"the ftory is one and entire; the characters the "fame throughout; not broken or changed, "and always conformable to the nature of the "creature they introduce. They never tell you, "that the dog which fnapp'd at a fhadow, loft "his troop of horfe; that would be unintelli"gible. This is his (Dryden's) new way of tell"ing a ftory, and confounding the moral and the "fable together." After inftancing from the hind and panther, he goes on thus: "What re"lation has the hind to our Saviour? or what "notion have we of a panther's Bible? If you "fay he means the church, how does the church "feed on lawns, or range in the foreft? Let it "be always a church or always a cloven-footed "beaft, for we cannot bear his fhifting the fcene every line." 66 A few words more upon allegory. Nothing gives greater pleafure than this figure, when the reprefentative fubject bears a strong analogy, in all its circumstances, to that which is reprefented: but the choice is feldom fo lucky, the analogy being generally fo faint and obfcure, as to puzzle and not pleafe. An allegory is ftill more difficult in painting than in poetry: the former can fhow no refemblance but what appears to the eye; the latter hath many other refources for fhowing the refemblance. And therefore, with refpect to what the Abbé du Bos* terms mixt al * Reflections fur la Poefie, &c. vol. 1. fect. 24. legorical legorical compofitions, these may do in poetry, because in writing the allegory can eafily be diftinguished from the hiftorical part; no perfon, for example, mistakes Virgil's Fame for a real being: but fuch a mixture in a picture is intolerable; because in a picture the objects must appear all of the fame kind, wholly real or wholly emblematical. For that reafon, the hiftory of Mary de Medicis, in the palace of Luxenbourg, painted by Rubens, is unpleasant by a perpetual jumble of real and allegorical perfonages, which produce a difcordance of parts, and an obscurity upon the whole: witnefs, in particular, the tablature representing the arrival of Mary de Medicis at Marseilles; where, together with the real perfonages, the Nereids and Tritons appear founding their fhells: fuch a mixture of fiction and reality in the fame group, is ftrangely ab. furd. The picture of Alexander and Roxana, described by Lucian, is gay and fanciful; but it fuffers by the allegorical figures. It is not in the wit of man to invent an allegorical reprefentation deviating farther from any appearance of resemblance, than one exhibited by Lewis XIV. anno 1664; in which an overgrown chariot, intended to represent that of the fun, is dragg'd along, furrounded with men and women, reprefenting the four ages of the world, the celeftial figns, the feafons, the hours, &c.; a monftrous T2 ftrous compofition, and yet fcarce more abfurd than Guido's tablature of Aurora. In an allegory, as well as in a metaphor, terms ought to be chofen that properly and literally are applicable to the reprefentative fubject: nor ought any circumftance to be added, that is not proper to the reprefentative fubject, however justly it may be applicable properly or figuratively to the principal. Upon this account the following allegory is faulty: Ferus et Cupido, Semper ardentes acuens fagittas Cote cruenta. Horat. l. 2. ode 8. For though blood may fuggeft the cruelty of love, it is an improper or immaterial circumftance in the representative fubject: water, not blood, is proper for a whetstone. We proceed to the next head, which is, to examine in what circumstances thefe figures are proper, in what improper. This inquiry is not altogether fuperfeded by what is faid upon the fame fubject in the chapter of comparisons; because, upon trial, it will be found, that a fhort metaphor or allegory may be proper, where a fimile, drawn out to a greater length, and in its nature more folemn, would fcarce be relished. And, in the first place, a metaphor, like a fimi le, le, is excluded from common converfation, and from the defcription of ordinary incidents. In the next place, in expreffing any fevere paffion which totally occupies the mind, metaphor is unnatural. For that reafon, we must condemn the following fpeech of Macbeth: Methought, I heard a voice cry, Sleep no more! Act 2. Sc. 3. The next example of deep defpair, befide the highly figurative ftyle, hath more the air of raving than of fense: Califta. Is it the voice of thunder, or my father? Fair Penitent, at 4. The metaphor I next introduce, is fweet and lively, but it fuits not the fiery temper of Chamont, inflamed with paffion: parables are not the language of wrath venting itfelf without reftraint: Chamont. You took her up a little tender flower, Had nip'd; and with a careful loving hand, Where the fun always fhines: there long she flourish'd, Till at the laft a cruel spoiler came, Cropt this fair rofe, and rifled all its fweetnefs, Then caft it like a loathfome weed away. Orphan, act 4. The following fpeech, full of imagery, is not natural in grief and dejection of mind: Gonfalez. O my fon! from the blind dotage Of a father's fondness thefe ills arofe. For thee I've been ambitious, bafe and bloody: For thee I've plung'd into this fea of fin; Stemming the tide with only one weak hand, While t'other bore the crown, (to wreathe thy brow), Whose weight has funk me ere I reach'd the shore. Mourning Bride, act 5. fc.6. The finest picture that ever was exhibited of deep diftrefs, is in Macbeth *, where Macduff is reprefented lamenting his wife and children, inhumanly murdered by the tyrant. Stung to the heart with the news, he queftions the meffenger Act 4. fc. 6. |