lamentation, beating breasts, &c. The chorus says distinctly enough, "Let us sing; let us raise the cries; let us beat our breasts; lament with me;" no one can mistake the meaning. Why are the indications of dancing not equally precise? Why are they equally precise in the satyr-play? If there was no difference between the tragic chorus and the satyric chorus in respect to dancing, why this immense difference with respect to the indications? There is one more passage to be explained. The chorus in the Eumenides, v. 307, says, ἄγε δὴ καὶ χορὸν ἅψωμεν, ἐπεὶ ἀποφαίνεσθαι δεδόκησε. Xopòv afwμev is usually supposed to mean, 'let us form a ring and dance.' Not to insist on Welcker's refutation of the idea of a circular dance in tragedy, I demur to the interpretation on other grounds. The chorus of the Eumenides' differs from the chorus of other plays in many essential particulars. They are furies instead of men and women; they are not mortal. They were, as the whole tenor of the play sufficiently proves, on the stage, instead of being in the orchestra. Now, being on the stage, they must have worn Cothurnus and Mask to keep them at least with equal stature with Orestes and the Priestess: and from the accounts of their terrific appearance, it may be suspected that they were larger in stature than ordinary actors. Yet the contrivances necessary to render the actors of a fitting stature for the stage entirely prevented their easy movement; certainly prevented their dancing; and the size of the stage would not have allowed of a troop of furies dancing in a circle. A troop of furies;' not 'three,' as some modern critics suppose 12. Besides, the stage was not the place for dancing; or 12 Those who maintain that the number of the furies was three, should consider that although the Greeks counted one, two, and many, and therefore the passage in the Choëphoræ, αἵδε πληθύουσι dé, may be interpreted as meaning only three, yet Æschylus himself in the Eumenides makes use of expressions which cannot be interpreted as meaning three; the priestess (v. 47) calls the furies τοῦδε θαυμαστὸς λόχος: exactly Virgil's phrase agmina sæva sororum.' A troop must mean more than three. At v. 196, the epithet is still more conclusive: ἄνευ βοτῆρος—ποίμνης τοιαύWho would call three a flock? της. are we to suppose the furies descended into the orchestra to dance? These are points which prevent my thinking that the furies really danced; but as the words xopòv åwμev are very precise, I confess they stagger my conviction. Let not the reader suppose that I doubt the fact of the furies having danced, because the admission of the fact would destroy my hopothesis; not in the least! I am as willing, as far as my view of the tragic chorus is concerned, to concede the fact of the furies dancing, as I was willing to admit that of the Bacchæ, and on similar grounds. The furies form an exceptional chorus. They may have danced in a wild, ferocious style, like the witches in Macbeth. I do not believe they did; but, if they did, I protest against their actions being held good of all other choruses. They are actors in the drama and on the stage; above all, they are not mortal. I have proved, I think, that the other choruses did not dance. If any one proves that this one did dance, he will only prove a second exception to the rule, of which the Bacchæ is the first. I cannot conclude this essay without a reference to the passage in the Troades of Euripides, which is frequently quoted as a proof of the dancing. It is nothing of the kind, as any one may see who will turn to v. 320, and examine the passage. Cassandra, who is raving mad, bids her mother to 'lead the dance, quick in varying motions tread, and my gliding steps to grace, light the mazy measure trace.' But, independently of this being only the random talking of a mad girl, critics have forgotten that it is the talking of an actor; yet no one maintains that the actors did or could dance. Should any one maintain this, he is welcome. My object has been to shew that the chorus did not dance; and this has, I trust, been satisfactorily proved in the foregoing pages. In Gruppe's admirable work on the Greek drama (Ariadne), he apologizes in his preface for not being what is termed a philologer. If so excellent a scholar, as the work proves him to be, can deem such an apology necessary, how much more must I deem it necessary, who make no pretensions to scholarship whatever? The Greek drama has been a favourite subject with me for some years, and the present investigation has occupied some months of very careful research. But still I am quite aware, that in placing myself in opposition to the many learned and ingenious men who have written on the chorus, I have been guilty of a temerity which success alone can pardon. Let me also add, that failure will not be without its consolation; since I have, at any rate, interrupted the quiet traditional registration of a fact, and roused men to examine its credibility. Niebuhr, speaking of the early history of Rome, says, "It is incomprehensible how even very ingenious writers, men far above us, took the details of ancient history for granted, without feeling any doubt as to their credibility. Thus Scaliger believed the list of the Kings of Sicyon to be as authentic and consistent as that of the Kings of France. Men lived in a state of literary innocence." (Lectures on Roman History, 1. 2.) From such a state of literary innocence I have endeavoured to awaken the critics of the Greek Drama. G. H. LEWES. XXIV. ON THE SCULPTURED GROUPS IN THE PEDIMENTS OF THE PARTHENON. BY PROFESSOR F. G. WELCKER. Translated from the Author's MS. by DR. L. SCHMITZ. THE sculptures of the Parthenon, since their removal to London, have exercised a great influence upon the knowledge of art, though perhaps not upon art itself, which depends on other circumstances besides the best models that are attainable. They have afforded to the history of art a new central point, great and new light in all directions, and for all ages a correct standard by which to estimate the principal relations of art. The subjects represented in these sculptures have often been examined, and their importance recognized; especial praise is due to the late Chevalier Bröndsted for the unwearied labour which he has bestowed upon these works, and by which he has greatly contributed towards the establishment of the opinion that they are not to be viewed as mere ornaments, but that they are everywhere full of meaning, allusion, and intention, and form one connected whole. His view concerning the com position of the statues in the two pediments is but very briefly stated in two pages of his work on the metopes, which contains much that is excellent, together with some premature notions.1 He subsequently attempted restorations, which are in the possession of the Society of Dilettanti, and are intended for a new volume of its publications, if the explanatory text required for it should be found sufficiently complete among his posthumous papers. At any rate, however, there is no prospect of the work being published soon, and no one ought to keep back his thoughts who has reason to believe that he has arrived at a higher degree of certainty in understanding the ideas of a Phidias, as expressed in one of his greatest, and in many respects undoubtedly his greatest, works, than has yet been afforded by the attempts of many eminent scholars. The British Museum possesses in the works of Phidias a treasure with which nothing can be compared in the whole range of ancient art. Homer belongs to all civilized countries, and all educated individuals, especially to those who understand him best; but the Homer of the plastic art is, in a certain sense, to be found there alone; among his works the statues are pre-eminent, and formerly they were still more so in their two separate combinations. The individual figures in each composition acquire, by their position, the character and meaning by which they are to be estimated; and the greater the genius which produced them, the more important does it become accurately to comprehend the thoughts and intentions as expressed both in the whole and in all its particulars. The greatness of Phidias as a sculptor has been universally acknowledged with admiration; but his power of invention, and his wisdom, if we may judge from the superficial manner in which many figures and relations have been treated, seem to have been often greatly undervalued. In order to form a correct judgment of these sculptured pediments, it is especially necessary always to keep both in view at once, and to learn from the one that which, throws light upon the other; and as we are acquainted with the figures of the western pediment, it is true, only from the drawing made in 1674, but at least in that state of completeness which renders it possible to guess at the parts which are wanting, we must Reisen in Griechenland, Vol. 11. p. 11, fol. 1830. |