ODE. 
897 
by a difplay and detail of incidents and fentiments rifing 
delicately and'artfully from each other, yet without any 
appearance of art; and by a conclulion not pointed or 
epigrammatic, but finilhing by a gentle turn of the fenti- 
ment where it is leaft expefted, and fometimes as it were 
by chance in which latter refpeft the bed Arabic odes 
are entitled to peculiar commendation. 
“ It is not the metre or verfification which conftitutes 
this fpecies of compofition; for, unlefs all thefe circum- 
ftances be adverted to, it is plain, that whatever be the 
merit of the production, it cannot, with any propriety, 
be termed an ode. Many of the odes of Horace are en¬ 
tirely in this form, as well as almoft all of thofe few which 
our countryman Hanmer has left behind him. The fenti- 
rcents and imagery muft be fuitable to the nature of the 
fubjeft and the compofition, which is varied and uncon¬ 
fined by drift rule or method. On familiar fubjefts, they 
will be fprightly, florid, and agreeable 5 on fublime to¬ 
pics, folemn, bold, and vivid ; on every fubjeft highly 
elegant, expreflive, and diverfified. Imagery from natu¬ 
ral objefts is peculiarly adapted to the ode ; hidorical 
common-places may alfo be admitted, as well as defcrip- 
tions lively but fhort, and (when it rifes to any uncom¬ 
mon drain of fublimity) frequent perfonifications. The 
diftion mud be choice and elegant; it mud be alfo lumi¬ 
nous, clear, and animated ; it mud poflefs fome elegan¬ 
cies peculiar to itfelf, and be as didinft from the common 
language of poetry as the form and fafhion of the pro¬ 
duction is from the general cad of poetical compofition. 
In this that happinel's of expreflion, for which Horace is 
fo judly celebrated, wholly confids. A fweetnefs and va¬ 
riety in the verfification are indifpenfible, according to the ' 
nature of the language, or as the infinite diverfity of fub¬ 
jefts may require.” In the Hebrew ode, the numbers or 
verfification were probably accommodated to the mufic, 
and agreeable to the genius of the language ; but this is 
a circhmdance' concerning which we cannot form any de- 
cifive judgment. In every other refpeft, fuch as the force 
and elegance of the language, the beauty and dignity of 
the fentiments and imagery, the different graces and ex¬ 
cellencies of order and arrangement, bifliop Lowth does 
not liefitate in preferring the Hebrew writers to the lyric 
poets of every other nation. Our learned author diftri- 
butes all the diverfities of this fpecies of compofition into 
three general claffes. u Of the fird clafs, the general cha- 
rafteridic will be fweetnefs ; of the lad, fublimity 5 and 
between thefe we may introduce one of a middle nature, 
as partaking of the properties of both. The qualities 
which may be accounted common to all the three clafles, 
are variety and elegance.” To the fird of thefe-claffes 
Michaelis refers the Pfalms of David. 
“ All odes,” fays Dr. Blair, <c may be comprifed under 
four denominations. 1. Sacred odes ; hymns addreffed 
to God, or compofed on religious fubjefts. Of this na¬ 
ture are the Pfalms of David, which exhibit to us this 
fpecies of lyric poetry in its highed degree of perfection. 
2- Heroic odes, which are employed in the praife of he¬ 
roes, and in the celebration of martiaPexploits and great 
aftions. Of this kind are all Pindar’s odes, and fome 
few.of Horace’s. Thefe two kinds ought to have fub¬ 
limity and' elevation for their reigning charafter. 3 . Mo¬ 
ral and philofophical odes, where the fentiments are chiefly 
infpired by virtue, friendfhip, and humanity. Of this 
kind are feveral of Horace’s odes, and feveral of our bed 
modern lyric productions 5 and here the ode poffeffes that 
middle region which it fometimes occupies. 4. Feflive 
and amorous odes, calculated merely for pleafure and 
amufement. Of this nature are all Anacreon’s.; fome of 
Horace’sj and a great number of fongs and modern pro¬ 
ductions, that claim to be of the lyric fpecies. The reign- 
ing charafter of thefe ought to be elegance, fmoothnefs, 
and gaiety." Lowth’s Leftures on the Sacred Poetry of 
the Hebrews by Gregory, vol, ii. Blair’s Leftures, vol. iii. 
