852 
ther than the excellence of the 
school ; and prove the skill of the 
workman, not the perfection of the 
system, Without dwelling on the 
expulsion of the chorus (a most un- 
hatural and inconvénient machine), 
the moderns, by admitting a com. 
plication of plot, have introduced a 
greater varicty of incidents and cha- 
racters. ‘Ihe province-of inyention 
is enlarged; new passions, or at 
feast new forms of the same passion, 
are brought within the scope of 
dramatic poetry. Fresh sources of 
interest are opened, and additional 
powers of imagination called into 
activity. Can we then deny what 
extends its jurisdiction, and en. 
hances its interest, to be animprove- 
ment, in an art whose professed 
object is to stir the passions by the 
imitation of human actions? = In 
saying this I do not mean to justify 
the breach of decorum, the neglect 
of probability, the anachronisms 
and other extravagancies of the 
founders of the modern theatre. 
Because the first disciples of the 
school were not models of perfec- 
tion, it does not follow that the fun-. 
damental maxims were defective. 
The rudeness of their workmanship 
is no proof of the inferiority of the 
material ; nor does the want of skill 
deprive them of the merit of having 
discovered the mine. The faults 
objected to them form no necessary 
part of the system they introduced. 
Their followers in every country 
have cither completely corrected or 
gradually reformed such abuses. 
Those who bow not implicitly to the 
authority of Aristotle, yet avoid 
such violent oufrages as are common 
“Gn ourcarly plays.” And those who 
pigue themselyes on the:strict ob- 
servance of his laws, betray in the 
conduct, the sentiments, the cha- 
ANNUAL REGISTER, 1806. 
racters, and the dialogue of their 
pieces (especially of their comedies), 
more resemblance to the modern 
than the ancient -theatre: their 
code may be Grecian, but their 
mauners, in spite of themselves, are 
Spanish, English, or French :—they 
may renounce their pedigree, and 
even change their dress, but they 
cannot divest their features of a 
certain family likeness to their poe- _ 
tical progenitors.” 
‘“ Lope was contemporary with 
both Shakspeare and Fletcher. [n 
the choice of their subjects, and in 
the conduct of their fables, a resem 
blance may often be found, which 
is no doubt to be attributed to the 
taste and opinions of the times, ra- 
ther than to any knowledge of each 
other’s writings. It is indeed in 
this point of view that the Spanish 
poet can be compared with the 
greatest advantage to himself, to the 
great founder of our theatre. It is 
true that his imagery may occa- 
sionally remind the English reader 
of Shakspeare ; but his sentiments, 
especially in tragedy, are more like 
Dryden and his contemporaries than 
their predecessors. The feelings of 
Shakspeare’s characters are the re. 
sult of passions common to all men $ 
the extravagantsentiments of Lope’s, 
as of Dryden’s heroes, are derived 
from an artificial state of society, 
from notions suggested by chivalry, 
and exaggerated by romance. In 
his delineation of character he is yet 
more unlike, and it is scarce neces- 
sary-to add, greatly inferior; but 
in the choice and conduct of his 
subjects, if he equals him in extra- 
vagance and improbability, he does 
not fal] short of himin interest and 
variety, A rapid ‘succession of 
events, and sudden changes in the 
situation of the personages, are the 
charms 
