Onecanneverlookwithoutaffectiononthemagnificentmanhoodofthatrichfreeforehead，eventhoughonemaysighoverthepetulanceandpridewhichbrooduponthelipandeyebrow，’Doweredwiththehateofhate，thescornofscorn，Theloveoflove。’
AMichaelAngelowhocouldlaugh，whichthatItalianone，onefancies，nevercould。Oneoughttohave，too，asortofdelicacyaboutsayingmuchagainsthim；forheisdead，andcanmake，forthetimebeingatleast，norejoinder。Therearedeadmenwhomoneisnotmuchashamedto’upset’aftertheirdeath，becauseonewouldnothavebeenmuchafraidofdoingsowhentheywerealive。But’RareBen’hadterribleteeth，andusedthemtoo。Amanwouldhavethoughttwiceerehesnaptathimliving，andthereforeitseemssomewhatacowardlytricktobarksecurelyathisghost。Neverthelessitisnounfairquestiontoask——DonothisownwordsjustifythePuritancomplaints？Butifso，whydoesherailatthePuritansformakingtheircomplaints？Hisanswerwouldhavebeenthattheyrailedinignorance，notmerelyatlowart，aswecallitnow，butathighartandallart。Beitso。Herewastheirfault，iffaultitwasinthosedays。Fortodiscriminatebetweenhighartandlowarttheymusthaveseenboth。AndforJonson’swrathtobefairandjusthemusthaveshownthemboth。Letusseewhatthepuredramaislikewhichhewishestosubstituteforthefouldramaofhiscontemporaries；and，tobringthematternearerhome，letustakeoneoftheplaysinwhichhehitsdeliberatelyatthePuritans，namelythe’Alchemist，’saidtohavebeenfirstactedin1610’bytheking’smajesty’sservants。’Look，then，atthiswell-knownplay，andtakeJonsonathisword。AllowthatAnaniasandTribulationWholesomeare，astheyveryprobablyare，fairportraitsofaclassamongthesectariesoftheday：butbearinmind，too，thatifthisbeallowed，theothercharactersshallbeheldasfairportraitsalso。
Otherwise，allmustheheldtobecaricature；andthentheonslaughtonthePuritansvanishesintonothing，orworse。Nowineithercase，AnaniasandTribulationarethebestmenintheplay。Theypalterwiththeirconsciences，nodoubt：buttheyhaveconsciences，whichnooneelseintheplayhas，exceptpoorSurly；andhe，beitremembered，comestoshame，ismadealaughing-stock，and’cheatshimself，’ashecomplainsatlast，’bythatsamefoolishviceofhonesty’：whileinalltherestwhathavewebuteveryformofhumanbaseness？Lovell，themaster，ifheistobeconsideredanegativecharacterasdoingnowrong，has，atallevents，nomorerecordedofhimthanthenobleactofmarryingbydeceitayoungwidowforthesakeofhermoney，thephilosopher’sstone，bythebye，andhighestobjectofmostoftheseventeenthcenturydramatists。Ifmostoftherascalsmeetwithduedisgrace，noneofthemispunished；andthegreatestrascalofall，who，whenescapeisimpossible，turnstraitor，andafterdeservingthecartandpilloryadozentimesforhislastandmostutterbaseness，isrewardedbyfullpardon，andthehonourofaddressingtheaudienceattheplay’sendinthemostsmugandself-satisfiedtone，andof’puttinghimselfonyouthataremycountry，’notdoubting，itseems，thattherewereamongthemafairmajoritywhowouldthinkhimaverysmartfellow，worthyofallimitation。
Nowisthisplayamoraloranimmoralone？Ofitscoarsenesswesaynothing。Weshouldnotendureit，ofcourse，nowadays；andonthatpointsomethingmustbesaidhereafter：butifweweretoendureplainspeakingastheonlymethodofproperlyexposingvice，shouldweendurethemoralwhich，insteadofpunishingvice，rewardsit？
And，meanwhile，whatsortofageneralstateofsocietyamongtheAnti-Puritanpartydoestheplaysketch？Whatbutabackgroundofprofligacyandfrivolity？
Aproof，indeed，ofthegeneraldownwardtendenciesoftheagemaybefoundinthewritingsofBenJonsonhimself。Howsoeverpureandloftytheidealwhichhelaiddownforhimself（andnodoubthonestly）inthePrefaceto’Volpone，’hefounditimpossibletokeepuptoit。Nineyearsafterwardswefindhim，inhis’BartholomewFair，’cateringtothelowtastesofJamestheFirstinribaldryatwhich，ifonemustneedslaugh——aswhothatwasnotmorethanmancouldhelpdoingoverthatscenebetweenRabbiBusyandthepuppets？——
shallowanduntrueasthegistofthehumouris，onefeelsthenextmomentasifonehadbeenindulginginunholymirthattheexpenseofsomegrandoldNoahwhohascometoshameinhiscups。
ButlowerstilldoesJonsonfallinthatMasqueofthe’GipsiesMetamorphosed，’presentedtothekingin1621，whenJonsonwasforty-
seven；oldenough，onewouldhavethought，toknowbetter。Itisnotmerelytheinsincereandallbutblasphemousadulationwhichisshocking，——thatwasbutthefashionofthetimes：butthetreatingthesegipsiesandbeggars，andtheir’thieves’Latin’dialect，theirfilthinessandcunning，ignoranceandrecklessness，merelyasthemesforimmoralandinhumanlaughter。JonsonwasbynomeanstheonlypoetofthatdaytowhomthehordesofprofligateandheathennomadswhichinfestedEnglandwereonlyacomicalphaseofhumanity，insteadofbeing，astheywouldbenow，objectsofnationalshameandsorrow，ofpityandlove，whichwouldcalloutintheattempttoredeemthemthetalentsandenergiesofgoodmen。ButJonsoncertainlysinsmoreinthisrespectthananyofhiscontemporaries。Hetakesalowpleasureinparadinghisintimateacquaintancewiththesepoorcreatures’foulslangandbarbariclaws；andis，weshouldsay，thenaturalfatherofthatlowestformofallliterature，whichhassinceamusedtheherd，thoughinaformgreatlypurified，intheformof’Beggars’Operas，’’DickTurpins，’and’JackSheppards。’Everythingwhichisobjectionableinsuchmodernpublicationsasthesewasexhibited，infargrosserforms，byoneofthegreatestpoetswhoeverlived，fortheamusementofakingofEngland；andyettheworldstillisatalosstoknowwhysoberandGod-fearingmendetestedboththepoetandtheking。
