ENGLISH.] DRAMA 439 superior to tins is his later drama of Zapolya, a genuine homage to Shakespeare, out of the themes of two of whose plays it is gracefully woven. Scott, who in his earlier days had translated Goethe s Gotz von Berlich- ingen, gained no reputation by his own dramatic compositions. W. S. Landor (1775-1864), apart from those Imaginary Conversations upon which he best loved to expend powers of observation and character ization such as have been given to few dramatists, cast in a formally dramatic mould studies of character of which the value is far from being confined to their wealth in beauties of detail. Of these the magnificent, but in construction altogether undramatic, Count Julian is the most noteworthy. Shelley s (1792-1822) The Cenci, on the other hand, is not only a poem of great beauty, but a drama of true power, abnormally revolting in its theme, but singularly pure and delicate in treatment. A humbler niche in the temple of our dramatic literature belongs to some of the plays of C. R. Maturin 1 (1782-1824), Sir T. N. Talfourd- (1795-1854), and Dean Milman 3 (1791-18G8). Divorced, except for moments, from the stage, English dramatic literature in its higher forms can in the present century no longer be regarded as a connected national growth, though it would be rash to deny that with the isolated efforts of individual poets future developments may connect themselves. Among living poets Sir II . Taylor has perhaps approached nearest to the objective spirit and the fullness of style of the Elizabethan drama ; II. II. Home survives as a worthy representative of the modern Romantic school ; Matthew Arnold has the dignity of form of his classic models, Longfellow the graceful facility of a mellow literary culture ; while E. Browning s insight into the secrets of human character, and A. C. Swinburne s gift of passionate poetic speech, are true dramatic qualities. By his Hannibal J. Nichol has likewise made a noteworthy contribution to the higher literature of our drama. The latest English dramatic poet is Tennyson, whose homage to the national form of the his toric drama may be hopefully interpreted as a promise of the future possibly awaiting it. Far greater is the number of those English writers of the present century who, while seeking to preserve a connection between the demands of the stage and their dramatic productions, have addressed themselves to the theatrical rather than the literary public since such a distinction must needs be drawn. The respect paid by her contemporaries to the modestly simple and judiciously concentrated efforts of Mrs Joanna Baillie (1762-1851) entitles her to remem brance in the annals of literature as well as those of the stage ; but it would be going too far to make a similar ex ception in favour of the plays of Sheridan Knowles (1784-1862) or of the late Lord Lytton (1806-1873). At the present day the theatre commands the services of many authors of talent, a few of whose most successful productions may perad venture be destined to survive the age which gave birth to them. But here, if anywhere, the task of selection must be left to time. Tho history of the English stage in the present century has been one of gradual decline and decay, not (especially at the^ present day) without prospects of recovery, of which a praiseworthy hopefulness is ever willing to make the most. At the beginning of the century the greatest tragic actress of the English theatre, Mrs Sidduns, had passed her prime ; and before its second decade had closed, not only she (1812), but her brother John Kembls (1817), the representative of a grand style of acting upon which the present generation would hardly dare to look, had with drawn from the boards. Mrs Siddons was soon followed 1 Bertram. 2 Ion. 3 Fazio. into retirement ly her successor Miss O Xcill (1819) ; while Kemble s brilliant later rival, Edmund Kean, an actor the intuitions of whose genius seem to have supplied, so far as intuition ever can supply, the absence of a steady self-culture, remained on the stage till his death in 1833. Young, Macready, and others handed down some of the traditions of the older school of acting to the very few who remain to suggest its semblance to the living generation. But even these among whom a tribute of gratitude is specially due to Helen Faucit and S. Phelps are now lost (or all but lost) as active members to the theatre, and they have left no school behind them. The comic stage has been fortunate in an ampler aftergrowth, from generation to generation, of the successors of the old actors who live for us in the reminiscences of Charles Lamb ; nor are the links all snapped which bind the humours of the present to those of the past. It is least of all in any spirit of depreciation that the efforts of the actors of our day, in any branch of the art, should be discussed. But it is right to point out that these efforts are carried on under conditions of a partly novel character, to which the a.ctors are forced to submit. No art stands in greater need of the help of training, an advantage with which the modern English actor is virtually obliged to dispense. No art stands in greater need of the relief of change in the subjects of its exercise, but the modern English actor is made to look forward, as to the height of success, to playing the same character for three hundred nights. No art stands in greater need of the guidance of criticism, but the modern English actor is too often left to criticise himself. Finally, none stands in greater need of the protection of self-respect, but there are few theatres in England which are not from time to time degraded in deference to tastes which in earlier days not Puritan censors only would have called by a simpler name. The reaction against the theatre, which set in with tin spread of the religious movement at the close of the last century, had the natural effect of lowering instead of raising its tone and mariners, as well as those of the literature designed to supply its immediate demands. With the growth of that enlightenment which is inseparable from tolerance, this reaction seems to be giving place to a counter-reaction ; while on the other hand, a larger section of the educated classes have begun to take an interest in the progress of the national drama, and the world of fashion is condescending to follow the impulse. Dramatic criticism, too a branch of English literature to which from the days of Steele to those of Hazlitt so many writers of mark were ready to devote their efforts, but which had more recently often fallen into hands either unequal to the task or disdainful of it seems here and there awakening to a sense of its higher duties. But all this will not permanently recover the stage for its higher tasks, or reunite to it a living dramatic literature, unless an object of serious moment for the future of the nation is pursued in a serious spirit, and unless it is thought worth while to devise means suited to this end. In a word, so long as there is no national theatre which, removed above the conditions of a commercial speculation, can cultivate the art to which it is dedicated for the sake of that art itself, the future of the English drama will be at the mercy of the likings of London, and of the adoption of those likings by the London which is not London, and by the " provinces," as in theatrical matters they are only too appropriately called. The time may come when it will be recognized that the progress and culture of a people depend upon its diversions as well as upon its occupations ; and that the interests of a national art are not unworthy tuc
solicitude of thoughtful statesmen.