The ancient ode had originally but one ftanza, or 
ftrophe ; but was at lad divided into three parts; ftrophe , 
vpi. XVII. No. 1185. v J r 
anti/iropJie, and epode. The priefls, going round the altar 
tinging the praife of the gods, called their fird entrance 
Jirophc , i. e. turning to the left; the fecond, turning to 
the right, they call antijirophe, q. d. returning; laflly, 
flanding dill before the altar, they fung the remainder; 
which they called epode. 
Modern lyric writers a flume to themfelves an extravagant 
liberty in their verfification ; they prolong their periods 
to fuch a degree, they wander through fo many different 
meafures, and employ fuch a variety of long and fhort 
lines, correfponding in rhyme at fo great a didance from 
each other, that all fenfeof melody is utterly lod. Whereas, 
lyric compofition ought, more than any other fpecies of 
poetry, to pay attention to melody and beauty of found ; 
and the verfification of thofe odes may be judly accounted 
the bed, which renders the harmony of the meafure mod 
fenfible to every common ear. 
Pindar, the great father of lyric poetry, by the bold- 
nefs and rapidity of his flights, has been the occafion of 
leading his imitators into fome of the defefts with which 
they are chargeable. His genius was fublime ; his ex- 
preflions are beautiful and happy 5 his defcriptions pic- 
turefque. Finding it, however, a very barren fubjeft to 
fing the praifes of thofe who had gained the prize in the 
public games, he is perpetually digreflive, and fills up his 
poems with fables of the gods and heroes, that have little 
conneftion either with his fubjeft or with one another. 
Although he was greatly admired by the ancients, he is 
now fo obfcure, partly from his fubjefts, in a great degree 
unknown to us, and partly from his rapid and abrupt 
manner of treating them, that, notwithflanding the beauty 
of his exprefilons, our pleafure in reading his poems is 
much diminilhed. Many of his imitators feem to have 
thought that the refemblance of his diforder and obfcu- 
rity w'as the bed method of imbibing and indicating his 
fpirit. Euripides and Sophocles, in feveral of their cho- 
ruffes, have the fame kind of lyric poetry with Pindar, 
carried on with more clearnefs and conneftion, and at the 
fame time with much fublimity. 
“ Of all the writers of odes,” fays Dr. Blair, “ ancient 
or modern, there is none that, in point of correftnefs, 
harmony, and happy expreflion, can vie with Horace. 
He has defcended from the Pindaric raptures to a more 
moderate degree of elevation; and joins connected thought 
and good fenfe with the higheft beauties of poetry. He 
does not often afpire beyond that middle region which 
belongs to the ode; and thofe odes, in which he attempts 
the fublime, are not always Ill's beft. The peculiar cha¬ 
rafter in which he excels, is grace and elegance; and in 
this ftyie of compofition, no poet has ever attained to a 
greater perfeftion than Horace. No poet fupports a mo¬ 
ral fentiment with more dignity, touches a gay one more 
happily, or poffeffes the art of trifling more agreeably, 
when he clioofes to trifle. His language is fo fortunate, 
that with a Angle word or epithet he often conveys a 
whole defcription to the fancy. Hence he ever has been, 
and ever will continue to be, a favourite with all perfons 
of tafte.” The Odes of Horace are frequently divided in 
the wrong place. Thus, in the firft book, Parcus deornm 
cult or > and the following, O diva gratum, feem originally to 
have formed a Angle ode to Fortune; for we cannot dif- 
cover who is the diva of the fecond ode, without the For- 
tuna in the penultimate line of the preceding one. So 
again in the third book; to the fecond ode, which treats 
of Fortitude, belong the firft four ftanzas of the third ode. 
With Gratum elocuta conjiliantihus, begins a totally diffe¬ 
rent fubjeft ; a diffuafion of Auguftus from transferring 
the metropqli9 into the eaft. 
Among the poets of later days, there have been many 
imitators of Horace. The 1110ft diftinguifhed is Cafimir, 
who wrote four books of odes; but, in graceful eafe of 
expreflion, he is far inferior to the Roman : he more fre¬ 
quently, affefts the fublime, and in the attempt, like other 
lyric writers, often becomes harfh and unnatural. On fe¬ 
veral oecafions, however, he manifefts much original ge, 
5 * ?uf| 