AndthatMasqueisallthemoresaddeningexhibitionofthedegradationofagreatsoul，becauseinit，hereandthere，occurpassagesoftheoldsweetnessandgrandeur；disjectamembrapoetaesuchasthese，which，evenalthoughaddressedtoJames，areperfect：-
’3rdGipsy。
Lookhowthewindsuponthewavesgrowtame，Takeuplandsoundsupontheirpurplewings，And，catchingeachfromother，bearthesameToeveryangleoftheirsacredsprings。
Sowillwetakehispraise，andhurlhisnameAbouttheglobe，inthousandairyrings。’
****
Letuspasson。Whystaytolookuponthefallofsuchaspirit？
Thereisonepoint，nevertheless，whichwemayaswellspeakofhere，andshortly；forspokenofitmustbeasdelicatelyasispossible。
ThelaughraisedatZeal-for-the-landBusy’sexpense，in’BartholomewFair，’turnsonthePuritandislikeofseeingwomen’spartsactedbyboys。JonsonshirksthequestionbymakingpoorBusyfallfoulofpuppetsinsteadoflivehumanbeings：butthequestionisshirkednevertheless。WhathonestanswerhecouldhavegiventothePuritansishardtoconceive。Prynne，inhis’Histriomastix，’mayhavepushedalittletoofartheargumentdrawnfromtheprohibitionintheMosaiclaw：yetonewouldfancythatthepracticewasforbiddenbyMoses’law，notarbitrarily，butbecauseitwasabadpractice，whichdidharm，aseveryantiquarianknowsthatitdid；andthat，therefore，Prynnewasbutreasonableinsupposingthatinhisdayasimilarpracticewouldproduceasimilarevil。Ourfirmconvictionisthatitdidso，andthatastothematteroffact，Prynnewasperfectlyright；andthattomakeaboyastage-playerwasprettycertainlytosendhimtothedevil。Letanymanofcommonsenseimaginetohimselftheeffectonayoungboy’smindwhichwouldbeproducedbyrepresentingshamelesslybeforeapublicaudiencenotmerelythelanguage，butthepassions，ofsuchwomenasoccurinalmosteveryplay。Weappealtocommonsense——wouldanyfatherallowhisownchildrentopersonate，eveninprivate，thebasestofmankind？Andyetwemustbegpardon：forcommonsense，itistobesupposed，hasdecidedagainstus，aslongasparentsallowtheirsonstoactyearlyatWestminsterthestupidlowartofTerence，whilegraveandreverendprelatesanddivineslookonapproving。TheWestminsterplayhashadnoverypurifyinginfluenceonthemindsoftheyounggentlemenwhopersonateheathendamsels；andweonlyask，WhatmusthavebeentheeffectofrepresentingfarfoulercharactersthanTerence’sonthemindsofuneducatedladsofthelowerclasses？
Prynneandothershintatstilldarkerabominationsthanthemeredefilementoftheconscience：weshallsaynothingofthem，butthat，fromcollateralevidence，webelieveeverywordtheysay；andthatwhenprettylittleCupid’smother，inJonson’sChristmasmasque，tellshow’Shecouldhavehadmoneyenoughforhim，hadshebeentempted，andhavelethimoutbytheweektotheking’splayers，’andhow’MasterBurbadgehasbeenaboutandaboutwithherforhim，andoldMr。Hemingstoo，’shehadbetterhavetiedastoneroundthechild’sneck，andhovehimoverLondonBridge，thanhavehandedhimovertothriftyBurbadge，thathemightmakeoutofhisdegradationmoremoneytobuylandwithal，andsettlecomfortablyinhisnativetown，onthefruitsofothers’sin。HonourtooldPrynne，bitterandnarrowashewas，forhispassionateandeloquentappealstothehumanityandChristianityofEngland，inbehalfofthosepoorchildrenwhomnotabishoponthebenchinterferedtosave；but，whiletheywerewritingandpersecutinginbehalfofbaptismalregeneration，leftthosetoperishwhomtheydeclaredsostoutlytoberegenerateinbaptism。Prynneusedthatargumenttoo，anddeclaredthesestage-playstobeamongthevery’pompsandvanitieswhichChristiansrenouncedatbaptism。’Hemayormaynothavebeenwronginidentifyingthemwiththeoldheathenpantomimesandgamesofthecircus，andinburyinghisadversariesunderamountainofquotationsfromtheFathersandtheRomishdivines（forPrynne’sreadingseemstohavebeenquiteenormous）。ThoseveryprelatescouldexpressreverenceenoughfortheFatherswhentheyfoundaughtinthemwhichcouldbemadetojustifytheirownsystem，thoughperhapsithadreallyevenlesstodotherewiththantheRomanpantomimeshadwiththeGlobeTheatre：buttheChurchofEnglandhadretainedinherCatechismtheoldRomanword’pomps，’asoneofthethingswhichweretoberenounced；andas’pomps’confessedlymeantatfirstthoseveryspectaclesoftheheathencircusandtheatre，Prynnecouldnotbeveryillogicalinbelievingthat，asithadbeenretained，itwasretainedtotestifyagainstsomething，andprobablyagainstthethinginEnglandmostlikethe’pomps’ofheathenRome。
Meanwhile，letChurchmendecidewhetherofthetwowasthebetterChurchman——Prynne，whotriedtomakethebaptismalcovenantmeansomething，orLaud，whoallowedsuchaplayas’TheOrdinary’tobewrittenbyhisespecialprotege，Cartwright，theOxfordscholar，andactedbeforehimprobablybyOxfordscholars，certainlybychristenedboys。WedonotpretendtopryintothecounselsoftheMostHigh；
