the comical parts of Shakspeare, his extreme comical parts, are rather
an exaggeration of individual qualities than a fair portraiture of the
whole species. There is no Falstaff in the Bible, yet the qualities of
Falstaff exist in the Bible and in Nature, but in combination, and this
combination modifies their aspect and effect.

There is laughter in the Bible, but it is not uttered to make you laugh.
There are also events recorded, which, at the time, may have produced
effects analogous to comedy. The approach of the Gibeonites to the camp
of Israel in their mock-beggarly costume might be mentioned. Shimei's
cursing David has always seemed to us to border on the ludicrous.

But to leave these matters and return to the general thread of thought.
Dramas have been formed on the Bible. We hardly need name "Paradise
Lost," or "Samson Agonistes," or the "Cain" of Byron, the "Hadad" of
Hillhouse, or Mrs. More's "David and Goliah." "Pilgrim's Progress" has a
Scriptural basis.

Moreover, if we may trust the best critics, certain portions of the
sacred volume are conceived in a dramatic spirit, and are propounded to
a dramatic interpretation. These are the Book of Job, the Song of
Solomon, and, possibly, the Apocalypse of St. John. If we were disposed
to contend for this view, we need but mention such authorities as
Calmet, Carpzov, Bishops Warburton, Percy, Lowth, Bossuet.

The Book of Job has a prose prologue and epilogue, the intermediate
portions being poetic dialogue. The characters are discriminated and
well supported. It does not preserve the unities of Aristotle, which,
indeed, are found neither in the Bible nor in Nature,--which Shakspeare
neglects, and which are to be met with only in the crystalline