i 



f 5 ] 



the gree/; root?! for their notions of dramatic compofition, and 

 to confider rather what Is likely to gain the fandion of the 

 Lord Chamberlains, or to pafs the ordeal of ftage-repre- 

 fentation, than what is really eftimable in itfelf, or conform- 

 able to the true ends of dramatic poetry. Obvious reafons 

 there may be of a prudential nature, and merely pe-'fonal to the 

 writers, which may deter the timid and cautious poet, whofe 

 thoughts are wholly bent on prefent emolument, from chufing 

 fuch fubjeds as he conceives to be perimlofee plenum opus alctSy 

 or which he fuppofes may incur the danger of being fmo- 

 thered at the threQiold of their pafTage into ftage-exiftence by 

 the cautious delicacy of a licenfer, laudably awake and fore 

 to every thing like an allufion to modern politics, or ex- 

 pofed tQ the refentrnent and malicious exertions of party, em- 

 ployed to procure the condemnation of a play for the poli- 

 tical fins of its author. Sueh prudential motives as thefe 

 are not general principles of found criticifm; thefe principles 

 can only be drawn from the prevailing character and defti- 

 nation of dramatic poetry, as they are explained and taught 

 by the beft criticks antient and modern, and as they may be 

 traced out in the writings of the great mafters of dramatic 

 poetry. 



The prefent fhite of the Englifi ftage fhews that the public 

 tafte has undergone a great and by no means favourable re- 

 volution. 