butifunfaithfulnesstoahighandholytrust，whencombinedwithloftyprofessionsandpretensions，does（asallhistorytellsusthatitdoes）drawdownthevengeanceofAlmightyGod，thenweneedlooknofurtherthanthisoneneglectoftheseventeenthcenturyprelates（whetheritscausewasstupidity，insincerity，orfearofthemonarchstowhosetyrannytheypandered），todiscoverfullreasonwhyitpleasedGodtosweepthemoutawhilewiththebesomofdestruction。
Thereisanotherfeatureintheplaysoftheseventeenthcentury，new，asfarasweknow，aliketoEnglishliteratureandmanners；andthatis，theapotheosisofRakes。LetthefaultsoftheMiddleAge，oroftheTudors，havebeenwhattheymay，thatclassofpersonwasintheirtimesimplyanobjectofdisgust。ThewordwhichthensignifiedaRakeis，inthe’Morted’Arthur’（temp。Ed。IV。），thefoulesttermofdisgracewhichcanbecastuponaknight；whilstevenuptothelatteryearsofElizabeththecontemptofparentsandeldersseemstohavebeenthoughtagrievoussin。InItaly，even，fountainofalltheabominationsoftheage，respectforthefifthcommandmentseemstohavelingeredafteralltheotherninehadbeenforgotten；wefindCastiglione，inhis’Corteggiano’（about1520），regrettingthemodestandrespectfultrainingofthegenerationwhichhadprecededhim；andtojudgefromfacts，thePuritanmethodofeducation，sternasitwas，wasneithermorenorlessthanthemethodwhich，agenerationbefore，hadbeencommontoRomanistandtoProtestant，PuritanandChurchman。
ButwiththeStuartera（perhapsattheendofElizabeth’sreign）
fathersbecamegraduallypersonageswhoaretobedisobeyed，suckedoftheirmoney，fooled，evennowandthenrobbedandbeaten，bytheyounggentlemenofspirit；andthemostChristiankings，JamesandCharles，withtheirqueensandcourt，sitbytoseerufflingandroystering，beatingthewatchandbreakingwindows，dicing，drinking，duelling，andprofligacy（providedthevictimbenotawomanofgentlebirth），setforthnotmerelyasharmlessamusementsforyounggentlemen，but（asinBeaumontandFletcher’splayof’MonsieurThomas’）virtueswithoutwhichamanisdespicable。Onthispoint，asonmanyothers，thosewhohave，forecclesiasticalreasons，triedtorepresentthefirsthalfoftheseventeenthcenturyasagoldenagehavebeenaltogetherunfair。ThereisnoimmoralityofthecourtplaysofCharlesII。’stimewhichmaynotbefoundinthoseofCharlesI。’s。SedleyandEtheregearenotawhitworse，butonlymorestupid，thanFletcherorShirley；andMonsieurThomasisthespiritualfatherofallAngrylads，Rufflers，Blades，Bullies，Mohocks，Corinthians，andDandies，downtothelastdrunkenclerkwhowrenchedoffaknocker，orrobbedhismaster’stilltopayhislossesatabetting-office。True；weofthisgenerationcanhardlyaffordtothrowstones。Thescapegraceidealofhumanityhasenjoyedhighpatronagewithinthelasthalfcentury；andifMonsieurThomasseemedlovelyintheeyesofJamesandCharles，sodidJerryandCorinthianTominthoseofsomeofthefirstgentlemenofEngland。Betterdays，however，havedawned；’TomandJerry，’insteadofrunningthreehundrednights，wouldbeaslittleenduredonthestageas’MonsieurThomas’wouldbe；theheroeswhoaspiretowardthatidealarenowconsignedbypublicopiniontoRhadamanthusandthetreadmill；whileif，likeMonsieurThomas，theyknockeddowntheirownfather，theywould，insteadofwinningagoodwife，be’cut’bybraverandfinergentlementhanMonsieurThomashimself：butwhatdoesthisfactprovesavethatEnglandhasatlastdiscoveredthatthePuritanopinionofthismatter（asofsomeothers）wastherightone？
ThereisanotheraspectinwhichwemustlookattheStuartpatronageofprofligatescapegracesonthestage。Theywouldnothavebeenenduredonthestagehadtheynotbeenverycommonoffit；andiftherehadnotbeen，too，intheheartsofspectatorssomelurkingexcuseforthem：itrequiresnogreatpenetrationtoseewhatthatexcusemusthavebeen。IftheStuartage，aristocracy，andcourtwereasperfectassomefancythem，suchfellowswouldhavebeenmonstrousinitandinexcusable，probablyimpossible。Butifitwas（asitmaybeprovedtohavebeen）anutterlydeboshed，insincere，decrepit，anddecayingage，thenonecannotbutlookonMonsieurThomaswithsomethingofsympathyaswellaspity。Takehimashestands；heisafellowofinfinitekindliness，wit，spirit，andcourage，butwithnothingonwhichtoemploythosepowers。HewouldhavedonehisworkadmirablyinanearnestandenterprisingageasaHudson’sBayCompanyclerk，anIndiancivilian，acaptainofaman-
of-war——anythingwherehecouldfindapurposeandawork。Doubtitnot。HowmanyaMonsieurThomasofourowndays，whomafewyearsagoonehadrashlyfanciedcapableofnothinghigherthancoulissesandcigars，privatetheatricalsandwhitekidgloves，hasbeennotonlyfightingandworkinglikeaman，butmeditatingandwritinghomewardlikeaChristian，throughthedullmiseryofthosetrenchesatSevastopol；andhasfound，amidtheCrimeansnows，thatmercifulfireofGod，whichcouldburnthechaffoutofhisheartandthawthecrustofcoldfrivolityintowarmandearnestlife。Andevenatsuchayouth’sworst，reasonandconsciencealikeforbidustodealouttohimthesamemeasureaswedototheoffencesofthecoolandhoaryprofligate，ortothedarkerandsubtlerspiritualsinsofthefalseprofessor。ButifthewrathofGodbenotunmistakablyandpracticallyrevealedfromheavenagainstyouthfulprofligacyanddisobedienceinaftersorrowandshameofsomekindorother，againstwhatsinisitrevealed？Itwasnotleftforouragetodiscoverthatthewagesofsinisdeath：butCharles，hisplayersandhiscourtiers，refusedtoseewhattheveryheathenhadseen，andsohadtobetaughtthetruthoveragainbyanotherandamoreliterallesson；andwhatneitherstage-playsnorsermonscouldteachthem，sharpshotandcoldsteeldid。
