As little do I see the Reason of Vossius's[384] Rule, in regard to the Number of Actors: That there should not be above fourteen. To be sure there ought not to be more; and, if we except the Mutes, concerning whom there's no Occasion to lay down any Rule, there ought not, perhaps, to be so many. But for the Reasons I before mention'd, I cannot see any for fixing a determinate Number. Every Thing of this Nature is to be left entirely to the Discretion of the writer.
Nor is there any Necessity, from the Nature of the Thing, that there should be just five Acts in a Play, according to that of Horace,
[385] Neve minor, neu sit quinto productior actu Fabula, quæ posci vult, & spectata reponi.
Five Acts are just the Measure of a Play. Rosc.
After him, Vossius, and others, In a Play there are neither more nor less than Five Acts. So, indeed, the Ancients have determin'd, and Custom has prevail'd; and this, no doubt, is a very proper Division; but there's no Foundation for it in Nature, and even the Acts are now, and always have been, of uncertain Length. And Vossius, in the same Discourse[386], observes, Some think a Play may consist only of four Acts, provided it be of a proper Length, such as may be seen with Pleasure, and understood with Ease. And 'tis a Remark of Lambinus's that Tully, and some others of the Ancients, mention the third and fourth as the last Act, without any Notice of the fifth; so that the fourth may be understood the last. Nay, in his first Epistle to his Brother Quintus, the third seems to be the last Act. The Words are these: "Illud te ad extremum & oro, & hortor, ut tanquam poetæ boni, & actores industrii solent, sic tu in extrema parte & conclusione muneris, ac negotii tui, diligentissimus sis; ut hic tertius annus imperii tui, tanquam tertius actus, perfectissimus, atque ornatissimus, fuisse videatur. Lastly, I beg and intreat you to exert yourself in the Conclusion of your Office, as artful Poets, and good Actors use to do; that so this third Year of your Command, may be like the third Act of a Play, the most perfect and ornamental." Unless Tully meant no more than that as Poets have a chief Regard to the last Act, you should have the same for your third Year; which is to you, your last Act.
I can by no means agree with the learned Author concerning the Distribution of the Business that is to be perform'd in each Act; who delivers himself in this Manner: "The first Act opens the Plot, but not the Event of it; because it would afford less Surprize, to be known before-hand. The second brings on the Design into Action. The third raises some Embarras. The fourth shews the Way by which all Difficulties may be remov'd. The last artfully removes them." I readily grant, the first Act ought to open the Plot. But this may be partly done in the second; nor is it necessary the whole of it should be laid open in the first. The first, likewise, as well as the second, may produce it into Action: The second, as well as the third, may raise an Embarras; and the fourth no less than the other two. The fourth ought not openly to discover how Difficulties may be remov'd, the Business, rather, of the fifth, which does that, and somewhat more. In this Case, then, (as I said before in another) Rules are arbitrarily prescrib'd, without any Foundation in Nature; but all these Things are to be dispos'd according to the free Discretion of the Writer. Were it otherwise, the Audience would, in some Measure, know before-hand what they are to expect in every Act. There's no Necessity that one or the other Part of Action should be peculiar to this or that Act; nor are any Rules requir'd about it, except those which we are now coming to, that relate to what are term'd Protasis, Epitasis, and Catastrophe.
Twenty-second Lecture.
The threefold Division of the Drama, into Protasis, Epitasis, and Catastrophe, or, as others, in the Terms of Aristotle, to the very same Effect, into Prologue, Episode, and Exode, seems very natural and easy; tho' neither of these Divisions is peculiar to any Act. By Protasis is meant that Part which is a Narrative of what has pass'd, and an Introduction to what is to follow: In the Epitasis, Incidents as they are call'd by the Moderns, arise; all Things are in Confusion, involv'd in Doubts and Difficulties; and the Audience anxious, and trembling for the Birth of Fate. The Catastrophe clears up every Thing; and is nothing else but the Discovery, or winding up of the Plot. But these Parts, as I said before, are not assignable to any particular ones of the Drama: There's no Necessity that all the Protasis should be contain'd in the first Act. The Catastrophe, indeed, has its peculiar Place; for it ought to be entirely contain'd, not only in the last Act, but even in the very Conclusion of it; and when the Plot is finish'd, the Play should be so too. The Epitasis runs thro' the whole, except the Beginning, and the Conclusion; the former is taken up entirely with part of the Protasis, or the whole of it; the latter with the Catastrophe. 'Tis the Epitasis, then, that supports the Weight and Burden of the Poem, upon which the Crisis of the Action chiefly turns. It far exceeds, therefore, the other two, in Extent; as it contains all the Revolutions of Circumstances, the sudden Changes, and surprizing Events, till, at length, we come to the Catastrophe, the last, and most surprizing Event of all.
If what we have now said is true, 'tis plain Vossius has not given a right Account of this Matter. "Of these Parts in Comedy, the Protasis, says he[387], is contain'd in the first Act, and sometimes, likewise, in the second: The Epitasis in the second, sometimes the third, and fourth, but very rarely any Part of it in the fifth: The Catastrophe takes up sometimes the fourth Act, or Part of it, but always the whole fifth, or almost the whole. From whence it appears, that the Division of the Greeks, into Protasis, Epitasis, Catastrophe and Choricus, is a better one than that of the Romans into five Acts: For the Greek Division distinguishes the Drama into Parts that differ in Nature; whereas the other Division into Acts, considers them only as different in Quantity, without regard to any internal Distinction." Now to pass over his mentioning Comedy, whereas Tragedy is equally concern'd in this Division, I allow it to be very true, that the Protasis is contain'd in the first Act, and sometimes in the second likewise; and I will add, sometimes in any other Act; tho' this seems to contradict Vossius's Opinion in another Place, where he says, The first Act unfolds the Plot, as if that was the peculiar Business of the first Act. I grant, also, that the Epitasis is contain'd in the second, the third, and fourth; but let me add, likewise, partly in the first, and partly in the fifth: For there's no Act to which the Epitasis is not suitable; and I must be so bold as to deny, what this learned Author asserts, that there's rarely any Part of it in the fifth; so far is this from being true, that some of it ought always to be in the fifth. Nor do I grant that the Catastrophe takes up sometimes the fourth Act, or Part of it, but always the whole fifth, or almost the whole. For the Catastrophe ought to turn, as we say, upon a Point, to start up, on a sudden; as soon as that is discover'd, the Play should conclude; and this End once obtain'd, all the Action cease: Otherwise, the Curiosity of the Audience will be pall'd, and what promis'd Pleasure, will then appear insipid and tedious. Nor had Vossius any good Reason to compare this Division of Protasis, Epitasis, and Catastrophe, with that of five Acts, as if these two Divisions were inconsistent[388], whereas, from what has been said, it appears, they are very compatible, nay, I may say, include each other.
Scaliger[389] defines the Catastrophe to be a Turn of Affairs that were before embroil'd into an unexpected Calm; and Evanthius,(as Vossius[390] cites him) a Turn of Affairs to a happy Conclusion, after the Audience have been Witnesses to what has pass'd. Both wrong: For (as the same Vossius well observes) both Definitions suit only a Comic Catastrophe, not a Dramatic one in general. His own Definition is just, That it is the End of a Play, where Fortune is seen to terminate in good or ill Success.