Aristophanes, has passed
so exact a judgment upon both, but that it may be fit to reexamine it.
Plato, the contemporary of Aristophanes, thought very differently, at
least, of his genius; for, in his piece called the Entertainment, he
gives that poet a distinguished place, and makes him speak, according to
his character, with Socrates himself, from which, by the way, it is
apparent that this dialogue of Plato was composed before the time that
Aristophanes wrote his Clouds, against Socrates. Plato is, likewise,
said to have sent a copy of Aristophanes to Dionysius the tyrant, with
advice to read it diligently, if he would attain a complete judgment of
the state of the Athenian republick[28].

Many other scholars have thought that they might depart somewhat from
the opinion of Plutarch. Frischlinus, for example, one of the
commentators upon Aristophanes, though he justly allows his taste to be
less pure than that of Menander, has yet undertaken his defence against
the outrageous censure of the ancient critick. In the first place, he
condemns, without mercy, his ribaldry and obscenity. But this part, so
worthy of contempt, and written only for the lower people, according to
the remark of Boivin, bad as it is, after all, is not the chief part
which is left of Aristophanes. I will not say, with Frischlinus, that
Plutarch seems in this to contradict himself, and, in reality, commends
the poet when he accuses him of having adapted his language to the
stage; by the stage, in this place, he meant the theatre of farces, on
which low mirth and buffoonery was exhibited. This plea of Frischlinus
is a mere cavil; and though the poet had obtained his end, which was to
divert a corrupted populace, he would not have been less a bad man, nor
less a despicable poet, notwithstanding the excuse of his defender. To
be able, in the highest degree, to divert fools and libertines, will not
make a poet: it is not, therefore, by this defence that we must justify
the character of Aristophanes. The depraved taste of the crowd, who once
drove away Cratinus and his company, because the scenes had not low
buffoonery enough for their taste, will not justify Aristophanes, since
Menander found a way of changing the taste by giving a sort of comedy,
not, indeed, so modest as Plutarch represents it, but less licentious
than before. Nor is Aristophanes better justified, by the reason which
he himself offers, when he says, that he exhibited debauchery upon t