صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني
[graphic]

the piece, effectually tend. Thefe means, confifting of fubor dinate actions, may accordingly be few or many, provided their feveral directions converge to one point, in which they unite and are concentrated. There is one circumftance, however, to be particularly observed with regard to the unities in general; and this is, that thofe of action, time and place, should never break into that of character. It were neealefs indeed to mention this to critics, who maintain the neceffity of obferving thefe unities in the ftricteft manner, as defcribed by Boileau,

Qu'en un lieu, qu'en un jour, un feul fait accomplé
Tienne jufqu'à la fin le theatre rempli :

Becaufe it would be impoffible for them to err in this particu lar: but the cafe is different with regard to thofe, who may affirm with Dr. Johnfon, that, because the drama exhibits fucceffive imitations of fucceffive actions, the fecond imitation may represent an action that happened years after the firft.' It is abfolutely effential to dramatic representation, that the perfons of the drama fhould be known and fixed. Now, though it is not to be fuppofed, that, in the fpace of twenty-four hours, any great revolution can happen in the perfonality of the characters, fo great a change is naturally produced in a term of years, that the apparent proofs of the dramatic poffibility required would neceffarily be wanting in the reprefentation. For instance, when Leontes, in the Winter's Tale, is looking at the imaginary ftatue of Hermione, and fays to Paulina,

But yet, Paulina,

Hermione was not fo much wrinkled, nothing
So aged as this feems:

It is impoffible for the fpectator not to be offended with the palpable affront which is here offered to his fenfes. For if the features of the player be not artificially disguifed, fince the was feen about an hour before, fixteen years younger, in the first and fecond act, it is a moft glaring impofition on his eyefight; and though her features fhould be a little begrimed with charcoal, to help the deceit, her shape, air, and manner are the fame, and it is plain fhe was too recently in his company to pafs upon him fo foon again for an old acquaintance that had been fixteen years abfent. The impofition is still more grofs with refpect to the perfonality of Perdita, in the fame play; whom Paulina prefents, in the fecond act, in fwaddling cloaths-Behold, my Lords,

Altho' the print be little, the whole matter

And Copy of the father; eye, nofe, lip

Can any thing be more improbable than to fee the fame Perdita in the fourth act a marriageable young fhepherdefs? Whatever

Not merely to his understanding, for his imagination might poffibly have falved the abfurdity, from the reflection of its being a fiction.

liberties

liberties Shakespeare hath taken with the unities in other plays, he knew too well to attempt an impofition of this kind. He hath, therefore, introduced the chorus at the end of the third act; by which means he hath in fact divided the drama into two parts; each part having different dramatis perfona. Dr. Johnfon queftions whether Shakespeare knew the unities and rejected them by defign, or deviated from them by happy ignorance. It is impoffible perhaps to determine this point; but we think it pretty clear, that, whether he learned the rules of the drama from the writings of the ancients or not, he was better versed in them than any of his fucceffors that did. What should hinder Shakespeare from drinking knowledge at the fountainhead as well as the ancients? Muft ail knowledge be called ignorance, that is not obtained at fecond-hand, by means of books? It is proper for those, who cannot go alone, to be led by others; but Shakespeare was the fondling of Nature, and needed not the leading-strings of Ariftotle. It does not follow, however, that the practice of the one, and the precepts of the other, are incompatible. It is by no means neceffary that Nature's strong and vigorous offspring should be confined to that ftrict regularity of diet and regimen which is requifite to fupport the weak and puny nurflings of art. They both, however, pursue the fame objects, and attain them nearly by the fame means. Hence, though it should be true, that Shakespeare was

-above the critic's law,

And but from Nature's fountains scorn'd to draw, He might not deviate effentially from the general law of the Stagyrite, although he did not fervilely adopt his particular rules. Indeed the point is almoft univerfally given up with regard to the unity of place; the prefervation of which gives rife to more improbabilities than the breach of it.-But to return to that of action. There is no doubt but Shakespeare hath taken many exceptionable liberties in this refpect, for want of a due attention to the mechanical part of compofition. And this he hath done in common with the first dramatic poets among the ancients. Nor is he, in this particular, to be juftified by any thing his Editor hath advanced: for the unity of action must not only be so far observed as to preferve the unity of character, but alfo fo far as to preferve an apparent unity of design in the fable.

As to the unity of time, Dr. Johnfon is alfo ftrangely miftaken, with regard to its effentiality in the drama. A play read (fays he) affects the mind like a play acted. It is therefore evident that the action is not supposed to be real, and it

See Ariftotle's Poetics. Chap. VI.

