THE DRAMA. ALL THE WORLD'S A STAGE.- -Shakspeare, DRAMATIC FICTION AND IMITATION. The foundation of dramatic poetry is not barely imitation, which has, in common with all other kinds, but probable fiction, or well-invented fable. I need not say much in justification of fiction: the best writers have often employed it to make the strongest impressions, and to convey the most important truths. The Greeks always began the education of their children by it; their first theology snd philosophy was concealed under it. Strabo, in his first book, has a fine passage that makes to this purpose---" In the first place, (says that judicious writer,) poets are not alone in the use of fables: critics and lawgivers had long before employed them, both for their usefulness, and in conformity to the natural inclination of a rational creature. Man is willing to learn, and fable opens him the way. By this our children begin to hearken to what we say; the reason of which is, that fable is a kind of a new story, not of what really is, but of something very different. Now nothing delights the understanding more than what is new and strange, and it is this makes us love the sciences. Therefore if you add the wonderful and marvellous to fable, that infinitely increases our delight, which is the first inducement to learn. It is therefore highly proper to make use of fable, to draw the tender minds of children to the love of knowledge; and when they are more advanced in years, and their understanding has gathered strength, so that there is no longer occasion to caress and indulge them, then let them be introduced into real science, and taught to know things by what they are.' Thus far Strabo. It is certainly true, that the strong propensity to imitation, which nature has implanted in us, is the source of all study and application. This disposition gives fic tion, which is only a happy imitation of what might probably happen, a great advantage over truth itself, which being artless, and of ordinary occurrence, has less power to excite and keep up our attention. Besides, in a just imitation, one discovers that subtilty and address in the contrivance, which, by setting the mind upon making proper reflections, puts it in the way to discover_something new and, according to Aristotle, (Rhet. Lib. 1. Cap. 11.) the pleasure we take in seeing a just imitation, does not arise from the beauty of the original imitated, but from the mind's thereby finding the means to reason and instruct itself agreeably. Hence some philosophers very justly argued against the Epicureans, when they maintained, that the pleasure people take at shows can arise neither from the sense of hearing nor seeing, but from the mind only, which understands and judges. An instance from painting will illustrate Aristotle's position. Most grotesque figures, that please by their ridiculous deformity in a picture, would give disgust in the originals. So monsters and other hideous shapes, that we can consider without emotion upon the canvas, and in colours, would, if they were really present, fill us with horror and aversion. But to return to fiction As it is the soul of all poetry, but particularly the dramatic and epic, so it is that which makes the most essential difference between the historian and the poet. Aristotle (Poet. Cap. 9.) seems to have established this truth. Should any one, (says the philosopher,) put Herodotus's history into verse, it would be but history still. Here then is the difference. The historian describes what has happened, and the poet, what might, or ought to come to pass. So that poetry is more grave and moral than history, because the former says general things, and the latter only particulars. A general thing is what every man, of such a certain character, should probably say or do, &e. This is the very method which poetry follows, when it gives proper names to its characters. A particular thing is what Alcibiades, for instance, has actually said or done, &c. This most evidently appears in comedy; (meaning the middle Greek comedy), for the comic poets having formed the plan of their subject agreeable to bability, impose what names they please afterwards upon their characters, not imitating the satirists, who apply them to particulars. It is true, the tragic poets often use real names; but the reason is, because what has happened must be credible; however it is common for them pro to think one or two known names sufficient, and invent the rest. Nay, there are tragedies extant, where no part of the subject is known; as the Flower of Agathon; in which play, all the names, as well as things, were of the poet's invention and yet it met with general approbation. Besides, such subjects as are known, are known but to few persons, and yet, when brought on the stage, they divert all. So that it is manifest, that a dramatic poet is more obliged to be the author of his subject, than his verses, since he is a poet only by imitation.' So far Aristotle on this head. I think the philosopher's words want no explanation, unless where he has said, that dramatic poetry is more grave and philosophical than history: and his proof is sufficient. For, as particular facts are the subject of history, it can never be so well proportioned to the generality of readers, as poetry, which treats of general