he
stage, not to corrupt the morals, but to mend them. The sight of gross
faults is rather a poison than a remedy[29].

The apologist has forgot one reason, which appears to me to be essential
to a just account. As far as we can judge by appearance, Plutarch had in
his hands all the plays of Aristophanes, which were at least fifty in
number.

In these he saw more licentiousness than has come to our hands, though,
in the eleven that are still remaining, there is much more than could be
wished.

Plutarch censures him, in the second place, for playing upon words; and
against this charge Frischlinus defends him with less skill. It is
impossible to exemplify this in French. But, after all, this part is so
little, that it deserved not so severe a reprehension, especially since,
amongst those sayings, there are some so mischievously malignant, that
they became proverbial, at least by the sting of their malice, if not by
the delicacy of their wit. One example will be sufficient: speaking of
the tax-gatherers, or the excisemen of Athens, he crushes them at once,
by observing, non quod essent [Greek: tamiai], sed [Greek: lamiai]. The
word _lamiae_ signified, walking spirits, which, according to the vulgar
notion, devoured men; this makes the spirit of the sarcasm against the
tax-gatherers. This cannot be rendered in our language; but if any thing
as good had been said in France, on the like occasion, it would have
lasted too long, and, like many other sayings amongst us, been too well
received. The best is that Plutarch himself confesses that it was
extremely applauded.

The third charge is, a mixture of tragick and comick style. This
accusation is certainly true; Aristophanes often gets into the buskin;
but we must examine upon what occasion. He does not take upon him the
character of a tragick writer; but, having remarked that his trick of
parody was always well received, by a people who liked to laugh at that
for which they had been just weeping, he is eternally using the same
craft; and there is scarcely any tragedy or striking passage known by
memory, by the Athenians, which he does not turn into merriment, by
throwing over it a dress of ridicule and burlesque, which is done
sometimes by changing or transposing the words, and sometimes by an
unexpected application of the whole sentence. These are the shreds of
tragedy, in which he arrays the comick muse, to make her still more
comick. Cratinus had before done the same t