The Press. — London, England, 1858-05-15 00:00:00

. smith ": other seriously detracts from the pleasure with which we peruse him. His views of things are hard and literal; his sentences seem framed in total disregard of either elegance or perspicuity, and though generally their awkwardness pro ceeds from mere negligence of composition, it is occasionally the reflex of a proportionate con fusion of ideas. As examples of his want of taste we may quote the following passage about Johnson and IVilkes: "His name," said Dr. Johnson, "has been sounded from pole to pole as the phcenix of convivial felicity." More naturally he added : "Jack has a great variety of talk ; Jack is a scholar; and Jack has the manners of a gentle man." Why " more naturally "? The one mode of ex pression was just as natural as the other. John son was merely using one of those intentional hyperboles which pass current in all societies, and could never be misunderstood by any one whose mental palate was not a little dull. His comment upon an anecdote relating to the French opinion of Churchill is a still stronger instance of this particular deficiency : "I don't know," wrote Horace Walpole to Sir H. Mann, in one or his lately published letters, " whether this man's fame has extended to Florence ; but you may judge of the noise he makes in this part of the world by the following trait, which is a pretty instance of that good-breeding on which the French pique themselves. My sister and Mr. Churchill are in France. A Frenchman asked him if he was Churchill le fanseu.r poite!---Non.—Ma joi, Monsieur, taut pis pour votes!" To think that it should be so much the worse for the son of a general, and the husband of a Lady Maria, daughter to an earl, not to be a low-bred scribbler! Now, this very commonplace sarcasm is quite superfluous. The Frenchman's remark was ill bred. Had Churchill been the pattern of virtue and refinement instead of what he was, such an observation would naturally have been ill received. But considering the opinion which half the English public at that time entertained of him, it must have been felt as uncommonly offensive. That that opinion was possibly erroneous has nothing to do with the question. We must not, as writers too frequently do, confound erroneous opinions with the conduct which is based on those opinions. It might be very wrong for our ancestors to have looked upon Churchill merely as a clever and profligate lampooner, but, thinking him so, they are not to be blamed for having thought it anything but flattering to be mistaken for him. Of confused statement and harsh constructions, the following examples will suffice. After quoting a long passage from Churchill's prophecy of famine, he adds : We cannot leave the poem without remarking the in genuity of praise it bail extorted from Mr. Tooke. It bas been observed of it, be says, and for himself he adopts the observation, " that the author displays peculiar skill in throwing his thoughts into poetical paragraphs, so that the sentence swells to the conclusion, as in prose ! " This we must call the first instance, within our knowledge, of an express eulogy of poetry on the ground of its resem blance to prose. Dr. Johnson was wont to note a curious delusion in his dad, which hits prevailed very generally since, that people supposed they were writing poetry when they did not write prose. Mr. Tooke and his friend represent the delusion of supposing poetry to be but • better sort of prose. Now, if this sarcasm is good for anything, Mr. Forster should have said "the delusion of sup " posing prose to be a better sort of poetry." For prose being made the model, and poetry the imitation, it is absurd to talk of the latter being but a better sort of the former. But there is really no delusion involved in Mr. Tooke's re mark. Such ,888,ges as the o ne h ere quote d are only versified rhetoric; and as a rhetorical climax is unquestionably produced with more ease in prose than in poetry, it is a legitimate ground of praise in any writer to say that he produces it as easily in poetry as in prose. A little further on we have : It was a part of his hatred of the hypocrisies to work with whit he had before him,--small ungodlike politicians enough, whom he broke into still smaller pieces, and paved Pitt's road with back into power. The last clause is not the sort of writing we are accustomed to look for in works of this preten sion. Mr. Forster's want of fineness and nicety of mind naturally betrays itself in criticism. He says, for instance, that the following lines of Churchill "recall the happy turns of Gold- Happy the Savage of those early times, Ere Europe's sons were known, sod Europe's crimes! Gold, cursed gold ! slept in the womb of earth, Unfelt its mischiefs, as unknown its worth; THE PRESS, MAY 15, 1858. In full content he found the truest wealth • In toil he found diversion, food, and health; Stranger to ease and luxury of courts, His sports were