« AnteriorContinuar »
for posterity to determine; but that it was confessed as a truth, deduced from each of these histories, that the most ancient dialect was the Dorick, next to the Æolick so called from Æolus ; the third the lonick, denominated from lon, son of Xuthuss, the fourth the Attick, established by Creusa, daughter of Erechtheus ; and this was three generations subsequent to the former :" But Meursius rightly observes, that the assertion of Jamblichus in regard to the Attick Dialect is a mistake. (De Reg. Athen, l. 1. C. 14.)
Verse 1592. ’Ayouroso
1646. Achæus. THE Scholiast on Apollonius' corresponds with Euripides, and says, “ that Achæa was so denominated from Achæus fon of Xuthus :" Also Conon , preserved in Photius, relates, to that Xuthus, the youngest Son of Hellen, coming to Athens, built the Tetrapolis of Attica, and married Creusa daughter of Erechtheus, on whom he begot Achæus and Ion : That Achæus, having committed involuntary murder, was banished; and coming into the Peloponnese built Achæa Tetrapolis, from whom are derived the Achæars." Pausa
* Ori aðan ígúrn eurhon Ayats åtd’Ayait rê zês. (Argon. 1. 1. V. 242.) nias ’ also mentions, “ that Xuthus, flying to Athens, was esteemed worthy of receiving Creusa, daughter of Erechtheus; and by her had Achæus and Ion as his Sons :" And Strabo * makes Achæus a Son of Xuthus, who, after having committed an involuntary murder, fled to Laconia, and occafioned the Achæans there to be so denominated.
2 'O di veútales 'Abývacev á pizómeros xlies 'Teled Toasy xanguérny riño 'Atlixñs, a γαμεϊ Κρίασαν την Ερεχθέως, και, τίκει εξ αυτής Αχαιών και "Ιωνα και ο μεν Αχαιός ακέσιον φόνον εργασάμενος ελάθη και εις Πελοπόννησον ελθών Αχαΐαν κλίζει τετράπολιν, it & 'Axato. (Bibliot. p. 438.)
3 ο δε ες Αθήνας φυγων θυγατέρα 'Ερεχθέως ήξιώθη λαβείν, και παΐδας Αχαιών και "Ιωνα έσχεν εξ αυτής. (L. 7. c. Ι. p. 521. ed. Kuhn.)
4 Τών δε τέτε παίδων Αχαιός μεν φόνον ακέσιον πράξας έφυγεν εις Λακεδαιμονίαν, και Αχαιάς τες εκεί κληθήναι παρεσκεύασεν. (Ι. 8. p. 588.)
AS the History and Mythology with the laws and customs O contained in the Ion have been amply considered, I fhall here contemplate the beauties and defects of the drama in its Plot, Characters, Sentiments, and Language. The Prologus of a Græcian Play is defined by Aristotle , "as a part of its quantity, comprehending all that portion of it preceding the Tápidos, or first choral song :” Thus Euripides, where he is introduced by Aristophanes in one of his Comedies?, calls it “the first part of Tragedy :" It was therefore essentially inwoven 3 with it, and differs entirely from our modern Prologue, which may be termed a preliminary address of the
1 "Εσι δε πρόλογος μέν μέρος όλον τραγωδίας το πρό χορέ παράδυ πάροδος μεν και apúrn détos 28 xoga. (De Poet. c. 12.) * 2 "OTWS TÒ Tepôtov tñs Tpaywdías réços. (Ranæ, v. 1151.)
3 Il est donc certain, que les Grecs n'ont point eu de Tragedie, fans ce qu' Aristote appelle ici le Prologue pour une partie de quantité de ce Poeme, (Dacier, sur la Poetique d’Arift. c. 12. p. 173.) When therefore Milton in his Preface to Samson Agonistes aflerts, “that ancient Tragedy used no Prologue, yet sometimes in case of self-defence, or explanation that, which Marcial calls an epistle,” he must be underitood to mean a Prologue in the inodern acceptarion of the word : I therefore use the word Prologus in this Eflay in order to avoid the idea attached to Prologue.
