His serious critical writings on the subject comprise little else than his Essay on the Drama, which appeared in the supplement to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, published in 1819, and the discussions given in connection with Dryden’s plays.[136] Although the Essay was written ten years later than the Dryden, we have no reason to think that Scott changed his views or added greatly to his knowledge in the interval, and using these two sources we may discuss his account of the drama in general without regard to the particular date at which his opinions were expressed.

His exposition in the Essay on the Drama rested on the basis furnished by a historical study of the stage.  He did not, of course, pretend to have formed his own conclusions on all points, and we find him quoting from various authorities, sometimes naming them and sometimes only indicating, perhaps, that he was “abridging from the best antiquaries.”  This, however, was chiefly in connection with the ancient drama.  As I have already remarked, we do not find him referring to recent studies on the English drama.  And though Scott had forgotten all his Greek we observe that he is bold enough to disagree with “the ingenious Schlegel” in regard to the comparative value of the Greek New Comedy.  In his treatment of the ancient drama the main point for note is the success with which he gives a broad and connected view of the subject.  His account of the drama in France needs correction in certain respects,[137] but it seems to indicate some first-hand knowledge and very definite opinions.  He quotes Moliere frequently throughout his writings, and always speaks of him with admiration; but with no other French dramatist does he seem to have been familiar to such a degree.  Judging French tragic poets too much from the Shaksperian point of view, he was not prepared to do them justice.[138] On the dramatic unities, of which he remarked, “Aristotle says so little and his commentators and followers talk so much,” Scott wrote, here and elsewhere, with decision and vivacity.  The unities of time and place he calls “fopperies,” though time and place, he admits, are not to be lightly changed.[139] He connects the whole discussion with the study of theatrical conditions, and never bows down to authority as such.  He says, “Surely it is of less consequence merely to ascertain what was the practice of the ancients, than to consider how far such practice is founded upon truth, good taste, and general effect”; and again, “Aristotle would probably have formulated different rules if he had written in our time.”  And though he adopted and applied to the drama the Horatian dictum that the end of poetry is to instruct and delight, it was not because Horace and a long line of critics had said it, but because he thought it was true.  Doubtless his phrase would have been different if he had not taken what was lying nearest, but his habit was never carefully to avoid the common phrase.  His general opinion of French drama was decidedly unfavorable, and he thought it was doubtful whether their plays would ever be any nearer to nature.  “That nation,” he observes calmly, “is so unfortunate as to have no poetical language.”