ABSTRACT
That in all fictitious narrative, whose aim is to affect the passions, the poetical arrangement is naturally and obviously preferable to the historical, may be fairly inferred, from the universal adoption of it by all the novel-writers, good and bad: a description of authors not very likely to be influenced in their choice by the rules of Aristotle. Indeed, the historic form, though it may succeed in humorous compositions, is almost incompatible with a pathetic tale; since to be interesting, the circumstances must be particularly related, which would either swell the work to an enormous size, or break it so into parts, as must be disagreeable to every reader. For this reason the extent of the dramatic action is naturally more confined than the epic, both from the interest being stronger, and, consequently, its going more into detail, and the division of the fable into parts being more obvious, and on that account more disgusting to the spectator, and hence the unity of time, though not carried to the excess prescribed by the French critics, is a necessary consideration in the drama. Shakespear, it is true, reconciles us to the breach of it; but what modern poet would presume to follow his example?
