in materials here than in any other country, and also be more acceptable and instructive.

The Voyages and Travels, which have been published, during the present age, in Britain, have added very considerably to our stock of information respecting foreign countries. They may, generally speaking, be divided into two classes: in the first class, we would place those which had man principally for their object; we mean those voyages and travels, the object of the authors of which was principally to depict the character of nations,―their laws, institutions, manners, literature, &c. In the second class, we would place those which relate to the various departments of natural science. Whoever compares the information possessed half a century ago, respecting foreign countries, with what we possess at present, will be convinced, that we have made great advances in both these classes of travels.

With respect to the bare geography of the world, let us reflect on what has been done by our most celebrated voyagers, by our travellers in Africa, the East, and America, and we shall be able to

form some estimate of our advances in this respect. With respect to the advances in physical Geography, we should reflect, that travellers at present go forth, much better prepared, with larger stores of knowledge on all branches of natural science, than they ever did before. Political economy and statistics also being now a more favourite and general study, travellers, whose object is man in society and under government, rather than inanimate nature, must reap a richer harvest than could have been obtained formerly.

British Literature is indeed very rich in travels; and though they do not pour forth such an abundant-but in many cases, inapplicable, and superfluous flow of learning as the older travels contain; and though as literary compositions, many of them cannot rank high,yet it may be justly said, that from British books of travels, more accurate and extensive information may be gathered, regarding nearly all the countries of the world, on the grand points of their natural history, their antiquities, and their literature, science, statistics, political institutions, and character, than from most foreign books of travels.

E

CHAPTER

1817.

F Britain may safely and boldly challenge competition with the other nations of Europe, in the branches of literature which we have already passed under review (with the exception of History) it must be acknowledged, that in Dramatic literature, we cannot claim even the lowest prize.

Since

a

the period that witnessed the production of the Gamester and of Douglas, what tragedy can we bring forward, possessed of a moderate degree of merit? What tragedy that still retains even feeble and occasional hold on the public approbation? And yet both the Gamester and Douglas are inanimate and feeble, when compared with the tragedies of Shakespeare, Otway, Rowe, and Young. The former draws its chief, if not its sole merit from its domestic character, and from the circumstance of the author, (rather from moderate talents than from judgment and taste, keeping down high and ambitious genius,) not having passed beyond the feelings and language of common domestic life. The latter is a very jejune and insipid performance; and were it not for the story, which the author merely adapted to the stage, there is nothing in the pourtrayment of the characters, in the management of the

incidents, or in the language, that could have given it so protracted a hold on the stage.

If we compare the comedy of older times, the comedy of Beaumont and Fletcher, Farquhar, Congreve, Cibber, Centlivre, Goldsmith and Sheridan, with what is now most inaptly and unworthily designated by that appellation, we shall be still more forcibly struck with the vast inferiority of the present age in this species of dramatic literature. In the comedies of the old masters there is a richness of character, that seems often to have been too exuberant for management; and a display of wit in the dialogue equally exuberant. The characters exhibited display, not merely the passing and superficial fashions and foibles of the day, but are also drawn from a clear and deep insight into human temper and dispositions, as they are variously affected and modified by the circumstances of human life. Hence these comedies are attractive, not merely because they let us into the knowledge of the manners of the times, but more powerfully so, because they expose to our view, the workings of all the minor feelings and emotions of the human heart. Of the latter species of knowledge and attraction, our

modern

modern comedies are ignorant : they may be consulted hereafter, because they display some of the most trifling and absurd fashions and foibles of the age, but they will never be read because they exhibit any acquaintance with the human heart, or even because the higher fashions and foibles, that go deeper than the mere dress or language, and are in some degree connected with, or derived from the real stamina of character, are painted in them to the life.

The poverty of talent from which they are drawn may easily and clearly be seen, by comparing the exactness and vividness with which they place before us the most superficial and contemptible foibles and follies of the age, with the very general, or very inaccurate likeness which they contain of every feature of character. The

former is taken from life, the latter from imagination; the former is well and fully filled up, the latter is seldom even a striking outline; the former may be recognized as pictures by all who have seen the class of beings to whom they allude, but in vain shall we consult our own hearts, or study the character of mankind to find any resemblance in nature to the latter.

