or monsters that typified human passions, but did not personify them.  In the Autos it is precisely the reverse.  Rarely do actual beings take part in the drama, and then only as personifications of the predominant vices or passions of the individuals whose names they bear.  Thus in my own volume, Belshazzar is not treated so much as an historical character, but rather as the personification of the pride and haughtiness of a voluptuous king.  In The Divine Philothea, in the same volume, there are no actual beings whatever, except The Prince of Light and The Prince of Darkness or The Demon.  In truth, there is nothing analogous to a Spanish Auto in English original poetry.  The nearest approach to it, and the only one, is The Prometheus Unbound of Shelley.  There, indeed, The Earth, Ocean, The Spirits of the Hours, The Phantasm of Jupiter, Demogorgon, and Prometheus himself, read like the ‘Personas’ of a Spanish Auto, and the poetry is worthy the resemblance.  The Autos Sacramentales differ also, not only in degree but in kind from every form of Mystery or Morality produced either in England or on the Continent.  But to return to the lecture by Sir F. H. Doyle.  Even in smaller matters he is not accurate.  Thus he has transcribed incorrectly from my Introduction the name of the distinguished commentator on the Autos of Calderon and their translator into German—­Dr. Lorinser.  This Sir F. H. Doyle has printed throughout his lecture ‘Lorinzer’.  From private letters which I have had the honour of receiving from this learned writer, there can be no doubt that the form as originally given by me is the right one.  With these corrections the lecture of Sir F. H. Doyle may be quoted as a valuable testimony to the extraordinary poetic beauty of these Autos even in a translation.

Lecture iii.—­Dr. Newman’s Dream of Gerontius.

“It is probable, indeed, that the first idea of composing such a dramatic work may have been suggested to Dr. Newman by the Autos Sacramentales of Spain, and especially by those of the illustrious Calderon; but, so far as I can learn, he has derived hardly anything from them beyond the vaguest hints, except, indeed, the all-important knowledge, that a profound religious feeling can represent itself, and that effectively, in the outward form of a play.  I may remark that these Spanish Autos of Calderon constitute beyond all question a very wonderful and a very original school of poetry, and I am not without hope that, when I know my business a little better, we may examine them impartially together.  Nay, even as it is, Calderon stands so indisputably at the head of all Catholic religious dramatists, among whom Dr. Newman has recently enrolled himself, that perhaps it may not be out of place to inquire for a moment into his poetical methods and aims, in order that we may then discover, if we can, how and why the disciple differs from his master.  Now there is a great conflict of opinion as to the precise degree of merit which these particular Spanish dramas possess.  Speaking as an ignorant man, I should say, whilst those who disparage them seem rather hasty in their judgments, and not so well informed as could be wished, still the kind of praise which they receive from their most enthusiastic admirers puzzles and does not instruct us.