[f1]
There is a prevalent idea that the modern Greek language, or Romaic, as
it is called, is a different language from the ancient Greek, pretty much
in the same way that Italian is different from Latin. But this is a gross
mistake. Greek was and is one unbroken living language, and ought to be
taught as such.
[f2]
WHISTON, Article TRAGEDY in SMITH's Dictionary of Antiquities,
Second Edition; and DONALDSON in the GREEK THEATRE, Sixth Edition.
London: 1849. P. 30.
[f3]
Γενομένη ἀπ ἀρχῆς ἀυτοσχεδιαστικὴ ἡ τραγῳδία ἀπὸ τῶν ἐξαρχόντων τὸν
διθύραμβον κατὰ μικρον ἠυξήθη.--ARISTOT. poet. 4.--Compare the words
of the old Iambic poet Archilochus, given by Athenaeus (XIV. p. 628)--"_I
know well how to dance the Dithyramb when the wine thunders dizzily
through my brain!_" The word _Dithyramb_, according to the best etymology
which has come in my way (DONALDSON & HARTUNG), means the _revel
of the god_.
[f4]
Αρίον τὸν Μηθυμναῖον πρῶτον ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡμεῖς ἴδμεν ποιήσαντα τε καὶ
ὀνομάσαντα και διδάξαντα τὸν διθύραμβον ἐν Κορίνθῳ.--HEROD. I. 23.
Compare SUIDAS _in voce_ ARION, and _Schol_. PINDAR., Olymp. XIII.
25.
[f5]
Διθύραμβος (ο)ς ᾖν κύκλιος χορός.--Schol., Pindar, as above.
[f6]
χορὸς ᾿εστὼς κυκλικῶς.--Tzetzes. Proleg. to Lycophron.
[f7]
HARTUNG, on the Dithyramb.--Classical Museum, No. XVIII. p. 373.
MURE's literature of ancient Greece.--Vol. III., p. 85.
[f8]
The number fifty is mentioned in the Epigram of SIMONIDES, beginning
ἠρχεν Αδείμαντος, in the above-mentioned prologue of TZETZES, and in
POLLUX, Lib. iv., 15, who says that this number of the Chorus was used
even by Æschylus up to the time when the Eumenides was represented. The
number _twelve_ is commonly mentioned by other authorities as having
been used by Æschylus, while Sophocles is said to have increased it to
fifteen, which afterwards became the standard number. Müller
(Eumenides) ingeniously supposes that the tragic poets, so long as the
exhibition by tetralogies lasted, got the original number of _fifty_
from the public authorities, and divided it among the different pieces
of the tetralogy. Blomfield's notion (Preface to the PERSAE) that the
Chorus to the Eumenides consisted of only three persons, though a kind
word has been said in its favour lately (MASON in Smith's Dict. of
Antiq. _voce_ CHORUS), deserves, in my opinion, not a moment's
consideration, either on philological or æsthetical grounds. I may
mention here further, for the sake of those to whom these matters are
strange, that the Chorus holds communication with the other characters
in a Greek play generally by means of its Coryphaeus or Leader, which is
the reason why it is often addressed in the singular and not in the
plural number.
[f9]
_Vit. Philos._ III. 34. It will be observed that, if a third actor
appears on the stage in some parts of the Orestean trilogy, this is to
be accounted for by the supposition that, in his later plays, the poet
adopted the improvements which his young rival had first introduced. The
number of actors here spoken of does not, of course, take into account
mutes or supernumeraries, such as we find in great numbers in the
Eumenides, and more or less almost in every extant piece of Æschylus.
[f10]
Poetics, c. xiii.
[f11]
Wilson, Vol. I. p. xxvi.
[f12]
Twining; but the meaning of the Greek is disputed.
[f13]
"ἡ μελοποίια, μέγιστον τῶν ἡδυσμάτων."--Poetics, c. vi. The success of
the modern _Italian_ opera in England, proves this in a style of which
Aristotle could have had no conception.
[f14]
The position of the old Theban senators, who form the Chorus in this
play, has called forth not a little learned gladiatorship lately;
BÖCKH (whose opinion on all such matters is entitled to the
profoundest respect) maintaining that the Chorus is the impersonated
wisdom of the play as conceived in the poet's mind, while some of his
critics (_Dyer_ in _Class. Mus._ Vol. II. p. 69) represent them as a
pack of cowardly sneaking Thebans, whom it was the express object of the
poet to make ridiculous. This latter opinion is no more tenable than it
would be to say that it was the object of Æschylus to make his Chorus
of old men in that noted scene of the Agamemnon ridiculous; but so much
truth there certainly is in it, that from the inherent defect of
structure in the Greek tragedy, consisting in the constant presence of
the Chorus in the double capacity of impartial moralizers and actors
after a sort, there could not but arise this awkwardness to the poet
that, while he always contrived to make them speak wisely, he sometimes
could not prevent them from acting weakly, and even contemptibly.