matters. A man may read a whole history through, without meeting with one occurrence to his particular purpose, during the whole course of his life; and those whom it may seem to suit in some respects, may live many years before they have occasion to put them in practice. Besides, facts never can instruct us so well as the knowledge of the causes of those facts, which the historian seldom does, and hardly ever can explain, as being, for the most part, concealed from his knowledge: so that the best he can do, is to give you his own conjectures. But the poet, being the master of his subject, advances nothing, of which he does not let you into the motive, explaining the causes and effects of every the most minute incident. History has only nar ration to recommend it to our observation. Dramatic poetry has all the advantages of action and representation to enforce it. Every thing is animated in tragedy. All our senses and passions are employed. But further; history does not borrow the assistance of philosophy, harmony, and numbers, which poetry does, to enliven and adorn it. If these reflections will not convince us, that Aristotle thoroughly understood the nature of the two arts, when he said, that poetry was more moral than history, we may turn to Horace, who has said more of Epic poetry, giving it the preference to philosophy for instruction. And yet Epic poetry, as it has not the help of the stage, and does not raise the passions, is so far inferior, at least of less power and efficacy than tragedy. But hear Horace-- Trogani belli scriptorem, maxime Lolli, Dum tu declamas Romæ, Præneste relegi ; Qui quid sit pulchrum, quid turpe, quid utile, quid non, Lib. I. Epist. 2. While you to plead at Rome, my friend, remain, Who hath what's base, what decent, just, and good, Creech. When Homer paints the anger of Achilles, it is with an intent to shew what violence and anger may make men of his character do and say. Achilles is a general and allegorical person in the Iliad. The same holds good of the heroes in tragedy. Even the old comedy was not altogether deficient in this respect. For instance, when Aristophanes names some of the persons in his plays, Socrates, Euripides, Cleon, Hyperbolus, Lamachus, though they were real names, the subject was fictitious in the main, and to be considered as something general. In like manner, when a tragic poet takes his subject from true history, it becomes general and allegorical, as well as that which is wholly fictitious, and of his own invention. A great reason that induces poets to give known and real names to their characters, is the better to persuade the audience of the probability of the action. Besides, they hence very often take occasion to adapt some of the real adventures of those persons to their fiction, and extract such ingenious episodes from them, as very much heighten the probability of the whole, and make it sometimes pass with the audience for a true history. S. THE FOREIGN THEATRES. AMERICA. From Jansen's Stranger in America. THE first dramatic representation in the then colonies of America, was performed in Philadelphia, by a small company from England, under the management of Mr. Douglass, father-in-law to Mr. Hallam, of the New York theatre, and Mrs. Mattocks, of Covent Garden. Some few years before the commencement of the revolutionary war, Douglass had erected a regular theatre in Philadelphia; but that event drove him to seek his fortune in the West India islands. Peace being restored, Mr. Hallam, in right of his father-in-law, claimed the theatre, and went to London for performers. He there acted Hamlet, I believe at Drury-lane, and with some success. Having formed a connection with Mr. Henry, who about that time unsuccessfully attempted the arduous part of Othello, at Covent Garden, they made up a small company, among whom were Mr. and Mrs. Kenna, of the Manchester company, Mr. and Mrs. Morris, Mr. Harper, a young gentleman of promising abilities, and a few recruits from strolling companies. The theatre in Philadelphia was fitted up and embellished in a good style; the scenery dresses, and decorations, being far superior to what Douglass had exhibited. The astonishment of the Americans, at the first representation of a tragedy, which required magnificence, may easily be imagined. The theatre immediately became a place of fashionable resort, to the great emolument of the p rformers. In the company was a favourite actor of the name of Wignal, who, aspiring to management, had the address, in concert with Mr. Reinagle, a musician, and a monied man, to obtain a large subscription, towards erecting a new and more spacious theatre. He saw the founda'tion laid, and then embarked for England, in order to form a company which night excel that from which he had lately seceded. The other managers were not idle in counteracting his plans. Mr. Henry arrived before him and engaged Mr. and Mrs. Hodgkinson, [late Miss Brett] of the Bath company, the celebrated Mrs. Wrighten, of Drury-lane, who at that time was under some unhappy domestic embarrassment, Mr. Prigmore, of the Rochester theatre, and a few others of established reputation in the provincial companies. This formidable reinforcement arrived, and performed with unbounded applause a whole season before the new theatre opened. |