ness of his resources; but constant practice quickens the power of the intellect, awakens the slumbering associations of the fancy, gives to the taste and judgment an instantaneous selection, and to the hand a surprising facility of execution. Dryden had thought much on the subjects of the drama, had treasured up materials, at least in his imagination, if not assorted them in books. Shakespeare is supposed to have written two plays in each year, for several years; and in the compass of ten years the copious and vigorous invention of Fletcher enriched the theatre with more than thirty dramas.

On the death of Sir W. Davenant, in 1668, the poetical laurel which he had worn for thirty years, and which had descended to him at the death of Jonson, was now given to our author, after an interval of two years. The office of historiographer-royal was attached to it, which had become vacant by Howell's death: the salary was two hundred a year; the butt of Canary was not withheld, and the patent bore retrospect to the time when the office was vacated. The grant was honourably and elegantly bestowed. To John Dryden, Master of Arts, in consideration of his many acceptable services theretofore done to his majesty, and from an observation of his learn

Dryden having produced six dramatic performances in one year is sufficient to atone for inconsiderable thefts and trivial irregularities.' Lives, p. 82. But this is a mistake, see Reed's note, in Johnson's Life of Dryden, p. 348. Langbaine's authority led Johnson into the same error. Dryden did not produce more than half the plays for which he contracted; see the Memorial to the Lord Chamberlain, by Killigrew, Hart, &c. Malone's Life, p. 73.

1 See Malone's Life of Dryden, p. 88. Pat. 22. Car. ii, p. 6, n. 6.

ing and eminent abilities, and his great skill, and elegant style both in verse and prose.'

Between the reopening of the theatres, in the beginning of 1667, and the middle of 1670, Dryden produced five original plays, and two in which he was assisted.

The Maiden Queen, which I have already noticed, was without doubt acted in 1666, and entered in the stationers' register in 1667.

The Tempest was acted in 1667, as appears from the epilogue, though not printed till 1669.

Sir W. Scott has justly expressed his sense of the injury which the Tempest has received in passing from the pure, the beautiful, and imaginative creations of Shakespeare to the gross and tasteless alterations of Dryden and Davenant:1 so has the delicacy of Raphael's Farnesian gallery, and the bloom of Psyche's beauty vanished beneath the coarser varnish of C. Maratti. How foolish and ill placed is the duel between Ferdinand and Hippolyto! how unseasonable and out of character the quarrel between the two sisters! how low and coarse the allusion in the speech of Prospero to Dorinda,2 and how puerile the conceit in the dialogue between the Hippolyto and Dorinda! 3

1 Scott supposes that Dryden had probably little more share in the alteration of this play than the care of adapting it to the stage. The prologue, he says, is one of the most masterly tributes ever paid to the shrine of Shakespeare.

2' Prosp. You must not trust them, child. No woman can come near them, but she feels a pain full nine months,' &c.

8 Dor. What is the soul? Hip. A small blue thing that runs about within us. Dor. Then have I seen it in a frosty morning, run smoaking from my mouth,' &c. Davenant died before the publication of this piece, and his memory is celebrated in the preface.

Not one additional beauty has been inserted, not one felicitous hint improved; but the profound skill and knowledge of nature, for which the original has been justly praised, has been lost sight of by the improvers, who have stripped the spiritual creation of Shakespeare of its sky-tinctured robes, and stifled the wild harmony of its notes, in order that they might deck it in the artificial finery, and bestow on it the conventional manners of their grosser times, and their degraded theatre.

Sir Martin Marall was originally a translation from the French, by the Duke of Newcastle; it was presented to Dryden, and by him adapted to the stage. None of our author's pieces was more successful; for it was acted thirty times at the theatre at Lincoln's Inn, and four times at court, in the course of two years; and when the new theatre was opened in Dorset Gardens, in 1671, the same comedy drew considerable audiences for three nights: Nokes's acting in Marall was a source of great attraction. This play is imitated from the French of Molière's L'Etourdi, which itself is an imitation of the Inavvertito of Beltrami; it was published in Dryden's name in 1667,1 and all that is diverting and clever in it belongs, it is supposed, rather to the poet than the peer. The success of the play would much depend, I think, on the cleverness of the actors, and the adaptation of their talents to the parts assigned them. Its defects seem to consist in

1 Scott says, it was performed by the Duke of York's servants, probably at the desire of the Duke of Newcastle, as Dryden was engaged to write for the other house. It seems to have been acted in 1667, and was published, but without the author's name, in 1668.

the overcharged character of Sir Martin, which probably was so strongly coloured for the purpose of displaying Nokes's peculiar vein of drollery. Molière's character of Lelie is more thoughtless than foolish, more true to nature, and finished with a delicate and finer hand; the stupidity in Dryden's comedy has been exaggerated, and the humour of the play rendered more broad and coarse. The consequence of making Sir Martin despicable for his conceit and stupidity prevented Mrs. Millicent's marrying him without shocking probability, yet her marriage with Warner is very inconsistent and unsatisfactory. This the greater skill and judgment of Molière has avoided. The character of the familiar, intriguing valet, unknown to English customs, proves its foreign origin. L'Amant Indiscret of Quinault has been used for that portion of the plot, which occasioned its being called the 'Feigned Innocence,' and which of course is not part of Molière's play. If the indecency could be expunged, an agreeable farce might now be formed from the materials, nor would a successor to Nokes's humour be sought in vain.

The Mock Astrologer was registered in November, 1668. This play is founded on the Feint Astrologue of the younger Corneille, which he imitated from the Astrologo Fingido of Calderon. The quarrelling scene between Wildblood and Jacintha is copied from the scene in the Dépit Amoureux of Molière! Sir W. Scott says, that the play is more lively than most of Dryden's co

1 Evelyn mentions this play as a foolish plot, and very profane; it affected one to see how much the stage was degenerated and polluted by these licentious times. Memoirs, 19th June, 1668.

medies; Wildblood and Jacintha are far more pleasant than their prototypes, Celadon and Florimel, and the Spanish bustle of the plot is well calculated to fix the attention. The catastrophe, however, is too forcibly induced, and the improbabilities in the last scene are such as to require all the indulgence and good humour of the audience. To this play a very interesting preface1 on the merits of the older dramatists is attached: and the remarks on their respective excellencies are made with knowledge and judgment.

The next play which the readiness and vigour of his genius threw out, was Tyrannic Love, or the Royal Martyr; it was written in seven weeks, and the entry was made in the stationers' books, July, 1669.2

This has been with justice considered as one of Dryden's characteristic plays, exhibiting the chief features of the heroic system. The personages of the drama are placed in trying perplexities of situation, and amid extraordinary combinations of events; while the movement of the passions, and the progressive action of the story are superseded by declamation, or entangled in

1 In this preface Dryden has defended himself against the charge of plagiarism brought against him. On this point he quotes the words of Charles II., who had only desired, that they, who accused Dryden of theft, would steal him such plays as Dryden's. Langbaine, it is well known, is very severe on this head, against our poet, but his bitterest accusations only come to this, that like all his predecessors he took his plots from Novels, Romances, Chronicles, Histories, as he could best find them, and that he was occasionally indebted to the foreign stage.

2 Malone has fixed the first acting of this play to the end of 1668, or beginning of 1669. It was printed in 1670, and a revised edition came forth in 1672.