"Abstulit hunc tandem Rufini pœna tumultum, Requesting your most powerful, and in this, I trust, laudable, endeavour to uphold pure and inviolate our revered Institutions in Church and State, I remain, Sir, your obliged, humble servant, Serjeants' Inn, Jan. 25, 1826. WILLIAM FIRTH. We have taken the print from the window and it was my intention not to have said more about it; but as it continues to be a matter of first-rate conideration and still excites great interest, I have to observe, that the Christians, who never before saw their idol fairly delineated, have been made heartily ashamed of it. They have writhed miserably under its exhibition, and have groaned heavily at seeing the nothingness of the foundation of their religion. I would have them remember, that I have a new and very large God painted, ready for a new exhibition, if they grow any way insolent about its removal from the window. It continues on sale as usual; and so great has been the demand, that one day this week, we sold out every soiled copy, copies that had been pasted against the window and that had stood the assaults of the Christian stones! R. C. TO MR. RICHARD CARLILE. SIR, January 26. I HAVE read "Unitarianism Refuted" and also a late number of "The Republican," both of which are full of assertions contrary to facts, and no attempt to argue. Have Deists no other method of attacking Christianity, than by telling its professors they are fools, hypocrites, &c. can you bring no arguments against it? If you can why not do it, and do it where you may be fairly answered. You state that there were no religious persecutions till Christianity was known. It may be so; but were Christians the first persecutors; did Christians per secute each other for the first two or three centuries when Christianity was corrupted? Your picture of God is incorrect and shows the weakness of your cause, for instance. The quotations from scripture are from Psalms and from the visions of different prophets. Now you must know that Christians and Jews both interpret these figuratively not literally. Besides the writers were Poets, and Hebrews, and you know the manner Eastern nations write. (Remember Unitarians are deniers of Plenary Inspiration.) The title is incorrect for Jews do not believe in the Trinity, nor do all Christians. If you consider Deism to be true, why not argue instead of ridiculing, you might get a hearing, but now you are almost hated by many. Dare you venture to attack Christianity fairly, if you dare! send a letter with your arguments to the Monthly Repository (published by Sherwood) where it will, unless written with no arguments like "The Republican," be inserted; and I will under. take to say it will be answered? You have drawn your picture of Christianity from what other Deists have said: not from the Testament. You consider Deism to be Truth. Why then hinder truth by such things as the picture of God, Child of Nature, &c. Why not by gentler means? Do you wish not to be convinced of Christianity? Or considering that Deism is truth do you wish to keep truth to yourself. Will you accept the enclosed shilling for your friends unjustly confined in Prison? I am not able to give more, or 1 would. I am, A YOUNG UNITARIAN. P.S. Will you send a letter on the subject, to the Monthly Repository? It would very much oblige me, as I should like to see the subject argued with temper and learning. Allow me to congratulate you on your freedom. Note.-Our " young Unitarian" seems to be very young as to a knowledge of what he is writing about. I invite him, or any Unitarian, to hold an hour's conversation with me about the history of Christianity. As to sending a paper to the "Monthly Repository," it will be writing in vain. Who reads the publication? I neither see it, nor hear it enquired for. I have given insertion to the "Young Unitarian's" presumptuous letter, to shew him the publication in which free discussion first found a shelter, and which, with its supporter, the "Newgate Magazine," alone pretends to discuss matters of theology freely and fairly. Our Young Unitarian" should learn, that, in matters of history and physics, assertions are of more weight than arguments, when such assertions are founded in truth. Argument is the labour of the mind that is not sufficiently well informed to make correct assertions. 66 R. C. A DEFENCE OF THE LEGITIMATE DRAMA. DEAR SIR, To the Editor of" The Republican." I HAVE been induced to offer you the following remarks, in consequence of your observations on "The Theatre," published in No. 2 of the present Volume. With your sentiments on Masquerades and Pantomimes, I entirely agree; and heartily wish such things utterly abolished from our national Theatres, it is only with the observations contained in the two last paragraphs, and particularly with the last of all, that I differ from you in opinion. You say that " a play going people must be in some measure a depraved and unhappy people. It must be a flight from domestic misery, or a depraved taste for an amusement which a well formed mind cannot enjoy, and which is not needed by those who seek mental improvement. It is a waste of time, in addition to which a great expence is incurred and nothing good is gained for the health of the body or the mind." As I conceive there is a degree of illiberality contained in this sweeping clause and being only anxious to contend against such a general principle, this must be my apology for troubling you and the readers of "The Republican" with an article on such a subject. That some sort of amusement is, and always will be necessary, even in the highest intellectual and moral state of society, cannotbe doubted.t A relaxation from the ordinary pursuits of life is so essential, that without it, our common and daily avocations would wear the sombre aspect of one diurnal round of monotonous insipidity. You will say that the present state of society presents sufficient resources of relaxation and even amusement without resorting to the theatre, and that a well regulated mind would find amusement at all times. But all mankind have not, and never will have, the same tastes-the same inclinations, or an equal zest for the same pursuits; but if the mind may be improved by a participation in any kind of rational amusement, you will agree with me that it cannot derogate from its moral character, nor diminish its social or domestic happiness. It is in this light that I consider the drama to have claims on a moral and intellectual community. Its intimate connection with literature and the arts alone render it deserving the patronage of all who have the least taste for refined pleasures. Be it observed that I am here alluding to what is termed "the legitimate drama" which disowns pantomimes, masquerades and even melo-drama. Partial abuses are witnessed in every institution, and perfection is found no where. That the stage has of late somewhat retrograded I confess; whether this is owing to a degenerate taste-to a lack of talent necessary to form a good dramatist, or to a combination of both causes, I will not take upon myself to discuss, at the same time, I am of opinion, that were it free from restriction, as to all previous