’ButstillthePuritanswerebarbariansforhatingArtaltogether。’
Thefactwas，thattheyhatedwhatarttheysawinEngland，andthatthiswaslowart，badart，growingeverlowerandworse。IfitbesaidthatShakspeare’sistheveryhighestart，theansweris，thatwhattheyhatedinhimwasnothishighart，buthislowart，thefoulandhorribleelementswhichhehadincommonwithhisbrotherplay-writers。True，thereisfarlessoftheseelementsinShakspearethaninanyofhiscompeers：buttheyarethere。AndwhatthePuritanshatedinhimwasexactlywhatwehavetoexpungebeforewecannowrepresenthisplays。Ifitbesaidthattheyoughttohavediscernedandappreciatedthehigherelementsinhim，sooughttherestoftheirgeneration。ThePuritansweresurelynotboundtoseeinShakspearewhathispatronsandbrotherpoetsdidnotsee。Anditissurelyamatteroffactthatthedeepspiritualknowledgewhichmakes，andwillmake，Shakspeare’splays（andthemaloneofalltheseventeenthcenturyplays）aheritageforallmenandallages，quiteescapedtheinsightofhiscontemporaries，whoprobablyputhiminthesamerankwhichWebster，writingabout1612，hasassignedtohim。
’Ihaveevercherishedagoodopinionofothermen’swittylabours，especiallyofthatfullandheightenedstyleofMasterChapman；thelabouredandunderstandingworksofMr。Jonson；thenolesswittycomposuresofthebothwittilyexcellentMr。BeaumontandMr。
Fletcher；andlastly（withoutwronglasttobenamed），therighthappyandcopiousindustryofShakspeare，Mr。Dekker，andMr。
Heywood。’
WhileWebster，then，oneofthebestpoetsofthetime，seesnothinginShakspearebeyondthesame’happyandcopiousindustry’whichheseesinDekkerandHeywood，——whileCartwright，perhapstheonlyyoungpoetofrealgeniusinCharlestheFirst’sreign，placesFletcher’sname’’TwixtJonson’sgraveandShakspeare’slightersound，’andtellshimthat’Shakspearetotheewasdull，whosebestwitliesI’th’ladies’questions，andthefool’sreplies。
*****
Whosewitournicetimeswouldobscenenesscall。
*****
Naturewasallhisart；thyveinwasfreeAshis，butwithouthisscurrility；’{4}
whileevenMilton，who，Puritanashewas，lovedartwithallhissoul，onlyremarksonShakspeare’smarvellouslyricalsweetness，’hisnativewood-noteswild’；whatshametothePuritansifthey，too，didnotdiscoverthestorkamongthecranes？
Ananswerhasoftenbeengiventoargumentsofthiskind，whichdeservesafewmoments’consideration。Itissaid，’thegrossnessoftheoldplay-writerswastheirmisfortune，nottheircrime。Itwasthefashionoftheage。Itisnotourfashion，certainly；buttheymeantnoharmbyit。Theagewasafree-spokenone；andperhapsnonetheworseforthat。’Mr。Dyce，indeed，theeditorofWebster’splays，seemsinclinedtoexaltthishabitintoavirtue。Aftersayingthatthelicentiousanddebauchedaremade’asodiousinrepresentationastheywouldbeiftheywereactuallypresent’——anassertionwhichmustbeflatlydenied，saveinthecaseofShakspeare，whoseldomornever，toourremembrance，seemstoforgetthatthewagesofsinisdeath，andwho，howevercoarsehemaybe，keepsstoutlyonthesideofvirtue——Mr。Dycegoesontosay，that’perhapsthelanguageofthestageispurifiedinproportionasourmoralsaredeteriorated；andwedreadthementionoftheviceswhichwearenotashamedtopractise；whileourforefathers，undertheswayofalessfastidiousbutamoreenergeticprincipleofvirtue，werecarelessofwords，andonlyconsiderateofactions。’
Tothiscleverpieceofspecialpleadingwecanonlyanswerthatthefactisdirectlycontrary；thatthereisamassofunanimousevidencewhichcannotbecontrovertedtoprovethatEngland，inthefirsthalfoftheseventeenthcenturywasfarmoreimmoralthaninthenineteenth；thattheproofsliepatenttoanydispassionatereader：
butthatthesepageswillnotbedefiledbythedetailsofthem。
Letitbesaidthatcoarsenesswas’thefashionoftheage。’Thesimplequestionis，wasitagoodfashionorabad？Itissaid——withlittleornoproof——thatinsimplestatesofsocietymuchmanlyvirtueandmuchfemalepurityhaveoftenconsistedwithverybroadlanguageandverycoarsemanners。Butwhatofthat？Drunkardsmayveryoftenbeveryhonestandbravemen。Doesthatmakedrunkennessnosin？Orwillhonestyandcouragepreventaman’sbeingtheworseforharddrinking？Ifso，whyhavewegivenupcoarsenessoflanguage？Andwhyhasitbeenthebetterratherthantheworsepartofthenation，theeducatedandreligiousratherthantheignorantandwicked，whohavegivenitup？Why？Simplybecausethisnation，andallothernationsontheContinent，inproportiontotheirmorality，havefoundoutthatcoarsenessoflanguageis，tosaytheleast，unfitandinexpedient；thatifitbewrongtodocertainthings，itisalso，onthewhole，rightnottotalkofthem；thatevencertainthingswhicharerightandblessedandholylosetheirsanctitybybeingdraggedcynicallytothelightofday，insteadofbeingleftinthemysteryinwhichGodhaswiselyshroudedthem。Onthewhole，oneisinclinedtosuspectthedefenceofcoarsenessasinsincere。Certainly，inourday，itwillnothold。Ifanyonewishestohearcoarselanguagein’goodsociety’hecanhearit，Iamtold，inParis：butonequestionswhetherParisiansocietybenow’undertheswayofamoreenergeticprincipleofvirtue’thanourown。Thesumtotalofthematterseemstobe，thatEnglandhasfoundoutthatonthispointagaintheoldPuritanswereright。Andquaintlyenough，thepartyintheEnglishChurchwhoholdthePuritansmostinabhorrencearethemostscrupulousnowuponthisverypoint；and，intheirdreadofcontaminatingthemindsofyouth，arecarryingeducation，atschoolandcollege，tosuchamorethanPuritanprecisionthatwiththemostvirtuousandbenevolentintentionstheyareindangerofgivingladsmerelyaconventionaleducation，——ahot-housetrainingwhichwillrenderthemincapablehereafteroffacingeitherthetemptationsorthelabouroftheworld。TheythemselvesrepublishedMassinger’s’VirginMartyr，’
