moral of any in Europe; and it has been observed by able writers, that morality has been better preached in France on the boards of a Theatre than the pulpit, and though Plays were not made subservient to the interests of vice, yet performers lived under the sting of ancient prejudice.. In this country many Theatrical entertainments produced in the reign of Charles II. were, and are extremely vulnerable in point of moral tendency, and have been wisely objected to by the pen of the ethic writer; and though many of the pieces of that period are pregnant with innumerable beauties, and unparalleled for Attic wit; yet to represent them as they were originally performed, would be an offence to a modern debauchee. But it must be recollected that these defects attach no blame to the Player, nor do former evils militate against the Stage of the present day. And as we before observed, that when the people were governed by a relaxed system of ethics, it was not to be expected that the Stage could exist without a sacrifice of its intended philosophic principle-to hold, as Shakespear says, “the mirror up to nature."

But in order to encompass at one view the general tincture of depravity and licentiousness of that period, we must be permitted to observe that pulpit orations were not wholly free from indelicate allusions, which if now offered would meet with public execration; this shews, to what an extent human evil had expanded itself, when Christian pastors were infected with the national mania.

Was the Player then accountable for the vices of

a country? Was he who lived on the caprice of the public, to dictate to them the species of diversion they ought to have? Yet he suffered the scourge of slander, and every insult the humblest character in the country would kick at, though he had no will of his own, as to the Drama represented, but was obliged to give his utmost energy to the part assigned to him, whether it was a libel on the state, or the deformed, and unlicked cub, of a debauched mind. The Actor was compelled to stand the public roast, from merely being the organ of either a silly, or a vicious character, he had no hand in forming, and if the latter, he often bore subsequent abuse, for being what, he only represented, particularly if he was successful in pourtraying the author with a masterly pencil.

From that universal liberality which now pervades the public mind, we think if it were probable for human depravity to give birth to a piece of Dramatic Composition, which had for its object the destruction of the national morals, and allowing the probability of its obtaining the sanction of Lord Salisbury, and the Manager; the English would not attach the impurity of the piece to the private character of the Performers, whose refusal of their parts would incur a heavy penalty*, but would consider the author, his Lordship, and the Manager only accountable for the public insult.-In Charles II's. voluptuous days the exhibition of an indelicate Play, was an offence only to be attached to the public, as the Manager

* At Covent Garden Theatre thirty pounds: before the dispute between the gentlemen of that House and Mr. Harris, the penalty was five pounds.

could not have kept his Theatre open without a sacrifice of morality, to feed and nurse popular vice.Therefore the arguments which have been used, against the existence of a Theatre, and its professors, are not now applicable. The Stage being the prototype of a people whose religion, sensibility, and morals have raised them above the degenerate mortals of those days; though the Drama of the present time cannot boast of that brilliancy of wit, which is current in the Comedies of that period, yet its substitute is of a more national use, animating by example the love of country, public courage, and all those virtues that must grace the English character, keep them free from the yoke of foreign tyranný, and that unparalleled catalogue of vices existing in a neighbouring nation, which have been engendered by monsters in the monstrous moments of human depravity.

If to make the morality and the usefulness of the Stage, a question of philosophic enquiry, without reverting either to its ancient Greek or Roman grandeur, but merely to try its national use by syllogistic rule, be not an act of profaneness in the eye of a methodist preacher*, we will venture to take a

* We do not mean to insinuate any thing of a disrespectful nature against this sect; it is our firm opinion that it has by extempore addresses to the people, been infinitely serviceable to the state in reclaiming the lower order of society from intemperate living. But the burthen of its ephemeral song, is constant invective against the Stage and its professors; and these mild calumniators repeatedly avow their belief of their own immediate damnation, if they were to venture within the house of Satan, consequently common reason must tell every one that they are quite unqualified to give an opinion on that subject, they profess themselves strangers to. We must confess that this absurd and empty abuse against the Stage, has generally come from that order of their clergy, (if they deserve the name) who have left the cobler's-stall or coal-barge for the pulpit,

view of its powers in the crucible of reason, which will equally cast up its defects as well as beauties, and expose to the eye of the observer its separate lineaments as well as collective whole.

A Drama we consider a picture composed of all the feelings and actions which characterize the human mind, and partaking of form, beauty of colouring and polish, agreeable to the genius of its parent, and the refinement of the country.

Among the visible actions and efforts of men in society, some must of course be inadmissible to the embraces of the Muses, from the depravity which attends overgrown states, as the exposure of some offences, have been known to beget advocates, and has operated as an encouragement to vice instead of an antidote; these it must be observed are but few. If then a Drama is allowed to be a picture of the infinitely various passions, which shew the human character in a thousand different forms, and display an equal variety of actions, surely some of these according to common reason, must be virtuous and produce good, or otherwise the body politic could not exist, and to imitate virtue, cannot be an offence to the great author of our nature; in this the most severe religionist must acquiesce, and if the actions of men are bad, he surely will allow, that it is better to shame

'It is therefore not to be expected, that either liberality, refinement of sentiment, or logical acquirement, will attend their oral doctrines, which is generally found to accompany the learned members of the Church, in the elevated duty of their divine office.

We have thought it therefore not unfair, to take a trifling liberty with those who do not hesitate to daub a science and its professors with abuse, whose avowed prejudice will not permit them to become its ocular investigators.

them out of evil than produce good by stripes, consequently the strongest shame must be that which is produced by the strongest impression, therefore the mirror of human folly goes a greater way to cure defect than dry remonstrance; the latter men hate to reflect on, the former fastens on the mind, from making its way to the heart, through the medium of the senses; being engaged by the combined powers of a Theatre, such as the art of the poet's reasoning, the effects of Scenery and the talent of the Actor. It is daily observable in the common walks of life that there are men, who would sooner suffer the confinement of a cell, than the sneer of a satirist; and many persons would hourly trespass on the laws, without the fear of any punishment, but that of public exposure. Then what method is there stronger to destroy vice, check licentious habits, and expose the growing folly of the age, than to give it form and character, by the aid of Scenic effect, which carries an artful antidote, uniting ridicule with admonition, which gives the Drama superior power to impart, the impressive beauties of moral example that live on the public mind, soften the ferocity of vulgarism, and correct the grosser desires of the heart?

After our review of its collective powers, permit us to analyse its separate parts, but not as to the nature of the three unities, action, time and place, and its division into five acts, according to the rule of Horace.

Ne te minor, nec sic quinto productior actu.

Fabula quæ possi vult et Spectata reponi.

The philosophy of these ancient rules of art, has been a question of much literary dispute, and there