very best."[151] This
circumstance he accounts for by a reference to the audiences, and this
in turn he seems to ascribe partly to the great number of theaters then
open in London. He dwells so much on the evils of limiting the number of
play-houses to two or three, that we may fairly consider it one of his
hobbies, and it is possible that he had some slight influence toward
increasing that public opposition to the theatrical monopoly which
finally, in 1843, resulted in the nullification of the patents.

Scott's discussion of Restoration drama is admirably vigorous and clear.
He probably simplified the matter too much at some points, indeed, as
for example in over-estimating the influence exerted upon the stage by
Charles II. and his French tastes, and in tracing the origin of the
French drama to romances. But in general his facts are right and his
deductions fair. Mr. Saintsbury has accused him of depreciating Dryden's
plays, especially the comedies, out of disgust at their indecency; yet
in judging the period as a whole he seems to discriminate sufficiently
between indelicacy and dulness. "The talents of Otway," he says, "in his
scenes of passionate affection rival, at least, and sometimes excel
those of Shakspeare." Again: "The comedies of Congreve contain probably
more wit than was ever before embodied upon the stage; each word was a
jest, and yet so characteristic that the repartee of the servant is
distinguished from that of the master; the jest of the cox-comb from
that of the humorist or fine gentleman of the piece." Lesser writers of
the time are also sympathetically characterized,--Shadwell, for
instance, whom he thought to be commonly underestimated.[152] The heroic
play Scott discussed vivaciously in more than one connection, for, as we
should expect, his sense of humor found its absurdities tempting.[153]
On the rant in the _Conquest of Granada_ he remarked, "Dryden's apology
for these extravagances seems to be that Almanzor is in a passion. But
although talking nonsense is a common effect of passion, it seems hardly
one of those consequences adapted to show forth the character of a hero
in theatrical representation."[154] Scott's opinion of the form of these
plays appears in the following comment: "We doubt if, with his utmost
efforts, [Moliere] could have been absolutely dull, without the
assistance of a pastoral subject and heroic measure."[155] Concerning
the indecency of the literature of the period Sc