moral law. Because the later Stuart
drama as a whole proved untrue to these, and, while following its own
courses, never more than partially returned from the aberrations to
which it condemned itself, its history is that of a decay which the
indisputable brilliancy, borrowed or original, of many of its
productions is incapable of concealing.

Tragedy.

Owing in part to the influence of the French theatre, which by this time
had taken the place of the Spanish as the ruling drama of Europe, the
separation between tragedy and comedy is clearly marked in
post-Restoration plays. Comic scenes are still occasionally introduced
into tragedies by some dramatists who adhered more closely to the
Elizabethan models (such as Otway and Crowne), but the practice fell
into disuse; while the endeavour to elevate comedy by pathetic scenes
and motives is one of the characteristic marks of the beginning of
another period in English dramatic literature. The successive phases
through which English tragedy passed in the later Stuart times cannot be
always kept distinct from one another; and the guidance offered by the
theories put forth by some of the dramatists in support of their
practice is often delusive. Following the example of Corneille, Dryden
and his contemporaries and successors were fond of proclaiming their
adherence to this or that principle of dramatic construction or form,
and of upholding, with much show of dialectical acumen, maxims derived
by them from French or other sources, or elaborated with modifications
and variations of their own, but usually amounting to little more than
what Scott calls "certain romantic whimsical imitations of the dramatic
art." Students of the drama will find much entertainment and much
instruction in these prefaces, apologies, dialogues and treatises. They
will acknowledge that Dryden's incomparable vigour does not desert him
either in the exposing or in the upholding of fallacies, while _le bon
sens_, which he hardly ever fails to exhibit, and which is a more
eclectic gift than common-sense, serves as a sure guide to the best
intelligence of his age. Even Rymer,[210] usually regarded as having
touched the nadir of dramatic criticism, will be found to be not wholly
without grains of salt. But Restoration tragedy itself must not be
studied by the light of Restoration criticism. So long as any dramatic
power remained in the tragic poets--and it is absent from none of the
chief among them from