It is the introduction of this real person, under the covert name of Philologus, that constitutes the chief distinction between the drama we have reprinted and Moral-plays, which, though still sometimes exhibited, were falling into desuetude. As most persons are aware, they consisted, in their first and simplest form, entirely of allegorical or representative characters, although, as audiences became accustomed to such abstractions, attempts were from time to time made to give, even to such imaginary impersonations, individual peculiarities and interests. Besides the hero of "The Conflict of Conscience," his friends Eusebius and Theologus may also have been intended for real personages; and Gisbertus and Paphinitius were, possibly, the true names of the sons of Francis Spiera.
It will he seen that the drama is divided into six acts; but the last act consists of no more than a short speech by a Nuntius, who comes forward, as it should seem, to give a false representation of an historical fact--so early did a dramatist feel himself warranted in deviating from received statements, if it better answered his purpose not to adhere to them. In the instance before us, Nathaniel Woodes thought fit to alter the catastrophe, for the sake of the moral lesson he wished to enforce; and he, therefore, represented that Spiera had not committed suicide, and had, to the great joy of his friends, before death been re-converted to the religion he had so weakly abandoned. It will he observed, also, that the divisions of acts and scenes are very irregularly made towards the conclusion of the performance. From one passage we learn that no less than thirty weeks are supposed to elapse between the exit of Philologus, and his death as announced on the next page.
Nearly the whole of the piece is written in the ordinary seven-line stanza, with here and there the insertion of a couplet, more, no doubt, for convenience than for variety. The author seems to have very little consulted the wishes and tastes of a popular assembly; for, independently of the wearisome introduction, the interlocutions are sometimes carried to the extreme of tediousness, and the comic scenes are few, and failures. Perhaps, if any exception can be made, it is in favour of the interview between Hypocrisy, Tyranny, and Avarice, where the first, in consistency with his character, succeeds somewhat humorously in imposing upon both his companions. The long address of Caconos and his subsequent dialogue with Hypocrisy, Tyranny, and Avarice, is recommended to notice as an ancient and accurate specimen of our northern dialect. The long passage, where Caconos describes his knowledge of his portas by its illuminations, has been imitated by other authors, and, very likely, was not new in this drama.