censorship, it would be found to possess a powerful influence over the morals and conduct of individuals, perhaps equal to the printing-press itself. A scourge directed against vices generally, whose lash would be felt more keenly than any other wea What makes a drama legitimate, or illegitimate? + I doubt it. R. C. R. C. pon, and I flatter myself had you witnessed "The Hypocrite" or some other of our best comedies, or even any other of Shakspeare's plays, your remarks would have assumed the tone of panegyrick, instead of censure. The fact is, that the stage has always, presented a picture of the prevailing times on which the date of the scene is supposed to lay. As Shakspeare observes," the end and aim of the drama is to hold as it were the mirror up to nature, to shew vice its own image, scorn her own features, and the very age and body of the times its form and pressure." If, therefore, a community be corrupt, or rather if the times are corrupt in which the scene before you professes to represent a faithful portraiture, it must follow that you witness depravity. So in the tragedy of Macbeth, where a good man has been assassinated by a villain, instigated by his ambition to gain a throne, there is no departure from nature, and the dramatist has provided at the same time a moral lesson for the spectator, by exhibiting a fit punishment in the remorse of both the principal and accessary; ending in detection, exposure, contempt and untimely death. History informs us that the stage had the greatest share of inculcating a love of freedom and morality among the people, during the time of the Roman republics. Did a magistrate commit the smallest dereliction from his duty, his conduct was freely and boldly censured in the public theatres. Something of this boldness is wanting among our present dramatists. Of this stamp was the celebrated Samuel Foote. The character of this man, in my opinion, has been too much calumniated, even by his contemporaries and biographers. His aim was at the vices, as well as at the weaknesses of the public men of his day, and in his pursuits, he was ondaunted and unwearied. He was not to be frightened by high rank, nor turned aside by the known rancour of the parties, so long as he thought that his object was good. Fanatics and hypocrites are at the present period fulminating from the pulpits of their conventicles the sin and wickedness of the stage. Among the foremost of these redoubted champions stands the Rev. T. Best of Sheffield. This worthy preaches a sermon annually upon the unlawfulness of Christians resorting to the theatre. A friend of mine has sent me the clergyman's last printed lecture upon the subject, from which I extract the following passage, to shew how the comedy of "The Hypocrite" gall's him. "At the theatre, religion is safely ridiculed under the name of hypocrisy. A preacher of God's word, is perhaps, exhibited in strong caricature with affected gravity and absurd grimace. A sermon is delivered in burlesque imitation. A religious character is introduced, for the purpose of being placed in the most ludicrous point of view, and exposed as a person of weak intellect and of pitiable credulity. His conscientiousness and fear of sinning are made contemptible by being displaced only in petty and punctilious scrupulosity. His purity of mind is connected with circumstances of exquisite absurdity; his meekness under insult is made to appear only as mean and unworthy timidity. His simplicity and sincerity of heart are represented as rendering him the dupe of every designer, and the butt for every dart which malice or mirth may choose to throw. And while he is thus set forth as a laughing-stock, many a scoff and jest is uttered respecting over-righteousness and puritanical zeal: the words "Saint" and "Holy" are used in sneer and carcasm-" Heaven" and "Hell" and terms equally awful in meaning, are employed with levity and laughter, and thus, while religion in the general is, perhaps, complimented with some unmeaning expression of regard, its sanctity is profaned-its character is degraded-its authority and its influences are undermined, and its several parts, and its professors are brought into derision and contempt." To place the theatre under the bar of religious proscription has long been the aim, and earnest desire of the Dissenters and even some of the established church of which class is Parson Best? To rail at a profession which exposes their own hypocrisy, is what may be expected; but as the theatre possesses a virtuous aim, and moral purpose, it is certainly somewhat strange to see it assailed by one whom I with many others allow to be in every sense of the word a moralist. The private conduct of actors and actresses are brought forward by many as a powerful argument against the stage, but I think unjustly so. As well might writing be condemned because so many persons suffer for the crime of forgery. The charge of dissoluteness I grant to be too true, and too general; but at the same time I am certain there are many, very many honourable exceptions. But the private character of the profession of the stage is out of the question, their example can be of little importance, the most serions consideration is, the influence of the drama on the morals and manners of society. That it has influence cannot be doubted, and that this influence may be advantageously extended. But, on the other hand, it is equally certain, that it arises from a re-acting, not an originating principle. The stage does not form the taste, or direct the sentiments of society; but on the contrary, receives its tones from prevalent habits and feelings, which being made to undergo a partial transmutation, are reflected back to the source from whence they were acquired. The general principles of human nature are always and every where the same. Passion can only be raised by making the impression of nature and of truth upon the mind-the drama cannot constantly exhibit abstract delineations. These must be varied by presenting those modifications of man, which, though they are partial and temporary and do not affect his permanent characters are so far of consequence as they assume an individual importance and in a certain degree the appearance of novelty. Thus lighter foibles which are peculiar to the existing age, are fair scope for the dramatist. To polish the manners of men, to promote attention to the proper decorum of social behaviour, and above all to render vice ridiculous is doing a real service to the world. The demoralizing principle, therefore, which has been attributed to the drama, is an unfair assumption. I maintain that whatever tends to awaken noble and virtuous feeling deserves national support, and that the stage under proper restrictions, is as likely to promote this object, as any other means which the skill of the politician, or the philanthropist has yet discovered. Newgate, Jan. 30, 1826. I remain, dear Sir, T. R. PERRY. Note. I cannot refuse Mr. Perry his public answer to my attack on the stage; but I do not see, that he has removed my objections; and not only mine; but they were suggested by one whom he has more cause to esteem than any that he owes to me. R. C. |