« 上一页继续 »
"To prison sent, he swore they'd us'd him ill,
And now with judgment due, in sad dismay,.
"Here hides his head, now humbled to the earth,
And Disappointment mark'd him for her own..
No further seek his merits to disclose,
Or draw his frailties from their dread abode;:
[From the General Evening Post, May 21.1
* Room-a name given by the Baronet to the British House of
any with so much success as the following: About a month ago I sold a guinea, or rather "bought a pound note," by which I netted 4s. The odd silver purchased me two dinners. On the third day I called at the same chop-house, ate my dinner as usual, and pulled out my one-pound note: "Oh, Sir," said the waiter, we have no change; I had much rather trust you." This was good-I finished my porter, and went away. Not having been able to raise the wind in shillings, I went the following day to another chop-house; ate my dinner-produced my note :→→ "Upon my word, Sir, we must trust you-we have not five shillings in the house: d-n the Bank and its paper too, we shall all be ruined !”- "Bless the Bank and its paper too," thought I; and then left the waiter biting his lips with vexation at losing his " odd halfpence. This circumstance happened the day following at a third house; when I began to find that my one-ponnd note was as valuable to me as Fortunatus's Purse. I have only to eat my dinner, show my paper, curse the Bank, and live like a gentleman. Who now will say that paper-money is 'depreciated? Besides, the moral effects of this new system of "Ways and Means" are incalculable.I who, for these twenty years past, have been compelled to invent a weekly succession of frauds, have now reduced them to this simple one, of exhibiting a single one-pound note, which I came honestly by, in part of payment for a solitary bit of gold, which would hardly have furnished me with as many dinners as I have lived weeks on the credit of Mr. Henry Hase.
I am, Sir, your most obedient,
ALTHOUGH I do not profess to be an advocate for the managers of our theatres in all their measures, yet the attempts now making to excite a clamour against them, on account of the quadruped performers, are not, in my humble opinion, entirely reconcilable to the strict principles of justice. That all the blame should rest with those who have introduced horses, and none with the public which encourage them, is a paradox that demands some explanation. But it is not the only one which has arisen out of the present convulsed state of our theatrical repubJic; and I should suppose there must be something very ominous at the present crisis, since we see as - many reformers and capitalists gathering about the stage, as gathered about France previous to her RevoJution.
As to the question between the managers and the public, with respect to matters of taste, I am much inclined to think that the latter are more reprehensible than the former. What the facetious Jack Fuller says of the people, with regard to currency, I should be disposed to apply to them with regard to theatrical amusements: They will take tallow candles; they will take oyster-shells, or any thing." And without going farther back than about thirty years, the period of my own remembrance, I think I may venture to say, without danger of contradiction, that the public has taken any thing. In 1781, they submitted to; but that is a weak word; they eagerly patronized, the transformation, as it was called, of the Beggar's Opera; when the male characters were performed by women, and vice versa; which was surely as gross a violation
of taste and decency, as ever was permitted. They have since encouraged boxers, a fox-chase, and many other similar amusements, down to the present novelty of horses; not only without any objection, but with an avidity, which shows, at least, that if the managers caunot fill their houses by legitimate dramas, they know well and easily how to do it by other means.
Again, Sir, while we are thus severe upon these dumb prancers, let us reflect for what they are a substitute; or rather, to what they are an appendix.They are introduced, to supply the place of, or to aid the amusement derivable from farces and pantomimes. Now, I should be glad to know of those gentlemen, who are interposing their refined taste between the managers and the public, how long farces and pantomimes have been considered as entertainments. worthy of a rational public, and deserving to be classed with the legitimate drama; with the works of our celebrated and acknowledged geniuses? I conceive, that if we look into the history of the stage, we shall find that farces (rather more sufferable in point of taste, than pantomimes) are almost a novelty on the stage.. Fielding, if I remember right, is the first author of any merit who wrote a farce; and there are persons, I presume, now living, who can remember, that in Gara rick's days it was not the custom to have a farce per formed during the run of a new comedy or tragedy."
As to pantomimes, against which our men of taste have not yet exclaimed so loudly as to endanger the peace of the theatre, I should be glad to know where is the mighty harm of introducing either horses or asses, to give effect to such pieces of mummery? The question, indeed, might be easily answered, were Richard III. introduced, not only wishing for a horse, but riding upon one; and if his antagonist, our Henry. VII. were to be visibly indebted for his success to a troop of British cavalry. But when horses are introduced
duced merely to heighten the effect of such competitors as Blue Beard and Timour the Tartar, although I may see some absurdity in the whole, I can surely see no inconsistency. If our plots and fables are to be taken from children's books and nursery tales, I know. no means by which they can be degraded; and certainly not by the additional and graceful motions of so noble an animal as the horse..
How, then, does the question stand? The managers, finding that the old plays are not sufficiently attractive, and that the present race of authors are not capable of producing any thing that can do much more than defray the expenses of getting-up, very naturally turn their attention to some amusements that may be supplementary to the regular drama, and the public flock to these novelties with eagerness. If this be the fact, to what purpose do a few splenetic reform ers agitate questions about taste and refinement? › And to what purpose do they propose themselves as arbitrators between the managers and the public, who have no quarrel with one another? I can agree with them on the common principles of taste. I have seen, what all men have seen, disgraceful absurdities introduced on the stage within these few years; but as some of our modern stage-reformers affect a taste of another kind, I would have them careful how they agitate the abstract question much farther. I would have them in particular reflect, how long, if taste and morals had been leading objects, would the Opera have been tole→ rated among us.-I am, Sir, yours, &c.