and the Cardinal than he afterwards makes them act. Very different
is Shakspeare's method of giving, at the outset, some single delicate
hint about his personages which will serve as a clue to their whole
future conduct; thus 'showing the whole in each part,' and stamping
each man with a personality, to a degree which no other dramatist has
ever approached.

But the truth is, the study of human nature is not Webster's aim. He
has to arouse terror and pity, not thought, and he does it in his own
way, by blood and fury, madmen and screech-owls, not without a rugged
power. There are scenes of his, certainly, like that of Vittoria's
trial, which have been praised for their delineation of character:
but it is one thing to solve the problem, which Shakspeare has so
handled in 'Lear,' 'Othello,' and 'Richard the Third,'--'Given a
mixed character, to show how he may become criminal,' and to solve
Webster's 'Given a ready-made criminal, to show how he commits his
crimes.' To us the knowledge of character shown in Vittoria's trial
scene is not an insight into Vittoria's essential heart and brain,
but a general acquaintance with the conduct of all bold bad women
when brought to bay. Poor Elia, who knew the world from books, and
human nature principally from his own loving and gentle heart, talks
of Vittoria's 'innocence--resembling boldness' {5}--and 'seeming to
see that matchless beauty of her face, which inspires such gay
confidence in her,' and so forth.

Perfectly just and true, not of Vittoria merely, but of the average
of bad young women in the presence of a police magistrate: yet
amounting in all merely to this, that the strength of Webster's
confest master-scene lies simply in intimate acquaintance with
vicious nature in general. We will say no more on this matter, save