Untitled - 24grammata.com

ANCIENT GBEECE.[CHAP< xythat advantage. So far as morals are concerned, it is truethat the ideas of propriety are conventional ;and that itwould be wrongto infer from a violation of them in language, a corresponding violation in action. The inhabitantof the North, who has not grown accustomed to the muchgreater licence given to the tongue by the southern nationsmay here easily be mistaken. The jokes of Harlequin, especially in his extemporaneous performances, are often hardlyless unrestrained than those of Aristophanes ;and the southern countries are not on that account on the whole morecorrupt than the northern, although some offences are morecommon in the former. But the incredible levity withwhich the rules of modesty were transgressed, could not remain without consequences. Another important pointisthe influence of comedy on the religion of the people. Thecomic poets were careful never to appear as atheists ; thatwould have led to exile ; they rather defended the popularreligion. But the manner in which this was done, was oftenworse than a direct attack. Who could appear with reverentdevotion at the altar of Jove, after growing weary withlaughing at him in the Clouds, or after having seen him paycourt to earthly beauties ? Even on the minds of the mostfrivolous nation in the world, indelible impressions musthave been made.The ancient comedy lias commonly been called a politicalfarce; and the expression is just,if we interpret the wordpolitical in the wide sense in which we have explained it.It is sufficiently known, that, after the downfal of the popular rule, there was no longer anyfield for this ancientcomedy, that it lost its sting in the middle comedyas it istermed, and that the new was of an entirely different character. 1 As this new kind lost its local character with the personal allusions, the old obstacles to its diffusion throughoutthe Grecian world no longer existed. And though we maydoubt whether the plays of Cratinus and Aristophanes wereever acted out of Athens, no question can certainly be raisedwith respect to those of Menander and Diphilus. But asthis new species of theatrical composition was not introduced'The difference of these kinds is best explained in the excellent work ofSchlegel, i. p. 326.