[ '5 ] 



through all the walks of hililoiy in quefl: of fubjeds of horror and 

 difmay. On what principle, then, fhall we explain this fad? 

 Were the Greeks of a ferocious and cruel difpofition ? Did they 

 delight in fcenes of blood? Did they fuppofe the frequency of 

 fuch enormous guilt as ftruck the appalled fpedator, from their 

 ftage, to be incident to human nature, and the reprefentation of it, 

 to be a faithful pidure of real life ? Or again, did it require an 

 exhibition of exaggerated mifery to melt their ftern hearts, and 

 draw from them the tears of fympathy ? I believe we may col- 

 led from hiftory that there was, in truth, fomething cruel and 

 ferocious in the Grecian charader; nor will it be difficult to point 

 out certain circumftances, the operation of which muft neceflarily 

 have produced in a people fuch difpofitions. 



To begin with the mythology and religion of the Greeks, whether 

 we confider it as an efficient caufe influencing the national cha- 

 rader, or as an index to point out what that charader was, wc 

 muft fuppofe it adapted to their prevailing and popular notions, 

 and accommodated to their reigning difpofitions and fentiments. 

 What were the Grecian divinities ? Gods partial, changeful, 

 paffionate, unjuft, whofe attributes were rage, revenge and luft. 



What was the ferocious revenge of two of their moft refpedable 

 and benevolent deities, on Niobe and her unoffending children ? 

 What was the ftill more ferocious vengeance of Apollo, on the Satyr 

 Marfyas ? The Grecian mythology is crouded with fimilar in- 

 fiances of cruelty. The religion which could circulate fuch 



tradition,' 