becauseitwasaprettyPopishstory，probablywrittenbyaPapist——
forthereiseveryreasontobelievethatMassingerwasone——settingforthhowtheheroinewasattendedallthroughbyanangelintheformofapage，andhow——nottomentionthereallybeautifulancientfictionaboutthefruitswhichDorotheasendsbackfromParadise——
Theophilusovercomesthedevilbymeansofacrosscomposedofflowers。Massinger’saccountofTheophilus’conversationwill，wefear，makethosewhoknowanythingofthatgreatcrisisofthehumanspiritsuspectthatMassinger’sexperiencethereofwasbutsmall：
butthefactwhichismostnoteworthyisthis——thatthe’VirginMartyr’isactuallyoneofthefoulestplaysknown。EverypainshasbeentakentoprovethattheindecentscenesintheplaywerenotwrittenbyMassinger，butbyDekker；onwhatgroundsweknownot。IfDekkerassistedMassingerintheplay，asheissaidtohavedone，weareawareofnocanonsofinternalcriticismwhichwillenableustodecide，asboldlyasMr。Gifforddoes，thatalltheindecencyisDekker’s，andallthepoetryMassinger’s。Heconfesses——asindeedheisforcedtodo——that’Massingerhimselfisnotfreefromdialoguesoflowwitandbuffoonery’；andthen，aftercallingthescenesinquestion’detestableribaldry，’aloathsomesooterkin，engenderedoffilthanddulness，’recommendsthemtothereader’ssupremescornandcontempt，——withwhichfeelingsthereaderwilldoubtlessregardthem：
buthewillalso，ifhebeathinkingman，drawfromthemthefollowingconclusions：thateveniftheybeDekker’s——ofwhichthereisnoproof——Massingerwasforced，inordertothesuccessofhisplay，topandertothepublictastebyallowingDekkertointerpolatethesevillanies；thattheplaywhich，aboveallothersoftheseventeenthcentury，containsthemostsupralunarrosepinkofpiety，devotion，andpurity，alsocontainsthestupidestabominationsofanyextantplay；andlastly，thatthosewhoreprinteditasasampleoftheChristianityofthatpastgoldenageofHigh-churchmanship，hadtoleaveoutone-thirdoftheplay，forfearofbecomingamenabletothelawsagainstabominablepublications。
Noonedeniesthattherearenoblerwordsthananythatwehavequoted，inJonson，inFletcher，orinMassinger；butthereishardlyaplay（perhapsnone）oftheirsinwhichtheimmoralitiesofwhichwecomplaindonotexist，——fewofwhichtheydonotformanintegralpart；andnow，ifthisisthejudgmentwhichwehavetopassonthemoralityofthegreaterpoets，whatmustthelesseronesbelike？
Look，then，atWebster’stwomasterpieces，’VittoriaCorrombona’andthe’DuchessofMalfi。’Afewwordsspentonthemwillsurelynotbewasted；fortheyareprettygenerallyagreedtobethetwobesttragedieswrittensinceShakspeare’stime。
Thewholestoryof’VittoriaCorrombona’isoneofsinandhorror。
Thesubject-matteroftheplayisaltogethermadeupofthefiercestandthebasestpassions。Buttheplayisnotastudyofthosepassionsfromwhichwemaygainagreatinsightintohumannature。
Thereisnotrace——noristhere，again，inthe’DuchessofMalfi’——ofthatdevelopmentofhumansoulsforgoodorevilwhichisShakspeare’sespecialpower——thepowerwhich，farmorethananyaccidental’beauties，’makeshisplays，tothisday，thedelightalikeofthesimpleandthewise，whilehiscontemporariesareallbutforgotten。Thehighestaimofdramaticartistoexhibitthedevelopmentofthehumansoul；toconstructdramasinwhichtheconclusionshalldepend，notontheevents，butonthecharacters；
andinwhichthecharactersshallnotbemereembodimentsofacertainpassion，oracertain’humour’：butpersons，eachunlikeallothers；eachhavingadestinyofhisownbyvirtueofhisownpeculiarities，andofhisownwill；andeachproceedingtowardthatdestinyasheshallconquer，oryieldto，circumstances；unfoldinghisownstrengthandweaknessbeforetheeyesoftheaudience；andthatinsuchawaythat，afterhisfirstintroduction，theyshouldbeable（inproportiontotheirknowledgeofhumannature）topredicthisconductunderthosecircumstances。Thisisindeed’highart’：
butwefindnomoreofitinWebsterthanintherest。Hischaracters，betheyoldoryoung，comeonthestageready-made，fullgrown，andstereotyped；andtherefore，ingeneral，theyarenotcharactersatall，butmerepassionsorhumoursinhumanform。Nowandthenheessaystodrawacharacter：butitisanalytically，bydescription，notsyntheticallyanddramatically，bylettingthemanexhibithimselfinaction；andinthe’DuchessofMall’hefallsintothegreatmistakeoftelling，byAntonio’smouth，moreabouttheDukeandtheCardinalthanheafterwardsmakesthemact。VerydifferentisShakspeare’smethodofgiving，attheoutset，somesingledelicatehintabouthispersonageswhichwillserveasacluetotheirwholefutureconduct；thus’showingthewholeineachpart，’andstampingeachmanwithapersonality，toadegreewhichnootherdramatisthaseverapproached。
