audience, consisting of nearly the same persons, could be drawn together only by variety. This seems plausible; and DOWNES, in his "Roscius Anglicanus" informs us, that it was only acted ten succeeding days; but adds, it got more money than any preceding tragedy, a circumstance alluded to by ROCHESTER, in the "Seasons of the Poets"

"TOM OTWAY came next, Toм SHADWELL'S dear zany, And swears for heroics, he writes best of any; 'Don Carlos' his pockets so amply had fill'd," &c.

123.-MURPHY's "Three Weeks after Marriage." This farce affords a very striking proof of the capriciousness of the public taste, and the injustice of some public decisions. It was first produced in 1764, under the title of "What we must all come to;" but met with so much opposition, that the audience would not hear it to the conclusion. Twelve years after, LEWIS ventured to produce it again at his benefit, with the new title, when it met with universal applause, and has continued ever since to be a favourite on the stage.

124.-ELKANAH SETTLE,

In the latter part of his life was so reduced, as to attend a booth in Bartholomew fair, the keepers of which gave him a salary for writing drolls. He also was obliged to appear in his old age as a performer in those wretched theatrical exhibitions; and in a farce, called "St. George of England" acted a dragon in a case of green leather of his own invention. To this circumstance Dr. YOUNG alludes in the following lines in his epistle to Mr. POPE ;

"Poor ELKANAH! all other changes past,
For bread in Smithfield dragons hiss'd at last;
Spit streams of fire to make the butchers gape,
And found his manners suited to his shape," &c.

In the end he obtained admission into the charter-house, where he died.

125.-TRAGEDY AND COMEDY.

In comedy, the thing treated of is marriage, and in tragedy, it is a murder ;-the whole of the plot in both cases turns upon this point-shall the hero marry, or shall he not marry?-shall he murder, or shall he not murder?he will not marry, and he will not murder,-this is the second act ;-a novel method of marrying and of murdering presents itself, and forms the third act;-an unsuspected difficulty arises with respect to the person to be married or murdered, and is the substance of the fourth act ;at last the contest becomes fatiguing, the mariage is solemnized, and the murder perpetrated-and this constitutes the last.

Since writing my last letter, [vide vol. II. p. 341] to you concerning Caius in the above play of SHAKSPEARE'S, I pride myself on finding another person which does not altogether disagree with the Fenton in the same play. In the book which I mentioned in my last, I find one EDWARD FENTON, born in Nottinghamshire, who was servant to QUEEN ELIZABETH, and a valiant commander in Ireland, when O'NEILL and the EARL of DESMOND troubled that kingdom; he was desirous to discover the northern unknown passages, and after a long and dangerous voyage returned to England, where being made captain of one of her MAJESTY's men of war, he signalized his valor in her sea service against the Spaniards-he died 1603. As it is generally agreed that this play was written at the sole desire of ELIZABETH, so I think it is likely that SHAKSPEARE did not forget his Royal Patroness in occasionally throwing a few compliments upon her. This personage, who appears from the above account to have been one of the heroes of that day, from his signal services to the state, was no doubt greatly esteemed by ELIZABETH, and as much so by the

people. Therefore SHAKSPEARE willing to return all possible thanks to his Royal Patroness, yet not liking open flattery, (perhaps lest the other writers should notice it) instead of heaping honors on the head of his illustrious Princess, he by a neat and happy thought at once threw away the enmity of the other authors, by placing the honors of the play not on his patroness's head, but her favorite, and the friend of the people, by making him a principal in the play, and finally victorious in carrying off Ann Page. Trusting your correspondents may be able to throw a little more light on the above subject.

May, 1822.

MR. DRAMA,

I am, &c.

DRAMATIC COSTUME.

ANTIQUARIUS.

Though considerable improvement has certainly taken place since the days of GARRICK, when Macbeth was played in an embroidered coat and a bag wig, yet there are various incongruities still existing-many eirors still remaining to be corrected.

In dressing a character the first consideration should be, the place where such character is supposed to exist; and the second the time when it existed.

