the scene in which Banquo is killed, and the fcene in which the foldiers cut branches from the trees, are needlefs in the reprefentation; as these two events are (or, with the addition of a line or two, would be) fufficiently narrated by the murderer and the meffenger. It is furely defirable to remove every fpeck from the greatest effort extant of dramatic power, and a piece, which, to the honour of the nation, is ftill a favourite fpectacle. The fourth note to this chapter is very valuable; and fo are feveral of the fucceeding notes, on which we must not allow ourfelves to expatiate. They have the merit of tending to recall the attention of our dramatifts to the fimpler models of Grecian art. It ought certainly to be an object of national ambition to work up each of their celebrated fables for the English stage. The fecond note to the 16th chapter analyfes the Iphigenia in Tauris of Euripides, and dwells with juft cenfure on the inartificial conduct of the difcovery. The modern play of Goethe, on the contrary, offers in the fecond and third act the model of a difcovery, conducted with an art never furpaffed. The first note to the 17th chapter will be a fufficient specimen of this ingenious commentator's manner: NOTE I.-The Poet, as well when he compofes the Incidents as when he adds the Language, ought as much as poffible to confider every thing as paffing before his eyes. This rule, by which the epopee is much lefs fhackled, though by no means exempt from its obfervance, is of the utmost confequence to the dramatic poet. As to the inftance of a drama failing in the reprefentation from a neglect of this neceffary care which Ariftotle adduces, though the particular tragedy is loft, we may eafily fupply the nature of the error from conjecture. We may fuppofe Amphiaraus to be in a temple out of which it was impoffible for him to come unobferved by the fpectators, and then to appear on the flage without being perceived to come out of it. From this obfervation, Dacier infers the ftrict attention to the unity of place on the ancient theatre, of which we have spoken fo largely before t. But furely it has nothing to do with it. It was undoubtedly not the general practice of the ancient theatre to change the fuppofed fcene of action. And as the action from the continued prefence of the chorus was feldom if ever interrupted, it was barely poffible that a character, after being fuppofed to go into a confined place in the fight of the fpectators, could be conceived to come out again unfeen by them, without violating, not the arbitrary rules of the drama, but the natural probability of the reprefentation. And on the other hand, from the frequent change of fcene and intervals of action, this may happen on the modern, or at least on the English ftage, without the leaft abfurdity. But neverthelefs though this is generally true of both, it is not • * See Note v. Chap. xxiv. + See Note iii. Chap. v.' univerfally univerfally true. When a change of fcene is plainly implied by the language and incidents of the Grecian drama, fuch an event may take place there wITHOUT improbability; and if the identity of place and continuation of action is marked in an English drama, fuch an event cannot take place wITH propriety. In the Eumenides of Æfchylus, where, after Apollo has perfuaded Orettes to quit his temple at Delphos and repair to that of Minerva at Athens, his perfecutors follow him, and afterwards he goes out himself; they may without impropriety all enter again at the fame door, because that door, though according to the apparatus of the ancient theatre exactly the fame, is now fuppofed to be changed from the temple of Apollo to that of Minerva; fince between the verfes 234 and 235 the fcene is obviously changed from Delphos to Athens; and as Oreftes and the Chorus immediately appear, there must be a break in the action comprehending a confiderable interval of time. And in an English play reprefented even without fcenery in a private houfe, if a character were to go into a door, we will fuppofe as into a closet to be concealed, (a common incident in comedy,) and during the obvious continuation of the fcene appear at another door, fhould not we laugh at the ftriking impropriety? Or to take a contrary inftance from a particular play; if in the laft fcene of the Clandeftine Marriage, Sir John Melville were to come out of the very door from which Lord Ogleby is fummoning him, we should hardly agree with the learned Serjeant in pronouncing it to be the clearest ALIBI we ever faw proved. The lafl scene of Shakespear's Romeo and Juliet feems to be at the fame time both within