CHAP. IV. OF THE DRAMA. THOUGH the machinery of poetry has obtained many strenuous advocates, the propriety of its introduction into dramatick representation has generally been resigned as untenable. Some even of the most liberal of our criticks, have literally ventured to proscribe this part of poetical composition, which comprises so considerable a portion of its finest imagery, as too improbable to be justified by any license of the art. "The tales of faëry are exploded as fantastick and incredible. They would merit this contempt if presented on the stage; if they were given as the proper subjects of dramatick imitation, and the interest of the poet's plot were to be wrought out of the adventures of these marvellous persons.' " "A poet who should now make the whole action of his tragedy depend upon enchantment, and produce the chief events f HURD on Chivalry and Romance, Let. X. by the assistance of supernatural agents, would be censured as transgressing the bounds of probability, be banished from the theatre to the nursery, and condemned to write fairy tales instead of tragedies." Were these conclusions decisive, the object of our immediate inquiry would be wholly obviated; as it would answer no end to develope first principles, or to lay down rules, where there could arise no opportunity of applying them. It is not necessary to enter into a formal refutation of assumptions so arbitrary. They rest solely on opinion; have been brought to the test of feeling; and have, I think, received a complete refutation in the success with which some modern productions of this kind, and of very inferiour merit, have been received. Had this, however, never been the case, there might be an answer subversive of such conclusions drawn from that unsated avidity with which some established dramas continue to be sought after, where the principal events are conducted by the ministry of those fantastick agents. It may not be deemed either incurious or unimportant, to offer a few remarks on the JOHNSON'S Works, Vol. III. p. 82. origin and cause of this proscription of theatrical machinery, as the inquiry may afford some reasons for confirming to the drama its right to an appendage, which gives so powerful an interest to its representations, and adds so beautiful an embellishment to its scenick decorations. However various might have been the inducements by which the Grecian dramatick writers were led to introduce divine personages in the scene, one obvious reason assignable for this practice may be suggested— the direct imitation of the epick and mythological poets, into which they were led from taking the subjects of their compositions from such writers. But as the circumstances were sensibly different in which these beings were placed, on being brought from the indistinct representation of narration to the visible disclosure of exhibition, the change was made infinitely for the worse. And this disadvantage operating against their first appearance in the scene, was heightened, in no small degree, by the rude mechanism of the theatrical apparatus among the ancients. Most unskilful must those contrivances have been, that worked the machines in which their deities made their descent or disap pearance, when the antient drama, from wanting an expedient to shift its scenes, became confined to a tedious unity of place, in violation of truth and propriety. Under these circumstances, it must be supposed both Aristotle and Horace viewed the antient theatre; and taking these considerations into account, their seeming to discourage dramatick imagery, may be imputed to their disapprobation of certain defects, not in the theory, but in the established use of theatrical machinery; such, it may be remarked, were defects for which the structure of their theatre led them to imagine, there could be no remedy. This is, I think, very evident, from the reasons which they assign for recommending this appendage of the drama to be removed as much as possible out of theatrical representations. "It is expedient to introduce the marvellous into tragick compositions; but the preternatural, from which principally the marvellous arises, is rather admissible in the epopee, because we do not behold the agency which is employed in it."" · Δει μεν εν εν ταις τραγῳδίαις ποιειν το θαυμαστον μαλλον δε ενδέχεται εν τη εποποιϊα το άλογον, δι ὁ συμβαίνει μαλιστα το θαυ This passage appears to me rather to recommend than to discourage the employment of dramatick machinery on the modern stage. Some partiality is professed here for marvellous intervention in the drama: it is restricted to a conditional introduction into the scene, on account of an objection which has now no force, as it has no application, to the modern theatre. That poetical machinery, though admissible in recital, will not so well bear to be submitted to visible representation, is only true of stage machinery, under the circumstances in which it was viewed by Aristotle. When its effects are aukwardly displayed to the view, the judgment receives from the eye an additional testimony of the improbability of whatever is the subject of its representation. And yet it may be observed, not however as exculpatory of the recent abuses of our theatre, in its display of what is trifling and μαστον, δια το μη δραν εις τον πρατίοντα. De Poet. § 43. In this sentence, it is generally supposed, that Horace concurs in the following precept; which, if urged against the practice of the modern stage, admits of the same answer as that of Aristotle. Nec deus intersit nisi dignus vindice nodus U De Art. Poet, v. 191. |