When the date of a play, of a comedy especially, is not fixed, the safest and easiest plan is to adopt the mode of dress in the present fashion, unless the character and incidents should be at direct variance with modern manners. WYCHERLY'S Miss Peggy, for instance, is not the Country girl of these days, for I will venture to affirm, that there would not now be found in all England the woman of eighteen, however ignorant, who did not understand the meaning of the word "jealous;" instead, therefore, of appearing in a fashionable muslin frock, she should assume a dress conformable to the times when such simplicity might have existed. But the reason of this inconsistency is, that actresses are in general too apt to sacrifice probability to vanity, and where the scene represents an open street are often observed with an uncovered head or a bare bosom,

lest they might disorder their hair or discompose their drapery. It would be deemed the height of absurdity for Richard III. to appear in the dress of GEORGE III. and yet inconsistencies as glaring as this are to be met with. At any rate all the dresses in one play might be made of one date. Why are Justice Woodcock and Mr. Hardcastle seen in coats of half a century standing, when Young Meadows and Young Marlowe in the very same pieces imitate the dress of the fashionable young men of the present day? In regard to the other division of my subject, when the scene of a play is laid in some remote country, the manners and customs of which are but little known, much must unavoidably be left to invention and fancy. But this is seldom the case, for by having recourse to travels and prints we may be enabled to ascertain with tolerable accuracy the costume of almost any kingdom in Europe, and frequently of the other quarters of the globe. Indeed, in some of our modern melo-dramas, much pains have been taken to render the costume correct and appropriate; while notwith. standing the improvement which the refined taste of KEMBLE has introduced, the plays of SHAKSPEARE frequently present a motley assemblage of dresses, such as perhaps were never seen in any age or any nation.

Perhaps it may be said that to render costume so critically accurate as I would have it, would occasion an infinity of trouble and a considerable degree of expense, to very little purpose.

In order to obviate the first inconvenience, I would have a person appointed, possessed of a portion of classical and historical knowledge sufficient for the purpose, whose sole attention should be directed to the subject, and whose only business should be to superintend the wardrobe. And by not lavishing so much money on the scenery, or by reducing the enormous salaries of some of the first-rate performers, I should think that the difference in the expenditure might soon be adjusted.

The advantages of such a reformation are evident. It would exalt the drama in a national point of view; would annex to it a degree of respectability and classical importance which it does not now possess, and would altogether raise the British stage to as great a height of perfection as

perhaps theatrical exhibitions are capable of attaining.— "For (says Dr. JOHNSON) the excellence of any art is a close imitation of nature." (1)

I am, Sir, &c.

C. G. C... D.

THE MERITS OF ACTORS.

Mr. DRAMA,

Being very much attached to theatrical amusements and at the same time inclined to regulate my judgment by the opinions of the newspaper critics, I am often extremely puzzled in the laberious operation of making up my mind by the indefinite, I was going to say almost unintelligible terms made use of by the aforesaid judges. It appears to me to be saying next to nothing, when they observe that such

(1) We cannot agree in every circumstance with our correspondent. In our opinion the British Drama stands now more pre-eminently conspicuous for classical correctness than ever, and in that point is unparalleled by any exhibitions of the kind now in existence. That there are a few trifling incongruities we readily allow, and which perhaps would be as well eradicated, but as for SHAKSPEARE'S plays, we must decidedly assert they are produced with a degree of historical and classical exactness which we think impossible to be surpassed. "Coriolanus"—" Richard III."

"Romeo and Juliet"—" Two Gentlemen of Verona""Macbeth"—" Othello”—and a list which might be multiplied ad infinitum will stand as monuments of the exertions of our managers in this branch of the histrionic art. In fact, we think it scarcely capable of improvement, for we are certain that the utmost care is taken on the subject, and we find this not only at the national houses, but also in all the Minor Theatres,-who as far as their limited means extend-invariably endeavour as much as possible, to render their productions unique in this respect. As to the respectability" of the stage, we do not conceive a further possibility of enhancing it. We think it has arrived at its acmé.

66

EDITOR.