* * * * *

The first murder is familiar to you all.  As the inventor of murder, and the father of the art, Cain must have been a man of first-rate genius.  All the Cains were men of genius.  Tubal Cain invented tubes, I think, or some such thing.  But, whatever were the originality and genius of the artist, every art was then in its infancy, and the works must be criticised with a recollection of that fact.  Even Tubal’s work would probably be little approved at this day in Sheffield; and therefore of Cain (Cain senior, I mean,) it is no disparagement to say, that his performance was but so so.  Milton, however, is supposed to have thought differently.  By his way of relating the case, it should seem to have been rather a pet murder with him, for he retouches it with an apparent anxiety for its picturesque effect: 

Whereat he inly raged; and, as they talk’d, Smote him into the midriff with a stone That beat out life:  he fell; and, deadly pale, Groan’d out his soul with gushing blood effus’d. Par.  Lost, B. XI.

Upon this, Richardson, the painter, who had an eye for effect, remarks as follows, in his Notes on Paradise Lost, p. 497:  “It has been thought,” says he, “that Cain beat (as the common saying is) the breath out of his brother’s body with a great stone; Milton gives in to this, with the addition, however, of a large wound.”  In this place it was a judicious addition; for the rudeness of the weapon, unless raised and enriched by a warm, sanguinary coloring, has too much of the naked air of the savage school; as if the deed were perpetrated by a Polypheme without science, premeditation, or anything but a mutton bone.  However, I am chiefly pleased with the improvement, as it implies that Milton was an amateur.  As to Shakspeare, there never was a better; as his description of the murdered Duke of Gloucester, in Henry VI., of Duncan’s, Banquo’s, &c., sufficiently proves.

The foundation of the art having been once laid, it is pitiable to see how it slumbered without improvement for ages.  In fact, I shall now be obliged to leap over all murders, sacred and profane, as utterly unworthy of notice, until long after the Christian era.  Greece, even in the age of Pericles, produced no murder of the slightest merit; and Rome had too little originality of genius in any of the arts to succeed, where her model failed her.  In fact, the Latin language sinks under the very idea of murder.  “The man was murdered;”—­how will this sound in Latin? Interfectus est, interemptus est—­which simply expresses a homicide; and hence the Christian Latinity of the middle ages was obliged to introduce a new word, such as the feebleness of classic conceptions never ascended to. Murdratus est, says the sublimer dialect of Gothic ages.  Meantime, the Jewish, school of murder kept alive whatever was yet known in the art, and gradually transferred it to the Western World.  Indeed the Jewish school was always respectable, even in the dark ages, as the case of Hugh of Lincoln shows, which was honored with the approbation of Chaucer, on occasion of another performance from the same school, which he puts into the mouth of the Lady Abbess.