between indelicacy and dulness.  “The talents of Otway,” he says, “in his scenes of passionate affection rival, at least, and sometimes excel those of Shakspeare.”  Again:  “The comedies of Congreve contain probably more wit than was ever before embodied upon the stage; each word was a jest, and yet so characteristic that the repartee of the servant is distinguished from that of the master; the jest of the cox-comb from that of the humorist or fine gentleman of the piece.”  Lesser writers of the time are also sympathetically characterized,—­Shadwell, for instance, whom he thought to be commonly underestimated.[152] The heroic play Scott discussed vivaciously in more than one connection, for, as we should expect, his sense of humor found its absurdities tempting.[153] On the rant in the Conquest of Granada he remarked, “Dryden’s apology for these extravagances seems to be that Almanzor is in a passion.  But although talking nonsense is a common effect of passion, it seems hardly one of those consequences adapted to show forth the character of a hero in theatrical representation."[154] Scott’s opinion of the form of these plays appears in the following comment:  “We doubt if, with his utmost efforts, [Moliere] could have been absolutely dull, without the assistance of a pastoral subject and heroic measure."[155] Concerning the indecency of the literature of the period Scott wrote emphatically.  He was much troubled by the problem of whether to publish Dryden’s works without any cutting, and came near taking Ellis’s advice to omit some portions, but he finally adhered to his original determination:  “In making an edition of a man of genius’s works for libraries and collections ...  I must give my author as I find him, and will not tear out the page, even to get rid of the blot, little as I like it."[156]

The question of the morality of theater-going was one Scott felt obliged to discuss when he was writing upon the drama.  He found its vindication, characteristically, in a universal human trait,—­the impulse toward mimicry and impersonation,—­and in the good results that may be supposed to attend it.  In naming these he lays what seems like undue stress on the teaching of history by the drama, in language that might quite as well be applied to historical novels.  His argument on the literary side also is stated in a somewhat too sweeping way:—­“Had there been no drama, Shakespeare would, in all likelihood, have been but the author of Venus and Adonis and of a few sonnets forgotten among the numerous works of the Elizabethan age, and Otway had been only the compiler of fantastic odes."[157] A final plea, in favor of the stage as a democratic agency—­though this of course is not Scott’s phrasing—­seems slightly unusual for him, although not essentially out of character.  “The entertainment,” he says, “which is the subject of general enjoyment, is of a nature which tends to soften, if not to level, the distinction of ranks."[158] In another mood he admitted the greater likelihood that immoral plays would injure the public character than that moral plays would elevate it.[159]