place, and requires not a greater length of time than is neceffary for the reprefenta tion, is fo far the more perfect: because the confining an event within fo narrow bounds, contributes to the unity of action; and also prevents that labour, however flight, which the mind must undergo in imagining fre quent changes of place and many intervals of time. But ftill I muft infift, that the limitation of place and time which was neceffary in the Grecian drama, is no rule to us; and therefore that though fuch limitation adds one beauty more to the compofition, it is at beft but a refinement, which may justly give place to a thousand beau ties more substantial. And I may add, that it is extremely difficult, I was about to fay impracticable, to contract within the Gre cian limits, any fable fo fruitful of incidents in number and variety as to give full fcope to the fluctuation of paffion.

It may now appear, that critics who put the unities of place and of time upon the fame footing with the unity of action, making them all equally effential, have not attended to the nature and conftruction of the

modern

*

modern drama. If they admit an interrupted representation, with which no writer finds fault, it is plainly abfurd to condemn the greatest advantage it procures us, thất of reprefenting many interesting subjects excluded from the Grecian ftage. If there needs must be a reformation, why not reftore the ancient chorus and the ancient continuity of action? There is certainly no medium: for to admit an interruption without relaxing from the ftrict unities of place and of time, is in effect to load us with all the inconveniencies of the ancient drama, and at the fame time to with-hold from us its advantages. M?

And therefore the only proper question is, whether our model be or be not a real improvement. This indeed may juftly be called in queftion; and in order to a fair comparative trial, fome particulars must be premised. When a play begins, we have no difficulty to enter into the fcene of action, however diftant it be in time or in place. We know that the play is a reprefentation only: and the imagination, with facility, accommodates itself to every circumftance. Our fituation is very different

after

after we are engaged. It is the perfection of representation to hide itself, to impose upon the fpectator, and to produce in him an impreffion of reality, as if he were spectator of a real event*. Any interruption annihilates this impreffion: he is roused out of his waking dream, and unhappily restored to his fenfes. So difficult it is to fupport this impreffion of reality, that much flighter interruptions than the interval betwixt two acts are fufficient to diffolve the charm. In the 5th act of the Mourning Bride, the three firft fcenes are in a room of ftate; the fourth in a prifon. This change is operated by fhifting the scene, which is done in a trice. But however quick the transition may be, it is impracticable to impose upon the fpectators fo far as to make them conceive that they are actually carried from the palace to the prifon. They immediately reflect, that the palace and prifon are imaginary, and that the whole is a fiction. oz From these premifles one will be naturally led, at first view, to declare against

the frequent interruptions in the moderns drama. It will occur, That every inter "ruption must have the effect to banish

the dream of reality, and with it to ba "nifh our concern, which cannot fubfift "while we are confcious that all is a fic ❝tion; and therefore that in the modern "drama fufficient time is not afforded for "the fluctuation and fwelling of paffion, "like what is afforded in the Grecian dras

ma, where there is no interruption?? This reafoning, it must be owned, has a fpecious appearance: but we must not turn faint-hearted upon the first repulfes let us rally our troops for a fecond engaged

ment.

Confidering attentively the ancient dras ma, we find, that though the reprefenta tion is never interrupted, the principal ac tion is fufpended not lefs frequently than in the modern drama. There are five acts in each; and the only difference is, that in the former, when the action is fufpend ed, as it is at the end of every act, opport tunity is taken of the interval to employ the chorus in finging. Hence it appears, that

-the

the Grecian continuity of reprefentation cannot have the effect to prolong the im preffion of reality. To banish this impref fion, ca fufpenfions of the action while the chorus is employ'd in finging, is not lefs operative than a total fufpenfion both of the reprefentation and action...

But to open a larger view, I am ready to show, that a continued representation, without a single pause even in the principal ac→ tion, fo far from an advantage, would be really an imperfection; and that a reprefen→ tation with proper paufes, is better calcu lated for moving the audience, and making the strongest impreffions. Reprefentation cannot very long fupport an impreffion of reality: when the fpirits are exhausted by close attention and by the agitation of paffion, an uneafinefs enfues, which never fails to banish the waking dream. Now suppofing an act to employ as much time as can eafily be given with ftrict attention to any incident, a fuppofition that cannot be far from the truth; it follows, that the impreffion of reality would not be prolonged beyond the space of an act, even fuppofing VOL. III.

N n