[ 59 ] 



of theatric reprefentation. Now if fuch a mafler as i^fchylus has 

 thought fit, in the midft of a moft interefting and impaffioned 

 fcene, on a fudden to check the tide of our feehngs, to bid the 

 moft powerful paflions to ftand ftill for a moment whilft he calls 

 our attention to fuch a minute circumftance as this, will it appear 

 chimerical or vifionary to fay that he touched on it becaufe it 

 was exadly agreeable to the popular opinion of the antient limits 

 of the Greek language, and of courfe neceffary to the hiftorical 

 perfedion of his drama j and that his judgment, as well as 

 Shakefpear's, told him that it is this minute and delicate con- 

 formity to cftablifhed traditions which affixes the feai of authen- 

 ticity to the works of the poet. 



It may be faid that the drama of ^fchylus is not always pcr- 

 fedly regular, and that the Athenians did not look for that cor- 

 redtnefs which an acquaintance with the works of his great rival 

 Sophocles taught them afterwards to exadl. It is true, i^fchylus 

 was crowned for this play of Agamemnon, and yet there is one 

 material and palpable error in it. The laft of the fucceffive 

 fignals by fire, which was agreed to be given immediately on the 

 taking of Troy, has been fcarcely feen by the watchman who 

 was ftationed to obferve them, and their progrefs defcribcd (moft 

 beautifully indeed) by Clytemncftra, when Agamemnon himfelf 

 appears at Argos. This is certainly a violation of all probability. 

 However, I believe it will be admitted that an audience might 

 with great facility overlook a trefpafs on the unities, and not 

 pafs over any inattention to a matter of pubhc notoriety, as I 

 Ihould fuppofe that of Greece fpeaking a different language from 

 Troy, muft in fome degree have been at Athens. I acknowledge 



(H 2) - that 



