tions, apt alluſions to the manners, and opinions of the times where the ſcene is laid, and with noble morals; that the diction is pure, unaffected, and ſublime; and that the plot is conducted in a ſimple and clear manner.
Some critics have objected, that there is not a ſufficient ground and foundation, for the diſtreſs in the fourth and fifth acts. That Phocyas only aſſiſts the enemy to take Damaſcus a few days ſooner, than it muſt unavoidably have fallen into the hands of the Saracens by a capitulation, which was far from diſhonourable. If Phocyas is guilty, his guilt muſt conſiſt in this only, that he performed the ſame action from a ſenſe of his own wrong, and to preſerve the idol of his ſoul from violation, and death, which he might have performed laudably, upon better principles. But this (ſay they) ſeems not ſufficient ground for thoſe ſtrong and ſtinging reproaches he caſts upon himſelf, nor for Eudocia’s rejecting him with ſo much ſeverity. It would have been a better ground of diſtreſs, conſidering the frailty of human nature, and the violent temptations he lay under; if he had been at laſt prevailed upon to profeſs himſelf a Mahometan: For then his remorſe, and ſelf-condemnation, would have been natural, his puniſhment juſt, and the character of Eudocia placed in a more amiable light. In anſwer to theſe objections, and in order to do juſtice to the judgment of Mr. Hughes, we muſt obſerve, that he formed his play according to the plan here recommended: but, over-perſuaded by ſome friends, he altered it as it now ſtands.
When our author was but in the nineteenth year of his age, he wrote a Tragedy, entitled, Amalaſont Queen of the Goths, which diſplays a fertile genius, and a maſterly invention. Beſides theſe poetical productions Mr Hughes is author of ſeveral works in proſe, particularly,
The
