the piece, effectually tend. These means, confifting of fubordinate 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 circumstance, however, to be particularly observed with regard to the unities in general; and this is, that those of action, time and place, fhould never break into that of character. It were needlefs indeed to mention this to critics, who maintain the neceffity of observing these 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 : Because it would be impoffible for them to err in this particular: 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 reprefent an action that happened years after the firft.' It is abfo lutely effential to dramatic reprefentation, that the persons 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 inftance, 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 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, since she was seen 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 fhape, 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 ftill 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 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 underftanding, 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 questions 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 verfed 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 all knowledge be called ignorance, that is not obtained at fecond-hand, by means of books? It is proper for thofe, who cannot go alone, to be led by others; but Shakespeare was the fondling of Nature, and needed not the leading-ftrings 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 neceflary that Nature's ftrong and vigorous offspring fhould 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 fhould be true, that Shakespeare was above the critic's law, And but from Nature's fountains fcorn'd to draw, He might not deviate effentially from the general law of the Sta gyrite, although he did not fervilely adopt his particular rules. Indeed the point is almost universally 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 an❤ cients. 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 fo far obferved as to preferve the unity of character, but allo 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 fuppofed to be real, and it See Ariftotle's Poetics. Chap. VI. follows, follows, that between the acts a longer or fhorter time may be allowed to pass, 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 pafs 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 lapse 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 hiftory 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 obferved, 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 istence, most obfequious to the imagination; a lapfe of years is as eafily 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 see their imitation.' In this argument, however, as in almost all his other reasoning 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 purpose. And hence we fee 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 firft and grand rule of probability. It is pleafant enough to fee how the French cri tics, who affect to abide by the ftrictest observance of the uni-ties, 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, whofe father he had flain; and all this in the space of four and twenty hours. Now, it is certain, that all these actions, if properly difpofed in fucceffion, and judiciously divided, might be fo reprefented as never to break in upon dramatic probability. The have/ A The French, indeed, in fupport of the unity of place, maintain that the stage 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 fcene, 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, fpoken by the perfons of the stage. 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, confiftent with the prefervation of the unity of character, and that of the defign of the fable. In respect to the unity of place; it appears more than probable, that the pretended neceffity of it originally arose from the imperfect ftate of the ancient theatres, as it is plain that the French poets have abfurdly involved themfelves in the most ridi-, culous perplexities by adopting it to an unneceflary degree. There can be no doubt, however, that it is fo far effential to the drama, as it is neceflary 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 transition of place may be fo great as to destroy the unity of the action. We fhould not be more vehement, indeed, than Dr. Johnson, in reproaching a poet who fhould make his first act pass in Venice, and his next in Cyprus, provided they were both so nearly related as when Shakespeare wrote his Othello; but we should no great opinion of the dramatic conduct of a piece, the first fcene of which fhould be laid in England, and the laft in China. In any other respect, 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 scene. -It 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. Johníon's enquiries concerning them, is as erroneous as his fuppofition of the neceffity on which they were founded. Having difmiffed this fubject, our Editor proceeds to give us his fentiments, concerning Shakespeare as a writer, in general. Cc 3 The The scholarship of this great genius hath been a point much dif puted among the critics. Dr. Johnfon is of opinion, that he had fome little learning, though not fo much as fome other of his editors are willing to allow him." It is most likely, says le, that he had learned Latin fufficiently to make him acquainted with conftruction, but that he never advanced to an eafy perufal of the Roman authors. Concerning his skill in modern languages, I can find no fufficient ground of determination; but as no imitations of French or Italian authors have been discovered, though the Italian poetry was then high in efteem, I am inclined to believe, that he read little more than English, and chose for his fables only fuch tales as he found tranflated, That much knowledge is fcattered over his works is very justly obferved by Pope, but it is often fuch knowledge as books did not fupply. He that will understand Shakespeare, muft not be content to study him in the closet, he must look for his meaning fometimes among the fports of the field, and fometimes among the manufactures of the fhop. There is however proof enough that he was a very diligent reader, nor was our language then fo indigent of books, but that he might very liberally indulge his curiofity without excurfion into foreign literature. Many of the Roman authors were tranflated, and fome of the Greek; the reformation had filled the kingdom with theological learning; most of the topics of human difquifition had found English writers; and poetry had been cultivated, not only with diligence, but fuccefs. This was a ftock of knowledge fufficient for a mind fo capable of appropriating and improving it. But the greater part of his excellence was the product of his own genius. He found the English ftage in a ftate of the utmoft rudeness; no eflays either in tragedy or comedy had appeared, from which it could be discovered to what degree of delight either one or other might be carried. Neither character nor dialogue were yet understood. Shakespeare may be truly faid to have introduced them both amongst us, and in fome of his happier scenes to have carried them both to the utmoft height. By what gradation of improvement he proceeded, is not eafily known; for the chronology of his works is yet unfettled, Rowe is of opinion, that " perhaps we are not to look for his beginning, like thofe of other writers, in his leaft perfect works; art had fo little, and nature fo large a fhare in what he did, that for ought I know, fays he, the performances of his youth, as they were the most vigorous, were the beft." But the power of nature is only the power of ufing to any certain purpose the materials which diligence procurès, or opportunity. fupplies. Nature gives no man knowledge, and when images are collect ed |