Love in a Village. With respect to characters, the justice is a well drawn, opinionated, ignorant, positive old coxcomb; mostly in the wrong without any ill meaning, and when in the right, void of sensible intention; Sir William Meadows a pliant, good humoured baronet, in whom some peculiarity is attempted, without the least degree of success, unless most palling repetition of " let me never do an ill turn" lays any claim to merit-Young Meadows is a mere loving milksop, with nothing but disiinterestedness to mark him, and yet Eustace is much more a cypher-Hodge is a clown moderately well depicted; Rosetta and Lucinda two young ladies of independent principles who think they have an exclusive right to please themselves, without the leaft appeal to parental jurifdiction, and Mrs. Deborah a formal antiquated virgin, vain of judgement which she has not, and malicioufly ( Love in a Village. cioufly fond of preventing that happiness in others, she never has enjoyed herself and defspairs of ever tasting. The part of Woodcock was doubtless designed for Mr. SHUTER, and I prefume it will be admitted that no author ever judged an actor's capability better; there is a strong peculiarity of humour most happily hit off in performance; the character owes its commanding influence much more to features happily laughable, and expression truly comic, than the writer's genius; and without exaggeration it may be faid that Mr. SHUTER in this whimsical justice, must have force enough to dilate even the rigid muscles of methodism; if it was poffible to transplant a groaning congregation from Moorfields, or Tottenham Court, into Covent Garden, even while their ears tingled with a fire and brimstone harangue; they must unbend their gloomy brows, and smilingly obey the irresistable force of matchless humour. Young Meadows has very little acting merit, therefore is well adapted to that faintness of expreffion so discoverable in Mr. MATTOCKS, who nevertheless supports the fongs, and even speaks better than Mr. DUBELLAMY, a gentleman we never wish to hear speak in public, both in justice to himself and to the audience: Mr. DODD of Drury Lane did this part much better than either of the performers above mentioned; there is an agreeable manner and a sensible vivacity about him, that the others are entire strangers to. Hawthorn Love in a Village. Hawthorn as he lived, so we may say he died with that truely great intelligent English finger Mr. BEARD; who expressed open hearted glee with amazing pleasantness and propriety; every person in this light of comparison appears to great difadvantage; however Mr. MORRIS is far from contemptible, indeed gives a much better idea of the character than any other person we have feen. 1 That inoffensive personage Eustace finds very tolerable accommodation with Mr. DYER; and it is no small degree of merit to preserve such an unseasoned character from the charge of infipidity: Mr. DUNSTALL'S Hodge deserves a great deal of praise, and yet we cannot help thinking if Mr. KING was often seen in the part he would discover confiderably more of critical humour; Sir William Meadows may be done by any body without much chance of praise or cenfure. Lucinda has too little acting for Mrs. MATTOCKS, who makes as much of the speaking as it will admit and supports the fongs agreeably-Mrs. PINTO'S Rosetta, as to the singing, unexceptionable; but for the rest, mercy deliver us! the part will not readily appear more delicately pleasing throughout than by Mrs. BADDELY's performance, whose figure, voice and manner all happily concur to feast both eyes and ears-of the country girl we can only say that Mrs. BAKER makes a very pretty Madge. The general merit of Love in a Village we muft confine merely to being inoffensive as to its tenden VOL. I. Love in a Village. cy, with fome spirit, an agreeable share of eale and regularity; most of the characters speak as they ought and the circumstances are well connected but if we look for sterling sense, brilliant wit with keen useful fatire; which so much abound in the Beggar's Opera; we must say that this piece is nothing more than showy base mettle, favoured with a very indulgent stamp of public favour to give it a kind of critical currency; to which, we apprehend, select music adapted with real taste contributed not a little; any person who reads the Village Opera may foon perceive what use Mr. Bickerstaff has made of it. ROMEO ROMEO AND JULIET. A Altered from SHAKESPEARE by GARRICK. S we have already hinted it is matter of astonishment how Shakespeare could be fo negligent of uniformity, or so servile to depraved taste, as to incumber scenes, which reach true fublimity, with others that may justly be styled poetical babbling; and it is equally odd, how the audiences which relished one, could possibly digeft the other, however we have self evident proof of this lamentable inequality in most of his best pieces. Romeo and Juliet, in which our author has taken very unusual, and very successful pains with his female character, has many weeds in its original state to choak up some beautiful flowers of genius; we may venture to say without pruning it would have made but an aukward appearance in representation; Otway, a most excellent painter of the tender passions, faw its luxuriance in that point, felt and transplanted whole scenes into his plot of Caius Marius, which was an act of gothic depradation; producing a most unnatural connection which only served to prove that endeavouring to keep pace with Shakespeare he fell far beneath himself. We have feen an alteration of this tragedy by Mr. Theophilus Cibber which was not void of Z2 merit; |