Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 4, no. 22, August 1859 | Page 6

while with the Greeks he was significant of joy; the Jews sacrificed him
on their fasts,--the Greeks in their feasts. And here we may observe,
that tragedy, the most dignified and the primitive form of the drama,
deduces its origin from the goat,--being, literally, the song of the goat,
that is, the song accompanying the sacrifice of the goat.
Let us now endeavor to answer the question, Why, since the drama was
generally introduced among surrounding nations, and Jewish customs
and life comprised so many initial dramatic materials, this art was not
known among that people?
It was owing to the earnestness and solemnity of their religious faith.
We find the cause in the simple, exalted, and comparatively spiritual
ideas they had of the Supreme Being; in a word, we shall state the
whole ground to be this,--that the Greeks were polytheists, and the
Jews monotheists.
Let us bear in mind that the chorus, and the drama that was built upon it,
had a religious association, and were employed in religious devotion.
We may add, moreover, that the Greeks introduced their gods upon the
stage; this the Jews could not do. The Greeks, of course, had a great
deal of religious feeling, but they could not cherish that profound
reverence for the object of their worship which the Jews entertained
towards theirs. The Jews accompanied the Greeks in the use of the

chorus, but they could not go with them any farther. They both united
in employing music and the dance, and all the pomp of procession and
charm of ceremony, in divine worship; but when it came to displaying
the object of their adoration in personal form to the popular eye, and
making him an actor on the stage, however dignified that stage might
be, the Jews could not consent.
This, we think, will explain, in part, why others of the ancient nations,
the Arabs and Persians, rich as they were in every species of literature,
had no theatre; they were monotheists.
But there is the department of comedy, of a lighter sort, which does not
converse with serious subjects, or necessarily include reference to
Deity; why do we find no trace of this among the Jews? We may
remember, that all festivals, in very ancient time, of every description,
the grave and the gay, the penitential and the jubilant, had a religious
design, and were suggested by a religious feeling. We think the peculiar
cast of the Judaic faith would hardly embody itself in such a mode of
expression. Moreover, tragedy was the parent of comedy,--and since
the Jews had not the first, we should hardly expect them to produce the
last. It is not difficult to perceive how the Greeks could convert their
goat to dramatic, or even to comic purposes; but the Jews could not
deal so with theirs.
We approach another observation, that there is no comedy in the Bible.
There is tragedy there,--not in the sense in which we have just denied
that the Jews had tragedy, but in the obvious sense of tragic elements,
tragic scenes, tragic feelings. In the same sense, we say, there are no
comic elements, or scenes, or feelings. There is that in the Bible to
make you weep, but nothing to move you to laughter. Why is this? Are
there not smiles as well as tears in life? Have we not a deep, joyous
nature, as well as aspiration, reverence, awe? Is there not a
free-and-easy side of existence, as well as vexation and sorrow? We
assent that these things are so.
But comedy implies ridicule, sharp, corroding ridicule. The comedy of
the Greeks ridiculed everything,--persons, characters, opinions,
customs, and sometimes philosophy and religion. Comedy became,
therefore, a sort of consecrated slander, lyric spite, aesthetical
buffoonery. Comedy makes you laugh at somebody's expense; it brings
multitudes together to see it inflict death on some reputation; it assails

private feeling with all the publicity and powers of the stage.
Now we doubt if the Jewish faith or taste would tolerate this. The Jews
were commanded to love their neighbor. We grant, their idea of
neighbor was excessively narrow and partial; but still it was their
neighbor. They were commanded not to bear false witness against their
neighbor, and he was pronounced accursed who should smite his
neighbor secretly. It might appear that comedy would violate each of
these statutes. But the Jews had their delights, their indulgences, their
transports, notwithstanding the imperfection of their benevolence, the
meagreness of their truth, and the cumbersomeness of their ceremonials.
The Feast of Tabernacles, for instance, was liberal and happy, bright
and smiling; it was the enthusiasm of pastime, the psalm of
delectableness. They did not laugh at the exposure of another's foibles,
but out of their own merry hearts.
Will it be said, the