TRAGEDY. 



The ingemous writer already cited, diiapproving the ftate- 

 tnent of Ariftotle with regard to the defign of tragedy 

 as fomewhat obfcure, thinks its intention may be more 

 /hortly and clearly defined, " to improve our virtuous 

 fenfibility." If an author interefls us in behalf of virtue, 

 forms us to compaflion for the diftreffed, infpires us with 

 proper fentiments, on beholding the viciffitudes of life, and 

 by means of the concern which he raifes for the misfortunes 

 of others, leads us to guard againll errors in our own con- 

 duft, he accomphihes all the purpofes of tragedy. Tra- 

 gedy is, therefore, a moral fpecies of compofition ; and the 

 impreffions left by it on the mind are, upon the whole, fa- 

 vourable to virtue and good difpofitions. In order to pro- 

 duce this beneficial effeft, it is necefiary that the author 

 fhould choofe fome interefting and moving ftory, and then 

 conduft it in a natural and probable manner. The end of 

 tragedy is not like that of epic poetry, to elevate the imagi- 

 nation by the marvellous, but to affeft the heart by a 

 ftrifter imitation of the life and adlions of men. This prin- 

 ciple, duly regarded, excludes from tragedy all ma- 

 chinery, or fabulous intervention of the gods ; and, there- 

 fore, the mixture of machinery with the tragic aftion, is a 

 blemifh in the ancient theatre. Hence fome critics have 

 required, that in order to produce and maintain the im- 

 prefFion of probability upon which the fuccefs of tragedy 

 depends, the fubjeft ihould not be a pure fiftion, but 

 founded on real hiftory, or known fafts. This, however, 

 feems to be an extreme ; as a fictitious tale may affeft the 

 heart as much as a true hiftory, provided that the events re- 

 lated be fuch as might eafily have happened in the ordinary 

 courle of nature. Some of the moft pathetic tragedies are 

 altogether fiftitious as to their fubjeft ; fuch as Voltaire's 

 Zaire and Alzire, the Orphan, Douglas, the Fair Peni- 

 tent, &c. For the regulation of the conduft of a tragedy, 

 critics have eilabhfhed the famous rule of the three unities, 

 to which we fhall prefently advert. 



Tragedy, in its original, M. Hedelin obferves, was only 

 an hymn fung in honour of Bacchus by feveral perfons, 

 who, together, made a chorus of mufic with dances and 

 inltruments. A goat was the facrifice offered to that god ; 

 and from x^xyo.-, a goat, and iln, a Jong, was formed the ap- 

 pellation tragedy. 



As this was long, and might fatigue the fingers, as well as 

 tire the audience, they bethought themfelves to divide the 

 finging of the chorus into feveral parts, and to have certain 

 recitations in the intervals. 



Accordingly, Thefpis (fee his article) firfl introduced a 

 perfon to fpeak upon the i^age with this view. 



Phrynichus, the difclple of Thefpis, felefted that kind of 

 verfe which is moft fuitable to the drama, and introduced 

 fome other changes, but left tragedy in its infancy. He, it 

 is faid, introduced women's parts on the llage. 



jEfchylus, the father of tragedy, as he has been called, 

 finding one perfon infufficient, introduced a fecond to enter- 

 tain the audience more agreeably by a kind of dialogue : lie 

 alfo clothed his perfons more decently, and firft put on them 

 the buflcin. For his other improvements in this fpecies of 

 drama, fee his article ^sciiylus. 



The perfons who made their recitations on the fcene, 

 were called aSors ; fo that tragedy at firft was without 

 many ailors. And what tliey thus rehearfed, being things 

 added to the finging of the chorus, of which they were no 

 neceffary part, were called epifodes. 



Sopfiocles found that two perfons were not enough for 

 the variety of incidents ; and accordingly he introduced a 

 fhird : and here the Greeks feem to have ftopped ; at leatt. 



it is very rare that they introduee four i'peakers in the fame 

 fcene. 



