as that of action. Ariftotle fays, that a piece, to have its juft extent, ought to take up fo much time, as it must necefsarily, or probably do, rightly to induce all the incidents, till the unravelling the plot fhews the last good or ill fortune of the principal perfons.

As this is one of thofe paffages which has so often been quoted in defence of the unity of time, I cannot help obferving, that a poet is left much more at liberty by it than our modern critics will allow. It has often been afferted that the time fhould not exceed the reprefentation and a faultless piece compofed by the exacteft rules of criticism will be formed on that plan; but a thousand fertile and poetic fubjects must be rejected, if we were always to fubmit to this unity*. Many

of

*Boffu, after obferving with wonderful critical fagacity, that winter is an improper season for

of the greatest poets, I know, have con-formed to it: the actions of the fineft pieces of Sophocles are but of four hours. Those of Racine's Cinna, Andromache, and Bajazet, the Oedipus either of Corneille, de la Motte, or Voltaire, are not of longer duration.. If other plots, fays Voltaire, require a greater length of time for their execution, it is a licence only pardonable in favour of very great beauties; and the farther this licence is extended, the greater the fault muft bet. It would fhew a want of talents

an epic poem, and night not lefs improper for tragedy; admits, however, that an epic poem may be fpread through the whole fummer months, and a tragedy through the whole fun-thine hours of the longeft fummer-day. Du Poeme Epique, J. iii. chap. 12. At this rate an English tragedy may be longer than a French tragedy; and in Nova Zembla the time of a tragedy and of an epic poem may be the fame.

Elements of Criticism, vol. iii. p. 269.

+ Pref. to Voltaire's Oedipus.

ard

tell

you

and fertility to extend an action beyond the limited time and place. Afk a man, fays he, who has hurried together too many events in the fame play, the reafon of this conduct? If he is fincere, he will he wanted genius to fill his piece with a single fact; and if he employs two days, and takes in two towns for the scene of action, be affured it is because he had not the addrefs to confine it to the fpace of three hours, and within the li mits of a palace, as probability required *.

I must however differ from this ingenious Frenchman in his criticifin. Neglecting the unities, is no proof of want of genius, of which there are too ma ny proofs to need citing; twenty Voltaires won't make one Shakespear. It is

Elay on Tragedy.

abfurd

abfurd to imagine that the great irregular geniuses break through rules because they cannot conform to them: no; their rapid invention hurries them beyond all bounds, and instead of writing on rules laid down by others, their works occafion new rules. Breaking the unities may often give rife to great and manly beauties, as we have many inftances in Shakefpear; many of whofe ftriking paffages are the effects of his no critical learning.

"It is obfervable, that the fame critics, who condemn fo much in Shakefpear a neglect of the unities, are equally forward in acknowledging the fingular energy and beauty of his fentiments. Now, it feems to me, that the fault which they cenfure, is the principal fource of the beauties which they admire. For,

as the poet was not confined to an unity and fimplicity of action, he created incidents in proportion to the promptnefs and vivacity of his genius. Hence, his fentiments spring from motives exqui fitely fitted to produce them: to this they owe that original fpirit, that commanding energy, which overcome the im probabilities of the fcene; and tranf port the heart in defiance of the understanding. I do not mean by this to juftify our poet in all his exceffes. It must be confefs'd, that he has often carried the indulgence of his genius much too far but it is equally certain, that a rigid obfervance of the dramatic unities is not free from objections: for as no one. fimple and confined action can furnish many incidents, and thofe, fuch as they are, muft tend to one common point, it neceffarily follows, that there must be a famenefs