and to the other. This objection is of no weight; for the fame question ftill recurs, which is, whether of these two kinds of genius is more valuable or more rare. If we proceed by example, and not by reasoning, we shall decide I think in favour of comedy.

It may be faid, that, if merely art be confidered, it will require deeper thoughts to form a plan just and fimple; to produce happy furprises without apparent contrivance; to carry a paffion skilfully through its gradations to its height; to arrive happily to the end by always moving from it, as Ithaca feemed to fly Ulyffes; to unite the acts and scenes; and to raise by infenfible degrees a ftriking edifice, of which the least merit fhall be exactness of proportion. It may be. added, that in comedy this art is infinitely lefs, for there the characters come upon the stage with very` little artifice or plot: the whole scheme is fo connected that we fee it at once, and the plan and dispofition of the parts make a small part of its excellence, in comparison of a glofs of pleasantry diffused over each fcene, which is more the happy effect of a lucky moment, than of long confideration.

These objections, and many others, which fo fruitful a fubject might eafily fuggeft, it is not difficult to refute and if we were to judge by the impreffion made on the mind by tragedies and comedies of equal excellence, perhaps, when we examine those impreffions, it will be found that a fally of pleasantry, which diverts all the world, required more thought than a paffage which gave the highest pleasure in tragedy; and to this determination we fhall be more inclined when a closer examination fhall fhew us, that a happy

a happy vein of tragedy is opened and effused at lefs expense, than a well-placed witticism in comedy has required merely to affign its place.

It would be too much to dwell long upon fuch a digreffion; and as I have no business to decide the question, I leave both that and my arguments to the taste of each particular reader, who will find what is to be faid for or against it. My purpose was only to fay of comedy, confidered as a work of genius, all that a man of letters can be supposed to deliver without departing from his character, and without palliating in any degree the corrupt use which has been almost always made of an exhibition which in its nature might be innocent; but has been vicious from the time that it has been infected with the wickedness of men. It is not for publick exhibitions that I am now writing, but for literary inquiries. The ftage is too much frequented, and books too much neglected. Yet it is to the literature of Greece and Rome that we are indebted for that valuable taste, which will be infenfibly loft by the affected negligence which now prevails of having recourse to originals. If reafon has been a confiderable gainer, it must be confeffed that tafte has been fomewhat a lofer.

To return to Ariftophanes; fo many great men of antiquity, through a long fucceffion of ages, down to our times, have fet a value upon his works, that we cannot naturally fuppofe them contemptible, notwithftanding the effential faults with which he may be juftly reproached. It is fufficient to fay, that he was esteemed by Plato and Cicero; and to conclude by that which does him most honour, but ftill falls short

of

of juftification, the ftrong and fprightly eloquence of St. Chryfoftom drew its fupport from the mafculine and vigorous atticifm of this farcaftic comedian, to whom the father paid the fame regard as Alexander to Homer, that of putting his works under his pillow, that he might read them at night before he flept, and in the morning as foon as he awaked,

GENERAL CONCLUSION

ΤΟ

BRUMOY'S GREEK THEATRE.

I.

TH

Summary of

the four articles

treated of in this difcourfe.

HUS I have given a faithful extract of the remains of Ariftophanes. That I have not shewn them in their true form, I am not afraid that any body will complain. I have given an account of every thing as far as it was confiftent with moral decency. No pen, however cynical or heathenifh, would venture to produce in open day the horrid paffages which I have put out of fight; and instead of regretting any part that I have fuppreffed, the very fuppreffion will eafily fhew to what degree the Athenians were infected with licentiousness of imagination and corruption of principles. If the tafte of antiquity allows us to preferve what time and barbarity have hitherto fpared, religion and virtue at least oblige us not to fpread it before the eyes of mankind. To end this work in an useful manner, let us examine in a few words the four particulars which are most ftriking in the eleven pieces of Ariftophanes.

II. The firft is the character of the ancient comedy, which has no likeness to any thing in nature. Its genius is fo

Character of ancient come

dy.

wild and strange, that it scarce admits a definition. In what clafs of comedy muft we place it? It appears to me to be a fpecies of writing by itself. If we had Phrynicus, Plato, Eupolis, Critinus Ameipfias, and fo many other celebrated rivals of Ariftophanes, of whom all that we can find are a few fragments fcattered in Plutarch, Athenias, and Suidas, we might compare them with our poet, fettle the general scheme, obferve the minuter differences, and form a complete notion of their comick ftage. But for want of all this we can fix only on Aristophanes, and it is true that he may be in fome measure fufficient to furnish a tolerable judgment of the old comedy; for if we believe him, and who can be better credited? he was the most daring of all his brethren the poets, who practifed the fame kind of writing, Upon this fuppofition we may conclude, that the comedy of thofe days confifted in an allegory drawn out and continued; an allegory never very regular, but often ingenious, and almost always carried beyond ftrict propriety, of fatire keen and biting, but diverfified, fprightly and unexpected; fo that the wound was given before it was perceived. Their points of fatire were thunderbolts, and their wild figures, with their variety and quickness, had the effect of lightning. Their imitation was carried even to resemblance of perfons, and their common entertainments was a parody of rival poets joined, if I may fo exprefs it, with a parody of manners and habits.

But it would be tedious to draw out to the reader that which he will already have perceived better than myself. I have no defign to anticipate his reflections; and therefore fhall only sketch the picture, which he must finish by himself: he will pursue the fubject farther, and form

to