« 前へ次へ »
As M. Goede has travelled into different parts of the world, he makes several comparisons between London and the principal cities of other countries, particularly Paris; and his observations seem to be guided by candour and veracity. These comparisons, and the reflections which the author indulges on our manners and amusements, are in fact the most valuable part of his performance, for we cannot feel much interested by descriptions of buildings and streets which we daily see, or of occupations in which we are constantly employed; though even here there may be sufficient novelty to many Englishmen, who, feeling no curiosity, have made no inquiries, and who, having once visited the Tower, Westminster Abbey, St. Paul's, and the Monument, are satisfied that they have seen every thing in the metropolis that is worthy of attention.
We thank M. Goede for the following opinion of our domestic character:
“ I do not know a more interesting sight than an English fireside: and though the English are described to be a people unsusceptible of the finer feelings of the soul, and insensible to the charms of filial or parental affection, all who have had opportuni. ties of domesticating in English families, must smile at the invidious falsehood.
“ This remark I understand to have originated in a Frenchman; and I cannot forbear laughing at the impudence of the charge, when I reflect, that, in France, no ties, not even that of marriage, are more lightly considered, than those of consanguinity.
« In England, a magic circle round the fireside, encompasses every blessing; they love, but they seem to do so in their own way. An Englishman detests the very semblance of any thing sentimental; whereas the third word from a Frenchman's lips, is always his heart.' Now, in this country, I have never heard the term mentioned, except by divines or anatomists. The English are satisfied with the consciousness of feeling love, friendship, gratitude, and every honourable emotion; they leave the parade to others. A Frenchman will shed tears over a misfortune; an Englishman labours to conceal the agitations of his mind, and will force a smile
upon his cheek, when his inward emotions are those of excessive grief. The former vents his boisterous friendship in a long embrace; the latter shows his cordiality by giving his friend a heartier shake by the hand. Hence it may fairly be inferred, that. although the mutual affections between parents and children, are
not manifest to every casual observer; yet to such as have an opportunity to observe their character, it is obvious, that this apparent coldness is the effect of constitutional prejudice, and has nothing to do with the real sensations by which they are actuated. There are moments, however, in all countries, when the heart opens involuntarily; and those are, perhaps, the most exquisite of our lives."
His remarks on English'authors, booksellers, painters, statuaries, and actors, are in general just; but Dr. Johnson is treated with too much contempt, and Peter Pindar with a superabundance of respecta We believe the anecdote is quite new that " the first happy impression made in favour of German productions arose from Mr. Pitt; who, in a very large company, passed a high eulogium on the · Robbers,' by Schiller; a translation of which he had read with pleasure. This declared opinion gave celebrity to the work, and successive editions were rapidly called for.” We suspect that there is about as much truth in this report, as in the notion that prevails (as Mr. Goede tells us in another place) on the continent, that Warren Hastings bribed the House of Lords to acquit him!*
* In this observation the reviewer betrays either want of knowledge of the facts, or a hightoned party spirit. That the lords received any direct bribe, in fact, from Mr. Hastings, was never imagined; but that in their decisions through that remarkable trial they were corruptly influenced is as evident as any moral proposition whatever. That there were very few families in Great Britain of any rank or consequence, who were not in some one or more of their connexions, enriched in India by Mr. Hastings, cannot be denied; and all those in combination formed a body for which justice was no match; according to Father Foigard's logic, this may be argued not to be a bribe, but surely it cannot be denied to be a gratification. Besides, the king and queen interested themselves warmly in the cause of Hastings, as did all his majesty's minist but Mr. Pitt; and the consequence was, that his guilt or innocence became a mere party question, and the trial, a trial rather of strength-than of justice. Thurlow forgetting that he was to sit in that high court as a judge, became a mere advocate; and the archbishop of York, more mindful of the immense wealth, conferred on his son Mr. Markham by Hastings in India, than of truth or justice, went so far as to compare the managers on the trial to Marat and Robespierre. Mr. Pitt, however, differed from their lordships; for when the king proposed to confer a peerage on Warren Hastings, that great personage declared, that such a man as Hastings never should sit in the House of Peers while he was minister; and when the agents of Hastings in the House of Commons op
On the English stage, and the art of acting, the author has expatiated at some length, and has shown more liberality, and more knowledge of the subject, than we usually find in foreigners when they discuss this topic. He is of opinion that the English stage has lost much of its former splendor, and that it is rapidly decaying. The opinions of Dr. Johnson, who, in a former chapter, has been looked upon as the foe of literature, are also supposed to have contributed to the decline of the theatre. Instead of stopping to combat this error, we shall extract the passage in which the author describes the personal requisites of Mr. Kemble and Mr. Cooke. Of these great actors he speaks fully, and very ably.
6. The countenance of Kemble is the noblest and most refined; but the muscles are not so much at command as Cooke's are, who is also a first-rate comedian; but Kemble almost wholly rejects the comic muse. Both are most excellent in the gradual changes of the countenance; in which the inward emotions of the soul are depicted and interwoven as they flow from the mind. In this excellence I cannot compare any German actors, whom I have seen, with them, unless it be Issland and Christ; among French tragedians, even Talma and Lafond are far inferior to them."
