had only crossed the stage in a procession, yet when he does appear
he is bereft of prominence. The interest as regards him is
indicated, in Act I. scene v., by Mary's kissing his miniature. Her
blighted love for him is one main motive of the tragedy, but his own
part appears too subordinate in the play as published. The interest
is scattered among the vast crowd of characters; and Mr R. H. Hutton
remarked at the time that he "remains something of a cold, cruel, and
sensual shadow." We are more interested in Wyatt, Cranmer, Gardiner,
and others; or at least their parts are more interesting. Yet in no
case does the interest of any character, except of Mary and
Elizabeth, remain continuous throughout the play. Tennyson himself
thought that "the real difficulty of the drama is to give sufficient
relief to its intense sadness. . . . Nothing less than the holy calm
of the meek and penitent Cranmer can be adequate artistic relief."
But not much relief can be drawn from a man about to be burned alive,
and history does not tempt us to keen sympathy with the recanting
archbishop, at least if we agree with Macaulay rather than with
Froude.

I venture to think that historical tradition, as usual, offered a
better motive than exact history. Following tradition, we see in
Mary a cloud of hateful gloom, from which England escapes into the
glorious dawn of "the Gospel light," and of Elizabeth, who might be
made a triumphantly sympathetic character. That is the natural and
popular course which the drama might take. But Tennyson's history is
almost critical and scientific. Points of difficult and debated
evidence (as to Elizabeth's part in Wyatt's rebellion) are discussed.
There is no contest of day and darkness, of Truth and Error. The
characters are in that perplexed condition about creeds which was
their actual state after the political and social and religious chaos