Page:The Moor of Venice.djvu/16

5 between the relative merits of the Play and the Novel, proceeds upon an erroneous principle; the same test of criticism is inapplicable to the two productions. "There was wanting in the narrative of Cinthio," observes M. Guizot, "the poetical genius which furnished the actors,—which created the individuals,—which imposed upon each a figure and a character,—which made us see their actions, and listen to their words,—which presented their thoughts and penetrated their sentiments,—that vivifying power which summons events to arise, to progress, to expand, to be completed,—that creative breath, which, breathing over the past, calls it again into being, and fills it with a present and imperishable life:—this was the power which Shakspere alone possessed, and by which, out of a forgotten novel he has made Othello ." This passage is eloquently true as a criticism on Shakspere'sShakespeare's [sic] Play, but does not apply to Cinthio's Tale; in fact, it only defines the province of the dramatic poet's art. Cinthio's story was no drama, but one of the plainest and most straightforward narratives, exhibiting human nature under its ordinary aspects, and tracing the simple chain of events with ordinary regularity: there is no art in its structure, no consideration in its arrangement, and it consequently lays claim to no merit beyond what it may possess in point of style, consistency,