[f15]
On the dramatic imbecility of EURIPIDES, see my article in the _Foreign
Quarterly Review_, No. XLVIII. His success as a dramatist is the
strongest possible proof of the undramatic nature of the stage for which
he wrote.
[f16]
See the article DIONYSIA, by Dr. SCHMITZ, in SMITH's Dictionary of
Antiq.
[f17]
The same doctrine, I am sorry to see, has been repeated with special
reference to Æschylus, and with very little qualification, by WHISTON
in the article _Tragædia_ in Dr. Smith's Dict. Antiq., 2d Edit., p.
1146. SCHLEGEL is quite wrong, when he says "the Greek gods are mere
_Naturmächte_"--physical or elemental powers. CONNINGTON, however, in
the preface to his Agamemnon, expresses exactly my sentiments, when he
protests against a "crystallization of destiny" being set up "as the
presiding genius of the national dramatic literature of the Greeks."
[f18]
See the works of KLAUSEN and BLUMNER in the List of Editions. And our
English SEWELL recognizes, in the works of Æschylus, "the voice of a
self-constituted Heathen Church protesting against the vices and follies
that surrounded her."--Preface to the Agamemnon, p. 15.
[f19]
Cicero pro Muræna, 13.
[f20]
Αισχύλος πολλὰ σχήματα ὸρχηστικὰ ἀυτος ὲξευρίσκων, ἀνεδίδου τοῖς
χορευταῖς.--Lib. I. p. 22.
[f21]
See DYER, on the Choral Dancing of the Greeks,--_Classical Museum_,
No. IX. p. 229.
[f22]
BÖCKH and DONALDSON, in their editions of the ANTIGONE. Berlin,
1843, p. 280. London, 1848. Introduction, p. xxix.
[f23]
I read ἐισόδῳ, not (ε)ξόδῳ, as it is in Matthiae, which is either a
misprint, or a mistake in the writer, as the quotation immediately
following proves.
[f24]
This is MÜLLER's view in Eumenides, § 21.
[f25]
It may be as well here, for the sake of some readers, to remark that the
orchestra, or _dancing place_ (for so the word means), was that part of
the ancient theatre which corresponds to the modern PIT. For a minute
description of the ancient stage, the reader must consult DONALDSON's
Greek Theatre, c. VII.
[f26]
One of the most striking proofs of this is the many instances that
occur in the tragedians of that most undramatic of all
mannerisms--_self-description_--as when a sorrowful Chorus describes the
tears on its cheek, the beating on its breast, and such like. True grief
never paints itself.
[f27]
BULWER, in Athens and the Athenians.
[f28]
From the limited number of actors arose necessarily this evil, that the
persons in a Greek dramatic fable appear not cotemporaneously, but in
succession, one actor necessarily playing several parts. Now, the
commonest fabricator of a novel for the circulating library knows how
necessary it is to keep up a sustained interest, that the character, when
once introduced, shall not be allowed to drop out of view, but be
dexterously intermingled with the whole complex progress of the story,
and be felt as necessary, or at least as agreeable, to the very end.
[f29]
Writers on Belles Lettres, from TRAPP down to SCHLEGEL, have been
very severe on the modern opera, and indignantly repudiated all
comparison between it and the Greek tragedy. It is a common illusion of
mental optics with the learned to magnify the defects of what is near
and before their nose, while the peculiar excellencies of what is far
distant in time or space are in a corresponding degree exalted. So
SCHLEGEL, in his sublime German zeal against certain shallow judgments
of Voltaire and other French critics, worked himself up into an
idealized enthusiasm for some of the most glaring imperfections of the
Greek stage, while in the modern opera he only sees the absurdities of
the real. In assuming this tone he has, of course, been imitated by
certain persons of little speculation in this country, who have thought
it necessary slavishly to worship the Germans in all things, merely
because certain other persons of no speculation ignorantly despised
them. With regard to the opera, it is plain enough that it differs from
the ancient tragedy in the following points:--(1) In not being
essentially of a religious character; (2) in not varying the musical
with the declamatory element; (3) in dealing more in monody, and less in
choral singing; (4) in using the Chorus freely, according to the nature
of the action, and not being always encumbered with it; (5) in making
the mere musical element so predominate that poets of the first order
seldom condescend to employ their talents in writing the text for an
opera. All these special differences, however, do not mar the propriety
of the general comparison between an ancient "goat-song" and a modern
opera, justified, as it is, plainly by the common musical element which
both contain in different degrees of prominence. In point of high moral
tone, high poetic diction, and noble conception, the ancient lyrical
drama is no doubt vastly superior to the modern opera; but in some other
points, as in the more free and adroit use of the Chorus, the opera is
as much superior to the goat-song. With respect to the CHORUS in
particular, SCHLEGEL has said many things that look very wise, but are
simply not true. The Chorus is only half described (see above, p. 20),
when it is called the "ideal spectator." What he says about _publicity_
is mere talk. There is no other reason for the presence of the Chorus
than because it was originally the essential part of the performance,
and could not but be to the end the most popular.