102 



some other hand, is not quite manifest nor under what 

 circumstances ; but it is sufficient to shew that such an 

 interference in the construction or versification was not 

 the rule, but piu-ely exceptional and explicable on very 

 many grounds. 



His adoption of plots, or even of stories, already dra- 

 matised and popularly known, must appear quite natural, 

 when the circumstances under which he first entered the 

 theatre are known, and the undoubted demand that 

 would exist for his labours to satisfy the necessities of 

 the theatre. His best jiistification is to be found in the 

 admirable use made of them, and in the fact that the 

 stories themselves, no matter whence or how derived, 

 served his purposes as well as if issued from the coinage 

 of his own brain. 



That he was held in slight esteem as a poet by his 

 Contemporaries, is not a very serious charge ; the fault 

 was theirs, not his. It must be admitted that he was 

 not honoured by his age as a poet, although placed in 

 the first rank as a dramatist. Daniels was preferred 

 when he applied for the post of master of the revels ; 

 and, in the words of a modern author, he might have 

 had "to veil his bonnet," not only to Spenser, but to 

 Daniels, and Chapman, Harrington, and Fairfax. But 

 what of this : the poet laureates are not always the best 

 poets of their day; nor is the noblest author always 

 recognised by the public. Speaking of the age, Mr. 

 Emerson remarks, " since the time of Pericles there was 

 never any such society ; yet their genius failed them to 

 find out the best head of the universe ; our poet's mask 

 was impenetrable — you cannot see the mountain near." 

 This certainly must be the explanation, rather than that 

 he was slighted, because neither a moralist nor an origi- 

 nal author, he was unquestionably the most moral, as he 

 was the most original writer of his day. And the cause 



