TRAGEDY. 



Unity of the aftion fliouW not be confounded with the 

 fimplicity of the plot. The plot is fimple, when a fmall 

 number of incidents are introduced into it ; but it may be 

 complex, in the language of critics, or include a confider- 

 able number of perfons and events, and yet not be deficient 

 in unity, if all the incidents tend towards the principal 

 objeft of the play, and be properly connetfed with it. 

 Congreve's " Mourning Bride" is adduced as an inftance 

 which Hands in perfeft oppofition to the fimplicity of the 

 ancient plots. The incidents fucceed one another too ra- 

 pidly, and the play is too full of bufinefs. Unity of aftion 

 mult not only be regarded in the conftruftion of the fable, 

 or plot, but it muft alfo regulate the feveral afts and fcenes 

 into which the play is divided. The divifion of the play 

 into five afts is altogetlier arbitrary, and rcfts merely on 

 common praftice, and the authority of Horace, De Art. 

 Poet. (See Acts, in Podry.) The paufes between the 

 afts fhould be duly adjufted ; fo that there are correfpond- 

 ing paufes in the aftion. The fifth aft is the feat of the 

 Catajlrophe ; which fee. For the feveral parts of tragedy, 

 fee Act, Action, Chauactek, Fable, Plot, Manners, 

 and Scene. 



It has been a queflion much agitated among philofo- 

 phical critics, how it comes to pafs that thofe emotions of 

 [orrow which tragedy excites afford any gratification to the 

 mind ? Sorrow, it is faid, is a painful paffion : fcenes of 

 niifery exhibited in tragedies excite a degree of fympathy 

 and agitation that occafions anguifh and dillrefs. The 

 fpeftators cannot fupprefs their feeli-ngs ; they are indicated 

 by their tears : and vet thev applaud fuch exhibitions, and 

 recur to them witli fatisfaftion and pleafure. That fuch 

 exhibitions fliould draw fuch ciT)wds of fpeftators, and that 

 they fliould be fo highly gratified by them, appears to be 

 fomewhat myfterious. The faft is acknowledged, and many 

 bypothefes have been propofed for the fatisfaftory expli- 

 cation of it. In order to account for it, we can by no 

 means recur to an innate principle of malice, which prompts 

 us to extraft delight from the fuflFerings of others, and as 

 ;t were to enjoy their calamities. Dr. Campbell, in his 

 ■• Philofophy of Rhetoric," (vol. i. chap, ii.) has detailed 

 ind examined the various hypothefes that have been devifed 

 by ingenious men for the folution of this difficulty. The 

 theory of the abbe du Bos, in his " Refleftions on Poetry 

 md Painting," is as follows. Few things, according to him, 

 nre more difagreeable to the mind, than that liftleffnefs into 

 which it falls, when it has nothing to occupy it, or to 

 awake th? palhons. In order to get rid of this nioft pain- 

 tul fituation, it feeks with avidity every amufement and 

 purfuit ; bufinefs, gaming, news, fhows, public executions, 

 romances ; in fhort, whatever will roufe the paffions, and take 

 off the mind's attention from itfelf. It matters not what 

 the emotion be, only the ftronger it is, fo much the better. 

 And for tliis reafon, thofe palfions which, confidered in 

 themfelves, are the moil afflifting and difagreeable, are pre- 

 ferable to the plealant, inafmuch as they mod effeftually 

 reheve the foul from that oppreflive languor which preys 

 upon it in a ilate of inaftivity. They afford it ample occu- 

 pation, and by giving play to its latent movements and fprings 

 of aftion, convey a pleafure which more than counter- 

 balances the pain. 



Mr. Hume, in reference to this theory, obferves, that 

 the fame objeft of diftrefs which pleafes in a tragedy, were 

 it really fet before us, would, without doubt, give the moft 

 unfeigned uneafinefs, though it fliould be the moft effeftual 

 cure of languor and indolence ; and Dr. Campbell fays, 

 that the moil which can be concluded from the abbe's pre- 

 mifes is, the utility of exctfing paffion of fome kind or othe», 



but nothing that can evince the luperior fitnels of the dil'- 

 trefsful affeftions. 



