a Menelaus or Ulysses. As if he took a delight in the black side of
humanity, he loves to show the strength of false reasoning, of sophistry
antagonistic to truth, and of cold expediency in opposition to the natural
feelings of humanity. From a similar reason, his occasional attempts at
comedy degenerate into mere farce. We question whether the scene between
Death and Apollo in the "Alcestis," could be surpassed in vulgarity, even
by the modern school of English dramatists, while his exaggerations in the
minor characters are scarcely to be surpassed by the lowest writer of any
period.

Under Euripides, the stage began gradually to approximate more closely to
the ordinary and, at that time, debased character of Athenian society. A
contempt for the Lacedæmonians, a passionate taste for the babbling and
trickery of the forum, and an attempt to depreciate the social position and
influence of the weaker sex, form the most unamiable features of this
change. Yet we must allow, that if Euripides has reveled in the
amiabilities of a Melanippe or a Phædra, in the gentle revenge of a Medea
or Hecuba, he has at the same time given us an Alcestis, the only real
example of genuine conjugal affection on the Greek stage.

Nor must we forget that Euripides is a greater admirer of nature, a more
complete delineator of her workings, than the two greater tragedians. He
has more of illustrative philosophy, more of regard to the objects of the
animated creation, the system of the universe, than his greater rivals
exhibit. He is, as Vitruvius has justly styled him, a "stage-philosopher."
Did we possess a larger acquaintance with the works of Parmenides,
Empedocles, and other early cosmogonists, we should perhaps think less of
his merits on this head: as it is, the possession of some such fragments of
our poet makes us deeply regret the loss of the plays themselves.