ifax,
she draws the characters of several of the most eminent of her
predecessors in tragic poetry, with great judgment and precision. She
observes, that Shakespear had all the images of nature present to him,
studied her thoroughly, and boldly copied all her various features: and
that though he chiefly exerted himself on the more masculine passions,
it was the choice of his judgment, not the restraint of his genius; and
he seems to have designed those few tender moving scenes, which he has
given us, as a proof that he could be every way equally admirable. She
allows Dryden to have been the most universal genius which this nation
ever bred; but thinks that he did not excel in every part; for though he
is distinguished in most of his writings, by greatness and elevation of
thought, yet at the same time that he commands our admiration of
himself, he little moves our concern for those whom he represents, not
being formed for touching the softer passions. On the other hand, Otway,
besides his judicious choice of the fable, had a peculiar art to move
compassion, which, as it is one of the chief ends of Tragedy, he found
most adapted to his genius; and never venturing where that did not lead
him, excelled in the pathetic. And had Lee, as she remarks, consulted
his strength as well, he might have given us more perfect pieces; but
aiming at the sublime, instead of being great, he is extravagant; his
stile too swelling; and if we pursue him in his flight, he often carries
us out of nature. Had he restrained that vain ambition, and intirely
applied himself to describe the softest of the passions (for love, of
all the passions, he seems best to have understood, if that be allowed a
proper subject for Tragedy) he had certainly had fewer defects.

But poetry and dramatic writing did not so far engross the thoughts of
our author, but that she sometimes turned them to subjects of a very
different nature; and at an age when few of the other sex were capable
of understanding the Essay of Human Understanding, and most of them
prejudiced against the novelty of its principles; and though she was at
that time engaged in the profession of a religion not very favourable to
so rational a philosophy as that of Mr. Lock; yet she had read that
incomparable book, with so clear a comprehension, and so unbiassed a
judgment, that her own conviction of the truth and importance of the
notions contained in it, led her to endeavour that of others, by
rem