« PredošláPokračovať »
Marg. As you love me, give way.
that you in your present mood would wish.'
THE LAWS OF CANDY.
Act I. Speech of Jelitus :-
But in her ooly name, the proud Erota.
The poet intended no allusion to the word · Erota' itself ; but says that her very name, 'the proud Erota,' became a character and adage; as we say, a Quixote or a Brutus: so to say an · Erota,' expressed female pride and insolence of beauty.
Ib. Speech of Antinous:-
The poet doubtless wrote successry,' which, though not adopted in our language, would be, on many occasions, as here, a much more significant phrase than ancestry.
THE LITTLE FRENCH LAWYER.
Act I. sc. 1. Dinant's speech :
Are you become a patron too? 'Tis a new one,
Seward reads :
Are you become a patron too? How long
Hure you been cunning this speech? "Tis a new one, &c. If conjectural emendation, like this, be allowed, we might venture to read :
Are you become a patron to a new tune?
Are you become a patron? 'Tis a new tune.
Din. Thou wouldst not willingly
Cler. Words are hut words.
O miserable! Dinant sees through Cleremont's gravity, and the actor is to explain it. “Words are but words,' is the last struggle of atfected morality.
Act I. sc. 3.
Tis a real trial of charity to read this scene with
slavish-so reptile-are the feelings and sentiments represented as duties. And yet remember he was a bishop's son, and the duty to God was the supposed basis.
Personals, including body, house, home, and religion ;-property, subordination, and inter-community ;- these are the fundamentals of society. I mean here, religion negatively taken,- - so that the person be not compelled to do or utter, in relation of the soul to God, what would be, in that person, a lie;- such as to force a man to go to church, or to swear that he believes what he does not believe. Religion, positively taken, may be a great and useful privilege, but cannot be a right, — were it for this only that it cannot be pre-defined. The ground of this distinction between negative and positive religion, as a social right, is plain. No one of my fellow-citizens is encroached on by my not declaring to him what I believe respecting the super-sensual ; but should every man be entitled to preach against the preacher, who could hear any preacher ? Now it is different in respect of loyalty. There we have positive rights, but not negative rights ;-for every pretended negative would be in effect a positive;as if a soldier had a right to keep to himself, whether he would, or would not, fight. Now, no one of these fundamentals can be rightfully attacked, except when the guardian of it has abused it to subvert one or more of the rest. The reason is, that the guardian, as a fluent, is less than the permanent which he is to guard. He is the temporary and mutable mean, and derives his whole value from the end. In short, as robbery is not high treason, so neither is every unjust act of a king the con
All must be attacked and endangered. Why? Because the king, as a to A., is a mean to A. or subordination, in a far higher sense than a proprietor, as b. to B. is a mean to B. or property.
Act ii. sc. 2. Claudia's speech :
The whole of this speech seems corrupt; and if accurately printed,--that is, if the same in all the prior editions, irremediable but by bold conjecture. • Till my tackle,' should be, I think, while, &c.
Act iii. sc. 1. B. and F. always write as if virtue or goodness were a sort of talisman, or strange something, that might be lost without the least fault on the part of the owner. In short their chaste ladies value their chastity as a material thing,—not as an act or state of being; and this mere thing being imaginary, no wonder that all their women are represented with the minds of strumpets, except
a few irrational humorists, far less capable of exciting our sympathy than a Hindoo, who has had a bason of cow-broth thrown over him;- for this, though a debasing superstition, is still real, and we might pity the poor wretch, though we cannot help despising him. But B. and F.'s Lucinas are clumsy fictions. It is too plain that the authors had no one idea of chastity as a virtue, but only such a conception as a blind man might have of the power of seeing, by handling an ox's eye. In The Queen of Corinth, indeed, they talk differently; but it is all talk, and nothing is real in it but the dread of losing a reputation. Hence the frightful contrast between their women (even those who are meant for virtuous) and Shakspeare's. So, for instance, The Vaid in the Will: :- a woman inust not merely have grown old in brothels, but have chuckled over every abomination committed in them with a rampant sympathy of imagination, to have had her fancy so drunk with the minutive of lechery as this icy chaste virgin evinces hers to have been.
It would be worth while to note how many of these plays are founded on rapes, - how many on incestuous passions, and how many on mere lunacies. Then their virtuous women are either crazy superstitions of a merely bodily negation of having been acted on, or strumpets in their imaginations and wishes, or, as in this Maid in the Mill, both at the same time. In the men, the love is merely lust in one direction, -exclusive preference of one ob