The progrefs of the art under the culture of jEfchylus, 

 and his immediate fuccelTors, was extremely rapid. He had 

 for contemporaries and competitors, Chcerilus, Pratinas, 

 and Phrynichus already mentioned, whofe glory he eclipfed ; 

 and Sophocles, wlio rivalled his own. Sophocles cenfured 

 in /Efchylus three defefts : the exceffive elevation of his 

 ideas, the gigantic ftyle of his exprefiions, and the difficult 

 conduft of his plots ; and thefe faults he flattered himfelf 

 for having avoided. By reducing heroifm to its juft ftand- 

 ard, Soph-ocles lowered the ilyle of tragedy, and banifhed 

 thofc expreffions which a wild imagination had diftated to 

 jEfchylus, and which diffufed terror through the fouls of his 

 fpeftators. His ityle, like that of Homer, is full of 

 ftrength, magnificence, fublimity, and mildnefs. Even in 

 depicting the moft violent palTions, he happily fuits his ftyle 

 to the dignity of his perfonages. See the article So- 



PHOCLE.S. 



Euripides, at an early age, emulated the fame of So- 

 phocles, and afpired to the fovereignty of the ftage. See 

 the biographical article Euripides. 



Notwithllanding the prejudices and hatred of Arifto- 

 phanes againft Euripides, his decifion in afligning the firfl 

 place to iEfchylus, the fecond to Sophocles, and the third 

 to Euripides, was conformable to the opinion of the greater 

 part of the Athenians. jEfchylus, it is faid, painted men 

 greater than they can be, Sophocles as they ought to be, 

 and Euripides as they are. The two former had negledled 

 pafTions and fituations, which the latter thought capable of 

 producing great effefts. He fometimes reprefented prin- 

 ceifes inflamed with love, and refpiring only adultery and 

 crime ; and fometimes kings debafed by calamity to fuch 

 poverty, as to be covered with rags, and folicit a wretched 

 alms. Thefe fcenes, in which no refemblance was dif- 

 c^rnible of the manner of ^fchylus or Sophocles, at firft 

 difguftcd the fpeftators. It was faid, that under no pretext 

 ought the charafter and rank of the heroes of the ftage to be 

 fo degraded ; that it was highly reprehenfible to pourtray 

 with fo much art images fo fhameful, and dangerous to fupply 

 vice with the authority of great examples. But at this time 

 the Athenians in general were lefs oft'ended at the attacks 

 which the pieces of Euripides made on received ideas, than 

 hurried away by the fentiments with which lie had animated 

 them ; for this great poet, capable of managing at pleafure all 

 the paflions of the foul, is efpecially admirable when he paints 

 the furies of love, or excites the emotions of pity ; tlien, fur- 

 paffing himfelf, he fometimes attains the fublime, for which 

 he feems not to have been intended by nature. While he 

 was accufed of enervating tragedy, he had propofed to 

 render it the fchool of wifdom. Euripides, whofe elo- 

 quence fometimes degenerated into a redundant profufion 

 of words, and whofe rhetorical phrafes, learned digreflions, 

 and idle difputes reduced him much below Sophocles, who 

 has faid nothing which has not its utility, is neverthelefs faid 

 to have fixed the language of tragedy. He retained 

 fcarcely any expreffions that are efpecially appropriated to 

 poetry ; but he fo judicioufly felefted and employed thofe of 

 ordinary language, that, under their happy combination, the 

 feeblenefs of the thought feemed to difappear, and the moft 

 common word to become ennobled. Such was the magic 

 of that enchanting ftyle, which, preferving a juft medium 

 between meannefs and inflation, is almoft always elo- 

 quent, clear, harmonious, flowing, and fo flexible, that it 

 feems to adapt itfelf without effort to every feeling of 

 the foul. Whilft Sophocles admitted into his chorufes the 



Phrygian 



