cious temper cannot be conquered by the frank and noble mind of a wife like Penthea, has never been more happily pourtrayed than in the character of Bassanes. The regret we must feel, however, that the poet was led by the taste of the age to introduce the corrupt and filthy characters of Phulas and Grausis, as attendants upon the gentle Penthea, cannot be concealed. Unfortunately the best plays of the age have similar blemishes, not to be eradicated without injuring the fabric of the drama. Fletcher, Massinger, Shirley, and others their inferiors, are, in this respect, equally blameable with our author.

Love's Sacrifice, the other tragedy published in 1633, which, according to the title, was "received generally well," is not entitled to the same share of praise with The Broken Heart. Ford, in forming the plot, had evidently the inimitable tragedy of Othello in his mind. The confidence of the Duke in the fidelity of his wife, till his temper is wrought upon by the insidious hints of his sister and of the counsellor D'Avolos; the designing villany of the latter, and his final fate: and lastly, the indifference of Fernando, remind us strongly of the several characters of Othello, Iago*, and Cassio; while the unfortunate fate of Bianca is in many respects similar to that of Desdemona. At the same time the imitations are

easy

*It is singular that both D'Avolos and Iago speak in prose, and both assume the same ironical bluntness.

it

not so close as to prevent the beholder's or reader's enjoyment of many truly pathetie scenes and passages. But there are parts which we would willingly set aside when weighing the merits of the tragedy. Such are the conduct of Bianca towards Fernando, the object of her affections, which, though does not absolutely realize the suspicions of the Duke, yet is sufficient to awaken them; and her braving the latter in terms more fit for a prostitute than such a character as the poet intended us to consider Bianca. Again, the underplot of Ferentes and his debaucheries, with his farcical assassination, are undoubtedly proofs either of the poet's want of judgment, or of the unfortunate deference to the vulgar part of the audience, who required their share of entertainment as well as the more educated specta

tors.

In the next play of our poet, which appeared in the ensuing year (1634), he left the track which he had hitherto pursued with so much success, and essayed his talents in another species, the Historical Drama, which his great original, Shakspeare, had cultivated with so much success. It is very probable that he designed "The Chronicle History of Perkin Warbeck" to fill up the gap between his predecessor's plays of Richard III. and Henry VIII. The event, which he has chosen in the intervening reign of Henry VII. is perhaps the only occurrence of that period capable of dramatic effect. Five copies of commenda

tions in verse are prefixed; the first of them by Donne, who appears to have been the steady friend of Ford, is entitled "To "To my own friend, Master John Ford, on his justifiable poem of Perkin Warbeck." From these verses, as well as from another copy by our poet's namesake and kinsman, John Ford of Gray's Inn, it would appear that this Chronicle History" was invidiously censured. In the

66

title it is said to have been "some times" acted at the Phoenix; which may either mean, that it obtained no great share of popularity, or that it was formerly acted, a considerable time before the publication. The historical drama appears from the prologue to have been out of fashion for some time previous to the exhibition of the play; and this circumstance is perhaps sufficient to account for its want of success.

It must be confessed, that Ford mistook his talent when he attempted to cultivate this species of dramatic composition, which nothing short of the gigantic genius of Shakspeare could render interesting. The range of time included in the plot is not so extensive as in that poet's historical plays; the unity of action and place is not so egregiously violated, and the great event being accomplished, no secondary events are subsequently developed ; and the whole is more regularly constructed: but instead of finding those flashes and outbreaks of a fiery mind, which more than compensate for the defects in Shakspeare's com

positions of a similar nature, we have frequently very declamatory dialogue, and, in general, no very accurate delineation of character. But while these defects are fully conceded, we may confidently assert, that scarcely any poet has succeeded in similar attempts, and that the cold and cautious character of Henry VII. was little calculated for the hero of a tragedy. Indeed most readers, in perusing the drama, will be inclined to consider the Flemish counterfeit as far more interesting than the rightful inheritor and actual possessor of the crown. Katherine, the wife of the pretender, is fully as interesting in the play as she seems to have been in real life; and the faithful attachment of Dalyell and Jane Douglas to her in all misfortunes, is pourtayed with great delicacy.

The two remaining dramas of our author are of a very different nature from any of the preceding ones, bearing no resemblance to any of them, excepting, perhaps, to The Lover's Melancholy. They are more in the style of Fletcher's and Shirley's light and airy tragicomedies; and the mind of Ford, which seems hitherto to have been of a gloomy cast, must have undergone a considerable change before the year 1638, when The Fancies, and The Lady's Trial, seem to have been produced.

The comedy entitled "Fancies, Chaste and Noble," (which seems also to have been called "The Bower of Fancies"), was printed in 1638, and probably at that time had not been long upon the stage. The plot of this comedy

is a very singular one, and seems to be the sole produce of Ford's mind, as is boldly asserted in the prologue *:

In it is shown

Nothing but what our author knows his own,
Without a learned theft.

On account of this singularity, it is difficult to decide upon the comparative merit of the play. The structure, though sufficiently regular, is slender, no very accurate discrimination of the different characters is attempted, some having their foibles, but none being absolutely bad; and the play seems to have been designed rather for the amusement of an audience willing to be pleased, than to be tried by the touchstone of criticism.

The Lady's Trial, with which our poet appears to have closed his dramatic labours, is of a higher quality, and may challenge comparison with many of Fletcher's comedies; bearing great resemblance to some productions of that poet. It was performed for the first time at the Cockpit theatre, in May 1638, having been licensed on the 3d of that month for the stage†. In the dedication the play is termed "the is

* Ford seems at this period to have left London, and to have been on a visit in the country, perhaps in his native county. Such an absence the following lines in the prologue seem to infer:

If traduced by some,

'Tis well, he says, he's far enough from home.

+ Shakspeare, Ford, and Jonson, ut supra, p. 397.