University of Virginia Library

The Scholiast informs us, that the horrific part of Æacus's Speech is an imitation of an attempt at the sublime, in Euripides's Tragedy of Theseus, which is now lost; but which probably related to his descent to the infernal Regions. The whole of the speech in the original is worth examining; it seems intended as a sportive display of poetical execution; passing, by short imperceptible gradations, through the whole Scale of Style, from the anger of Comedy, to the loftiest and most exaggerated style of Tragedy, till it is blown up into bombast, and finishes in burlesque.

The changes of character between Bacchus and Xanthias in the preceding scenes, have obviously no reference to the improvement or decline of the dramatic art, which is the main ostensible object of the Comedy; but if we look to the critical and dangerous situation of the state at the period when it was produced (viz. the 3d year of the 93d Olympiad) and attend to the unusually vehement and earnest political remonstrances in the address of the Chorus to the Audience which follows in the next page, we shall see abundant reason to conclude that some part of the action of the stage must have been intended to be understood in a political sense.

The measure which at that time was uppermost in the minds of every body, but which nobody would venture openly to propose, was the recal of Alcibiades from his second banishment; a subject which is brought forward in the last scene but one, and upon which Æschylus and Euripides are made to deliver their opinions. The intention of the Author being evidently in favour of Alcibiades, as he makes the favourable opinion proceed from the worthier and more manly character. It should appear that in the preceding scenes in the Infernal Regions, Xanthias is the representative of Alcibiades, and Bacchus of the Athenian people; and that the changes of character represent the changes in their political relation to each other. The scene in which they are made to contend as to their ability to bear a beating without crying out, is merely a proverb dramatized and put into action like those of the French, who have made a part of the amusement to consist in guessing the proverb. The solution of the enigma in this case would be ποτεροι κλαυσωμεθα μειζω, which was applied to people who, to their mutual injury, persevered in refusing to be reconciled. Such was at the time this play was produced the relative situation of Alcibiades and of the Athenian people; he was living in exile upon his own estate in Thrace, while they were struggling with difficulties from which his genius and abilities might have relieved them; the blows of fortune fell equally upon them both, and the question as to which was the greater sufferer, might be deemed as difficult of decision as it appeared to Æacus, who, after all the discipline impartially inflicted on the contending parties, was obliged to leave it undetermined.

The original and admirable speculation of Mr. Whiter upon the doctrine of the association of ideas considered as an instrument of criticism, is applicable to much higher purposes, but since it falls in our way, we may venture to employ it here. The recal of Alcibiades was considered as a measure which must place him at once at the head of the government, and be accompanied with a considerable retrenchment of the powers of the Democracy; on the other hand it was expected by those who were favourable to the measure, that under his conduct and management of the affairs of the Republic might be retrieved, and its ancient ascendancy reasserted—that the result would be success abroad and a Government at home partly Democratic and partly Dictatorial. Now if we were right in conjecturing that the proverb abovementioned was alluded to in the foregoing scene, we shall see that it was connected in Aristophanes's mind with those very ideas of subsequent reconciliation, joint command, and external ascendancy:

I do not know whether it is worth while to mention some coincidences which may be casual. The pole with which Xanthias appears, and which seems to be the emblem of his situation, and which Bacchus calls αναφορον, had another name, as we learn from the argument (viz. αλλακτον), which would make it a proper emblem of the representative of Alcibiades. Xanthias is in the first instance degraded in consequence of being invited to a banquet by Proserpine. Alcibiades's first exile was connected with a charge against him of having profaned the mysteries of Ceres and Proserpine at a banquet. The ludicrous song in which Bacchus justifies himself for having degraded Xanthias, is a fair burlesque representation of the mixture of envy and indignation which the undisguised ascendancy and the insolent debauches of Alcibiades had excited in the minds of the Athenian people, and which contributed powerfully to produce his first banishment. The continuator of Brumoy seems to have been aware of the propriety of looking for some political interpretation of these scenes; he supposes Xanthias to be a personification of the newly enfranchised slaves; but Aristophanes, as we see from the address of the Chorus in the next page, approved of the measure, and certainly could not mean to hold out to the new Citizens the possibility of their being again reduced to servitude. As Aristophanes's humour frequently carries double, this explanation might perhaps hold good as far as Xanthias's first investiture with the Lion's skin, but is wholly inapplicable to the subsequent changes.

The passages which follow, may be considered as a relic and sample of the Primitive Satyric Comedy, which (as it is well known) consisted solely of Songs and Recitations, unaccompanied by Dramatic action or dialogue. We may venture to imagine that a gradual change, in the form and conduct of Comedy, might have taken place, nearly in this manner.