labours, and his labours sports; His youth was hardy, and his old age green ; Life's morn was vigorous, and her eve serene; No rules he held, but what were made for use; No arts he learn'd, nor ills which arts produce; False lights he follow'd, but believ'd them true ; He knew not much, but liv'd to what he knew. We confess we know very little poetry in the same metre which reminds us less of Goldsmith. These are masterly heroics, but their union of Johnson's vigour and Pope's antithesis is quite unlike the general flow of "The Traveller" or " The Deserted Village." With one more extract on the subject of Sir Robert Walpole we shall close our list of objec tions. Mr. Forster is writing of the first Par liament of George III.: The first election of the new reign was remarkable for its gross venality, nor had " undertakers " been so rife or so active since the reign of James I. One borough even publicly advertised itself for sale; and 140 far, by such means at least, the desired success appeared within easy reach. But any shrewd observer might foresee a great impending change under the proposed new system, in the reaction of all this on the temper of the people out of doors. Sir Robert Walpole did strange things with the House of Commons, but for great popular purposes ; and already it was manifest enough that a mere bungling imitation of such things, for purposes wholly unpopular, would be quite a different matter. In a word, it was be coming tolerably clear to such a man as Wilkes, who had managed again to effect his return for the borough of Aylesbury, that a good day for • Demagogue was at hand. It is difficult to unfold with brevity the amount of " bungling" condensed into these few sen tences. In the first place, it is a very curious mode of arguing to contend that 'Walpole's system was more justifiable than Bute's, because Bute had for an opponent John Wilkes, and Walpole Sir William Wyndham—which is what in effect Mr. Forster does. What Sir Robert did for " great popular purposes " evoked the opposition of a band of upright and highly-gifted English gentlemen. What Lord Bute did for causes of an opposite character simply brought about " a good day for a Demagogue !' We wish Sir Robert joy of his advocate. But, in the next place, Walpole's purposes were popular only in a technical sense of the word ; in the sense in which Lord Bute's were unpopular, they were unpopular too—that is, unacceptable to the mass of the community. The unpopularity of each was independent of the real principles sup to be at stake in their res p ec t ive systems. Wal pole was hated as the author of taxes, standing armies, and Ministerial autocracy, not as the supporter of the Protestant religion and the bar rier against the return of absolutism • and Bute was hated as the pro mo t er o f S cot chmen and a general system of Court favouritism, and not as the repairer of the kingly power, to which the lapse of a very few years proved that the nation was favourable. Thirdly, the popularity of the purpose, granting that it was so, would not jus tify the baseness of the means. To corrupt pri vate manners for the sake of political institutions is as shortsighted as immoral • for we destroy that which alone make s politi cal institutions of value. According to the happy expression of Lord Bolingbroke, " liberty," in the time of Walpole, "was undermined, for fear it should be overthrown." On the whole, we should characterize Mr. Forster's genius as powerful, but coarse-grained. He moves easily under a great weight of informa tion ; and no straining at effect, or forced intro ductions of knowledge, disfigure his pages. He has also the art of grouping his facts so as to form an effective coup-d'ceil; but we should not trust him so much for an opinion on each one separately. As a shopman may be able to arrange his window to perfection whom we would not trust to choose a silk dress for a lady. These essays are, however, above the average of perio dical literature. They will probably long con tinue to be regarded as standard authorities on the authors of which they treat. With Mr. Forster's estimate of Steele, Churchill, and Foote we agree in the main ; and they are three men whose careers peculiarly deserve to be brought into juxtaposition. With all their im providence, dissipation, and generosity, all three contrived to keep clear of those degrading depths of poverty in which so many bright spirits of the day were bedimmed. It is pleasant to remember that Churchill got "a thousand pounds in two months." It gives us quite a new idea of the man to think that he kept a country house at e whena n h e ° v d n t he s T t ,s g, w here enth tee Tm h oa e :rn; e a lid nind the the 1 f t dewayh ilosf starC i Acton , nt 0 7 n and Country were so rigidly divi ded, he enjoyed his hunting, shooting, and fishing with the of a Scott or a Wilson. More lucky, perra s p t :, than Fielding, that he died ere reverses overtook him, and that