« Kemble has a very graceful manly figure, is perfectly well made, and his naturally commanding stature appears extremely dignified in every picturesque position, which he studies most assiduously. His face is one of the noblest I ever saw or any stage, being a fine oval, exhibiting a handsome Roman nose, a well-formed and closed mouth; his fiery and somewhat romantic eyes retreat as it were, and are shadowed by bushy eyebrows; his front is open and little vaulted; his chin prominent and rather pointed; and his features so softly interwoven, that no deeply-marked line is perceptible. His physiognomy, indeed, commands at first sight; since it denotes, in the most expressive manner, a man of refined sentiment, enlightened mind, and correct judgment. Without the romantic look in his eyes, the face of Kemble would be that of a well-bred, cold, and selfish man of the world; but this look, from which an ardent fancy emanates, softens the point of the chin and
posed the vote of thanks to the managers, for their conduct on the trial, Mr. Pitt used in my hearing these words, “ The friends of Mr. Hastings will best consult that gentleman's interest and character by observing a profound silence on the subject.” [Ed. Mir. of Taste.]
the closeness of the mouth. His voice is pleasing, but feeble; of small compass, but extreme depth. This is, as has been previously observed, the greatest natural impediment with which he, to whom nature has been thus bountiful, has still to contend.
“ Cooke does not possess the elegant figure of Kemble; but his countenance beams with great expression. The most prominent features in the physiognomy of Cooke are a long and somewhat hooked nose, a pair of fiery and expressive eyes, a lofty and somewhat broad front, and the lines of his muscles which move the lips are pointedly marked. His countenance is certainly not so dignified as that of Kemble, but it discovers greater passion; and few actors are, perhaps, capable of delineating, in more glowing colours, the storm of a violent passion than Cooke. His voice is powerful, and of great compass; a preeminence which he possesses over Kemble, of which he skilfully avails himself. His exterior movements are, by far, inferior in the picturesque to those of Kemble."
From these specimens our readers may form a judgment of the entertainment which these volumes will afford. The style is light and lively, and, among the contents, there is something to please every description of readers. The translation is dedicated to Sir John Carr, the intelligent author of the Stranger in France, Stranger in Ireland, and several other popular works.
AN ESSAY ON THE RIGHTS OF THE BRUTE CREATION TO
TENDERNESS FROM MAN. I PRESUME there is no man of feeling, that has any idea of justice but would confess, upon the principles of reason and common sense that if he were to be put to unnecessary and unmerited pain by another man, his tormentor would do him an act of injustice; and from a sense of the injustice in his own case, now that he is the sufferer, he must naturally infer, that if he were to put another man of feeling, to the same unnecessary and unmerited pain which he now suffers, the injustice in himself to the other, would be exactly the same as the injustice in his tormentor to him. Therefore the man of feeling and justice, will not put another man to unmerited pain; because he will not do that to another, which he is unwilling should be done to himself. Nor will he take any advantage of his own su. periority of strength, or of the accidents of fortune, to abuse them to the oppression of this inferi; because he knows that in the article
of feeling all men are equal; and that the differences of strength or station are as much the gifts and appointments of God, as the differences of understanding, colour, or stature. Superiority of rank or station may give ability to communicate happiness, (and seems so intended;) but it can give no right to inflict unnecessary or unmerited pain. A wise man would impeach his own wisdom, and be unworthy of the blessing of a good understanding, if he were to infer from thence that he had a right to despise or make game of a fool, or put him to any degree of pain. The folly of the fool ought rather to excite his compassion, and demands the wise man's care and attention, for one that cannot take care of himself.
It has pleased God, the father of all men, to cover some men with white skins, and others with black skins; but as their is nei. ther merit nor demerit in complexion, the white man (notwithstanding the barbarity of custom and prejudice) can have no right, by virtue of his colour, to enslave and tyrannize over a black man; nor has a fair man any right to despise, abuse, and insult a brown man. Nor do I believe that a tall man, by virtue of his stature has any legal right to trample a dwarf under his foot. For whether a man is wise or foolish, white or black, fair or brown, tall or short and, I might add, rich or poor, (for it is no more a man's choice to be poor, than it is to be a fool, or a dwarf, or black or tawney) such he is by God's appointment, and abstractedly considered is neither a subject for pride, nor an object of contempt. Now if amongst men, the differences of their powers of the mind, and of their complexion, stature, and accidents of fortune, do not give to any one man a right to abuse or insult any other man on account of these differences; for the same reason, a man can have no natural right to abuse, and torment a beast merely because a beast has not the mental powers of a man. For such as the man is, he is but as God made him; and the very same is true of the beast. Neither of them can lay claim to any intrinsic merit for being such as they are; for before they were created it was impossible that either of them could deserve; and at their creation, their shape, perfections, or defects, were invariably fixed, and their bound set which they cannot pass. And being such, neither more nor less than God made them; there is no more demerit in a beast's being a beast, than there is merit in a man's being a man; that is, there is neither merit nor demerit in either of them.