d cardinal
Wolsey, by name. The poet seems to think, he may make every person,
in his play, know as much as himself, and talk as well as he could
have done on the same occasion. At least, I believe, every reader
will agree with me, that the above-mentioned sentiments, to which I
might have added several others, would have been better suited to
the court of Augustus than that of Muley Moloch. I grant they are
beautiful in themselves, and much more so in that noble language,
which was peculiar to this great poet. I only observe, that they are
improper for the persons who make use of them."

The catastrophe of the tragedy may be also censured, not only on the
grounds objected to that of "OEdipus," but because it does not
naturally flow from the preceding events, and opens, in the fifth act,
a new set of persons, and a train of circumstances, unconnected with
the preceding action. In the concluding scene, it was remarked, by the
critics, that there is a want of pure taste in the lovers dwelling
more upon the pleasures than the horrors of their incestuous
connection.

Of the lighter scenes, which were intended for comic, Dr Johnson has
said, "they are such as that age did not probably commend, and as the
present would not endure." Dryden has remarked, with self-complacency,
the art with which they are made to depend upon the serious business.
This has not, however, the merit of novelty; being not unlike the
connection between the tragic and comic scenes of the "Spanish Friar."
The persons introduced have also some resemblance; though the gaiety
of Antonio is far more gross than that of Lorenzo, and Morayma is a
very poor copy of Elvira. It is rather surprising, that when a gay
libertine was to be introduced, Dryden did not avail himself of a real
character, the English Stukely; a wild gallant, who, after spending a
noble fortune, became the leader of a band of Italian Condottieri,
engaged in the service of Sebastian, and actually fell in the battle
of Alcazar. Collier complains, and with very good reason, that, in the
character of the Mufti, Dryden has seized an opportunity to deride and
calumniate the priesthood of every religion; an opportunity which, I
am sorry to say, he seldom fails to use with unjustifiable inveteracy.
The rabble scenes were probably given, as our author himself says of
that in Cleomenes, "to gratify the more barbarous part of the
audience." Indeed, to judge from the practice of the