So far we shall all probably agree. But having seen what are the objects of each, we have next to inquire, how far they are compatible with each other, whether there exists any harmony between them, or whether they are necessarily antagonistic. We say necessarily, because we prefer adhering to first principles when there is nothing implied to the contrary. If we view things in the position they come to assume when abused, we shall often err in judgment. The present question is one particularly liable to wrong construction unless the principles involved be kept steadily before us. aim of Christianity is to keep these truths | engraven upon the recollection—it survives constantly before the mind, and therefore a all the vicissitudes and changes we may Christian could not consistently countenance encounter, its image is ever at our call, and anything which he believed to have a con- not unfrequently accompanies its possessor trary effect. down to the last hours of his earthly sojourn Many, no doubt, have in themselves observed this fact. Those who have not may apply a simple test. Let them take one of Shakspeare's plays-Macbeth, if they please ; read it carefully until they think they understand it; afterwards let them see it acted by one of the masters of his art-for instance, as Macready would act it; and then apply the test. In the first case, he would have understood the character and the plot only in accordance with the narrow limits of his own conception. In the latter, he would see it as it presented itself to the imagination of the great bard, who, with his “eye in a fine frenzy rolling," distributed, through the point of his pen, that immortal genius with which the Great Author of our being had inspired him. Which impression, think ye, would be the more lasting? It may greatly simplify our position if we here look both at Christianity and at the stage in a representative form. Taking the prophet as the representative of Christianity, and the poet as the representative of the stage which he clearly is,-how stand these personages in relation to each other? It is It is not for us to trace the cause of this the mission of the prophet to bring mankind additional force of impression made through generally into closer communion with the medium of the eye. The fact exists, heaven; it is the mission of the poet to and has existed in all ages. The action prepare mankind for such communionship. thrown into dramatic performances has no Various methods may be and are employed. doubt much to do with the impressions Can the stage fairly claim to be one of created. Cicero was evidently of this opinthem? We assert that it can, and there-ion, fer he says, "It does not so much fore that Christians can consistently render it their support. Perhaps we can give no more correct definition of the instrumentality of the stage in this country for the purposes we claim for it, than when we say, its tendency is, and ever has been, "To show Virtue her own feature, Scorn her own image, and the very age and body of the time his form and pressure." Nor shall we err when we say that the result of such teachings must be "To raise the genius and amend the heart." We know of no method of instruction yet devised which embodies so largely the elements of success as dramatic representations. It has been truly and eloquently remarked, that what we read, often fails to produce a lasting impression upon the mind; what we hear of, finds no permanent abiding place in the memory; but that which we SEE, becomes matter what an orator says, as How he says "With those who laugh our social joy appears, We know that some of our arguments may be probably used against us. It may be said, for instance, that that which is potent for good may, in the hands of evil and designing men, be made potent for evil. Such reasoners would eagerly remind us that they are not all lessons of virtue which are inculcated from the stage. That sometimes men whose virtues are few, compared with their vices, both represent and are represented. We cannot deny the fact. We have no particular desire to do so. For if, as well as to show "Virtue her own feature," It is always difficult to estimate with any thing like certainty the result of indirect influences. But we may at least judge of their general tendency for good or for evil. We should hold it more than probable that the lessons so forcibly delivered from the stage-whether in doing honour to the good and great, the noble and the brave, or in holding up to censure the profligate and debased-have struck home to many a heart which had remained unmoved under milder and perhaps more christian teachings. We have heard old men repeat with great earnestness the impressions produced upon them in their youth by witnessing the performance of the piece entitled George Barnwell, and of another under the title of the Two London Apprentices, both of them exhibiting sound moral lessons, and especially adapted for young men starting in life. But there is a class of persons who, as they assert, conscientiously object to the application of fiction for any purpose whatever, whether good or evil. Of such we would first inquire, what interpretation they put upon that portion of the scriptures called "Parables," and then we would direct their attention to the true purpose of fiction, as thus described by the Poet:- How many of the brightest human thoughts have been ushered into existence to serve the purposes of fiction or minister to the poetic craving of fancy? And are they to be deemed less valuable on this account? While the drama is instructing our hearts, fancy leads us into the far regions of her territory, and relieves us of our burden of mental depression "Sweet airy sprite, that can bestow That can corroding care beguile, In whatever aspect we view the stage, it possesses a large claim upon our sympathies, and it is with considerable satisfaction that we quote a modern author, who gives noble utterance to the feelings we entertain:"The moral influence of dramatic representations on the manners of a people is far greater than may generally be supposed; and in our opinion there is no class of persons more deserving of public esteem than those censors of histrionic performances, who sit in judgment on them, and conscientiously award their praise or censure. Both dramatists and managers who endeavour to exalt the character of the stage, cannot be too highly commended or rewarded; while