Poet to the Audience 4 detached from the Play itself. The established custom of Æschylus and Sophocles was to develop in the regular progress of their dramas the several incidents of the plot without any previous communication to the spectators in their respective Prologuses of the subject or the events, which either constituted the foundation or the revolutions of the piece then presented to them: But Euripides here introduced an innovation, and opened the Prologus of his Plays with a dramatick character, who informed the Theatre of the history of the plot. We have his own express assertion, as contained in Aristophanes, for the truth of this interesting anecdote;
'Αλλ' οιξίων πρώτισα μεν μου το γένος είπεν ευθυς
Tě Spépatos. (Ran. v. 978.) · He is contending in this scene for a fuperiority over his rival Æschylus in confequence of the advantages, which had
4 Au rese il ne faut pas confondre ce Prologue de la Tragedie Grecque avec le Prologue de la Comedie Latine : Ce Prologue des pieces Comiques ne fait point partie de l'action theatrale, & il est emprunté des Prologues de la vieille Comedie Grecque, où il eit d'ordinaire au milieu de la piece, sous le nom de Parabase. Les Latins l'ont mis presque toujours a la tête de leurs pieces. Il y en a eu pourtant qui ont mis le Prologue dans la piece mème, comme Plaute qui a mis après le premier acte celui du soldat Fanfaron ; mais cela n'a jamais etè suivi des Poetes sages & reguliers. Terence n'a eu garde de donner dans un a grand abus. (Dacier fur le Poetique d'Arist. c. 12. p. 174.)
:5 The abyoy apalayangny, mentioned by Aristotle in the fourth chapter of his Poeticks, as the invention of Æschylus, is juftly explained by Dacier as the principal character, and not as the Prologus; Il inventa l'idée d'un principal personnage. On l'est donc trompè, quand on a cru, qu'ici Tgwlayaunens Réyos signifie le Prologue. Outre que ce terme n'a jamais été employé dans, ce sens-la, il n'est pas vrai qu'Eschyle se soit fervi de Prologue dans ses pieces. (Rem. 37. sur le chap. 4.) When Aristotle, in his next chapter, asserts, that the Inventor of the Prologus was unknown, he is there speaking of comedy, and nut of tragedy. (c. 5.)
accrued to the Græcian drama from his improved refinements of it. Thus Thomas Magister in the life of Euripides informs us, “ that he invented many things in the Dramatick Art, unknown to his Predeceffors; for to delineate the fubject in the beginning of the drama, and to lead the Reader, as it were by the hand, forwards into the plot, was the arti. fice of Euripides." This preliminary Speaker is sometimes a principal character in the Play ; but he has often no other connexion with it, as Mercury here, who expressly enters for no other purpose than to relate in 81 lines the history and genealogy of Creusa and Ion : Yet not contented with conveying the previous intelligence of the facts, prior to the supposed commencement of the play, he also anticipates & the important events contrived within it; such as the design of Apollo' to impofe his own Son on Xuthus; and '° Creusa's discovery of Ion, as her illegitimate offspring from the em brace of the God; nor is there a single circumstance related by him, which is not in the sequel of the drama revealed with greater propriety: This innovation therefore of Euripides must be confefsed to be so far from an improvement, that in reality it becomes a very effential disadvantage : The curiosity of the Spectator from this immediate information naturally
Moana yapeis ton réxyno iterüger, édeistov gt tūv Tego á¢18• tó te gåę irágxeo τα δράματος την υπόθεσιν διατυπούν, και τον ακροατών ώσπερ χειραγωγείν εις το čjeme poobey, Eúpsridy Tíxumuco (Ed. Barnes, p. 50.)
1 Donatus upon Terence calls this character ngolatorów mgóowtov, id eft personam extrà argumentum, a protatick personage, foreign to the fable. (Phormio, a, 1. f. 1.)
. Hence appears the error of Castelvetro, who speaking of the Prologus of Euripides aflerts, that the Preliminary Character never converses on future things, which he could not reasonably know, as the Prologi in the Latin Comedies ; Ma questi cotale introdotto à ragionare solo non ragiona ne del poeta, ne delle cose lontane & feparate della favola, nè delle cose future, che ragionevolmente non poffa fapere, come fanno i prolaghi nelle comedie Latine. (Poet, d'Ariftot. Vulgar, ed. 1576. p. 105.) 9V. 70. V. 729.