Cc 2

follows,

follows, that between the acts a longer or fhorter time may be allowed to pafs, and that no more account of space or duration is be taken by the auditor of a drama, than by the reader of a narrative, before whom may pass in an hour the life of a hero, or the revolutions of an empire. Here again our Editor feems to betray a want of acquaintance with the conduct and effects of the drama.▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬It is very certain that a longer or fhorter time may be allowed to pafs between the acts, provided the union of character be preferved, and nothing intervene between the two parts of the action but the lapfe of time; there is yet a wide difference between the auditor of a drama and the reader of a narrative. Few things can be reprefented in the fame time they are related; fo that it would be impoffible to reprefent the whole life of an hero, or the revolutions of an empire, in the fame time as the history of them might be read. It is indeed impoffible for the action reprefented to feem to be longer than the actual time of reprefentation; for, as we before oblerved, it is the fenfes, and not the imagination, that is immediately employed on the representation.

Dr. Johnfon indeed fays, that time is, of all modes of ex iftence, most obfequious to the imagination; a lapfe of years is as easily conceived as a paffage of hours. In contemplation we eafily contract the time of real actions, and therefore willingly permit it to be contracted when we only fee their imitation.'

In this argument, however, as in almoft all his other reafoning on the fubject, the conclufion hath little to do with the premifes. During the actual reprefentation of an action, we are not contemplating, but obferving; and it is impoffible for us either to fhorten or to prolong the time of fuch reprefentation: but when it ceafes, as at the end of an act, or even in fhifting the fcene, the attention of the fenfes being taken off, the imagination is at liberty to act during the interval; which, however fhort, is fufficient for the purpofe. And hence we see that the frequent fhifting of the fcenes, though it may break in upon the reftrictions of action and place, it affords an opportunity of preferving that of time, together with the first and grand rule of probability. It is pleafant enough to fee how the French crities, who affect to abide by the strictest observance of the unities, perplex themfelves to excufe Corneille for the multiplicity of incidents in the Cid; the hero of which fights two duels, marches against the enemy, returns, is brought to a folemn trial; fights again, and finds means to reconcile himself to his miftrefs, whole father he had flain; and all this in the space of four and twenty hours. Now, it is certain, that all thefe actions, if properly difpofed in fucceffion, and judiciously divided, might be fo reprefented as never to break in upon dramatic probability.

The

The French, indeed, in fupport of the unity of place, maintain that the ftage never fhould be empty during the act; in confequence of their obfervance of this rule, however, they are guilty of much greater abfurdities than would arife from shifting the fcene. It is mentioned, as an inftance of confummate skill in Corneille, that he hath provided, in one of his plays, for keeping the ftage full, while one of the characters goes to the field to fight, and returns conqueror. Now had this fuppofed combat paffed during the interval between the acts, or even during the fhifting of the scene, it had not tranfgreffed the bounds of dramatic probability, because it then had paffed during the interlude of the imagination; but the audience would not fail of perceiving the improbability of a combat's being fought while they had been liftening to fome twenty or thirty lines, spoken by the perfons of the ftage. The unity of time, is, indeed, fo far effential to the drama, that the fucceffive actions represented must be confined to the time of actual reprefentation; although the intervals between them may be as long as the poet pleafes, confift ent with the prefervation of the unity of character, and that of the defign of the fable.

In refpect to the unity of place; it appears more than probable, that the pretended neceffity of it originally arofe from the imperfect ftate of the ancient theatres, as it is plain that the French poets have abfurdly involved themfelves in the most ridiculous perplexities by adopting it to an unneceffary degree. There can be no doubt, however, that it is fo far effential to the drama, as it is neceffary to preferve the unity of action: for as the interval of time may in fome cafes be fo great as to vary the perfonality, or deftroy the unity of character, fo the tranfition of place may be fo great as to deftroy the unity of the action. We Thould not be more vehement, indeed, than Dr. Johnfon, in reproaching a poet who fhould make his firft act pass in Venice, and his next in Cyprus, provided they were both fo nearly related as when Shakespeare wrote his Othello; but we should no great opinion of the dramatic conduct of a piece, the firft fcene of which should be laid in England, and the laft in China. any other refpect, however, it is certain that the unity of place is unneceffary to the modern drama, as the attention of the fpectator is always diverted from the action of the piece, and the imagination is at liberty during the change of the fcene. appears, on the whole, that the unities are effential to the drama, though not in that degree as hath been afferted by the critics; fo that the refult of Dr. Johnson's enquiries concerning them, is as erroneous as his fuppofition of the neceffity on which they were founded.

In

-It

Having difiniffed this fubject, our Editor proceeds to give us his fentiments, concerning Shakespeare as a writer, in general,

Cc 3

The

« السابقةمتابعة »