There are doubtless exceptions; but nearly all the comedies of the present age deserve the sentence we have passed on them throughout; and in the exceptions, there are only a very few short and occasional passages that approach in the slightest and remotest degree to the legitimate character and object of comedy. The plot (where it can be called a plot) the incidents and the language are equally below the standard of our old comedy.

A question naturally arises, whence does it happen that the present age is so very poor in Dramatic Literature? This question it is extremely difficult to answer in a satisfactory manner: it might be expected, that those poets who had enriched their writings with powerful paintings of the passions, and who were able to transport us into a world of their own creation, would redeem the age from the imputation of wanting tragedies, to compare, at least with those of Rowe, Young, Moore and Home; and that our great novelists might, on their part, throw into a dramatic form adapted to the stage, those brilliant displays of character with which their novels abound.

But, whatever may be the reason that our dramatic literature is at present so poor, we should not be justified in looking to those who have distinguished themselves in what are regarded as allied and resembling branches of literature, as the persons who are most likely to remove the stigma of poverty in this department of literature. A person may excel in poetry; he may be able to raise up before the eyes of his reader, all the personages whom he introduces in his poem, and all the circumstances and incidents that he narrates, with so much vividness, that it shall seem as if the poem were acted before him by the most perfect performers: the delusion may be as great as he ever felt when witnessing the representation of the best of Shakespeare's plays, by Siddons, Kemble, Cooke, Kean, and O'Neil; and yet the same person will probably fail if he attempt a regular drama for the stage. This is not mere supposition; it is an undoubted fact. And the fact is still more undoubted and glaring

E 2

with

there are parts in Clarissa Harlowe and Sir Charles Grandison, which, if acted well, could not fail of overwhelming those who witnessed them with the same powerful emotions by which they are carried away during the performance of the best of Shakespeare's tragedies. But the talefit which can produce short and unconnected dramatic excellence, without the support of narrative or explanation, seems of a different kind from the talent which can produce a complete and regular drama.

In the second place, the language required in the drama is of a different nature from that required in poetry or fictitious narrative: so far as it is the mere language of passion or character, and meant to exhibit these, it may be nearly similar in both but on all other occasions the drama seems to require, in tragedy, language more on a level with the common language of life, though at the same time pregnant with expression and force; and in comedy, on the other hand, language more polished, but at the same time equally easy and natural.

After all, it is impossible perhaps to give a satisfactory reply to the question, whence does it arise, that the present age is so far behind in dramatic literature? There are always many causes at work, that have a tendency to alter or modify national character, taste and pursuits, as well as the direction of its literature; and these causes work so gradually and so little exposed to view, that they seldom can be detected, and we only know that they must have existed and operated by the effects they produce.

Dramatic talent on the stage must always, in some measure and

respect, be dependant on the dramatic talent of those who write for the stage: if any comedies are produced, that require a representation of the mere surface of the foibles and follies of man, comic talent must be low; and it can only be kept up by the frequent representations of our old sterling comedies. The same remark will apply to tragic talents on the stage. If therefore the tragedies of Shakespeare and Otway, and the comedies of Congreve, &c. were not occasionally acted, we apprehend that our stage would be at as low an ebb as our dramatic literature. As it is, however, it is highly respectable, especially in tragedy.

Within the last century, there seems to have been four schools of tragic acting. Before Garrick's time, stiff and formal declamation, with something like an apprehension that the free and full display of the passions would lower the dignity, and spoil the effect of the performance, prevailed; though to this kind of acting, there were some splendid exceptions. Garrick introduced the study of nature: he perceived, that by imitating the tone, the look, and actions of men, when they were filled with strong emotions, or suffering under severe calamity, he could alone expect to render the delusion of the stage perfect, and excite such a high degree of attention, interest, and sympathy in the spectators, as would carry them beyond any inclination or ability for bare wonder and admiration.

Mrs. Siddons in her acting something resembled Garrick; but she did not depend for the effect she meant to produce, so much as he did, on flexibility of expression : she carried the spectators with her,

rather