Let it be supposed, that, in process of time, some species of exhibition in dumb shew, was introduced, to illustrate and relieve the continued series of singing and recitation which constituted the Primitive Satyric Comedy—we may conceive, that these Pantomimic Actors, would by degrees be emancipated from the obligation of silence, and we shall then see, that upon the ground of this emancipation, the Aristophanic, or Antient Comedy (as we may be allowed to call it, in contradistinction to the Primitive) might have been originally founded.

When once the Pantomimic Actors, had by dint of gradual and permitted encroachment, established themselves in the indisputed privilege of speech, the antient or Aristophanic Comedy would in fact have received its existence, not as a declared innovation, but as an allowable improvement of the lawful primitive Comedy such as it had existed in the preceding period, during which the Satyric recital had been illustrated by interludes in dumb shew. But as the change, though in fact a most essential one, was neither acknowledged nor avowed, it would not (in the first instance at least) occasion any alteration of the established forms of the primitive Comedy, or the omission of any of the various kinds of recited compositions, which had formed the sum total of the original entertainment. It would seem even reasonable a priori, to conclude, that they would be retained and accommodated to the action, and to the dialogue then for the first time introduced: And that they were so retained; more strictly perhaps in the first instance, (and in the earliest attempts of each successive Poet of the Antient Comedy, before an established reputation enabled him to depart from the strict observation of theatric etiquette) and, in process of time, less punctually, and with a greater degree of latitude, both by individuals, and by the whole school of Antient Comedy; will I think appear probable, to those whose recollection will furnish them with immediate instances from the Comedies of Aristophanes; or who with these and some farther suggestions presented to them, may think it worth while to examine them. The Epirrema and Antepirrema being in almost every instance totally unconnected with the action of the play; being addressed moreover to the Audience, by the Chorus remaining alone in possession of the stage, during a suspension of the dramatic action; and frequently (as in the instance immediately following) conveying important political suggestions or strong reflections upon the vices and abuses of the times; may perhaps, upon a consideration of all these circumstances; be recognized without scruple, as a remnant of the recited Satyric effusions of the primitive Comedy. It is observable, that the Epirrema and Antepirrema are occasionally repeated more than once in the same Play; a circumstance which ought not to be overlooked, in any attempt which may be made to form an idea of the primitive Satyric Comedy, by reconstructing it from the vestiges which are discoverable in the Aristophanic Comedy. The Parabasis, which was likewise recited by the Chorus alone and unaccompanied by the dramatic performers, will naturally be referred to the same origin. It seems to have been frequently omitted in Aristophanic Comedy; and is generally introduced with some apology on the part of the Chorus, for obtruding themselves on the attention of the audience; and for detaining them with (the common topic of a Parabasis) an encomium or vindication of the Author. In the present play it is omitted, unless the semi-chorus, p. 23. “Keep silence, &c.” should be considered a very diminutive and imperfect specimen. We have then, the Parabasis together with the Epirrema and Antepirrema; the two last (as was before observed) repeated more than once; and these, (as we have seen), were recited by the Chorus remaining in exclusive possession of the Stage—these therefore, as far as they go, may serve to give us an idea of the Primitive Comedy: but in order to furnish an entertainment of any tolerable length; it will be necessary to detect other portions of it, which having been accommodated to, and incorporated with, the Dramatic action, appear at present in a form which renders it less easy to recognize and reclaim them. Among these I should venture to place the ρησις μακρα or long Satyric narrative in Iambics; considering that, narrative, either real or fictitious, is the most obvious of all the forms of Satyric composition; I cannot but imagine that it must have existed, even in the most early forms of Satyric Comedy; though not always retained in the Plays of Aristophanes, it seems whenever it was admitted, to have been considered as a regular feature of the Play, and a subject for separate criticism or commendation. In the two earliest Plays of Aristophanes (in which he may be supposed to have adhered most scrupulously to the established formalities of the Theatre) the ρησις or narrative, occupies a very distinguished place, and is addressed to the Chorus by a single actor who is (be it observed) alone in possession of the Stage. All these circumstances, together with the existence of the long ρησις, or narrative in the Tragic Dramas, as a piece of composition much laboured and attended to; seem to point to the same conclusion, and to indicate that the origin of these compositions is derived from the earliest institutions of Tragedy and Comedy, and from the primitive form of each of them, anterior to the introduction of Dramatic Dialogue: I say Dramatic Dialogue; for a form of Dialogue not properly dramatic, seems to have existed in the Primitive Comedy, and to have maintained its place in the antient or Aristophanic Comedy, in which it is still discernible. The two long argumentative dialogues, the one in Tetrameter Iambics, in which the advantage is given to the meaner character and the baser opinion; and the other in Anapæests, in which the superior character is represented

It may be worth while to point out a singular coincidence arising out of the suppositions before mentioned. The number of the Actors, by which each Comedy was performed, was by law and custom limited to three; this law or custom might have been occasionally transgressed; but the regulation which excluded a fourth Actor, was generally adhered to as conformable to authority and precedent; which, in matters of religious institution (for such these Comedies were considered, being a portion of the ceremonies connected with the Bacchic worship) were not to be rashly or unnecessarily violated.

