shall consider the inexhaustible humour of Scott, in affinity with the humour of Shakspeare; and his pretensions to dramatic power and to poetic excellence. In this last there can be no question of an immeasurable disparity. Nevertheless, there is a rich vein of poetry running through the writings of Scott; and particularly, as we have in part seen, of poetry of the moral kind-the poetry of man. Not of that intense and harrowing kind, of which we have lately had such exquisite specimens in Lord Byron and others of his school, tinctured, as we may suppose, with the transcendental philosophy of "the mystagogues of Germany; but of the real and practical kind-more natural and congenial to man in his every-day condition of existence, less visionary, and, in a word, more Shakspearian.

LECTURE II.

THE business of my last lecture was to point out some of the great characteristics of the genius of Scott, and of his writings; and to show how they assimilated, or contrasted with those of Shakspeare, in preference to any other master of fiction in our language; and to explain, as well as my limits would allow, and consistently with my plan, the grounds of that preference.

You may remember that these were-the great scope and universality of his moral vision,-that penetrating glance, and all-pervading sympathy which is the great boast of Shakspeare's genius.

His imaginative and imitative powers, which with the foregoing, necessarily imply great dramatic excellence, of which we shall have more to say as we proceed.

His appropriative power, by which, like Shakspeare, he subdued all things to his use, from the sterling gold of history, to the merest dross of popular tradition and superstitious ignorance. A power, the fruits of a sagacious and vigilant observation of men and manners; making, as he has somewhere familiarly told us, even his stage-coach conversations subservient to his delineations of character.

His copiousness, the result of the former attributes,

and of a mind overflowing with knowledge of the most practical kind.

The healthful character of his opinions, exemplified . in his treatment of the all-important subject of religion, and of the all-engrossing passion of love.

And above all, of that delightful spirit of candour which, finding a response in every bosom, is the essence and the charm of his universality, and gives to all his writings the impress of nature and of truth.

In pursuance of my plan, I propose this evening to say a few words more on Scott's dramatic power and delineation of character;-to dilate a little upon his humour and the variety of its characteristics-for in the variety, delicacy, and originality of his humour he comes nearest to Shakspeare; and to make some attempt at an appreciation of his merits in the higher graces of the picturesque and the poetical.

I have already adverted to the magical effect of the pictorial and imitative power that enables both our authors to identify their characters, and by making them act and speak for themselves, to bring before the spectator or the reader a vivid and correct delineation of the business of the scene; whether it consist in a natural progression of events, or a display of the workings of the mind, in the calm repose of a settled purpose, or moving in the "storm and whirlwind of the passions.' To do either of these effectually, nothing should occur to disturb the verisimilitude; nothing that is not essential and interesting to the persons concerned. It is the

practice of authors of inferior dramatic excellence, to weary their readers by long details of the actions and motives of their personages, to describe in their own words all that they do and feel, and instead of bringing them upon the scene to embody their thoughts in action, and furnish the materials upon which the reader may ground his own estimate, they are made unnaturally to descant upon their feelings, analyse their motives, and even to expatiate metaphysically on the passions with which they affect to be actuated.

I do not advance these remarks as very original, but their repetition here is necessary to my purpose as illustrative of the strong affinities which it is the business of these lectures to demonstrate.

It has been well observed by Mrs. Montague, that "the business of the drama is to excite sympathy; and its effect on the spectator depends on such a justness of imitation, as shall cause to a certain degree the same passions and affections, as if what was exhibited were real. Narrative imitation is too faint and feeble a means to excite passion; declamation still worse, plays idly on the surface of the subject, and makes the writer, who should be concealed in the action, visible to the spectator." It is this superiority of the imitative over the descriptive art, that gives life and energy to Scott's dramatic scenes. For although he is necessarily led by the conduct of his fable into the details of narrative, and frequently into prolix descriptions of the motives of his characters, when he does so, it is in strict accordance with the business of the scene; and he more frequently

c 3

makes them speak and act for themselves; and, by a succession of pictures, he unites the effect of a series of dramatic incidents, with the elaborate details of a finished narrative.

Impersonation is his great aim-the exposition of the virtues, the vices, the duties, the passions, the moral poetry of man; and subordinate to these, the illustration of the manners and customs of past times. It is, therefore, when he deserts the line of narrative, however explanatory, copious, and pregnant, that the dramatic excellence of Scott is most apparent; and it is in detached scenes and critical situations, that we are most frequently surprised with those striking imitations of nature that constitute the great charm of his productions. It soon became apparent that the conduct of his fables and the fabric of his plots were made subservient to the attainment of these objects, and nobody seems to have been more sensible than himself of the deficiencies of the other parts of his mechanism. But it cannot be denied that the excellence of his personifications and the variety of dramatic incident amply compensate for these defects. It were superfluous to institute a comparison with Shakspeare in this particular; in the case of neither author does it seem that there is any necessary relation between the excellence of the individual portraiture and the deficiencies of the action-as in a painting, each part, taken separately, may be good, though the grouping be faulty. We do not appreciate the noble character of Hamlet less. because the plot of the drama is inartificially conducted,