a trick at cards. Strepsiades presents his son to the philosopher, and intreats him to teach him the important distinction between the just and the unjust. Justice and Injustice are then personified and introduced upon the stage. An argument takes place between them, in which each urges his pretensions. It is terminated by Injustice in the following manner: "Shall I demonstrate incontrovertibly which of us should yield to the other? What sort of men are our oratars?-Wicked men.-Very well. Our writers of tragedies?-The same. And our magistrates? Rogues. Count the number of spectators. Which preponderates, the good or the bad?—I confess the latter are more numerous. Well, are you convinced? Yes: I acknowledge my. Here, take the prize. I am coming over to your side. You are more powerful than I am.” Phidippides profits so well by these lessons, that he beats his creditors, and finally thrashes his own father, and proves to him philosophically that he has a right to do so. The philosophers

error.

of our day are no better: but no one can say that this was the philosophy of Socrates.

It is impossible to peruse the works of Aristophanes with any attention, without asking how it is possible to tolerate a species of amusement which was not known to any other nation, and which ended by being entirely abolished in Athens. We also inquire how a people, so rigid in religious matters, could permit their gods to be ridiculed on the stages; and how they could accommodate such gross ribaldry to their refined taste. I shall endeavour to answer these questions, not by a formal treatise, but by seizing, at first view, upon those reasons which may appear to afford a probable and lucid solution.

We may lay it down as a principle, that dramatic representation, from its very nature, depends much on government and on the character and manners of mankind. It ought then to vary, to a certain extent, according to the different countries in which it is established, and even according to different epochs in the same nation; which was the case at Athens. When they were relieved from tyranny, by the expulsion of the Pisistradidæ, they passed to the extreme of liberty, and rioted in the licentiousness of democracy. This spirit was corrected by the ardour of

patriotism which animated all Greece on the invasions of Darius and Xerxes. But as danger gave rise to noble virtues and magnanimous exertions, so the fruits of victory and prosperity were pride and corruption. The people of Athens became suddenly intoxicated with power and fortune. They held the reins of government in their own hands, and they gave laws to all Greece. The heroes, whose valour and wisdom had produced this state of things, experienced that ingratitude which some would conceal under the mask of independence, but which arises from the jealousy inherent in republicanism,—a spirit that cherishes suspicion of its friends when it no longer dreads its enemies. In short, the Athenian republic was the most powerful, opulent, vain and corrupted in Greece, at the period when Pericles flourished, with whom Aristophanes was cotemporary. Pericles himself, who deserved so well of his country, and whose greatest talent consisted in his knowledge of men, perceived the necessity of flattering their passions in order to preserve the power which he had acquired: and he is to be reproached with having increased that democratical spirit, which he ought rather to have endeavoured to restrain. He did not venture to check the licentiousness of Aristophanes, because he saw that it pleased the multitude, who regarded that freedom as one of the privileges of liberty. This huge word is so deceitful and imposing, that many, at the present day, while they condemn Aristophanes, are of opinion that a writer with his powers would be of service to a republic. This could not be disputed if we could find such a censor, who would be the incorruptible organ of justice and truth. But a little reflection will teach us, that even if we should meet with one who is worthy of so important an office, from his ability to discharge his duty according to the terms which we have prescribed, he would commence with a violation of them: because if an accusation is permitted to be made, without the necessity of proof or the fear of an answer, it is base and calumnious. I grant that in every republic one citizen should be allowed to accuse another; but it should be done lawfully,-before the courts of justice,—in such a manner that the accused should be able to defend himself. When a man addresses a multitude, and wishes

to amuse them at the expense of one whom he would destroy, is it necessary for him to adhere to truth, in order to place his enemy in an odious or ridiculous light? On the contrary, is not that the very soil where a lie would take root? Is not this principle, self-evident in itself, confirmed by facts? The most of those whom Aristophanes attacked with so much fury, were men in the highest estimation in their day. Let us hear Cicero, whose testimony will not be questioned, and who was also as much of a republican as any man. How does he speak of the ancient comedy of Greece, and particularly of that which we are now discussing. What has she spared? What was sacred from her licentious tongue? If she had attacked only bad citizens, a Cleon, a Hyperbolus, a Cleophron, there would be no ground for complaint. But when a man like Pericles, after so many years devoted to the good of his country, in peace and in war, is insulted on the stage, and lampooned in verses:—it is as shocking as if Nævius or Cecilius, at Rome, should dare to defame Cato the censor, or Scipio Africanus."