Now, if we suppose this precedent to have originated from the practice of the Primitive Comedy; and assume at the same time, the suppositions respecting its form and substance, which have been before stated; we shall see, that in addition to the Chorus, it admitted of three Actors, who were entitled to the privilege of speech—namely, the reciter of the long ρησις, or satyric narrative; and the two disputants in the controversial dialogues. As it would be difficult to account for this restriction from the general principles of Dramatic art; we must, I apprehend, be content to attribute it to a precedent derived from the most antient practice of the Primitive Comedy: it seems that the excessive number of Actors had grown into what was considered to be an abuse; but when abuses are to be reformed, the regulations which restrain them are generally established upon the authority of the earliest examples; which (as we have seen) would not have admitted of more than three Actors, in addition to the Chorus.

We have, therefore, as remnants of the Primitive Satyric Comedy, independent of Dramatic or Pantomimic action—

• The Parabasis,
• The Satyric Songs and Lampoons,
• The Epirrema and Antepirrema,
• The Long narrative,
• The Dialogue in Tetrameter Iambics,
• Another, on the same Subject, in Anapæsts,
• The Epirrema and Antepirrema repeated,
• Finally, a Conclusion, probably not much unlike that of the Acharnians, or the Peace, the tone of which seems borrowed from a more primitive jovial rustic style.

After the introduction of Pantomime, a second Narrative seems to have been introduced, explanatory and prefatory to the action which was to follow. This, too, appears to have preserved its place in the Aristophanic Comedy, and is to be found in most of the Plays; as Knights, l 40: Wasps, l 85: Peace, l 50, in all of which (it is to be observed) it is addrest by the speaker directly to the Audience.

The vehemence of the remonstrance conveyed in the following composition, has been already noticed (p. 39.) For the state of things which gave rise to it, the Reader must again be referred to a description of the critical and disgraceful condition of Athens at that period (the 3d year of the 93d Olympiad) Mr. Mitford has described it with his usual force and accuracy.

It is observable that in most of the Plays of Aristophanes, there appears a sort of falling off in the Antepirrema, as if the poet were, or affected to be, apprehensive of having ventured too far in the preceding Epirrema. In this instance, the same warmth and energy is sustained throughout, but still with a slight distinction of character between the two. In the Epirrema, the Chorus begin gravely and authoritatively. In the Antepirrema, they resume the same subject, with a fanciful comparison.

The Epirrema and Antepirrema are (here, as elsewhere) preceded by a short personal lampoon, which has no obvious connection with the action of the Drama; a circumstance which, in addition to others already indicated, serves to mark the connection, between the Primitive and the Aristophanic Comedy.

The metre which follows is so essentially vulgar, that I am not able to recollect any line of it in English which is fit to be quoted.

If the Table of Contents assigned to the primitive Comedy in page 44, should be thought too scanty, we may venture to add to it all those regular debates, which are managed by two disputants acting alternately as Opponent and Respondent, in which the Chorus appears as the Moderator and generally (though in the present instance that office is assigned to Bacchus) as the Judge of the controversy, the arguments on both sides, the attack, and the reply, being regularly preceded by a short exhortation from the Chorus. Formal disputation of this kind would be wholly out of place in Comedy (such as we generally conceive it, namely, a Comedy consisting of dramatic action) accordingly, no instance of the kind is to be found, I believe, in modern Comedy or in, what was called, the new Comedy of the Greeks, the remains of which have been preserved to us in the translations of Plautus and Terence. It should seem therefore that the frequent recurrence of these sort of disputations in the Comedies of Aristophanes can hardly be accounted for in any way more probably, than by supposing them to have existed in the primitive Comedy, that undramatic form, from which the antient (as it is called) or Aristophanic form was immediately derived.

We may venture therefore to enumerate, among the constituent parts of the primitive undramatic Comedy, controversies upon debated points or upon a comparison of their own respective merits, in which two disputants were engaged with the Chorus presiding as judge and moderator.