and without the monument of the Capulets. The duel between Romeo and Paris is in the church-yard. The death of Romeo, as alfo the awakening and death of Juliet, must be within the monument, the infide of which could not be feen from the churchyard, as on the entry of Friar Laurence he only difcovers a light in it, on a nearer approach he difcerns the blood of Paris on the ftony entrance, and obviously on looking down into the vault difcovers the bodies of Romeo and Paris. To fhew how this confirms the doctrine of Ariftotle as to the difference between the epopee and tragedy in this respect, I never was ftruck by it, though a frequent and attentive reader of our immortal bard, till I faw Mr. Northcote's picture in the Shakespear Gallery, who has drawn the fcene in the infide of the vault with the body of Romeo lying at the foot of the stairs that lead down to the bottom of it. In the play as now reprefented, this is entirely obviated by the judicious alteration of Mr. Garrick. For Juliet awakens, and comes out of the tomb as Romeo is about to enter it. It is neceflary alfo for the dramatic poet to adapt his language to the action that must accompany it, especially in thofe ftriking fituatior which are most calculated to produce ftrong theatrical effect *. An over-fight of this kind feems to occur in the Grecian Daughter. Whe Euphrafia ftabs Dionyfius, the exclaims, *We have no appropriated name for thefe in English. The Freach call them COUPS DE THEATRE.' A daughter's A daughter's arm, fell monster, ftrikes the blow, All, or at least the greatest part of this feems to be intended to precede the blow: and yet probability requires that the blow of a woman that kills an armed warrior fhould be unforeseen and fudden *. The Regent affords another inftance of this kind of impropriety. Juft at the conclufion, the Duke and the Ufurper engage hand to hand before all the Duke's friends. They fhould either have fought before the Duke's attendants had arrived, or in prefence of both parties, who might have been fuppofed to have mutually awed each other from interfering +.' The notes to the 20th, 21ft, and 22d chapters relate chiefly to English grammar. We should have taken a pleasure in the analyfis of them, had they appeared in a work of philology: but we deem it expedient, when offering comments on a work concerning the drama, to include fuch remarks only as will naturally there be fought. Befides, thefe notes are neither very important, nor original, nor grounded on a knowlege of the northern tongues; without which it is impoffible competently to understand the mechanism of our language. For a like reason, we pafs over the notes on the 23d and following chapters, as they relate chiefly to the epopee. On the whole, we confider the author of this volume as entitled to much public gratitude, for accumulating fo confiderable a body of dramatical information,-for offering many juft and fome original criticisms on a variety of our national productions, and for having thus arranged (as it were) and prepared the materials, whence fome future philofopher will no doubt build up a complete theory of the dramatic art. ART. II. Mr. Dallaway's Inquiries into Heraldry. HAVING premifed thofe general obfervations refpecting the origin of heraldry, which occur in our Number for Auguft, Art. 1, we shall now proceed to notice fome of the particulars relating both to the manner in which our author treats his fubject, and to the fubject itself. We hoped that we fhould find, in the courfe of the work, fome information that would have enabled us to decide at what period the royal bearings of the realm were firft settled, and when and why they were changed to the three lions paffan as * Mrs. Siddons felt the force of this. She ftrikes Dionyfius without fpeaking a word, and repeats the paffage over him as he lies on the ground.' See this circumftance compared with what Ariftotle fays of the battle between Achilles and Hector in the Iliad. Note v. Chap. xxiv.” they they are borne at prefent. Mr. D., however, whofe extenfive reading rendered him equal to fuch a tafk, has contented himself with telling us what were the arms of Richard I. without informing us why he had affumed them. This prince had made ufe of two great feals; on one of which two lions, or rather two leopards, were reprefented as "combattant," and on the other, three of the fame animals appear "paffant in pale." That these were not the arms of the Saxon kings of England is evident from what Mr. 1). himself fays, when he remarks incidentally that, in 959, king Edgar added to the crofs floretté, which we may prefume was his