a rebellious Moses, a perjured David, a treacherous Peter.

"In nothing does Shakspeare so deeply and divinely touch the heart of
humanity as in the representation of woman." We have the grandeur of
Portia, the sprightliness of Rosalind, the passion of Juliet, the
delicacy of Ophelia, the mournful dignity of Hermione, the filial
affection of Cordelia. How shall we describe the Pythian greatness of
Miriam, the cheerful hospitality of Sarah, the heroism of Rahab, the
industry of Dorcas, the devotion of Mary? And we might set off Lady
Macbeth with Jezebel, and Cleopatra with Delilah.

But the Bible, it may be said, so far as the subject before us is
concerned, is chiefly historical, while Shakspeare is purely dramatic.
The one is description,--the other action; the one relates to
events,--the other to feelings; the department of the one is the general
course of human affairs,--that of the other, the narrower circle of
individual experience; the field of the one is that which the eye of
philosophy may embrace,--while that of the other is what the human frame
may portray.

However this may apply to the average of history, it will be found that
the Bible, in its historical parts, is not so strictly historical as to
preclude associations of another sort. The Bible is remarkable for a
visual and embodied relief, a bold and vivid detail. We know of no book,
if we may except the compositions of professed dramatists, that contains
so much of personal feeling and incident. In simplicity and directness,
in freedom from exaggeration, and in the general unreserve of its
expression, it even exceeds the most of these. In it we may discover a
succession of little dramas of Nature that will affect us quite as
profoundly as those larger ones of Art.