husband, of his mistress, and of her father the King of Corinth, all by poifon. It was neceffary to bring Medea upon the stage, and there is but one place of action, which is always occupied by the chorus. This fcene closes the fecond act: and in the end of the third, fhe frankly makes the chorus her confidents in plotting the murder of her own children. Terence, by identity of place, is often forced to make a converfation within doors, be heard on the open ftreet the cries of a woman in labour are there heard diftinctly.

The Greek poets are not lefs hampered by unity of time than by that of place. In the Hippolytus of Euripides, that prince is banifhed at the end of the fourth act; and in the firft fcene of the following act, a meffenger relates to Thefeus the whole particulars of the death of Hippolytus by the fea-monster : that remarkable event muft have occupied many hours; and yet in the representation, it is confined to the time employed by the chorus upon the fong at the end of the 4th act. The inconfiftency is ftill greater in the Iphigenia in Tauris :* the fong could not exhaust half an hour; and yet the incidents fuppofed to have happened during that time, could not naturally have been tranfacted in lefs than half a day.

The Greek artists are forced, no lefs frequently, to tranfgrefs another rule, derived alfo from a continued representation. The rule is, that as a vacuity, however momentary, interrupts the representation, it is neceffary that the place of action be conftantly occupied. Sophocles, with regard to that rule as well as to others, is generally correct. But Euripides cannot bear fuch restraint: he often evacuates the stage, and leaves it empty for others. Iphigenia in Tauris, after

after pronouncing a foliloquy in the firft fcene, leaves the place of action, and is fucceeded by Oreftes and Pylades they, after fome converfation, walk off; and Iphigenia re-enters, accompanied with the chorus. In the Alceftes, which is of the fame author, the place of action is void at the end of the third act. It is true, that to cover the irregularity, and to preserve the representation in motion, Euripides is careful to fill the stage without lofs of time but this ftill is an interruption, and a link of the chain broken; for during the change of the actors, there must be a space of time, during which the ftage is occupied by neither fet. It makes indeed a more remarkable interruption, to change the place of action as well as the actors; but that was not practicable upon the Grecian stage.

It is hard to fay upon what model Terence has formed his plays. Having no chorus, there is a pause in the reprefentation at the end of every act. But advantage is not taken of the ceffation, even to vary the place of action: for the street is always chofen, where every thing paffing may be feen by every perfon; and by that choice, the most sprightly and intercfting parts of the action, which commonly pafs within doors, are excluded; witnefs the laft act of the Eunuch. He hath fubmitted to the like flavery `with refpect to time. In a word, a play with a regular chorus, is not more confined in place and time than his plays are. Thus a zealous fectary follows implicitly ancient forms and ceremonies, without once confidering whether their introductive cause be still fubfifting. Plautus, of a bolder genius than Terence, makes good ufe of the liberty afforded by an interrupted representation: he varies the place of action upon all occafions, when the variation fuits his purpofe.

The

D

The intelligent reader will by this time understand, that I plead for no change of place in our plays but after an interval, nor for any latitude in point of time but what falls in with an interval. The unities of place and time ought to be strictly obferved during each act; for during the reprefentation, there is no opportunity for the fmalleft deviation from either. Hence it is an effential requifite, that during an act the stage be always occupied; for even a momentary vacuity makes an interval or interruption. Another rule is no lefs effential: it would be a grofs breach of the unity of action, to exhibit upon the stage two feparate actions at the fame time; and therefore, to preserve that unity, it is neceffary that each personage introduced during an act, be linked to thofe in poffeffion of the ftage, fo as to join all in one action.

Thefe things follow from the very conception of an act, which admits not the flightest interruption : the moment the reprefentation is intermitted, there is an end of that act; and we have no notion of a new act, but where, after a pause or interval, the representation is again put in motion. French writers, generally fpeaking, are correct in this particular. The English, on the contrary, are fo irregular, as fcarce to deferve a criticifm. Actors, during the fame act, not only fucceed each other in the fame place without connection, but what is ftill lefs excufable, they frequently fucceed each other in different places. This change of place in the fame act, ought never to be indulged; for, befide breaking the unity of the act, it has a difagreeable effect. After an interval, the imagination readily adapts itself to any place that is neceffary, as readily as at the commencement of the play; but during the representation, we reject change of place. From the foregoing cenfure must be excepted the Mourning Bride of Congreve, where

where regularity concurs with the beauty of fentiment and of language, to make it one of the moft complete pieces England has to boast of. I must acknowledge, however, that in point of regularity, this elegant performance is not altogether unexceptionable. In the four firft acts, the unities of place and time are strictly observed: but in the last act, there is a capital error with respect to unity of place; for in the three first scenes of that act, the place of action is a room of ftate, which is changed to a prifon in the fourth fcene: the chain alfo of the actors is broken; as the perfons introduced in the prison, are ⚫ different from those who made their appearance in the room of state. This remarkable interruption of the representation, makes in effect two acts instead of one and therefore, if it be a rule that a play ought not to confift of more acts than five, this performance is fo far defective in point of regularity. I may add, that even admitting fix acts, the irregularity would not be altogether removed, without a longer paufe in the representation than is allowed in the acting; for more than a momentary interruption is requifite for enabling the imagination readily to fall in with a new place, or with a wide space of time. In The Way of the World, of the fame author, unity of place is preferved during every act, and a stricter unity of time during the whole play, than is neceffary.

CHAP. XXIV.

Gardening and Architecture.

THE books we

HE books we have upon architecture and upon embellishing ground, abound in practical inftruction, neceffary for a mechanic: but in vain fhould we rummage them for rational principles to improve our tafte. In a general fyftem, it might be thought fufficient to have unfolded the principles that govern these and other fine arts, leaving the application to the reader: but as I would neglect no opportunity of fhowing the extenfive influence of thefe principles, the purpose of the prefent chapter is to apply them to gardening and architecture: but without intending any regular plan of thefe favourite arts, which would be unfuitable not only to the nature of this work, but to the experience of its author.

Gardening was at first an useful art: in the garden of Alcinous, described by Homer, we find nothing done for pleafure merely. But gardening is now improved into a fine art; and when we talk of a garden without any epithet, a pleasure garden, by way of eminence is understood: The garden of Alcinous, in modern language, was but a kitchengarden. Architecture has run the fame courfe: it continued many ages an ufeful art merely, without afpiring to be claffed with the fine arts. Architecture, therefore, and gardening, being useful arts as well as fine arts, afford two different views. The reader, however, will not here expect rules for improving any work of art in point of utility; it being no part of my plan to treat of any ufeful art as fuch:

but