these same vehicles, we should have esteemed it altogether a work of supererogation, to ask the attention of our readers anew to a subject made so familiar to them, by the journals just mentioned. But feeling ourselves wholly unprepared to go to the extreme of the new school on this topic, we have ventured to appeal to the attention of the American literary public, with not a little fear, however, that their curiosity is nearly exhausted.

What the commonly received opinion of Aristophanes is or was, we scarcely need say. So learned and elegant a scholar, as bishop Hurd, calls him, that buffoon.' Dr Gillies, who, if his own taste be entitled to no preeminent respect, may be considered as an adequate representative of the taste of his contemporaries, speaks of Aristophanes, as one of a class of men, who were the declared enemies, not only of Socrates and his disciples, but of all order and decency; adding in the course of the same chapter, 'that Aristophanes and his associates, having previously ridiculed virtue and genius, in the persons of Socrates and Euripides, boldly proceeded to avail themselves of the natural malignity of the vulgar, and their envy against whatever is elevated and illustrious, to traduce and calumniate Pericles himself; and though his successors in the administration justly merited the severest lashes of their invective, yet, had their characters been more pure they would have been equally exposed to the unprovoked satire of those insolent buffoons, who gratified the gross appetites of the vulgar, by an undistinguished mass of ridicule, involving vice and virtue, things profane and sacred, men and gods."* La Harpe, in his agreeable chapter on the Greek comedy, inclines to adopt the opinion of Plutarch against Aristophanes, expressed in his famous comparison between this master of the old comedy and Menander, to which comparison we shall revert, in the course of our observations. In obstinately adhering, however, to the epithet of satirist, applied to Aristophanes, and considering him in that character alone, La Harpe gives a striking instance of his own habitually superficial views. The conception which Barthelemi appears to have formed of the comedian, (though somewhat disguised by the oppressive fictions, with which he carries on the plot of his Anacharsis, to the irreparable injury of what would else have been so perfect a work,) is in the main rational, and appears to have been

Gillies' History of Greece, chap. xiii.

formed from a fair examination of the contrasts in his character. From this opinion, Mr A. W. Schlegel dissents. Having remarked in the text, that care must be had not to regard the old comedy as the rude beginning of the subsequently more improved comic representation,' he adds in a note, that the chapter in the Anacharsis is composed on this idea of the ancient comedy, and then pronounces this chapter one of the most unsatisfactory and unsuccessful in the work. This, however, we do not admit :-Barthelemi is a stranger to those penetrating views of antiquity, which have been taken by the new school in Germany, and by none more successfully than Mr Schlegel; but we do not perceive any remarkable deficiency in the chapter in question. How far back the following judgment of professor Dalzel is to be dated, the nature of the work, from which it is taken, does not enable us to ascertain. It has excited our surprise, however, to find a judgment so extremely old-fashioned, not to say superficial, in a work published during the last year. His words are, we have a considerable number of the comedies of Aristophanes still remaining, but they are so full of ribaldry and buffoonery, that I can scarcely recommend them to your perusal, unless on account of the Attic Greek, in which they are written.I have already observed, that at Athens, there were people of every sort of character. Among the lower sort there were great numbers, remarkable for their vanity and inconstancy, their want of respect for religion, their insolence and vice of every sort, and readier to laugh at a coarse and immoral joke, than to be instructed by useful truth. It was to people of this stamp that Aristophanes chose to address himself. He was malignant and satirical, and, at the same time, had a gayety of wit, which recommended him to the mob. The comedies of Aristophanes then ought to be considered as abuses of this sort of composition.* Whatever be thought of the justice of this, as far as the character of Aristophanes is concerned, we do not remember to have seen a more striking example of vagueness and feebleness, than these few lines betray; and we are sorry to add, they afford but too faithful a sample of a work, from which we had promised ourselves instruction and pleasure.

We have gathered together these few judgments on the subject of Aristophanes, for the sake of reminding our readers more exactly of the prevailing tone of opinion, before it had * Dalzel's Lectures, vol. ij. p. 146.

air examination of the contrasts in his characopinion, Mr A. W. Schlegel dissents. Having text, that' care must be had not to regard the Fie rude beginning of the subsequently more representation,' he adds in a note, that the Anacharsis is composed on this idea of the and then pronounces this chapter one of the ory and unsuccessful in the work. This, howt admit :-Barthelemi is a stranger to those Ts of antiquity, which have been taken by the Termany, and by none more successfully than ut we do not perceive any remarkable defiapter in question. How far back the followprofessor Dalzel is to be dated, the nature of which it is taken, does not enable us to ascerbited our surprise, however, to find a judgment d-fashioned, not to say superficial, in a work g the last year. His words are, we have a mber of the comedies of Aristophanes still hey are so full of ribaldry and buffoonery, that I mmend them to your perusal, unless on account ek, in which they are written. I have al

that at Athens, there were people of every er. Among the lower sort there were great kable for their vanity and inconstancy, their for religion, their insolence and vice of every r to laugh at a coarse and immoral joke, than by useful truth. It was to people of this stamp es chose to address himself. He was malignant 1, at the same time, had a gayety of wit, which Dim to the mob. The comedies of Aristophao be considered as abuses of this sort of comFatever be thought of the justice of this, as far er of Aristophanes is concerned, we do not ve seen a more striking example of vagueness than these few lines betray; and we are sorry ord but too faithful a sample of a work, from #romised ourselves instruction and pleasure. thered together these few judgments on the ophanes, for the sake of reminding our readers the prevailing tone of opinion, before it had res, vol. ii. p. 146.

been, in very late times, a little shaken; and for this reason, we have chosen popular writers, rather than professed critics. We come now to the reverse of the picture. The close of the last century in Germany was signalized by two things in the study of ancient literature apparently disconnected, nay opposite in their nature, but each pushed, and often by the same individual, to a distinguished point of excellence ;-we mean, on the one hand, minute, grammatical, and verbal study of the ancient remains, rivalling, if not exceeding, the most painful school of Dutch philology; and on the other hand, the most keen and philosophical spirit, penetrating into the inmost character of the ancient literature, and scrutinizing the condition in which its monuments exist, with a severity before unapproached. Bentley alone, of all the preceding critics, had given a foretaste of this admirable compound of humble erudition and soaring criticism, and it is painful to consider that this divine scholar was the subject of all the obloquy and hatred, nay, of the affected contempt of his colleagues. It was reserved for a subsequent age to do him justice; and it has abundantly done it and no one now, who traces his ancestry to England, and whose taste is devoted to the Grecian muses, but blushes to think that the names of Bentley and Boyle were ever coupled as antagonists. But though Bentley certainly exhibited, in a most eminent degree, this union of accurate verbal knowledge, with a comprehensive philosophical spirit, which has never been surpassed, it died with him. It was not truly revived in the Dutch school, illustrious as that has been for its three generations of scholars like Hemsterhuis, Ruhnken, and Wyttenbach; who, like the great tragical triumvirate at Athens, have left worthy disciples indeed, but no equal successors. In Germany, however, in the latter part of the last century, an entire reform was introduced into the study of antiquity and its remains. And while the foundation was laid in a most laborious grammatical study, the superstructure was carried up in the boldest, most elevated, and adventurous spirit of criticism. Hence those discussions of the authenticity of Homer, which have given such an original turn to half the science of philology; discussions not so much as glanced at in Prof. Dalzel's lectures on Homer; hence, those refined disquisitions on the ancient philosophy, those admirable lights, which the monuments of ancient literature and ancient art have been made to throw on each other;