Butthetruthis，thestudyofhumannatureisnotWebster’saim。Hehastoarouseterrorandpity，notthought，andhedoesitinhisownway，bybloodandfury，madmenandscreech-owls，notwithoutaruggedpower。Therearescenesofhis，certainly，likethatofVittoria’strial，whichhavebeenpraisedfortheirdelineationofcharacter：
butitisonethingtosolvetheproblem，whichShakspearehassohandledin’Lear，’’Othello，’and’RichardtheThird，’——’Givenamixedcharacter，toshowhowhemaybecomecriminal，’andtosolveWebster’s’Givenaready-madecriminal，toshowhowhecommitshiscrimes。’ToustheknowledgeofcharactershowninVittoria’strialsceneisnotaninsightintoVittoria’sessentialheartandbrain，butageneralacquaintancewiththeconductofallboldbadwomenwhenbroughttobay。PoorElia，whoknewtheworldfrombooks，andhumannatureprincipallyfromhisownlovingandgentleheart，talksofVittoria’s’innocence——resemblingboldness’{5}——and’seemingtoseethatmatchlessbeautyofherface，whichinspiressuchgayconfidenceinher，’andsoforth。
Perfectlyjustandtrue，notofVittoriamerely，butoftheaverageofbadyoungwomeninthepresenceofapolicemagistrate：yetamountinginallmerelytothis，thatthestrengthofWebster’sconfestmaster-sceneliessimplyinintimateacquaintancewithviciousnatureingeneral。Wewillsaynomoreonthismatter，savetoask，Cuibono？Wastheartofwhichthiswasthehighestmanifestationlikelytobeofmuchusetomankind，muchlessabletoexcuseitspalpablydisgustingandinjuriousaccompaniments？
The’DuchessofMalfi’iscertainlyinapurerandloftierstrain：
butinspiteofthepraisewhichhasbeenlavishedonher，wemusttakethelibertytodoubtwhetherthepoorDuchessisa’person’atall。Generalgoodnessandbeauty，intensethoughpureaffectionforamanbelowherinrank，andawilltocarryoutherpurposeatallhazards，arenotenoughtodistinguishherfromthousandsofotherwomen：butWebsterhasnosuchpurpose。Whathewasthinkingandwritingofwasnottruth，buteffect；nottheDuchess，butherstory；
notherbrothers，buttheirrage；notAntonio，hermajor-domoandhusband，buthisgoodandbadfortunes；andthushehasmadeAntoniomerelyinsipid，thebrothersmerelyunnatural，andtheDuchess（inthecriticalmomentoftheplay）merelyforward。Thatcuriousscene，inwhichsheacquaintsAntoniowithherloveforhimandmakeshimmarryher，is，onthewhole，painful。Websterhimselfseemstohavefeltthatitwasso；and，dreadinglesthehadgonetoofar，tohavetriedtoredeemtheDuchessattheendbymakingherbreakdownintwoexquisitelinesoflovingshame：buthehasutterlyforgottentoexplainorjustifyherlovebygivingtoAntonio（asShakspearewouldprobablyhavedone）suchstrongspecialtiesofcharacteraswouldcompel，andthereforeexcuse，hismistress’saffection。Hehasplentyoftimetodothisinthefirstscenes，——timewhichhewastesonirrelevantmatter；andallthatwegatherfromthemisthatAntonioisaworthyandthoughtfulperson。Ifhegivespromiseofbeingmore，heutterlydisappointsthatpromiseafterwards。InthesceneinwhichtheDuchesstellsherlove，heisfarsmaller，ratherthangreater，thantheAntoniooftheopeningscene：though（asthere）altogetherpassive。Hehearshismistress’sdeclarationjustasanyotherrespectableyouthmight；isexceedinglyastonished，andagooddealfrightened；hastobetalkedoutofhisfearstillonenaturallyexpectsarevulsionontheDuchess’spartintosomethinglikescornorshame（whichmighthavegivenagoodopportunityforcallingoutsuddenstrengthinAntonio）：butsobusyisWebsterwithhisbusinessofdrawingmereblindlove，thatheleavesAntoniotobeamerepuppet，whoseworthinesswearetobelieveinonlyfromtheDuchess’sassurancetohimthatheistheperfectionofallthatamanshouldbe；which，asallloversareofthesameopinionthedaybeforethewedding，isnotofmuchimportance。
NeitherinhissubsequentmisfortunesdoesAntoniomaketheleaststruggletoprovehimselfworthyofhismistress’saffection。Heisveryresignedandloving，andsoforth。Towinrenownbygreatdeeds，andsoprovehiswifeintherighttoherbrothersandalltheworld，nevercrosseshisimagination。Hishighestaim（andthatonlyatlast）isslavishlytoentreatpardonfromhisbrothers-in-lawforthemereoffenceofmarryingtheirsister；andhediesbyanimprobableaccident，thesamepiousandrespectableinsipiditywhichhehaslived，——’nevalantpaslapeinequisedonnepourlui。’Theprison-scenesbetweentheDuchessandhertormentorsarepainfulenough，iftogivepainbeadramaticvirtue；andsheappearsinthemreallynoble；andmighthaveappearedfarmoreso，hadWebstertakenhalfasmuchpainswithherashehaswiththemadmen，ruffians，ghosts，andscreech-owlsinwhichhisheartreallydelights。TheonlycharacterreallyworkedoutsoastoliveandgrowunderhishandisBosola，who，ofcourse，isthevillainofthepiece，andbeingaroughfabric，iseasilymanufacturedwithroughtools。
Still，Websterhashiswonderfultoucheshereandthere-
’Cariola。Hence，villains，tyrants，murderers！AlasWhatwillyoudowithmylady？Callforhelp！
Duchess。Towhom？toournextneighbours？theyaremadfolk。
Farewell，Cariola。
Ipraytheelookthougiv’stmylittleboySomesyrupforhiscold；andletthegirlSayherprayersereshesleep。——Now，whatyouplease；
Whatdeath？’
