We often lengthen the unity of time to twen ty-four hours, and that of place to a large pa lace. More strictness would exculde many fine fubjects, and more indulgences would give room to much abuse. For, if it were once allowed that the plot of a play might take in two days, it would be foon extended to fix months by the first author whose plan would so require it; and another would take up two years; and, if the scene of action was not limited to fome one fpot, we fhould have plays in the manner of Shakespear's Julius Caefar, in which Brutus and Caffius are at Rome in the first act, and in Theffaly in the laft. The obfervation of thefe laws not only contributes to the avoiding of many faults, but also gives rife to feveral beauties; in the fame manner as the rules of architecture, when exactly followed, neceffarily compofe a pleasing structure. When the unities of action, place and time are preserved, the play must of consequence be fimple; and this fimplicity is the great merit of all Racine's works, and the merit which Ariftotle required. Mr. de la Motte, in defending a tragedy of his own writing, prefers a multitude of events to this noble fimplicity. He thinks his arguments confirmed by the example of Berenice which is not liked, and the great esteem in which the Cid + is held to this day.

* A tragedy of Racine's, entirely founded on this one paffage in Livy, Titus Reginam Berenicen, qui etiam nuptias pollicitus ferebatur, ftatim ab urbe di mifit invitus invitam. The want of incidents hindered this play from proceeding on the ftage, though it is a mafter-piece of art, delicacy, and sentiment.

A play wrote by Corneille, and taken from the

It is certain the Cid is more affecting than Berenice, which laft, is rather an elegy than a fimple tragedy; the Cid, the plot of which is truly tragic, does not owe its fuccefs to the multiplicity of events, but it pleases notwithstanding that multiplicity: it affects notwithstanding the infanta; not on account of the infanta.

Mr. de la Motte is of opinion, that a writer may entirely despise these laws, and content himself with the unity of intereft, which he fays he has found out, and calls a paradox: but this unity seems to me to be nothing more than the unity of action. "If feveral perfonages, fays Mr. de la Motte, are differently interested in the fame event, and are all worthy of my entering into their paffions, there is, then, an unity of action, though not an unity of interest".

Since I have taken the liberty to dispute upon this point, with Mr. de la Motte, I have read over the discourse of the great Corneille on the three unities; who is worthier of being confulted than I am. He expreffes himself in this manner: My opinion then is, and I have already mentioned it, that the unity of action consists in the unity of intrigue and in the unity of danger." Let the reader perufe this part of Corneille's works, and he will foon determine between Mr. de la Motte and me; and though I were not strength

Spanish; it was fo much liked by Cardinal Richelieu, who, befides, was fond of poetic fame, that he offered a fum equalling five thousand pounds fterling to let him pafs for the author of it; but Corneille had too much fpirit, and too great a love for laurel glory to confent to fuch a bargain.

ened by the authority of this great man, I have an argument of still greater force, which is experience. In our best tragedies, the chief perfonages are all differently interested; but these different interests are fubfervient to that of the principal perfonage, and, then, there is unity

of action.

If on the other hand, all thefe different interests are not subfervient to the principal actor, if they are not so many lines which tend to one center, the intereft is double; and what is called action upon the stage, is alfo double. Let us therefore keep up as Corneille did, to the three unities, in which, all other rules, that is, all other beauties, are included. Yet Mr. de la Motte calls them principles of fancy, and pretends we may do without them in our tragedies, as well as neglect them in our operas; which, in my opinion, is endeavouring to reform a regular government upon the example of an anarchy.

The opera is an entertainment fingular and odd, as it is magnificent and striking; where the ears and eyes are better fatisfied than the mind; where, through a constant subserviency to mufic, the most ridiculous faults are become neceffary; where the actors dance around a tomb,

*Mr. Addifon, who in general was averfe to operas, fo far agrees with monfieur de Voltaire in this particular, as to fay, "An opera may be allowed to be extravagantly lavish in its decorations, as its only defign is to gratify the fenfes, and keep up an indolent attention in the audience."

D

and fing at the destruction of a town; where you may fee now Pluto's palace, now the palace of the fun; where gods and demons, magicians, monsters and miracles are formed and destroyed in the twinkling of an eye. We tole

rate these extravagancies, we are even fond of them, because we fuppofe ourselves on enchanted ground; and provided there be some show, fine dancing, delightful mufic, and a few interefting fcenes, we are fatisfied. It would be as ridiculous to expect the unities of action, place and time, preserved in Alceftes*, as it would be to attempt introducing dances and devils, in Cinna or in Rodogune.

And though we dispense with rules in our operas, yet these dramatic laws are so natural and neceffary, and contribute fo much to entertain the spectator, that the beft operas are thofe, in which, they are leaft broke through; and there are some even, in which they are strictly obferved. How then can Mr. de la Motte reproach his country-men with levity in condemning in one fpectacle, what they approve in another?

There is no one but could make the following

One of the first and fineft of the French operas; the mufic was compofed by Baptifta Lulli, and the words by Quinaut, who was a man of real poetic genius and tafte, as it is now generally allowed in France, notwithstanding Boileau's criticifm and contempt of this writer, which he fhewed in the folJowing lines:

Si je penfe exprimer un auteur fans defaut.
La raison, dit Virgile, et la Rime Quinaut.

anfwer to Mr. de la Motte: "I have a right to expect much greater perfection in a tragedy than in an opera, because in a tragedy my attention is not divided; it is not from a well tuned note, nor from a finely-executed step, that my pleafure is to arife; my mind alone is to be satisfied." I admire a man who can conduct and bring about in one place, and in the fame day, a single event, which I conceive without fatigue, and which affects me by degrees. The more I fee that this fimplicity is difficult, the more I am pleased with it; and if afterwards I would fain account for this fatisfaction, I find myself of Boileau's opinion, who says,

Qu'en un lieu, qu'en un jour, un feul fait accompli
Tienne jufqu'à la fin le théatre rempli..

I have, befides, in my favour, the authority of the great Corneille; I have alfo his example, and the pleasure which his plays afford me in proportion as he has, more or lefs, ftrictly obeyed this rule.

Mr. de la Motte, not content to banish from the stage these fundamenral laws, would fain alfo exclude poetry from it, and introduce tragedies in profe.

This ingenious and fertile author, who has been all his life writing poetry, or fomething in profe relative to his poetry, now rails at his

*The theatre should be taken up from the first to the last act with a fingle event; past in one day and in one place.