ordinary enfign, four martlets; which in 1042 were by Edward the Confeffor increased to five. These laft were confidered as the arms of England, and, though not used by the Norman kings, were thought too facred, and too much the property of the crown, to be worn by a fubject; as appears from the trials of Thomas third Duke of Norfolk, of the Howard family, and of his fon Henry Earl of Surrey, who were convicted of high treason on very weak and filly grounds indeed; one of which was that they had borne in their fhields the arms of the Confeffor, and thereby manifefted their intention of afpiring to the throne on the death of Henry VIII. to the prejudice of his fon and heir apparent, afterward Edward VI. The account given by Mr. D. of the arms of the abbey of St. Edmund's Bury would afford room for a conjecture that the prince, whofe name that abbey bore, might have carried in his fhield a royal crown. The arms of that foundation are thus defcribed in old verfe, in a poem quoted by Mr. D., now in the British Museum : "The other ftandard ffeld fable off colour ynde In which of gold been notable crownys thrè And the second for his virginyté For his martyrdom the thridde in his fuffring." The lions, we believe, never appeared on the fhields of the kings of England till after the conqueft; and then they were only two in number, being the arms of Normandy, as appears from many old buildings in that dutchy erected before the Normans invaded this country. The number was not increafed till the reign of Richard I.; who, after fome time, added to the two lions of Normandy the lion of Poictou, or Aquitaine, which territories he had inherited from his mother Queen Eleanor; and from that time to the prefent the kings of England, though many of them prided themselves in their English birth, have invariably borne, for the royal arms of this realm, enfigns no way belonging to it, but derived from provinces provinces fubordinate to the crown of France. The Saxon fpirit must have been completely fubdued, or fuch a national infult could never have been offered with impunity, and borne without refiftance. John Bull, however, who is fprung from both Normans and Saxons, though fo very antigallican in his heart, fees with pleasure the (French) lions on the royal shield; it is true that he calls them British, and that is enough for him; it never once enters his head that the Normans, vaffals of Frenchmen, lay claim to two of them as their property, and the Gafcons to the third. Mr. D. fhews, in different parts of his work, that heraldry has been very inftrumental in improving many of the arts. Seal engraving owes its perfection to heraldry. This art was first introduced into England' by Edward the Confeffor, who brought it from Normandy, where he was educated: but the public had not, for a great length of time, any ground for encouraging it, as the ufe of feals was for a confiderable period confined to the king :-but, after the conqueft, it was extended to many of the nobility, as appears from divers of their foundation-charters and gifts to the church. The gentry, however, and of course the yeomanry and citizens, were excluded from the honour of authenticating their acts by feals; for we find that Richard de Lucy, who was chief juftice in the reign. of Henry II., is reported to have taken fevere cognizance of a private man," who by using a feal interfered with the fole privilege of nobles and knights." By a decree of Cardinal Otto in 1237, all the archbishops and bishops were required to bear on the margin of their feals their titles, office, and proper names. This cuftom was foon afterward adopted by the laity; and the ufe of arms having become very extenfive, the art of engraving them received great encouragement, and was confequently highly improved. Sculpture is alfo greatly indebted to heraldry. The first fculptured coat of arms that we find in England (fays Mr. D.) is on the fhield of the effigy of Geoffry de Magnaville*, Earl of Effex, in the Temple church, who died in 1144.' Enamelling owes its introduction in this country to the tafte of the nation for emblazoning arms: during the reigns of the three Edwards, (fays Mr. D.) Greek enamellers refided in England, who both practifed and taught their art.' The fame tafte caufed the art of embroidery to be carried to great perfection; to excel in it was deemed an accomplishment among females of every rank :-but the pomp and fplendour of the church fervice in thofe days opened a ftill wider field for embroidery than even heraldry itself. Mr. D. obferves that en * Quære-Should not this be Maundeville, or Mandeville? amelling |