Andsotheplayends，asdoes’VittoriaCorrombona，’withhalfadozenmurderscorampopulo，howls，despair，bedlam，andtheshambles；
puttingthereadermarvellouslyinmindofthatwell-knownoldbookofthesameera，’Reynolds’sGod’sRevenge，’inwhich，withallduepioushorrorandbombasticsermonising，thenationalappetiteforabominationsisdulyfedwithsomefiftyunreadableSpanishhistories，Frenchhistories，Italianhistories，andsoforth，oneortwoofwhich，ofcourse，areknowntohavefurnishedsubjectsfortheplaywrightsoftheday。
Thenextplay-writerwhomweareboundtonoticeisJamesShirley，oneofthemanyconvertstoRomanismwhichthosedayssaw。Heappears，uptothebreakingoutoftheCivilWar，tohavebeentheQueen’sfavouritepoet；and，accordingtoLaugbaine，hewas’oneofsuchincomparablepartsthathewasthechiefofthesecond-ratepoets，andbysomehasbeenthoughtevenequaltoFletcherhimself。’
Wemustentreatthereader’sattentionwhileweexamineShirley’s’Gamester。’Whethertheexaminationbeapleasantbusinessornot，itissomewhatimportant；’for，’saysMr。Dyce，’thefollowingmemorandumrespectingitoccursintheoffice-bookoftheMasteroftheRecords：-\"OnThursdaynight，6thofFebruary，1633，’TheGamester’wasactedatCourt，madebySherleyoutofaplotoftheking’s，givenhimbymee，andwelllikte。Thekingsayditwasthebestplayhehadseenforsevenyears。\"’
Thisisindeedimportant。WeshallnowhaveanopportunityoffairlytestingatthesametimethetasteoftheRoyalMartyrandtheaveragemerit，atleastintheopinionoftheCarolinecourt，ofthedramatistsofthatday。
TheplotwhichCharlessenttoShirleyasafitsubjectforhismuseistakenfromoneofthosecollectionsofItaliannovelsofwhichwehavealreadyhadoccasiontospeak，andoccursinthesecondpartofthe’DucentoNovelle’ofCelioMalespini；andwhatitisweshallseeforthwith。
TheplayopenswithascenebetweenoneWildingandhiswardPenelope，inwhichheattemptstoseducetheyounglady，inlanguagewhichhascertainlythemeritofhonesty。Sherefuseshim，butcivillyenough；andonherdepartureMrs。Wildingenters，who，itseems，istheobjectofherhusband’sloathing，thoughyoung，handsome，andinallrespectscharmingenough。Afterasceneofstupidandbrutalinsults，heactuallyaskshertobringPenelopetohim，atwhichshenaturallygoesoutinanger；andHazard，thegamester，enters，——apersonagewithoutacharacter，inanysenseoftheword。Thereisnextsometalkagainstduelling，sensibleenough，whicharisesoutofabye-plot，——oneDelamerehavingbeenwoundedinaduelbyoneBeaumont，mortallyasissupposed。Thisbye-plotrunsthroughtheplay，givinganopportunityforbringinginafatheroftheusualplay-housetype，——aSirRichardHurry，whois，ofcourse，asstupid，covetous，proud，andtyrannicalandunfeeling，asplay-
housefatherswerethenboundtobe：butitisaplotofthemostcommonplaceform，turningonthestaletrickofamanexpectingtobehangedforkillingsomeonewhoturnsoutafteralltohaverecovered，andhavingnobearingwhatsoeverontherealplot，whichisthis，——Mrs。Wilding，inordertowinbackherhusband’saffections，persuadesPenelopetoseemtogranthissuit；whileMrs。
Wildingherselfisinrealitytosupplyherniece’splace，andshameherhusbandintovirtue。WildingtellsHazardofthegoodfortunewhichhefanciesiscoming，inscenesofwhichonecanonlysay，thatiftheyarenotwrittenforthepurposeofexcitingthepassions，itishardtoseewhytheywerewrittenatall。But，beingwithHazardinagambling-houseattheveryhouratwhichheistomeetPenelope，andhavinghadarunofbadluck，heborrowsahundredpoundsofHazard，staysatthetabletorecoverhislosses，andsendsHazardtosupplyhisplacewiththesupposedPenelope。AfewhoursbeforePenelopeandHazardhavemetforthefirsttime，andPenelopeconsidershim，asshesaystoherselfaside，’ahandsomegentleman。’
Hebegins，ofcourse，talkingfoullytoher；andthelady，sofarfrombeingshockedatthefreedomofhernewacquaintance，payshimbackinhisowncoininsuchgoodearnestthatshesoonsilenceshiminthebattleofdirt-throwing。Ofthissadsceneitisdifficulttosaywhetheritindicatesalowerstandardofpurityandcourtesyinthepoet，intheaudiencewhoenduredit，orinthesocietyofwhichitwas，ofcourse，intendedtobeabrilliantpicture。IfthecavaliersanddamselsofCharlestheFirst’sdaywereinthehabitoftalkinginthatwaytoeachother（andiftheyhadnotbeen，Shirleywouldnothavedaredtorepresentthemasdoingso），onecannotmuchwonderthatthefireofGodwasneededtoburnup（though，alas！onlyforawhile）suchastateofsociety；andthatwhenneededthefirefell。
Therestofthestoryisequallybad。HazardnextdaygivesWildingdescriptionsofhisguilt，andwhileWildingisintheheightofself-reproachathavinghandedoverhisvictimtoanother，hiswifemeetshimandinformshimthatsheherselfandnotPenelopehasbeenthevictim。Nowcomesthecrisisoftheplot，theconceptionwhichsodelightedthetasteoftheRoyalMartyr。Wildingfindshimself，asheexpressesit，’fittedwithapairofhornsofhisownmaking；’
andhisrage，shame，andbaseattemptstopatchuphisowndishonourbymarryingPenelopetoHazard（evenatthecostofdisgorgingthehalfofherportion，whichhehadintendedtoembezzle）furnishamusementtotheaudiencetotheendoftheplay；atlast，onHazardandPenelopecominginmarried，Wildingisinformedthathehasbeendeceived，andthathiswifeisunstained，havingarrangedwithHazardtokeepupthedelusioninordertofrightenhimintogoodbehaviour；
