enough accent to give music without it; and besides the monotony of the rhyme is broken by the break in the middle of each verse. It also suits the final emphasis which is natural to the French mind, and adds to the point with which thought is turned.

Now, in the time of Dryden, the French influence was such that a strong party arose under his leadership, who maintained that English tragedy should all be composed in rhymed verse like the French. They overlooked the essential difference between French and English verse, which I have endeavoured to explain; but they produced no permanent influence on the English drama.

In the next age we may observe French influence penetrating more deeply into English literature, marking it to a certain degree with those two features which I have mentioned, breaking up thought into smaller parts, and giving to each a pointed ending.

This effect was in some cases beneficial, in others not. The English sentence became shorter during this age; and thereby language gained in perspicuity, but lost somewhat in strength. When the two effects were combined, and thought was at the same time brief and pointed, the result was brilliant. We see an example of this in Pope; though in his Moral Epistles we may observe that the effort to catch French point sometimes produced excessive condensation and obscurity, and that in imitating the quick transitions of French thought he sacrificed the natural connection of his ideas, and lost the clue which this gives to a good arrangement. When thought was not condensed, and yet was terminated by

a strong ending, this so loaded it at the conclusion as to make it heavy and elaborate. Examples of this may be seen in abundance in the Tragedy of that time.

But we must not forget that the brilliancy and sprightliness of French thought developed in English literature a wit and fancy which we should never have had without it. It was when the French influence was strongest that the mighty wit of Swift outshone the genius of Rabelais in the Tale of a Tub, and gave such models of the light, easy, witty verse of satire and comic narrative; and then, too, it was that Pope enriched English literature with the Rape of a Lock.

During the next age French influence diminished, the classics still reigning supreme. But the classical

influence itself, after having affected English literature most profoundly, gradually waned; for each prevailing direction of mental activity has its period, and ceases when it has done its work. So long as striking results could be obtained by the imitation of classical beauties, the ardour of genius was content to strive after them in the trodden paths. But it is Nature only that can be copied for ever. The works of man are limited like himself, and the human mind cannot confine its strivings and longings within the confines of what man has ever achieved. Repeated imitations of established forms of excellence became gradually less excellent; and about the beginning of this century the genius of our country broke loose from literary traditions to slake its thirst at the fountains of nature. There was at the time a general revival of new and earnest thought. The lassi

tude and slumber of the eighteenth century was over, and in religion and in science, as well as in literature, a fresh and energetic life was in action. Then foreign influence on English literature may be said to have ceased, and the genius of the nation entered on a career of its own.

And now looking back, we may, perhaps, venture to answer the questions which were suggested at the beginning. What then are the circumstances most favourable to foreign influence? If we might draw our answer from an analysis of the causes which established the Classical and French influence, we might say that a foreign influence acts most strongly when a foreign literature offers models of established excellence for a new style of literary creation, when, at the same time, the literary tendencies already in existence at home coincide with the new style, and native genius has lost somewhat of its vigour of originality. For novelty increases the charm of that which in itself suits the general taste; and when native genius has declined in the strength of its own growth, it naturally clings to that which is stronger than itself to help it upwards. On the other hand, the study of Chaucer's age and of Shakespeare's suggests the observation that every native influence which quickens genius and stimulates the literary life of the nation, strengthens it against the influence of foreign literature, and gives originality to its own. productions. Such native influences have already been noted as acting in Chaucer's and in Shakespeare's time; and amongst them the origin of a new form of literature deserves to be more particularly noticed. For

G

new thought is the life of literature, and when circumstances favour the home growth of a new form of literature this stimulates the literary life of the nation, and exalts its independent action. Thus, in Chaucer's time, the combination of Normans and Saxons into Englishmen, and the universal recognition of the English language, favoured the first real production of English literature. And thus, too, in Shakespeare's time, all things favoured a native drama. At such times the influence of a foreign literature is small; or if the domestic literature is still in pupillage to foreign models, its own productions are marked with an originality corresponding to the impulse which its life has received in assuming a new form.

At the commencement of the present century it was natural that foreign influence should cease; for the ancient models had been so long imitated that there was no room for new imitations of them, and there was no new foreign literature sufficiently excellent to exert a similar influence. The tendency of English genius too was towards a native style; for already in Johnson's time it had assumed more of its natural character. And in the generation after him, having rested sufficiently long from the earnest struggles of the seventeenth century, it renewed its own free strivings after truth and beauty, and signalized the opening of this century by founding new sciences, and renewing literature with free native creations. We still retain this vigour of originality; for, though this is an age deficient in enthusiasm, and without much imagination, there never was a generation more bent on seeing the realities of things for itself.

The original national character of the literature of this century suggests answers to the other questions which were mentioned in connection with foreign influence. It would appear from it that such influence does not tend to increase with the development of literature. On the contrary, it seems to decrease, for it never was so small as at present. And it is natural that it should; for as our own literature becomes more copious, and supplies a greater variety of models, there is less need to look abroad for help or direction; and our literary tastes, gratified by our native literature, prompt us less to make acquaintance with foreign genius.

But though it is natural that foreign influence should diminish in force, it seems strange that it should not, by accumulation of its effects during so long a period, have made a more permanent impression on English literature. It might have been expected that the Classical and French influences would have so affected our habits of thought that, however freely literature was cultivated, those influences would still be observable in it. But the literature of this country seems to have quite reverted to the native style of thought, and the French and Classical taste to have disappeared. Pope, who was the great model of all our poets of the eighteenth century, is now so depreciated that it is questioned whether he was a poet at all. Shakespeare, who during the classical period was wondered at as a barbarous genius, is now worshipped with an idolatry which can see no faults. The period of literature which began with Denham and Waller used to be regarded as com