The Te Deum On the Topography of Halicarnassus, with Guichard and THE JOURNAL OF CLASSICAL AND SACRED PHILOLOGY. I. The "Birds" of Aristophanes. SÜVERN'S Essay on the "Birds" of Aristophanes was first published in the "Transactions of the Royal Academy of Sciences " L. Tuonolation by W. R. ་་ master-key to the poet's meaning. Those who recommend it share, I presume, in the Translator's "earnest conviction that Professor Süvern has fully and completely succeeded in proving the proposition he has advanced" it cannot therefore be out of place to confess, on the other hand, an earnest conviction that the said proposition is utterly untenable. I shall endeavour to prove this assertion so far as my limits will allow. They will not allow me to combat Prof. Süvern step by step,—a process alike wearisome and unnecessary, for, if the basis of the theory be proved unsound, all the indices and lexicons in the world will not suffice to establish it. I do not undervalue his research, I acknowledge the plausibility of his conjectures as to the meaning of some isolated passages; I deny his general proposition, viz. that the "Birds," over and above its obvious plot and purpose, VOL. I. March, 1854. 1 contains a subtle, recondite allegory, which the poet maintains from the beginning to the end, and works into the minutest details. I will first state as fairly as I can the main points of this theory, and then endeavour to shew that it is inconsistent with the whole tenor of the play and the facts of history, that it is unsupported by evidence, contrary to analogy, and alien to the nature of Ancient Comedy. I beg, however, to premise that when I arraign this statement as untrue, or that argument as unfair, I do not impute any intention to mislead: I merely assert that the parent of the theory by his passionate affection for his offspring is blinded to its faults. Süvern's main points are briefly these (given as far as possible in his own words): Over and above the avowed and patent purpose of "exhibiting to the public eye a view of the extreme corruption, perversity, and vanity of the Athenian life and manners in general, particularly the licentiousness of the demagogues, &c.," Aristophanes had a special and less obvious design of exposing the Sicilian expedition "as essentially a chimerical phantom, which none but a vain ambitious population, of inflammable, giddy and volatile men, could have been induced to pursue; and besides several serious admonitions which are scattered about here and there, he clearly shews the selfish views in which it was conceived, and in the accomplishment of which it is likely to end" (p. 26); that is to say, that Alcibiades had conceived the expedition with a view to make himself Despot of Athens, and through Athens, of Greece. The Birds represent the Athenian people; the Gods, the Spartans as their principal allies; the men, the smaller dependent Greek states, collectively; Peisthetærus combines the chief characteristics of Alcibiades and Gorgias, Euelpides represents the credulous populace of Athens in conjunction with Polus of Agrigentum, and the Epops is meant for Lamachus. "In pursuance of the poet's ironical fiction, the strangers who have wandered so far from Athens that they can no longer find their way back to their country, are really only conducted into the Pnyx; thus the action is carried on in the very seat and centre of the life of the Athenian people." (p. 31.) It was impossible that the author of this theory could over look the numerous passages which directly contravene it. Indeed he himself collects and puts forward at the very outset of his work a number of passages in which "the birds and men are blended together in their signification" (p. 10), and others, again, in which the Gods are confounded with both. "Indeed," (he says), "to complete the confusion, the birds themselves, in whom the fundamental characteristics of the Athenian manners and constitution are satirized, have also such excellent and praiseworthy qualities, that in many of these they are evidently brought forward as models for the Athenians, &c." (p. 11.) To an ordinary mind the simplest way of solving the difficulties would have been the abandonment of the theory. When the work of a great artist presents to you only "intricate confusion," the natural inference is, that you have chosen a false point of view. But your learned German is not so easily moved from his standpunkt. Hear how Prof. Süvern disposes of these manifest objections: "No wonder then that this intricate confusion has thrown a veil over the fundamental idea of the poem, and has led to the opinion, that the author had merely in view a general satire on mankind, on the notions and relations of man, though with a special reference to the Athenian people. We shall not however be led astray by it, if we reflect on the one hand, that such confusion is quite appropriate and congenial to the roguish humour of comic poetry, which conceals its aim in the play of a perpetually shifting irony, and thereby makes a stronger impres. sion upon those who see through it; and on the other, that we can easily distinguish what belongs to each of the three divisions, as a party implicated in the undertaking, from that which is extraneous to it; as for example in reference to the men, what belongs to them as one of those parties, and what to them as men; and in reference to the birds, what properly belongs to them as parties in the action, what in virtue of the masks given to them, and what as they compose the chorus. We must also take with us, that the confusion which we observe would naturally proceed from the object of the comedy; it being necessary, at the period at which 'The Birds' was brought out, that this object should be to a certain degree concealed. Whilst at the same time, with respect to the several parties engaged in the action, without impairing their fundamental diversity, it admitted of assimilating them in the course of working out the parts, and thus of satirizing the one by means of the others." In the first place, we detect a glaring inconsistency in the Professor's main proposition. According to him Aristophanes considered the Sicilian expedition to be "an essentially chimerical phantom," and yet expected it to be crowned with such signal success as to make its originator Supreme Lord of the subjugated Grecian world. If the scheme was likely to succeed, how could it be "essentially chimerical?" Waiving the inconsistency, I think I can shew that both parts of the proposition are unworthy of our assent; the first being incapable of proof, and the second demonstrably false. I say then, first, that we have no ground whatever for supposing that Aristophanes did not share fully in the sanguine hopes of the vast majority of his countrymen. The whole play contains no word of warning; not a hint of impending misfortunes troubles its exuberant gaiety. For, in truth, no human foresight could have anticipated the disasters which befel the armament; disasters for which Greek history afforded no precedent. The most timid might have supposed that the cautious Nicias would at all events secure a safe retreat for his forces. I have no doubt that the expedition and the extravagant hopes of further conquest which Thucydides tells us were entertained by his countrymen, suggested to the comic poet the wild plot of the "Birds," as a piece of innocent satire which quizzed but did not censure, which jumped with their humour rather than blamed it. I see no reason to doubt that he with all Athens (except perhaps Socrates and Meton, if any reliance can be placed on Plutarch's gossip,) anticipated the fall of Syracuse, and only grumbled at the tardiness of the principal commander, the μλλoVIKIây, which delayed so glorious a consummation. Secondly, it is demonstrably false that Aristophanes meant to warn his countrymen that the result of the expedition would be, to invest Alcibiades with the Baoiλeía. Süvern quietly tells us, near the end of his "Essay" (p. 141), "When the 'Birds' came out it was not known what had been the result of dispatching the Salaminia for Alcibiades, how he had himself received the summons, or how it had been taken by the crew of the fleet, &c." Now on this point depends the whole question, and yet Süvern, so prodigal elsewhere of needless illus |