London Philosophkat Society. h-5^ 



steries, which succeeded them in Greece, were the source 

 ot the Greek Stage. At first a single mime sung hymns 

 to the praise of Bacchus ; then a second was added, till at 

 last a chorus was formed, composed oF many individuals, 

 but uninterrupted by dialogue or paniominie ; and this for 

 many years was the only dramatic entertainment known in 

 Greece. At length, Thespis introduced a new personage, 

 who relieved the chorus bv reciting a part of ?ome history 

 or fable ; and this was called an Episode. From this time 

 the chorus, which at first composed the principal, became 

 insensibly and progressively the most inconsiderable part 

 of the drama. The renowned ^schylus, whose sword and 

 pen have been equally entwined with laurels, and who haa 

 been justly called the father of the Greek Tragedy, added a 

 second actor to the first of Thespis, and thus introduced 

 dialogue, which perpetually incroaching on the ancient 

 chorus, has at last d'iven it ironi the Stage. It is to this 

 great n)an that the Athenians were indebted, said the 

 Lecturer, for the first dawn of that refinement which au- 

 gured and produced so brilliant a day for Greece. He took 

 upon himself the whole management of the drama, brought 

 his actors into a regular thratre, raised his heroes on the 

 cothurnus, and by the introduction of splendid habits im- 

 parted an air of greater dignity to his performance. Sopho- 

 cles and Euripides carefully studied the plan laid down by 

 ^scbylus; and, refining upon it with the enthusiasm of ge- 

 nius chastised by judgement, they brought the Siaae to its 

 highest stale of perfection. After discriminating very ably 

 between the opposite characteristics of Sophocles and 

 ^schylus, the Lecturer proccfdcd lo observe, that comedy 

 owed Its birth lo the saine fortuitous circumstances as tra- 

 gedy — but in one case the chorus was burlesque, and in 

 the other serious, 'i'he old comedy was distinguished into 

 three seras, denominated the old, the n)iddle, and the new. 

 The old retained strong n)arks of its original rudeness, and 

 of the low abuse and scurrilous jokes vented on the by- 

 standers from the court of Thespis, It was a representa- 

 tion of real actions, and exhibiting the dre.-s, manners, 

 and age of living characters, not even toncealins: their 

 • names ; and these were the features of the nuise of Aristo- 

 phanes. The interh rtnce of the mas:istracy to prevent this 

 abuse of tnc Stag* produced the middle comedy, which 

 diflfered in nothing fnun the first than by making an attack 

 upon real characters under fictitious names: at length this 

 comedy, yielding to the influence of increasing politeness' 

 and refmeuient, was su))planted by the new, which con- 



sunmiated 



