are most inftructive when represented as fpringing out of their own paffions, or as originating in some weakness incident to human nature.

The Greek tragedies are often founded on mere deftiny and inevitable misfortunes. Modern tragedy aims at a higher object, and takes a wider range; as it fhows the direful effects of ambition, jealoufy, love, refentment, and every strong emotion. But of all the paflions which furnish matter for tragedy, love has moft occupied the modern ftage. To the ancient the atre love was almost unknown. This proceeded from the national manners of the Greeks, which encouraged a greater separation of the fexes than takes place in modern times; and did not admit female actors upon the ancient ftage; a circumftance which operated against the introduction of love ftories. No folid reafon, however, can be affigned for this predominancy of love upon the ftage. Indeed it not only limits the natural extent of tragedy, but degrades its majesty. Mixing it with the great and folemn revolutions of human fortune, tends to give tragedy the air of gallantry and juvenile entertainment. Without any affiftance from love, the drama is capable of producing its highest effects upon the mind.

Befide the arrangement of his fubject, and the conduct of his perfonages, the tragick poet must attend to the propriety of his fentiments. These must be fuited to the characters of the perfons to whom they are attributed, and to the fituations in which they are placed. It is chiefly in the pathetick parts, that the difficulty and importance of this rule are greatest. We go to a tragedy, expecting to be moved; and, if the poet cannot reach the heart, he has no tragick mer

it; and we return cold and disappointed from the performance.

To paint and to excite paffion ftrongly, are preroga tives of genius. They require not only ardent fenfibility, but the power of entering deeply into characters. It is here that candidates for the drama are least fuccefsful. A man under the agitation of paffion makes known his feelings in the glowing language of fenfibility. He does not coolly defcribe what his feelings are; yet this fort of fecondary defcription tragick poets often give us instead of the primary and native language of paffion. Thus in Addison's Cato, when Lucia confefles to Portius her love for him, but fwears that she will never marry him, Portius, instead. of giving way to the language of grief and aftonish ment, only describes his feelings :

Fix'd in astonishment, I gaze upon thee,

Like one juft blasted by a stroke from heaven,
Who pants for breath, and stiffens yet alive

In dreadful looks; a monument of wrath.

This might have proceeded from a bystander, or aus indifferent perfon; but it is altogether improper in the mouth of Portius. Similar to this defcriptive language: are the unnatural and forced thoughts, which tragick poets fometimes employ, to exaggerate the feelings of perfons whom they wish to paint, as ftrongly moved. Thus, when Jane Shore on meeting her husband in distress, and finding that he had forgiven her, calls on the rains to give her their drops, and to the fprings to lend her their streams, that the may have a conftant. fupply of tears, we fee plainly that it is not Jane Shore that fpeaks; but the poet hinfelf, who is ftrain

ing his fancy, and fpurring up his genius, to say something uncommonly strong and lively.

The language of real paffion is always plain and fimple. It abounds indeed in figures, that express a difturbed and impetuous state of mind; but never em. ploys any for parade and embellishment. Thoughts, fuggefted by paffion, are natural and obvious; and not the offspring of refinement, fubtilty, and wit. Paffion neither reafons, fpeculates, nor declaims; its language is fhort, broken, and interrupted. The French tragedians deal too much in refinement and declamation. The Greek tragedians adhere most to nature, and are most pathetick. This too is the great excellency of Shakespeare. He exhibits the true language of nature and paffion.

Moral fentiments and reflections ought not to recur very frequently in tragedy. When unseasonably crowded, they lofe their effect, and convey an air of pedantry. When introduced with propriety, they give dignity to the compofition. Cardinal Woolfey's foliloquy on his fall is a fine inftance of the felicity. with which they may be employed. Much of the merit of Addison's -Cato depends on that moral turn of thought which diftinguishes it.

and familiar; it and is free from rhyme. Of the

The style and verfification of tragedy should be free, eafy, and varied. English blank verfe is happily fuited to this fpecies of compofition. It has fufficient ma jesty, and can defcend to the fimple admits a happier variety of cadence, the constraint and monotony of French tragedies it is a great misfortune, that they are always in rhyme. For it fetters the freedom of the tragick dialogue, fills it with languid monotony, and is fatal to the power of paffion.

With regard to thofe fplendid comparisons in rhyme and those strings of couplets, with which it was fome time ago fashionable to conclude the acts of a tragedy, and sometimes the most interefting fcenes, they are now laid afide, and regarded not only as childish ormaments, but as perfect barbarifms.

GREEK TRAGEDY.

THE plot of Greek tragedy was exceedingly Ample; the incidents few; and the conduct very exact with regard to the unities of action, time, and place. Machinery, or the invention of gods, was em'ployed; and, what was very faulty, the final unravelling was fometimes made to turn upon it. Love, one or two instances excepted, was never admitted into Greek tragedy. A vein of morality and religion always runs through it; but they employed lefs than the moderns, the combat of the paffions. Their plots were all taken from the ancient traditionary ftories of their own nation.

Æfchylus, the father of Greek tragedy, exhibits both the beauties and defects of an early original writer. He is bold, nervous, and animated; but very obfcure, and difficult to be understood. His style is highly metaphorical, and often harsh and tumid. He abounds in martial ideas and defcriptions, has much fire and elevation, and little tenderness. He alfo delights in the marvellous.

The most masterly of the Greek tragedians is Sophocles. He is the most correct in the conduct of

his fubjects; the most juft and fublime in his fentiments. In defcriptive talents he is alfo eminent, Euripides is accounted more tender than Sophocles; he is fuller of moral fentiments; but he is lefs correct in the conduct of his plays. His expofitions of his fubjects are lefs artful; and the songs of his chorus, though very poetick, are less connected with the principal action, than those of Sophocles. Both of them, however, have high merit, as tragick poets. Their ftyle is elegant and beautiful; and their fentiments for the most part juft. They speak with the voice of nature; and in the midft of fimplicity they are touching and interesting.

Theatrical representation on the ftages of Greece and Rome was in many refpects very fingular, and widely different from that of modern times. The fongs of the chorus were accompanied by inftrumental musick; and the dialogue part had a modulation of its own, and might be fet to notes. It has also been thought that on the Roman ftage the pronouncing and gefticulating parts were fometimes divided, and performed by different actors. The actors in tragedy wore a long robe; they were raised upon cothurni,

and played in masks; these masks were painted; and the actor by turning the different profiles exhibited different emotions to the auditors. This contrivance, however, was attended by many difadvantages.

FRENCH TRAGEDY.

IN the compositions of fome French dramatick writers, tragedy has appeared with great luftre; par