tude of place and time than was admitted in Greece and Rome. Suffer me only to premife, that the unities of place and time, are not, by the most rigid critics, required in a narrative poem. In fuch a compofition, if it pretend to copy nature, these unities would be abfurd; because real events are feldom confined within narrow limits either of place or of time and yet we can follow hiftory, or an historical fable, through all its changes, with the greatest facility: we never once think of measuring the real time by what is taken in reading; nor of forming any connection between the place of action and that which we occupy. I am fenfible, that the drama differs fo far from the epic, as to admit different rules. It will be obferved, "That an hiftorical fable, which af"fords entertainment by reading folely, is under "no limitation of time nor of place, more than "a genuine history; but that a dramatic compo"fition cannot be accurately represented, unless "it be limited, as its reprefentation is, to one "place and to a few hours; and therefore that "no fable can be admitted but what has these "properties, because it would be abfurd to com"pose a piece for reprefentation that cannot be "justly reprefented." This argument, I acknowledge, has at least a plausible appearance; and yet one is apt to fufpect fome fallacy, confidering that no critic, however ftrict, has ventu red to confine the unities of place and of time within fo narrow bounds *. A view of the Grecian drama, and a comparifon between it and our own, may perhaps help to relieve us from this dilemma: if they be differently constructed, as fhall by and by be made evident, it is poffible that the foregoing reafoning may not be applicable with equal force to both. This is an article, that, with relation to the prefent fubject, has not been examined by any writer. All authors agree, that tragedy in Greece, was derived from the hymns in praife of Bacchus, which were fung in parts by a chorus. Thefpis, to relieve the fingers, and for the fake of variety, introduced one actor; whofe province is was to explain hiftorically the fubject of the fong, and who occafionally reprefented one or other perfonage. Efchylus, introducing a fecond actor, formed the dialogue; by which the performance became dramatic; and the actors were multiplied when the fubject reprefented made it neceffary. But ftill, the chorus, which gave a beginning to *Boffu, after obferving with wonderful critical fagacity, that winter is an improper feafon for an epic poem, and night not less improper for tragedy; admits however, that an epic poem may be fpread through the whole fummer months, and a tragedy through the whole fun-fhine hours of the longeft fummer-day. Du poeme epique, 1. 3. chap. 12. At this rate an English tragedy may be Jonger than a French tragedy; and in Nova Zembla the time of a ragedy and of an epic poem may be the fame. tragedy, tragedy, was confidered as an effential part of its conftitution. The first scene, generally, unfolds the preliminary circumftances that lead to the grand event; and this fcene is by Ariftotle termed the prologue. In the fecond fcene, where the action properly begins, the chorus is introduced, which, as originally, continues upon the stage during the whole performance: the chorus frequently mix in the dialogue; and when the dialogue happens to be fufpended, the chorus, during the interval, are employ'd in finging. Sophocles adheres to this plan religiously. Euripides is not altogether fo correct. In fome of his pieces it becomes neceffary to remove the chorus: but when this unufual ftep is rifked, matters are fo ordered as that their absence is but momentary. Nor does the removal of the chorus interrupt the reprefentation: they never leave the ftage of their own accord, but at the command of fome principal perfonage, who conftantly waits their return. Thus the Grecian drama is a continued reprefentation without any interruption; a circumftance that merits attention. A continued reprefentation without a paufe, affords not opportunity to vary the place of action, nor to prolong the time of the action beyond that of the reprefentation. To a representation fo confined in place and time, the foregoing reafoning is ftrictly applicable: a real or feigned action that is brought to a conclufion after confiderable inter vals of time and frequent change of place, cannot accurately be copied in a representation that admits no latitude in either. Hence it is, that the unities of place and of time, were, or ought to have been, ftrictly obferved in the Grecian tragedies; which is made neceffary by the very constitution of their drama, for it is abfurd to compofe a tragedy that cannot be justly reprefented. Modern critics, who for our drama pretend to establish rules founded on the practice of the Greeks, are guilty of an egregious blunder. The unities of place and of time, fo much vaunted, were in Greece, as we fee, a matter of neceffity, not of choice; and I am now ready to fhow, that if we fubmit to fuch fetters, it must be from choice, not neceffity. This will be evident upon taking a view of the conftitution of our drama, which differs widely from that of Greece; whether more or lefs perfect, is a feparate queftion, which fhall be handled afterward. dropping the chorus, opportunity is afforded to fplit the reprefentation by intervals of time, during which the stage is totally evacuated and the fpectacle fufpended. This conftitution qualifies our drama for fubjects fpread through a wide space both of time and of place: the time fuppofed to pafs during the fufpenfion of the reprefentation, is not meafured by the time of the fufpension; nor is any connection formed, between the box we fit in, and the place where things are By fuppofed fupposed to be tranfacted in our absence: by which means, many subjects can be justly represented in our theatres, that were excluded from thofe of ancient Greece. This doctrine may be illuftrated, by comparing a modern play to a fet of hiftorical pictures; let us fuppofe them five in number, and the resemblance will be complete: each of the pictures resembles an act in one of our plays there muft neceffarily be the strictest unity of place and of time in each picture; and the fame neceffity requires these two unities during each act of a play, because during an act there is no interruption in the fpectacle. Now, when we view in fucceffion a number of fuch historical pictures, let it be, for example, the hiftory of Alexander by Le Brun, we have no difficulty to conceive, that months or years have paffed between the events exhibited in two different pictures, though the interruption is imperceptible in paffing our eye from the one to the other; and we have as little difficulty to conceive a change of place, however great. In this view, there is truly no difference between five acts of a modern play, and five fuch pictures; where the reprefentation is fufpended, we can with the greatest facility suppose any length of time or any change of place. The fpectator, it is true, may be confcious, that the real time and place are not the fame with what are employ'd in the reprefentation; but this is a work of reflection; and by the fame reflection he may alfo be confcious, that Garrick |