whereuponMr。Wildingpromisestobeagoodhusbandhenceforth，andtheplayends。
Throughoutthewholeofthisfarragoofimprobableiniquitynotasinglepersonagehasanymarkofpersonalcharacter，orevenofanymoralquality，save（inMrs。Wilding’scase）thatofpatienceunderinjury。Hazard’TheGamester’ischosenasthehero，forwhatreasonitisimpossibletosay；heisamerenonentity，doingnothingwhichmaydistinguishhimfromanyothergamesterandblackguard，savethatheis，aswearetold，’AmancarelessOfwounds；andthoughhehavenothadtheluckTokillsomanyasanother，daresFightwithallthemthathave。’
He，nevertheless，beinginwantofmoney，takesahundredpoundsfromafoolisholdcitymerchant（citymerchantsarealwaysfoolsintheseventeenthcentury）tolethisnephew，youngBarnacle，givehimaboxontheearinatavern，and（aftertheyoungcithasbeentransformedintoanintolerablebullybythefamesoacquired）takesanotherhundredpoundsfromtherepentantuncleforkickingtheyouthbackintohisnativestateofpeacefulcowardice。WiththeexceptionofsomelittlehumourinthesesceneswithyoungBarnacle，thewholeplayisthoroughlystupid。Welookinvainforanythinglikeareflection，asentiment，evenanovelimage。Itslanguage，likeitsmorality，isallbutonalevelwiththelabouredvulgaritiesofthe’Relapse’orthe’ProvokedWife，’savethat（Shirleybeingaconfessedcopierofthegreatdramatistsofthegenerationbeforehim）thereisenoughofthemannerofFletcherandBenJonsonkeptuptohide，atfirstsight，theutterwantofanythingliketheirmatter；andasonesickensattherakishswaggerandtheartificialsmartnessofhiscoxcombs，oneregretstheracyandunaffectedblackguardismoftheearlierpoets’men。
This，forsooth，isthebestcomedywhichCharleshadheardforsevenyears，andtheplot，whichhehimselffurnishedfortheoccasion，fittedtoanEnglishaudiencebyaRomishconvert。
Andyetthereisonedramatistofthatfallengenerationoverwhosememoryonecannotbutlinger，fancyingwhathewouldhavebecome，andwonderingwhysogreataspiritwascheckedsuddenlyerehalfdevelopedbyafeverwhichcarriedhimoff，withseveralotherOxfordworthies，in1643，whenhewasatmostthirty-two（andaccordingtooneaccountonlytwenty-eight）yearsold。Letwhichofthetwodatesbethetrueone，CartwrightmustalwaysrankamongourwondrousyouthsbythesideofPrinceHenry，theAdmirableCrichton，andothers，ofwhomone’sonlydoubtis，whethertheywerenottoowondrous，tooprecociouslycompleteforfuturedevelopment。WefindDr。Fell，sometimeBishopofOxford，sayingthat’Cartwrightwastheutmostmancouldcometo’；wereadhowhisbodywasashandsomeashissoul；howhewasanexpertlinguist，notonlyinGreekandLatin，butinFrenchandItalian，anexcellentorator，admirablepoet；howAristotlewasnolessknowntohimthanCiceroandVirgil，andhismetaphysicallecturespreferredtothoseofallhispredecessors，theBishopofLincolnonlyexcepted；andhissermonsasmuchadmiredashisothercomposures；andhowonefitlyappliedtohimthatsayingofAristotleconcerningOEschronthepoet，that’hecouldnottellwhatOEschroncouldnotdo。’Wefindpagesonpagesofhigh-flownepitaphsandsonnetsonhim，inwhichtheexceedingbadtasteofhisadmirersmakesoneinclinedtodoubtthetasteofhimwhomtheysobedaubwithpraise；andcertainly，inspiteofalldueadmirationfortheCrichtonofOxford，oneisunabletoendorseMr。JasperMayne’sopinion，that’IntheeBenJonsonstillheldShakspeare’sstyle’；
orthathepossest’Lucan’sboldheightsmatch’dtostaidVirgil’scare，Martial’squicksalt，joinedtoMusaeus’tongue。’
Thissuperabundanceofeulogy，whenwerememberthemenandtheagefromwhichitcomes，temptsonetoformsuchaconceptionofCartwrightas，indeed，theportraitprefixedtohisworks（ed。1651）
givesus；theoffspringofanover-educatedandpedanticage，highlystoredwitheverythingbutstrengthandsimplicity；oneinwhomgeniushasbeenrathershaped（perhapscramped）thandeveloped：butgeniuswaspresent，withoutadoubt，underwhatsoeverartificialtrappings；andBenJonsonspokebuttruthwhenhesaid，’MysonCartwrightwritesalllikeaman。’Itisimpossibletoopenapageof’TheLadyErrant，’’TheRoyalSlave，’’TheOrdinary，’or’Love’sConvert，’withoutfeelingatoncethatwehavetodowithamanofaverydifferentstampfromany（Massingerperhapsaloneexcepted）whowaswritingbetween1630and1640。Thespecificgravityofthepoems，sotospeak，isfargreaterthanthatofanyofhiscontemporaries；everywhereisthought，fancy，force，variedlearning。
Heisneverweakordull；thoughhefailsoftenenough，isoftenenoughwrong-headed，fantastical，affected，andhasneverlaidbarethedeeperarteriesofhumanity，forgoodorforevil。Neitherishealtogetheranoriginalthinker；asonewouldexpect，hehasover-readhimself：butthenhehasdonesotogoodpurpose。Ifheimitates，hegenerallyequals。Thetableoffarein’TheOrdinary’smacksofRabelaisorAristophanes：butthenitisworthyofeither；andifonecannothelpsuspectingthat’TheOrdinary’neverwouldhavebeenwrittenhadnotBenJonsonwritten’TheAlchemist，’oneconfessesthatBenJonsonneednothavebeenashamedtohavewrittentheplayhimself：althoughtheplot，asallCartwright’sare，issomewhatconfusedandinconsequent。IfhebePlatonicallysentimentalin’Love’sConvert，’hissentimentisofthenoblestandthepurest；andtheconfestmoraloftheplayisonewhichthatageneeded，ifeverageonearthdid。