"same license of fiction in dramatic, as in epic poetry. "As we see no representation of Ajax or Achilles, "while reading or hearing the Iliad, we have no pre"determined ideas of what their size and strength "might have been; and the mind consequently draws "imaginary portraits of them, proportioned to the "actions which it finds attributed to him: but when "these heroes are brought upon the stage, they are "instantly reduced to the dimensions of the actors, "who personate them; and if they even talk of driving "whole armies before them, or sacking cities by the "strength of their single arm, we immediately feel the "absurdity of it; and the whole becomes farcical and "ridiculous; of which we have a memorable instance "in Dryden's Almanzor." (P. 269.) Now if we are always to discriminate between the actor and the character he personates, why so much anxiety that they should coincide in every respect? Ought we not to perceive an "absurdity," something "farcical and "ridiculous," when the actor,-without talking of driving whole armies before him,-only speaks, with all seriousness, of his relationship and transactions with people who died long before he was born, or who never existed at all? Is not Mr. Kemble as guiltless of the blood of Duncan as he is of sacking cities? Has not Mrs. Siddons as little to fear for her husband from the Venetian senate, as from the wrath of Achilles? It is therefore because we wish not to know the actor in the most interesting passages, but to lose him in the character he assumes, that we cannot tolerate any inconsistency in scenic performances.* "Dans l'hypothese theatrale, l'acteur eşt le personage même qui est On the principles maintained in this essay, principles coeval with the drama itself, the question of the unities is easily settled. As illusion never exists at the be ginning of a dramatic entertainment, so a strict observance of the unities would very much obstruct its ever being excited; either by inducing such sacrifices of probability as Dennis reprehends in Addison's Cato; or by circumscribing the story within such narrow limits, and producing so much simplicity in the plot and cha racters, as should greatly diminish its means of engaging the attention and interesting the feelings. In real life the occurrence of incongruous or indifferent things has but a temporary power to disturb our sympathy with the main transactions in which we may happen to participate; the impression of reality, which had been for a moment diverted, recurs with unimpaired influence: but such accidents on the stage are extremely injurious to the end proposed, by indisposing the mind to admit or retain those vivid impressions of fictitious distress which constitute dramatic illusion. What it exhibits, therefore, should not be literally transferred from real life; we should not be presented with a fac simile even of the most affecting incidents. "L'anteur "croit," says Mad. De Stael, in her essay on fictions, "que les details minutieux ajoutent a la vraisem"blance, et ne voit pas que tout ce qui ralentit l'in"teret detruit la seule verité d'une fiction, l'impres❝sion qu'elle produit. Si l'on representait sur la scene "tout ce qui se passe dans une chambre, l'illusion "theatrale serait absolument détruite." Let not the eye or ear be shocked by incongruities, whether im "malheureux, souffrant, tourmenté de telle passion;" &c. Marmontel, Elem, de Lit, II. 287. putable to the poet or the actor, and their united efforts may succeed in commanding our belief, and swaying our sympathies, though the action should be transferred from Venice to Cyprus, from Thebes to Athens. ART. IX. On Perfectibility. THE word perfectibility is somewhat new-fangled, having been born amidst the agitations of the French Revolution, and therefore still stinks in the nostrils of some people; but the question to which it relates is of higher antiquity than can be defined by literary monuments. From various causes the advocates for the wisdom of our ancestors have generally been more numerous than the advocates for the wisdom of the pre sent and of future generations: numero plures, virtute & honore minores, Indocti, stolidique, Pride and envy are gratified by depreciating contemporary rivals, and eagerly drag into light and magnify errors and imperfections which prevent living excellence from becoming the object of that respectful enthusiasm with which we regard that merit which death has canonized-quod Libitina sacravit. Dr. Johnson has somewhere compared the different impressions which we receive from an author's writings and from his conversation, to the manner in which we are affected by the different aspects of a city when viewed from a distance, and when seen through all its streets and alleys. From without, it presents a glorious show of domes, and spires, and picturesque masses, and magnificent groupes of buildings, and gilded pinnacles flashing their fires in the pale blue sky. Within, it is obstructed by narrow and intricate passages, and, disgraced by the incongruous association of splendid structures and despicable hovels. The same illustration is applicable to the comparison between past and present times. Distance softens or obscures whatever on a near approach would be found to be harsh, mean, or offensive; and leaves the imagination at liberty to substitute opposite qualities according to its own richness or prodigality. In all these cases the judgment respecting each separate object may be just; its characteristics may be truly delineated as viewed from a particular station; but the conclusions must be erroneous when comparisons are instituted between near and remote objects without duly adverting to the diversity in the position and circumstances of the spec tator. Equally unfavourable to the impartiality of our decisions is that prejudice which reverses the age of the world, representing it as more ancient in proportion as it was younger, and which professes as much reverence for the ancients as if they possessed the accumulated wisdom and experience of the ages that have intervened since they lived. It is this prejudice which Horace and Pope* found it necessary in their days to combat, and by which they have since both profited. I do not mean to attack or defend what is extravagant and indefensible in the speculations of Condorcet, Godwin, and Mad. de Stael on this subject. I have no faith in such a progression in the improvement of our moral and physical condition as would lead to the cessation of wars, disease and death. Such prodigies imply a commensurate change in the constitution of the world. The only debatable ground remaining appears to me to be circumscribed within the questions discussed in the Edinburgh Review† of Madame De Stael's work on the influence of literature, viz. Whether there * Hor. II. Epist. I. and Pope's imitation of it. + No. XLI. Art. I. |