I do not wish to deprive the stage of its influence upon the public mind-a power which is dreaded under a despotism, and consequently to be cherished in free countries. On the contrary, I would render it more potential and more useful, by banishing personal defamation, which strikes equally at virtue and vice, and moreover is within the reach of the meanest writer. In its place should be introduced a dramatic censure, which would require more morality and ability in the author, and produce a much greater effect. I would say to the poet, describe in general characters the friends or enemies of public measures: if your lines be faithful, the individuals can see themselves: they will resemble portraits stuck in picture frames, under which the spectators can inscribe the names. For there is a public conscience which is no more deceiving than the private mentor: and when men are faithfully described, this voice speaks so loudly that nothing can impose silence upon it-no, not even the soldiers of Nero.

It is necessary that this semblance should be generally per. ceived; since towards the time of Alexander, and when Athens, with less power, still preserved her liberty, all the vices of

the ancient stage were entirely prohibited by law, which permitted nothing in comedy but fictitious names and subjects. It was this which was imitated by the Romans; for it is to be remarked, of that government, that while it permitted the satires of Lucilius to pass unnoticed, in which the most eminent citizens were attacked, this liberty was regarded as infinitely the most dangerous on the stage. They never permitted any personal satire, and would not admit in their public exhibitions, any other comedies than those of pure invention, such as were then composed in Greece. It does not appear that the Roman severity was congenial with the insolent facetiousness of Aristophanes; nor that the censors were willing to suffer a buffoon to usurp their most important privilege, that of reprehending vicious characters.

Another species of freedom, common to both countries, con sisted in making the gods the subject of their keenest raillery and most bitter sarcasms. The reader may see, in the Amphytrion of Plautus, how Mercury addresses Jupiter himself. In Euripides the gods are sufficiently ridiculed; but they are treated much worse by Aristophanes; and whatever may be said to explain this excessive toleration among the Athenians, where the tribunals exercised a terrible severity in matters of religion, it is not less true, that the inconsistency between this indifference on the one hand and rigour on the other, is one of the greatest difficulties that we meet with in our examination of ancient manners. Alcibiades was called from his command in Sicily to purge himself from an accusation of impiety to the very gods, that were exhibited on the stage for the amusement of the people. It is not sufficient to show a distinction between the gods of religion and those of fable; between the gods of the priests and those of the poets. We cannot deny that this distinction would be good to a certain extent: but who will tell us in what it consisted? Who shall mark the interval between that which commands our respect and that which we may despise. It is this measure which we want, and without it we can do nothing. We can readily conceive that all the traditions of poets need not be regarded as articles of faith; but the gods of mythology, to a certain extent, are the gods of history. In the

n

temples and public festivals, Bacchus had the same attributes
which are given to him by Aristophanes, when he ridicules him
in the Frogs. Neither he, nor Euripides, nor Plautus, say one
word from which we may infer that there were some gods to be
respected, and others that might be ridiculed.

LIST OF BOROUGHS IN ENGLAND.

THE following very curious document has never, we believe, been published in this country, and will be found to communicate a fund of new information.

An abridged Historical Detail of all the Boroughs in England, the number of voters in each, the patron, proprietor, or predominating interest. Collected for the year 1807.

Bedfordshire-sends four Members to parliament, of which two are for the county, and two for the town of Bedford.

Bedford-The corporation consists of a Mayor, Recorder, Deputy Recorder, thirteen Common Council, and twelve Aldermen, with the surviving Mayors: The right of election is in the Burgesses, Freemen, and inhabitant householders. The number of voters are about 1600. The returning offi. cers are the Mayor and Bailiffs. The patron is the duke of Bedford.

Berkshire-Sends nine members to parliament. The boroughs in this county are Abingdon, Reading, Wallingford, and Windsor.

Abingdon-Sends one. The corporation consists of a Mayor, two Bailiffs, nine Aldermen, and sixteen Assistants. The right of Election is in the inhabitant Householders. Number of Voters, 600. A free Borough, and therefore acknowledges no patron.

Reading-Sends two. Corporation—a Mayor, Recorder, twelve Aldermen, and twelve Burgesses. Right of Election, in the inhabitant Householders. Number of Voters, 600. A free Borough.

Wallingford-Sends two. Corporation, a Mayor, Recorder, six Aidermen, and eighteen Burgesses. Right of election, in the corporation and inhabitant Householders. Number of voters, 140. Proprietor, Sir Francis Sykes.

Windsor-Sends two. Corporation, a Mayor, two Bailiffs, and twentyeight Burgesses. Right of election, in the inhabitants paying Scot and Lot.

VOL. I.