If this inference is not strictly logical, it may at least be allowed to be geological. The primary stratum of primitive Comedy is lost—but a conjecture may be formed as to its composition by observing those substances, which, though they abound in the strata of transition, are no longer discoverable in those of more recent formation. We conclude that such substances must have formed a component part of that elder stratum which has disappeared. In the case now before us the stratum of transition is the antient or Aristophanic Comedy forming a connecting link between the primitive undramatic Comedy and the new Comedy, of the Greeks, (the Comedy of Menander and Terence) the character of which is exclusively dramatic and in no respect different from that of modern Comedy. In this view of the subject the middle Comedy (as it was called by the Critics of antiquity) is not taken into account; it was in fact merely a mutilated form of the Aristophanic Comedy stripped of its chorus, of its personalities, and of its privileges of political satire—it is identified with the antient or Aristophanic Comedy by its main characteristic, the utter impossibility of the story; and upon this ground stands (equally with the antient Comedy) in direct contrast with the new Comedy in which (as in modern Comedy) an adherence to the probabilities of real life is an essential requisite. The antient Comedy, amidst its infinite variety of supernatural and incredible subjects, admitted burlesque representations of mythological and heroic traditions, and among the titles of his Comedies that are lost, the Dædalus, the Danaids, the Lemnian Women, (or the story of Jason and Hypsipyle) prove that Aristophanes, even before the suppression of the genuine antient Comedy, did not neglect subjects of this kind. Cratinus too, who died long before that period, among the scanty fragments that remain of him, has still left in existence a single line from a Comedy representing Ulysses in the Cave of the Cyclops. But subjects of this kind formed the main resource of the writers of the middle Comedy, and their productions of this description were much more numerous. Therefore, as the result of this digression, it may be allowable to observe, if nobody should have observed it before, that (in additon to the Plutus of Aristophanes) the Amphitryon of Plautus (undoubtedly translated from Greek) may be regarded as a specimen of the middle Comedy of the Greeks; and this result, however interesting, being not much to the purpose of the present translation, we will proceed forthwith to the lines in which the Chorus perform their part in animating and encouraging the disputants.

Of the part of the entertainment which followed, however amusing it might have been to the musical critics of Athens, it is impossible for a modern to form any satisfactory notion. It consisted of a musical burlesque, in which each of the rival candidates (Euripides and Æschylus) is represented as exhibiting a caricature of the style of his opponent. This caricature seems to have consisted of a series of musical phrases selected from their works, but (as the music was the only object, while the words served only to indicate the music which was attached to them), the words which now remain alone (the music having shared the common fate of all the other music of the antients) present little more than a jumble of sentences incapable of being connected by any continuous meaning. We have seen that Æschylus is accused of repeating the same strain perpetually—this, it should seem, was exemplified by bringing together passages from the Chorusses of different Plays, which were marked by the recurrence of the same musical phrase. The Scholiasts point out passages from the Chorusses of four Plays, which are thus brought into juxtaposition; but the main subject of burlesque appears to have been a Chorus from the Tragedy of the Myrmidons (the soldiers of Achilles) in which they were represented as addressing their Chief after the death of Patroclus and the discomfiture of the Greeks. We may easily suppose that the peculiarities of Æschylus's stile would be most strongly exemplified in a Chorus composed of such characters.

It might have been deemed allowable, and perhaps advisable (after the explanation already given) to relinquish any attempt at representing what is so little capable of being represented; but as nature in general, and the nature of translation more particularly, abhors a vacuum, a few lines are put together in an Æschylean metre, which may serve as a substitute to fill up the chasm, and to represent the Chorus (that of the Myrmidons) which was the chief subject of this burlesque criticism. It must be left to the musical Reader, if the Reader should happen to be musical, to imagine to himself a noisy boisterous accompaniment on a wind instrument. Though perhaps his imagination might be more amusingly employed in conceiving a similar scene of contest between the great musical favorites of the last and the present Century, between Gluck or Handel for instance, and Rossini.

In order to give English Hexameters a fair chance, it should be recollected that they are essentially a very slow and solemn measure, each line consisting of six bars, and each bar either of two crotchets, or of a crotchet and two quavers—whereas, the English Heroic verse contains only two bars and a half, and in those instances in which the half bar is placed at the end, may be regarded as a truncated form of the scazon Iambic: the regular metrical Hexameter may consequently be considered, as somewhat longer, or slower at least in enunciation, than an entire Heroic couplet.

The Reader may perhaps observe an irregularity in the second line, (what the Grammarians call an Anacrousis—i. e. unaccented syllables prefixed to the first ictus) this would be inadmissible in the regular Classical Hexameter, but the irregularity is so little offensive to the ear; that the writer in other attempts to construct English Hexameter has found himself in more than one instance unconsciously falling into is. He has therefore preferred to leave it as it stands, an instance of the liberty which may be deemed allowable in adapting to the English language this difficult, but by no means impracticable metre.