ought to depend upon my mode of thinking or expreffing my thoughts, which I leave entirely to the judgment of the publick. A DISSERTATION, &c. Reafons why Aristophanes may be reviewed without tranflating him en tirely. I. WAS in doubt a long time, whether I fhould meddle at all with the Greek comedy, both because the pieces which remain are very few, the licentioufnefs of Ariftophanes, their author, is exorbitant, and it is very difficult to draw from the performances of a fingle poet, a juft idea of Greek comedy. Befides, it feemed that tragedy was fufficient to employ all my attention, that I might give a complete reprefentation of that kind of writing, which was most efteemed by the Athenians and the wifer Greeks*, particularly by Socrates, who fet no value upon comedy or comick actors. But the very name of that drama, which in polite ages, and above all others in our own, has been fo much advanced, that it has become equal to tragedy, if not preferable, incline me to think that I may be partly reproached with an imperfect work, if, after having * There was a law which forbad any judge of the Areopagus to write comedy. B 2 gone as deep as I could into the nature of Greek tragedy, I did not at least sketch a draught of the comedy. I then confidered, that it was not wholy impoffible to furmount, at least in part, the difficulties which had ftopt me, and to go fomewhat farther than the learned writers*, who have published in French fome pieces of Ariftophanes; not that I pretend to make large tranflations. The fame reasons which have hindered with refpect to the more noble parts of the Greek drama, operate with double force upon my prefent fubject. Though ridicule, which is the bufinefs of comedy, be not lefs uniform in all times, than the paffions which are moved by tragick compofitions; yet, if diversity of manners may fometimes difguife the paffions themselves, how much greater change will be made in jocularities? The truth is, that they are fo much changed by the courfe of time, that pleafantry and ridicule become dull and flat much more cafily than the pathetick becomes ridiculous. That which is commonly known by the term jocular and comick, is nothing but a turn of expreffion, an airy phantom, that must be caught at a particular point. As we lofe this point, we lofe the jocularity, and find nothing but dulnefs in its place. A lucky fally, which has filled a company with laughter, will have no effect in print, because it is fhewn fingle and feparate from the circumftance which gave it force. Many fatirical jefts, found in ancient books, have had the fame fate; their spirit has evaporated by time, and have left nothing to us but infipidity. *Madame Dacier, M. Boivin. None None but the moft-biting paffages have preferved their points unblunted. But, befides this objection, which extends univerfally to all tranflations of Ariftophanes, and many allufions of which time has deprived us, there are loofe expreffions thrown out to the populace to raise laughter from corrupt paffions, which are unworthy of the curiofity of decent readers, and which ought to reft eternally in proper obfcurity. Not every thing in this infancy of comedy was excellent, at least it would not appear excellent at this distance of time, in comparison of compofitions of the fame kind, which lie before our eyes; and this is reafon enough to fave me the trouble of tranflating, and the reader that of perufing. As for that small number of writers who delight in those delicacies, they give themfelves very little trouble about tranflations, except it be to find fault with them; and the majority of people of wit, like comedies that may give them pleasure, without much trouble of attention, and are not much dif pofed to find beauties in that which requires long deductions to find it beautiful. If Helen had not appeared beautiful to the Greeks and Trojans but by force of argument, we had never been told of the Trojan war. On the other fide, Ariftophanes is an author more confiderable than one would imagine. The History of Greece could not pafs over him, when it comes to touch upon the people of Athens; this alone might procure him refpect, even when he was not confidered as a comick poet. But when his writings are him the only author from taken into view, we find whom may be drawn a juft idea of the comedy of his age; and farther, we find in his pieces, that he often makes attacks upon the tragick writers, particularly upon the three chief, whofe valuable remains we have had under examination; and, what is yet worse, fell fometimes upon the ftate, and upon the gods themselves. The chief heads of this difcourfe. II. These confiderations have determined me to follow, in my reprefentation of this writer, the fame method which I have taken in feveral tragick pieces, which is that of giving an exact analyfis as far as the matter would allow, from which I deduce four important fyftems. First, Upon the nature of the comedy of that age, without omitting that of Menander *. Secondly, Upon the vices and government of the Athenians. Thirdly, Upon the notion we ought to entertain of Ariftophanes, with respect to Eschylus, Sophocies, and Euripides. Fourthly, Upon the jeft which he makes upon the gods. These things will not be treated in order, as a regular difcourfe feems to require, but will arife fometimes feparately, fometimes together, from * Menandar, an Athenian, fon of Diopethes and Hegeftrates, was apparently the most eminent of the writers of the new comedy. He had been a fcholar of Theophraflus: his paffion for the women brought infamy upon him: he was fquint-eyed, and very lively. Of the one hundred and eighty comedies, or, according to Suidas, the eighty which he composed, and which are all said to be tranflated by Terence, we have now only a few fragments remaining, He flourished about the 115th Olympiad, 318 years before the Chriftian Era. He was drowned as he was bathing in the port of Pireus. I have told in another place, what is faid of one Philemon, his antagonist, not fo good a poet as himself, but one who often gained the prize. This Philemon was older than him, and was much from the view of each particular comedy, and from the reflections which this free manner of writing will allow. I fhall conclude with a fhort view of the whole, and fo finish my design. Hiftory of co medy. III. I fhall not repeat here what Madame Dacier, and fo many others before her, have collected of all that can be known relating to the hiftory of comedy. Its beginnings are as obfcure as thofe of tragedy, and there is an appearance that we take thefe two words in a more extenfive meaning; they had both the fame original, that is, they began among the feftivals of the vintage, and were not diftinguished from one another but by a burlefque or ferious chorus, which made all the foul and all the body. But, if we give thefe words a stricter sense, according to the notion which has fince been formed, comedy was produced after tragedy, and was in many respects a fequel and imitation of the works of Eschylus. It is in reality nothing more than an action fet before the fight by the fame artifice of reprefentation. Nothing is different but the object, which is merely ridicule. This original of true comedy will be easily admitted, if we take the much in fashion in the time of Alexander the Great. He expreffed all his wifhes in two lines, To have health, and fortune, and 4 pleasure, and never to be in debt, is all I defire.' He was very covetous, and was pictured with his fingers hooked, fo that he fet his comedies at a high price. He lived about a hundred years, fome fay a hundred and one. Many tales are told of his death; Valerius Maximus fays, that he died with laughing at a little incident: feeing an afs eating his figs, he ordered his fervant to drive her away; the man made no great haste, and the ass eat them all. Well done, fays Philemon, now give her fome wine.' Apuleius and Quintilian placed this writer much below Menander, but give him the fecond place, |