weapons. beauties which more than redeem his errors; but it is pleasing to endeavour to vindicate his sovereignty against those, who in hostile terms, have rebelliously challenged him to the combat with his own. We must confess, however, that the enumeration of the faults of Hamlet, in Voltaire's criticism, however exaggerated, unbecoming, and ungrateful in the style, is not altogether unjust; and I shall quote the passage as tending to shew the errors, which an author treating the same subject, had to avoid. After some remarks sufficiently cold and formal, upon the numerous beauties of this tragedy, he becomes thus lively as soon as he approaches its defects. "C'est une piece grossiere et barbare, qui ne serait-pas supportée par la plus vile populace de la France, et de l'Italie. Hamlet y devient fou au second acte, & sa maitresse devient folle au troisieme; le prince tue le pere de sa maitresse feignant de tuer un rat, et l'heroine se jette dans la riviere. On fait șa fosse sur le theatre, des fossoyeurs disent des quolibets dignes d'eux, en tenant dans leurs mains des têtes de morts, le prince Hamlet repond a leurs grossieretés abominables par des folies non moins degoûtantes. Pendant ce temps là un des acteurs fait la conquête de la Pologne. Hamlet, sa mere et son beau-pere boivent ensemble sur le theâtre on chante a table, on s'y querelle, on se bat, on se tue: on croirait que cet ouvrage est le fruit de l'imagination d'un sauvage ivre." I give this passage to the indignation of the reader, only remarking, that if Shakespeare has absurdly, extravagantly, and often unnecessarily violated in almost all his plays, the unities of time and place, in the play before us, the unity of action, which is best explained to mean the exhibition of one ruling passion, all other parts and feelings being subordinate and tributary to it, is more faithfully preserved in Hamlet than in Semiramis, and perhaps generally speaking, by Shakespeare* than * In the plays of Hamlet, Othello, Coriolanus, Richard 3rd., and Romeo and Juliet, the unity of action is very well preserved. This fact is sufficiently proved by the circumstance, that in the representation, those parts which most violate this unity are omitted, without its being necessary to join the remaining parts by any additional lines. They fall off from the body of the play, as if they had been originally written by some inferior hand, or in complaisance to the taste of the times when the author lived. Clouds hang round the genius of Shakespeare, originating in a very distant quarter of the heavens, and from causes over which he has no controul, nor can any splendor or heat entirely disperse them. Voltaire. Upon the relative importance of each of these unities, the two nations seem to be at issue. Shakespeare has taught us to think passion and character more essential to tragedy, than powerful and comprehensive discussion in harmonious versification. In leaving Voltaire, I must take occasion to remark upon an error of no inconsiderable magnitude in the dedication of his "Brutus" to Lord Bolingbroke. He there observes, that the passion of love should never be exhibited in a tragedy, but as the ground-work, or leading sentiment, or ruling intrigue of the piece. These are his words. " Pour que l'amour soit digne du theatre tragique, il faut qu'il soit le noeud necesssaire de la piece, et non qu'il soit amené par force pour remplir le vide de vos tragedies et des notres qui sont toutes trop longues; il faut que ce soit une passion veritablement tragique regardée comme une faiblesse, et combattue par des remords. Il faut ou que l'amour conduise aux malheurs et aux crimes pour faire-voir combien il est dangereux; ou que la vertu en triomphe pour montrer qu'il n'est pas invincible: sans cela ce n'est plus qu'un amour d'eglogue ou de comedie." It may be answered, that because the passion of love is not the ruling intrigue of a piece, it does not follow that it is forced into the play for no purpose but to increase its length. The other observation contained in this passage, that unless it leads to crime and misfortune, or is triumphed over by virtue, it is nothing more than the love of eclogue or comedy, is at least equally unjust. Indeed, on the contrary, it may be asserted, that an author who makes this passion the ground-work of his piece, is far more likely to run into a dialogue fit only for eclogue or comedy, than he who merely introduces it for the illustration of character, or of a higher and more dignified feeling. When you have to spread the conversation of lovers through five acts, it must be impossible to avoid being either insipid or bombastic. Accordingly we see the best authors have failed in this attempt, Shakespeare in his Romeo and Juliet, Dryden in his Antony and Cleopatra, and other plays, Voltaire in his Zara, Mr. Mason in his Elfrida. * I suspect, that if the following lines had not been written by the author of Zaire, Voltaire would have condemned them to eclogue or comedy. Orosmane. Paraissez, tout est prêt et l'ardeur qui m'anime Ne souffre plus, Madame, aucun retardement ; Les flambeaux de l'hymen brillent pour votre amant; The ancients were so aware of the difficulty here mentioned, that they have left us no play of the nature under discussion. The truth seems to be, that all absolute and extreme injunctions of this sort are false, inapplicable and dangerous; nor shall we yield to a rule, tending to exclude from our tragedies all the sacred names, which by the universal consent of mankind, have been followed with most admiration and interest; to banish and proscribe a Hector, a Julius Cæsar, a Henry the Fourth of France, and to substitute in their places an Ajax, or a Cato, a Catiline, or a Borgia. It surely cannot be necessary that a man should be mad in order to be amiable. In Du dieu de Mahomet la puissance invoquée Le trône, les festins et la ceremonie, Tout est prêt: commencez le bonheur de ma vie. Za. Ou suis Je, malheureux! ô tendresse! ô douleur! Oros. Venez. Za. Où me cacher? Oros. Que dites vous ? Za. Seigneur ! Oros. DONNEZ-MOI VOTRE MAIN; daignez, belle |