such as ignobly study to gratify a depraved taste, are fit objects for the severest repre hension." It will be observed that we have more particularly addressed ourselves to the origin and spirit of the British stage or drama, than to its present position. We do not shut our eyes to the fact that it is now in many respects far different from what we would have it be. But we attribute this state of things to the almost entire neglect, or even contemptuous indifference, of those who should be its chief supporters and directors. This reaction commenced about the time of the Reformation, when puritanic zeal, or puritanic pride, placed its iron barriers upon the former pastimes and usages of the people, and caused even religion itself to assume a garb of sackcloth and ashes; it has continued thus, in some particulars, to the present day. We deem such austerity of manners as impolitic as it is absurd. It is directly contrary to the harmonizing precepts of Christianity, and utterly opposed to its spirit "Virtue, like the dew of heaven, Upon the heart descends, And draws its hidden sweetness out The stage is the mirror with which every age will reflect back its own "form and pressure," if only properly held. The reason of the stage being what it now is, instead of what it should be, is that those who ought to have directed it have neglected to do so; and, as a natural result, it has been seized upon by less scrupulous persons, and perverted from its original designs. Let the blame fall in the right quarter. was. We contend that in principle the stage may be as consistently supported as it ever It has undergone no change by which it forfeits its former claims. "The very head and front of its offending hath this extent, no more "—it has suffered from neglect! When a better understanding of its use, and a more correct appreciation of its influence, become general, it will again rise and flourish in all its wonted splendour, saying unto man as it once said, "Let all the ends thou aim'st at be thy country's, NEGATIVE ARTICLE.-I. Ir seems that to secure the harmonious working of our nature, recreation is necessary-that the mind, jaded by the ceaseless round of daily toil, loses its elasticity unless relieved by amusement of some sort; gravity must, now and again, give place to lightsomeness. Among the various means of public pastime, the theatre occupies a prominent place. But as it is looked upon by many christian men with feelings of the strongest aversion, the question has arisen-Can they, consistently with their principles, render it their support? No opinion ever obtains the assent of any considerable body of intelligent men unless, there is at least a substratum of truth in it. It would be somewhat anomalous if the hostility towards the stage, manifested by Christians of all denominations, were causeless. We shall endeavour to prove in this, and in a subsequent paper, that their aversion is well founded, and that their principles forbid that they should countenance even the British stage. The stage is not a representation of society, as is frequently insisted. It has no counterpart, except in the mind of the author. From its nature it cannot be a representation, for on the stage that is set forth elaborately, openly, and offensively, which in society is done covertly. The workings of tragedy do not transpire till its completion, and hence none are demoralized; but in the theatre the plan is seen evolving, and the consummation of the crime is introduced to the beholder's view. The stage is, in this way, the abettor of crime; the plotting and scheming which in real life are unknown to all save the criminal, are rendered quite familiar to the playgoer. We forbear to expatiate on this, though we discern in it the germ whence springs much of the criminality which afflicts society. In the theatre there is, on the part of the actresses, a wanton display of limbs and bosoms; this practice, it will be allowed, must have a disastrous influence on the minds and morals of spectators. Dr. Johnson stigmatizes it; his deliverance on the subject is to the effect, that although he felt pleasure in being present, he felt that in this respect dramatic representations were exceedingly dangerous. When a man of his moral calibre felt himself endangered by the lasciviousness of such displays, let no one fancy himself superior to their insidious influence. Let him recall to mind, that "the devil best fisheth for the souls of men when his hook is baited with a lovely limb." One may feel gratified, but the tendency of such exhibitions is to give an unhallowed stimulus to the imagination, which surely is at all times fervid enough without such stimulus. Whatever may be the element by which those who attend are attracted, one thing is certain, that the general audience do not present a fair specimen of the moral worth of society, there is a preponderance of the inferior orders. We do not say that no religious persons attend the playhouse; but we do say, that the bulk of those who closely attend are persons of disreputable character; and from that we maintain, that as the Christian is commanded to avoid even the appearance of evil, he cannot, consistently with his principles, attend a place in which he is brought into collision with men whose habits are diametrically the opposite of his, as by that his own is placed in jeopardy; and whether or not theatricals in themselves are bad, the fact that he there mixes with those from whom his habits may possibly sustain detriment, is sufficient of itself to deter him. It is true that a chamberlain controls the literature of the stage; but when we recollect how much may be done by dress, by the modulations of the voice, the twinkling of the eye, and the motion of the hand, to give an unchaste turn to an expression or sentiment in itself faultless, little confidence need be placed in the guarantee which such an official can give for the morality of the stage when actors have the desire to transgres, and have an interest in transgressing. Evasion is easy to the ingenious caterer for public amusement; he may adhere to the letter of the authorized drama, and yet so travestie it by levity of manner as to reverse its original tendency. When we recollect the motives by which managers are actuated, and the irregularities of the players' lives, it will be seen how much is to be feared from this source. The rivalry between managers is not which shall