tog. On Dramatic Reprefentations. 
either of fenfe or reflexion, the more perfec is its 
effect; and reality has no advantage in this refpect 
over fiction, as long as the temporary illufion pro- 
duced by the latter continues. ‘That fuch an dllufion 
fhould take place at the theatre, where every circum- 
ftance art can invent has been employed to favour 
it, cannot be thought extraordinary, after it has 
been fhewn, that a fcene of the mind’s own crea- 
tion can effect it. 
And for what end, but that of deeeption, are 
fuch pains taken in adjufting the fcenery, dreffes, 
decorations, &c. to as near a refemblance as poffible 
of reality ?— why might not the piece be as well 
read in the clofet as reprefented on the flage, if 
all its effect depended on the pleafing modulation of 
language; prompting juft reflections on life and 
manners? Some effect, doubtlefs, is produced by 
a tragedy read; but this is exactly in proportion te 
the dramatic powers of the reader, and the ftrength 
of imagination in the hearer; and always falls much 
fhort of that of a perfec reprefentation on the 
flage. : 
But, fays the critic, “the delight of tragedy 
“« proceeds from a confcioufnefs of fiction; if we 
“ thought murders and treafons real, they would 
*t pleafe no more.” Delight is not the word by 
which I would chufe to denote thofe fenfations in 
the deeper fcenes of tragedy, which often arife to 
fach a pitch of intenfity, as to be really and exqui- 
fitely painful. I do not here mean to enter into 
an 
