, were Satyrs, and accordingly delivers rules for the regulation of their characters. As to the Atellane, according to the way in which Voffius reads the words of Diomedes, the characters were Ofcan, perfona Ofca, which is very probable, not fo much for the reafons affigned by this critic (for they are indeed very frivolous), but because, as it fhould feem from a passage in Strabo, [Lib. v. 233.] the language of the OscI was used in thefe Atellanes, and therefore common sense would require, that the perfons also introduced should be Ofcan. The difficulty is, to know how it happened, that in a work written purposely to reform the Roman ftage, the poet should fay nothing of one fpecies, the Atellane, which was of great authority and conftant ufe at Rome, and yet fay fo much of another, the fatires, which was properly a Greek entertainment, and certainly much less cultivated by the Roman poets. The plain solution of the matter is, that, when now the Romans were become acquainted with the Greek models, and

had

.

had applied themselves to the imitation of them, these Ofcan characters were exchanged for the Greek fatires, which they before refembled in the main parts of their character; and which appear, on other occafions, to have been no ftrangers at Rome; as we collect from the Sileni and Satyrs making a part (as Dionyfius relates it) in their triumphal proceffions. So that this change of the Ofcan perfons for Satyrs is to be confidered only as an improvement of the old Atellane, and not the introduction of an entirely new drama. In every other refpect, the precepts here given for the regulation of the Satyrs are fuch as would equally ferve to improve the Atellane, The probable reafon why the poet chose to infist so much on this alteration, or rather why he laboured fo ftrenuously to support it, will be given in its place. In the mean time, fuppofing his view to have been this of countenancing the introduction of fatiric perfons into the Atellane (and that they were, in fact, introduced, we learn from an exprefs authority [m]) every thing faid on the fubject will not only be pertinent and agreeable to what is here taught to be the general tenor of the epistle, but will be feen to have an addrefs and contrivance,

[m] Agite, fugite, quatite, Satyri: A verfe cited from one of these Latin fatires by Marius Victorinus.

which will very much illuftrate this whole part, and recommend it to the exact reader.

But, before I quit this fubject of the Atellane fable, it will be proper to obferve, That when I every where speak of it, as of early original, and ancient ufe on the Roman ftage, I am not unmindful that Velleius Paterculus fpeaks of Pomponius as the inventor of this poem; which, if taken in the strict fenfe, will bring the date of it very low. "Sane non ignoremus eâdem ætate fuiffe Pomponium, fenfibus celebrem, "verbis rudem, et novitate inventi a fe operis «commendabilem." L. ii. c. 9.

is speaking of is that of SYLLA.

For the age he

But the authorities for the high antiquity of the Atellane fable are fo exprefs, that, when Pomponius is called the inventor of it, it is but as Horace calls Lucilius the inventor of the Roman fatire. That is, he made fo confiderable a change in the form and conduct of this poem, as to run away with all the honour of it. The improvements made by Lucilius in fatire, have been taken notice of in the Introduction. And it happens that a curious paffage in Athenæus will let us into the improvements made by Pomponius in the Atel

lanes.

But firft we are to underftand, that this fort of entertainment, as the name fpeaks, was imported to Rome from ATELLA, a town of the

OscI in Campania; and that the dialect of that people was conftantly and only used in it, even when the Ofci themfelves had ceafed to be a people. This we learn from Strabo. OΣKON ἐκλελοιπότων, ἡ διάλεκτος μένει παρὰ τοῖς Ῥωμαιοις ὥτε καὶ ποιήματα σκηνοβαλεῖσθαι κατά τινα ἀγῶνα πάτριον καὶ μιμολογῆσθαι. L. v. 233.

The OSCAN language, we fee, was made ufe of in the Atellane plays, juft as the Welsh, or fome provincial dialect, is often einployed in our comedies.

υπ

But now we learn from Athenæus, that L. Sylla wrote fome of these Atellanes in the ROMAN LANGUAGE. ὑπ' αὐτὰ γραφείσαι σατυρι καὶ κωμῳδίαι ΤΗ ΠΑΤΡΩΩ ΦΩΝΗ. [L. vi. p. 261. Ed. Cafaub.] The difficulty then clears up. For the Pomponius whom Velleius fpeaks of was contemporary with L. Sylla. So that, to give any propriety to the term of inventor, as applied to Pomponius, we must conclude that he, was the first person who fet this example of compofing Atellane plays in the vulgar dialect: which took fo much, that he was even followed in this practice by the Roman General. This account of the matter perfectly fuits with the encomium given to Pomponius. He would naturally, on fuch an alteration, endeavour to give this buffoon fort of comedy a more rational

caft;

1

1

caft: And this reform of itself would entitle him to great honour. Hence the SENSIBUS CELEBRIS of Paterculus [n]. But to preserve some fort of refemblance (which the people would look for) to the old Atellane, and not to strip it of all the pleafantry arifing from the barbarous dialect, he affected, it seems, the antique in the turn of his expreffion. Hence the other part of his character (which in the politer age of Paterculus grew offenfive to nice judges) VERBIS RUDIS.

The conclufion is, That the Atellane fable. was in its firft rude form and Oscan dialect of ancient ufe at Rome, where it was admitted, as Strabo fpeaks, ΚΑΤΑ ΤΙΝΑ ΑΓΩΝΑ ΠΑΡ TPION That Pomponius afterwards reformed its barbarities, and brought it on the stage in a Roman drefs; which together were thought fo

[z] This, I think, must be the interpretation of fenfibus celebrem, fuppofing it to be the true reading. But a learned critic has fhewn with great appearance of reafon, that the text is corrupt, and should be reformed into fenfibus CELEREM. According to which reading, the encomium here paft on Pomponius must be understood of his wit, and not the gravity of his moral fentences. Either way his title to the honour of invention is just the fame.-See a specimen of a new edition of Paterculus in BIBLIOTHEQUE BRITANNIQUE, Juillet, &c. 1736.

I

great