The next hypothefis is that of M. Fontenelle, in his 

 " Reilexions fur la Poetique." According to this writer, 

 pleafure and pain, which are two fentimcnts fo different 

 in themfelves, differ not fo much in their canfe. From the 

 inftance of tickhng it appears, that the movement of plea- 

 fure, puftied a little too far, becomes pain ; and that the 

 movement of pain, a little moderated, becomes pleafure. 

 Hence it proceeds, that there is fuch a tiling as a forrow, 

 foft and agreeable. It is a pain weakened and diminiflied. 

 The heart likes naturally to be moved and affefted. Me- 

 lancholy objefts fuit it, and even difaftrous and forrowful, 

 provided they are foftened by fome circumftance. It is 

 certain that, on the theatre, the reprefentation has almoft 

 the effeft of reahty ; but yet it has not altogether that efFcft. 

 However we may be hurried away by the fpeftacle, what- 

 ever dominion the fenfes and imagination may ufurp over 

 the reafon, there ftill lurks at the bottom a certain idea of 

 falfehood in the whole of what we fee. This idea, though 

 weak and difguifed, fuffices to diminilh the pain which we 

 fiitfer from the misfortunes of thofe whom we love, and to 

 reduce that affliftion to fuch a pitch as converts it into a 

 pleafure. We weep for the misfortunes of a hero to whom 

 we are attached. In the fame inllant we comfort ourfelves 

 by reflefting, that it is nothing but a fiftion ; and it is 

 precifely that mixture of fentiments which compofes an 

 agreeable forrow, and tears that delight us. But as that 

 affliftion which is caufed by exterior and fenfible objefts, is 

 llronger than the confolation which arifes from an internal 

 refleftion, they are the effefts and fymptoms of forrow, 

 which ought to prevail in the compofition. To Mr. Hume 

 tliis folution appeared juft and convincing ; but to Dr. 

 Campbell it appeared unfatisfaftory. The ingenious author 

 begins with laying it down as a general principle, that 

 however different the feelings of pleafure and of pain are 

 in themfelves, they differ not much in their caufe ; that the 

 movement of pleafure, puftied a little too far, becomes 

 pain ; and that the movement of pain, a little moderated, 

 becomes pleafure. Dr. Campbell has fliewn, that on this 

 principle, exemplified in a few inftances, and not warranted 

 by others more immediately connefted with the fubjeft in 

 queftion, we are not juftified in founding a general theory. 

 " The only truth," fays our author, " which I can dif- 

 cover in the preceding hypothefis is, that the mind, in certain 

 cafes, avails itfelf of the notion of falfehood, in order to 

 prevent the reprefentation or narrative from producing too 

 ilrong an effeft upon the imagination, and confequently to 

 relieve itfelf from fuch an excefs of paffion, as could not 

 otherwife fail to be painful. B^t let it be obferved, that 

 this notion is not a neceflary concomitant of the pleafure 

 that refults from, pity, and other fuch affeftions, but is 

 merely accidental. It was remarked above, that if the 

 pathetic exceeds a certain meafure, from being very pleafant 

 it becomes very painful. Then the mind recurs to every 

 expedient, and to difbelief amongft others, by which it may 

 be enabled to difburden itfelf of what diftrefleth it. And,'in- 

 deed, whenever this recourfe is had by any, it is a fure indi- 

 cation that, with regard to fuch, the poet, orator, or hif- 

 torian, hath exceeded the proper meafure. 



" But that this only holds when we are too deeply in- 

 terefted by the fympahetic forrow, will appear from the 

 following confiderations : firft, from the great pains often 

 taken by writers (whofe defign is certainly not to fhock, 

 but to pleafe their readers) to make the moil moving ftories 

 they relate, be firmly believed : fecondly, from the ten- 

 dency, nay fondnefe of the generality of mankind, to believe 



what 