it could truly be said of him on his tomb that " life was to the last enjoyed." Foot e also was enabled—though we must remember that he enjoyed the aid of one or two private bequests—to keep up appearances to the last. Here he is in his youth : Those were still great days for clubs and taverns. The Grecian, in Deverenz-court, continued to retain some portion of the fame for Temple wit which made Steele propose to date from it his learned papers in tht Taller, and here was Foote's morning lounge ; while in the evening he sought the Bedford in Covent-garden, which had succeeded lately to the theatrical glories of Torifs and Will's, and where, to be one of the knot of well-dressed people that met there and modestly called themselves the world, was of course a natural object of youthful aspiration. For the vicinity of the theatre was even yet the head quarters of wit; and still the ingenious apophthegm of Steele's passed current, that what the bank was to the credit of the nation the playhouse was to its politeness and good manners. Here accordingly breaks upon us the first clear glimpse of our hero. A well-known physician and theatrical critic of the day, Dr. Barrowby, sketches him for us. One evening, he says, he saw a young an ex• travagantly dressed out in a frock suit of green end silver lace, bag-wig, sword, bouquet, and point-ru ffl es, enter the room, and immediately join the critical circle at the upper end. Nobody recognized him ; but such was the ease of his bearing, and the point and humour of remark with which he at once took part in the conversation, that his presence seemed to disconcert no one; and a sort of pleased bus of " Who is he ?" was still going round the room un answered, when a handsome carriage stopped at the door, be rose and quitted the room, and the servants announced that his name was Foote, that he was a young gentleman of family and fortune, a student of the Inner Temple, and that the carriage had called for him on its way to the assembly of a lady of fashion. And here he is at the end:— It is at the Queen's drawing•room in January 1777. Greeted heartily by all around him, made to feel that his infamous persecutors had not been abl e to sully his name, and singled out for recognition by his sovereign. the old spirit for a while reasserts its sway. " Sir George Warren," says Cumberland, who also was present, "had his Onier snatched off his ribbon, encircled with diamonds to the value of 7001. Foote was there, and lays it upon the parsons ; having secured, as he says, his gold snuff• box in his waistcoat pocket upon seeing so many black gowns in the rcom. " There are innumerable good stories scattered through this essay on Foote ; but we have already exceeded our proper space, and must take our leave of Mr. Forster with thanks for the enter tainment he has afforded us, in which we should have been less careful to note blemishes but for his own propensity to bear hardly on others. Itusit. AT HER MAJESTY'S THEATRE the great feature of the pas t week has been the production, for the first time this season, of Don Giovanni. The new cast of this opera, which assigned to Mlle. Titiens the part of Donna Anna, had created an interest in the per formance of Tuesday last far beyond what, under or dinary circumstances, could have been expected — and there was, consequently, a very full house. Respecting the miss en scene and accessories, it will be sufficient to say that they were fully equal to any thing before produced at Her Majesty's Theatre. The parts were so well sustained that it seems almost invidious to find fault with any, even in the slightest degree. Still, without laying ourselves open to the charge of being hypercritical, we may 7- mark of Mlle. Ortolani that her acting was not quite equal to her singing, and that she exhibited far less emotion knd vehemence than would naturally be ex• pected in the betrayed and forsaken Elrira; and of Signor Beneventano that he was not as tender s Giovanni as we could desire, either in action or vocal . expression. Belletti as Leporello was admirabl e ; a n d It woull scarcely be possible to speak too highly in praise of Mlle. Piccolomini's impersonation of Zeriina. The arias " Batti, batti, o hel Masetto," the 4th scene of the Ist act, and " Vedrai carino," at the end of the Ist scene of god act, were rendered by this deservedly popular artiste with the most touch ing truthfulness and simplicity. The part of . Don Ottavio was done complete justice to by S . ignor Giuglini, and be was most deservedly encored 1 11 the but . not delicious aria, " mio tesoro intanto." Last, least, we have to notice Mlle. Titi e ns, who, we thin I{k, has achieved her greatest success as Donna 114, It might have been expected that the music of Mozart would be found more fitted to the genius of this lady than that of the other composer s in w.hor works she had before been heard : an d so it 3 . She seemed, also, to feel this herself, an d to sing