It is first necessary to consider, Why, probably, the compositions of the Ancients, especially in their serious Plays were after this manner? And it will be found, that the subjects they commonly chose, drave them upon the necessity; which were usually the most known stories and Fables [p. 522]. Accordingly, SENECA, making choice of MEDEA, HYPPOLITUS, and HERCULES _OEtaeus_, it was impossible to _show_ MEDEA throwing old mangled AESON into her age-renewing caldron, or to _present_ the scattered limbs of HYPPOLITUS upon the Stage, and _show_ HERCULES burning upon his own funeral pile. And this, the judicious HORACE clearly speaks of, in his _Arte Poetica_; where he says _Non tamen intus Digna geri, promes in scenam: multaque tolles Ex oculis, quae mox narret facundia praesens. Nec pueros coram populo MEDEA trucidet[8] Aut humana palam coquat extra nefarius ATREUS, Aut in avem PROGNE vertatur, CADMUS in anguem. Quodcunque ostendit mihi sic, incredulus odi_. So that it appears a fault to chose such Subjects for the Stage; but much greater, to affect that Method which those subjects enforce: and therefore the French seem much mistaken, who, without the necessity, sometimes commit the error. And this is as plainly decided by the same author, in his preceding word _Aut agitur res in Scenis aut acta refertur: Segnius irritant animos demissa per aurem; Quam quae sunt oculis subjecta fidelibus, et quae Ipse sibi tradit spectator_. By which, he directly declares his judgement, "That every thing makes more impression Presented, than Related." Nor, indeed, can any one rationally assert the contrary. For, if they affirm otherwise, they do, by consequence, maintain, That a whole Play might as well be Related, as Acted. Therefore whoever chooses a subject, that enforces him to RELATIONS, is to blame; and he that does it without the necessity of the subject, is much more. If these premisses be granted, 'tis no partiality to conclude, That our English Plays justly challenge the pre-eminence.