produce such plays as shall lash public vices or elevate public morals, but which can produce such as shall attract "bumper houses," and secure them the largest returns. In this we do not cen sure managers; they merely look to their own interest, as other men do; their better judgment is kept in abeyance. We censure the stage, as it is open to be prostituted to the interests of managers; the evils resulting to the community from the interference of private interest are, in this case, of more than ordinary magnitude, and are, of course, the more to be deprecated. We are debarred from having that higher order of theatricals which might be beneficial; and so long as theatres are directly dependent on the public for support, so long must inferior theatricals prevail, for the few only can appreciate intellectual theatricals. Meanwhile the British drama, including as it does the works of Wycherly, Congreve, Farquhar, and a variety of others of doubtful morality, cannot be homologated by the Christian; as he must witness the successes of high-handed ruffianism, set forward in the most alluring colours; as he must witness so much of craftiness and intriguing in the ascendant, so many painful exhibitions of human frailty flauntingly paraded, for the little that may be gathered, he cannot, he dare not, countenance it. Its tendency is to relax rather than to strengthen the moral nature; it is incapable of disciplining the heart, but potent to wean the mind from the momentous concerns of the life after life. ARISTIDES. Philosophy. IS HOMEOPATHY TRUE IN PRINCIPLE AND BENEFICIAL IN PRACTICE? AFFIRMATIVE ARTICLE.-IV. Is a recent number of a popular publication, a writer of manifest ability remarks -The world would be spared a chaos of controversy and contention, difficulty and doubt, if those who profess to be students of natural science would but adhere to the seemingly easy and obvious rule of ascertaining facts before they adventure upon argu ment:" and then makes allusion to the predicament into which the "Merry Monarch" led the members of the Royal Society, by the question, "Why is it that a live salmon weighs more than a dead one?" The question was solemnly debated, and a multitude of astute reasons were adduced as accounting for the fact. It seems for a time never to have entered the learned heads to try the The Critic: London Literary Journal"-re- experiment; and when it was tried, it turned viewing a work by J. C. Colquhoun, Esq., "A History of Magic, Witchcraft, and Animal Mag-out to be a delusion altogether! The writer then proceeds to remark-"Even down to our own day, men of science have persisted | paper, as will be seen when we thereunto in talking when they should be trying, and arrive. in proving by unanswerable arguments that Having thus relieved our conscience, we things which are cannot be, and those must feel better prepared to make the best use of be which are not. Obviously science is a the few moments still allotted to us. Assumquestion of fact. It is useless to assailing, then, that the same rule which applies asserted facts by reasons for their non-exis- to natural science also applies to medical tence. There is but one way of disproving science-namely, that its claims should not them, and that is by trying the experiment. Nothing less than the experiment, carefully made by himself, will justify any man in denying the existence of a fact in nature which is asserted by some other man of equal ability and integrity. Plain as this rule would appear to common sense, the history of science shows us that it is systematically neglected. Almost every science has been met with denials, founded upon some reasons why it could not be; and even honest and able men have continually so far forgotten themselves as to fight a new fact with argument instead of experiment. be met and refuted by mere assertion, but, if Do "The writers do not say, as they should do, 'I have tried and find them to fail. I have put the asserted experiment to the proof, and it has not yielded the results.' But they say only, For the reasons following I assert that it cannot be true' Now, would it not be far more satisfactory if, instead of such an inter-place for such learned, and withal such selfminable form of discussion, those who deny the asserted fact would make a fair trial of it, not with instruments supplied to them by the other side, but in their own families, among their friends, their children, their servants, in circumstances in which collusion is impossible, and with persons whom they know to be incapable of imposture." Now we have put ourselves to the pains of making this rather lengthy extract with an especial object in view-it is, that having been consigned to everlasting oblivion by the overpowering diatribes of "Vinclum" and his clique, we wish, before taking a final farewell of this world and all its vanities, to follow the footsteps of the immortal Cobbett-who, as everybody knows, left a very enduring, and we may say well-merited, "legacy to parsons"-so far as to bequeath to the writers before referred to the said extract, together with all the moral lessons and sound reasoning therein contained, for their own especial use and benefit; and, in token of our sincerity, we set our hand-nervous though it be, by reason of our melancholy fate-to the foot or end of this our present confident, personages. Does the sun err in the performance of his daily mission? Does the moon depart from her accustomed track? Wherefore, then, should these profound reasoners err? Alas! for the vanity of human greatness! See how L. G. G. endeavours to impose a task upon us which he knows belongs to his party, and not to ours. Quoting the words of another, he says, "Let the Homœopathists select fifty healthful men, and in the use of fifty given medicines, let them produce in each of these fifty the separate malady of which that medicine is the professed cure; let this be done, and we shall at once believe that such medicines can cure the fifty individuals upon whom the said maladies have come from natural causes." Such a requirement is as contrary to all known rules of debate, as it is to common sense. We are content with our remedy. We put faith enough in it to try it; we are satisfied with the result, for we find benefit. What do we want more? It is for those who do not believe in it to adduce proofs of its fallacy. Let not L. G. G. think to find us tripping in this particular. We |